Talk:Windows Media Player

Media Player
Back in Windows 98, there was a Media Player and Windows Media Player.

In Media Player, there were 2 synthesizer, RipTide, and Yamaha. Changing synthesizers in Media Player was easy. But, I couldn't find a way to change the synthesizer in Windows Media Player. Whatever synthesizer I changed to in Media Player, would be the default for Windows Media Player.

Then, in Windows 2000 and XP, there was no Media Player, only Windows Media Player. And now I can't find a way to change the synthesizers. Then, a new laptop for XP I believe only has 1 synthesizer. Where can I download RipTide and Yamaha again... Neal 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Media Player exists in Windows 2000 and XP, but the file name is mplay32.exe and not mplayer.exe. The article previously said that Media Player isn't in Media Center 2005, but it is Windows Media Player 6.4 (mplayer2.exe) that isn't in this edition. I have Media Center 2005 and can still find Media Player. 198.82.59.120 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Article have failed verifiability and lacks sources
There is no denying that this article does not cite any references or sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (ideally, using inline citations). In addition, it has failed a few simple verifiability tests:
 * 1) According to the About... dialog box of mplayer2.exe on Windows XP, this product is called "Windows Media Player, Copyright 1992-1999 Microsoft Corp., Version: 6.4.09.1130" rather than Media Player 5.1. The About... dialog box of wmplayer.exe on Windows XP differs depending on the service pack installed, but the product name is always "Windows Media Player" and the version is either 8.x, 9.x, 10.x or 11.x.
 * 2) The screenshot is totally fake. Neither wmplayer.exe nor mplayer2.exe look like this image. Either it is a digital composition made in Photoshop or an old version of Media Player (that in contrast to what this article claim) that is manually brought to Windows XP.
 * 3) According to About... dialog box on Media Player products, their official proper names are either "Windows Media Player" or "Microsoft Windows Media Player". This suggests that they are from the same line of product as Windows Media Player and must be introduced in that article.

In my opinion, this article deserves to be marked for speedy deletion per clause one, Patent Nonsense. Frankly, I'm going to mark it for speedy deletion within one month. I have hesitated just to be 100% sure that it is classified as patent nonsense rather than hoax. (In any case, if it turned out to be a hoax and not patent nonsense, it will be marked for deletion.) So, he who has created this article has better add sources and inline citations. Fleet Command (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC) UPDATED: 16:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion. Propose more references. With the greatest respect FleetCommand for your input on the Windows Media Player article, I think you've misunderstood this article. It is neither about Windows Media Player 6.4 (mplayer2.exe, often referred to as "Media Player 2"), nor is it about Windows Media Player 7-12 (wmplayer.exe).


 * It is about Microsoft Media Player (mplay32.exe), as it quite clearly states in the article. This is available on Windows XP, try it yourself. It looks exactly as it does in the screenshot. In the about box it is "Microsoft Media Player, version 5.1" on XP.


 * This is a good, factually correct article, merely lacking references.79.66.93.146 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch your reply. Last night, I stubbornly enter MPLAY32.EXE in Run... dialog box of Windows XP. Well, I confess I was proven wrong. I had been deceived by the very small difference between mplay32.exe and mplayer2.exe, which can be easily ignored by the eyes, and the misgivings of ambigiuity I had seen on related articles, especially the History section of Windows Media Player. (I'm tagging it properly, although its already overtagged!)


 * I have updated this thread appropriately and consider this dispute resolved. (I hope I never again forget that subtle differences may be so crucial. The memory of the moment when I pressed ENTER and my faith shattered explosively still moves me.)


 * Still, this article does not cite any references or sources. Material lacking references may be challenged or deleted! In addition, this article is too short and is a perfect subject for a merger. Again, thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Version 10 release
Why does the release history chart not mention Windows Media Player 10, other than that it was included in XP MCE 2005? Wasn't it available to regular XP? - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There may be information missing on the release history for version 10. The article presently gives the latest version 10 build as 10.00.00.4074 with no discrimination between operating systems (as is done for most other versions). The player installed after downloading from the Microsoft website under Windows XP (Service Pack 3) (as at August 2013) is build version 10.00.00.3802.


 * It seems that either (1) the build number in the article is incorrect, (2) "build 4074" relates to a version 10 release not typically encountered or (3) "build 4074" relates to a different operating system and "build 3802" is the latest build under Windows XP (Service Pack 3). Pololei (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Build 4074 is installed with security update for Windows Media Player: August 11, 2009. Consider updating your Windows XP via Windows Update. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up and for posting the link to Microsoft's description of the update.


