Talk:Media Player Classic/Archive 1

xvidvideo.ru
Shouldn't this page link to http://xvidvideo.ru/ ? As far as I know the site has the newest builds of both Media Player Classic and MPC HomeCinema, and they are updated somewhere between daily and weekly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.62.147 (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think the site is useful enough for an external link, plus it's not even in English. —29th ( (☎) ) 13:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "Guliverkli"
"Guliverkli" is from the Hungarian children's novel Mézga Aladár Különös Kalandjai (The Strange Adventures of Aladár Mézga). It is the mixture of Gulliver and Verkli (organ), and was the name of a series of spaceships built by Aladár that could be stored in a violin case and inflated with a special gas from a soda (fizzy water, refillable) bottle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.202.77 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 December 2005
 * That's interesting. I loved that series when I was a child. Is it ok, when this anecdote about his nick gets mentioned in the article? Since Guliverkli redirects to Media Player Classic, it's probably better to make a disambigous page for Guliverklir instead... isn't it? --87.122.0.210 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just found out that the space ship may really be spelled "Gulliverkli". --87.122.0.210 04:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Aah, thank you guys, I looked for this series for years! --Abdull 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

MPC codec installation questions
Can someone who know explain (in the article) whether Real & Quicktime need to be installed on the PC for MPC to play their files? I'm presuming so, but it's not entirelyu clear in the QuickTime and RealPlayer architectures section. --Crid 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am rebuilding my computer, and looking for a way NOT to install Quicktime, Realtime and other add heavy applications. Maybe I'm being selfish, but I'd be much more interested in that kind of architecture detail than some of the more esoteric facts.


 * Look for Quicktime Alternative and Real Alternative. All the filling, none of the fat.

MPEG-2 decoder
Media Player Classic has built-in codecs for MPEG-2 video [...]

Are these codec built from scratch solely for this project or does Media Player Classic use a independent library? --Abdull 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * libmpeg2 is used for MPEG-2 decoding. Same goes for the other builtin video/audio decoders. However, the splitters (demuxers) are (mostly?) made by Gabest himself, so I guess you could say they are made for MPC. (You can download standalone versions from the guliverkli project page too though. They can be used in other media players that use DirectShow.)

Removed image(s)
Certian images have been removed by me because they have been added to a category that makes them speediable, most likely Category:Images with no copyright tag.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Picture
Could anyone please upload an English GUI picture of MPC! what's the point of putting a japanese or chinese -i don't know- pic? '''-Hasan-


 * I uploaded an English version of the picture. Hasan.Z 12:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

English Image
Here's one... http://xs208.xs.to/xs208/06421/MplayC.png Though the buttons are my own doing, the only difference between the japanese/chinese and english is the text.

Defamation?
What is up with the conspicuous Warning in the middle of the page?

Is it legitimate in any way? I'm a little shocked that it's on there-- having used MPC for years w/out any problems. It sounds like the pouting of an inexperienced user, lashing out about something s/he found to be less than they expected. I can't imagine that Media Player Classic could possibly do the damage that this user claims.

To leave the "warning" in place seems very unfair to the developer, but this is the first i've come upon something like this, and unsure of the proper action. I'll look for "report bad entry" links.

Jsabarese 01:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald
It gives a link to this article (Icon). - 61.9.203.206 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Status of the project
Apparently, development on the project has stalled for some years due to the developer dying in a car crash. Perhaps someone who reads this should post a news story to digg or slashdot so forks would happen to fix the bugs that have piled up.


 * Since gabest has made forum posts at sourceforge as recently as last month, this information seems to be false. Ham Pastrami 01:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The people on efnet's #guliverkli can verify that the project is dead due to the aforementioned reason. 88.193.0.40 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a few things you should consider. Gabest has stated previously (at sourceforge and elsewhere) that development has slowed down because of his job. The number one rule of the efnet channel is not to ask about development schedule and release dates -- given the context of your suggestion, it seems that you did so. As a result, I suspect chances are good that you have been the victim of a joke by the devs in that channel. The last preview of MPC was released in March of this year, and as I stated previously, gabest posted in the forums last month, so the idea that he has been dead for a period of years is going to require much more convincing than what some anonymous person said on IRC. Thus, the claims that gabest passed away, and that this is the reason for the slowdown, are both highly questionable since the only solid evidence that exists is against them. If you have a reliable source for this info, please share, otherwise you might just be gullible. Ham Pastrami 05:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rev.611 was released back in May, 2006. I don't know what the 611-3 is, since the latest SVN commit 15 months ago was Rev.611. Bugs are leave unfixed. There're unofficial builds being maintained at Doom9 forum, one is patching build which fix some bugs, update libraries and other one is a fork, mainly to improve the renderer, having full Vista supports using EVR and such.
 * Gabest said himself back in March that the project is not dead but considering these factors; the project should be note as no longer maintain. As you stated in the history, MPC-HC may not notable enough for external link, but as the main project has cease development it should be worthful to mention, just like ffdshow-tryout case in ffdshow's article. - 29dupe 23:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements in the "Forks" section claiming development has resumed are false. All recent SVN updates are for a Graphics Synthesizer plugin for the PCSX2 PlayStation 2 emlator that Gabest has developed. Not Media Player Classic. Generalleoff 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As of Dec 18th 2007 the SVN has been updated. It seems to be back ports of guliverkli2 changes to me. Current SVN rev. is 701 up from 611 but a new official build has not yet been posted. On a side note lets not confuse the point of the guliverkli2 project. It was only meant to be a temporary holdover not a permanent fork. MPC is still 6.4.9.0 (unless 701 changes this) not 6.4.9.1 and guliverkli2 is unlikely to update much (if at all) after guliverkli fully resumes. MPC:HC is a true fork. I'm not going to update the changes myself as I find the article to be pretty sloppy and confusing at the moment and I lack the writing/spelling/grammar skills to fix it. Generalleoff (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is pretty sloppy and confusing. Judging from within this talk page I think your writing skill is much better than me though. Anyway, I think I'm going to rewrite some part of the article. I think I'll have to split this into another talk section. --29dupe (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of hardware acceleration
Finaly the quasi duopolists started to build in some usefull features to their GPUs. nVidia's PureVideo and ATI's Avivo/UVD are, so tha you do not need any software decoder and a 3GHz CPU to watch a 1080p movie on your PC. This technology is in so far shit, as - if I got that right - it only works in Vista! The Windows XP drivers do not support the feature 100%. Neither do the Linux drivers. As you can see in this Test -> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce6600gt-theory_6.html the difference should not be that big, because the older implementation on the GeForce 6600 ist already that efficient, that a full HD Video generates a max CPU-Load of 34% on a Pentium 4 560 CPU (Socket 775, 3.60GHz, 1MB L2 cache). I do not know which Player they used in the test, I think WMPx. Question: Does MPC use a GPU-built-in hardware mpeg2/h.264 Decoder or not? Is there a easy way to make future versions of MPC do that?

Article cleanup
User:Generalleoff suggest this article is pretty confusing, so I think this article need to be rewrite a little. Maybe using Windows Media Player or even MPlayer as a base? My suggestion is remove some part to create a Development (or History, whatever you call it) section, merge several sections of Features into one Supported media formats, rename GPL violation to Controversy (just like XviD) and rewrite it a bit to properly refers The KMPlayer. Any more ideas?--29dupe (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me except for the Controversy part -- this implies that the controversy is about MPC itself, when in fact it is about the infringing derivatives. I think what you could do instead is simply move that information into Forks, and mention those players as being infringing upon the GPL. The scope of the issue is so limited I don't think it warrants its own section. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I started rewriting the article. I posted a small bit of my rewrite but it was removed for being inconsistent with the rest. But thats only cuz I haven't finished rewriting it yet :). It also has to be checked for punctuation witch I definitely suck at. I posted it early to get the ball rolling on the article cleanup. I started with the MPEG-1 2 4 playback section because I find that section to be written in a confusing and somewhat misleading way. It seems to imply MPC can playback MPEG-4 video without third party software and it can't. It seems to jump around subject wise and is also inconsistent in formating. "On October 30, 2005 Gabest added *.mp4 and MPEG-4 Timed Text support." and "An AAC decoding filter has been present in MPC for a while" for example. If someone can rewrite it in a better way then I have to give a base for a proper rewrite then please do. Generalleoff (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can use a sandbox (like here on this talk page, or your own user page) to write a draft, then merge the changes in when it's actually done (other editors can help with copyediting). If you want to do it piecemeal, you should limit the discussion to MPEG, otherwise go for a rewrite of the entire section. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

how to enlarge the subtitle ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.148.112.135 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

new version
A new version is available on sourceforge from january 20 2008. It is a fork that adressed the security vulnerabilities--67.49.195.121 (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But the infobox is about the original MPC by Gabest, adding fork version would led to confusion. Better way is to remove version from the infobox and mention it (6.4.9.1) in Fork section instead. Just like ffdshow article. —29th ( (☎) ) 10:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

version
update the info of the version: 6.4.9.1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.66.72 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see previous discussion. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New version of Media PLayer Classic HomeCinema
On the SourceForge Website http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpc-hc/ the latest version is 1.2.908.0, same as in Wikipedia. But if you download the latest K-Lite Codec Pack (http://codecguide.com/), the version is 1.2.1008.0. If you look at the "About" screen in the players, the "908" version has FFmpeg compiler version GCC 4.3.2 and the "1008" version has version GCC 4.3.3, so it's clearly newer. And even if the sourceforge page is the official site, the K-Lite Codec Pack is intimitely interlinked. I can't explain why the versions differ. Can you? In the K-lite "Changelog 4.7.0 to 4.7.5 ~ 2009-03-27" it says "Updated Media Player Classic Homecinema to version 1.2.1008.0". This is 3 weeks ago. And it says there's been lotsa versions efter 908, for example 1.2.929.0 Dec 19th 2008. My guess is that the Sourceforge page (and the Wiki page) need to be updated. Or maybe there's some other explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.211.158.37 (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an unofficial build from source. We only listed official releases, so this doesn't count. —29th ( (☎) ) 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly this page "http://xhmikosr.1f0.de/index.php?folder=bXBjLWhj" could be used as a basis for a "development version" section of the page? It is an official page of an active mpc developer. Or this page "http://sourceforge.net/projects/mpc-hc/develop" for a "source version" section. Psypherium (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Media Player Classic Homecinema" or "Media Player Classic Home Cinema"?
I noticed that the name of the application was put in two different ways in this article and was about to change it to "Media Player Homecinema" throughout, because that's what's my copy says, but luckily I went to the official website and discovered that they themselves use both interchangably! --  &times;  Flare  &times;  {{sup|{Talk)}} 14:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

An answer to: Should I use MPC 6.4.9.1 or MPC Home Cinema?
I somewhat understood the difference between the two but does the brief comparison mean Homecinema has more features or what exactly? A more in-depth comparison or simply a recommendation and a few short reasons why an average Joe media watcher, not writing code just playing video/music, would choose one over the other (MPC 6.4.9.1 or MPC Homecinema) would be useful to many people visiting this page, I think. If not then at least would somebody tell me :) with a comment, please :) Makeswell (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

MPC-HC article
MPC-HC should have its own article, the code has changed tremendously and MPC-HC has a lot of features that are not present in the original MPC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.25.255 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here in Wikipedia, notability is the primary reason and measure or judgment for determining whether a subject merits an article of its own or not. Therefore, I am afraid I do no believe that MPC-HC merits an article of its own because, regardless of the significance of the changes in view of the application developer or end-user, the notability remains very low. Fleet Command (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, so an actively developed, heavily used in the real world application like MPC-HC is less notable than the abandoned and buggy MPC? Interesting logic there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.58.57 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The actual logic is: Notability requires evidence. If you can provide reliable sources that are independent of the subject and establish the notability of this subject, and then if you can collect a sizable amount of encyclopedic information about MPC-HC, by all means go ahead and create a new article.


 * Oh, and by the way, would you please kindly sign your post? Thanks! Fleet Command (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This kind of retarded wikipaedo horseshit is typical. Someone like felch commander with less brains than an ant hides his idiocy behind a bunch of rules. Stupid fuck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.206.168 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Imho, MPC and MPC-HC should be in the same article, with the article rewritten to put MPC-HC as the forefront. Honestly, regardless of how much Gabest claims MPC is still in development, MPC-HC has taken over. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to MPC, unless someone can come up with a convincing reason to split MPC-HC. And I suggest editors to remain WP:CIVIL if they ever intend on others to become sympathetic with them. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Every now and then the page at Media Player Classic Home Cinema gets turned from redirect into an article, and yet the old section here remains, without either mentioning the other. This duplication is completely stupid; I added a comment at Talk:Media Player Classic Home Cinema. Vadmium (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

MPC-BE
At the moment MPC-BE has no redirect from MPC-BE unlike MPC-HC. I know how to request a new redirect, but I'm not yet sure that it's needed, let alone "notable". –89.204.138.20 (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Media Player Classic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WFM. Be..anyone (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Confusing!
This article needs a rewrite to clarify features as being from the original MPC or the newer forks MPC-HC or MPC-BE. For example, I'm confused if MPC-HC supports OGG and MKV containers? I applaud efforts to create this as a single page. Steve K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.189.98 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

MPC-HE no longer "ACTIVE"?
The official site says the version noted currently on the Wikipedia page is the last one that's going to be released. -- T V i p p y  16:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)