 * It looks as though the most recent WMP10 build under Windows Server 2003 is "build 4006" as opposed to "4074". Under "Update of Windows Media Player 10 for ... Windows Server 2003" in Microsoft’s description there's a component file named Wmp.dll that has version number 10.0.0.4006. (The corresponding file under "Update of Windows Media Player 10 for ... Windows XP" has version number 10.0.0.4074.)


 * On the assumption that the player shares its version number with that of its Wmp.dll file, I've edited the article so that the builds for Server 2003 and XP for WMP10 are distinguished. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything to confirm that the player's version number is that of its respective Wmp.dll file. If my assumption is incorrect then please undo my edit. Pololei (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

History/Release dates needs checking
I've just checked the redist application builds stamps for mplayer2.exe ver. Windows Media Player 5.1 (Build: 2nd July 1998) and 6.0 (Build: 2nd September 1998) yet the article states the release for 6.1 was 25th June 1998; implying 6.1 was released before 5.1 and 6.0 were even engineered into the redist.

I don't know release dates for 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 (mplayer2.exe, not the other one) or 6.0. Therefore I've not updated the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C:Amie (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC).


 * There wasn't any 5.0 or 5.1 that I'm aware of - the versioning kind of skips around. The basic info here from a quick very unofficial check:
 * * WMP5.2 - mplayer2.exe 5.01.52.0701 build date 07/02/1998
 * * WMP6.0 - mplayer2.exe 6.0.2.0902 build date 09/02/1998
 * * WMP6.1 - mplayer2.exe 6.1.5.0130 build date 01/30/1999
 * I don't know if that's interesting or helpful original research, but there you go AFAICT. Generally release date is build date plus somewhere between a day and a month or two. Preppy 12:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HPC2000-MediaPlayer-1.jpg
Image:HPC2000-MediaPlayer-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wmp601.png
Image:Wmp601.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wmppalm12.gif
Image:Wmppalm12.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WMP71-Mac.gif
Image:WMP71-Mac.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WMP9-PocketPC.jpg
Image:WMP9-PocketPC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Windows Media Player icon
What happened to the 'new' media player icon which had three panes of glass and a play symbol? Someone has changed it to this 'new' icon which looks like a glassed up version of the old icon. Is this correct or should the old one be put back.--Shaliron (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons with Real Player
I have come to see how Media Player compares with Real Player in performance but nowhere can I find any data. I am not concerned with appearence, just performance and quality of rendition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.103.171 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You had come to the wrong article. Wikipedia articles deal with the subject themselves and do not compare them with alternates. There are special comparison articles, if that is what you are interested in. For your needs, see Comparison of media players. --soum talk 05:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Windows Media Player 12?
Hi Guys, haf you infos about WMP 12 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.14.226 (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing, I've seen lots of "windows Media player 12 beta" floating around the net but cannot find anything on any microsoft pages. -- Fredrick day 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No official info or any info from any reliable source is available yet. Keep an eye on the article, it will be updated as soon as any canon info is made public. And the "betas" are fake, mostly malware-laden. Stay away from them. --soum talk 17:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Zune software section
I'm removing the Zune software section because it's not relevant anymore. It can be condensed to a single line and merged somewhere. The new software is the future. All that info on decoders is now useless and obsolete. And Microsoft's decoders anyways never implement full support for any video/audio standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.112 (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh version
The section on Windows Media Player for Mac OS X is all filled with criticism and maybe we should keep a little of it but not that much, since it's not a criticism section, but a section that describes the features of a particular version. So, I don't think we should add how badly Microsoft failed to provide good-quality software for Apple, but instead we should say what features are part of the ninth version of WMP for Mac, and let the users decide if it was good or bad.--96.239.4.18 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OS
The article says WMP12 is compatible onlz to Win7. I believe this is caused by the library. So, does anyone know wether Microsoft does any efforts to develope a solution matching to WinXP/Vista? --Oli W 93 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What about SMIL?
There is a link from the Synchronized_Multimedia_Integration_Language (SMIL) page to here but this page tells nothing about SMIL? Does the MSWindows media player support SMIL? --HJH
 * It supports SMIL in playlists, other than that I am not sure. --soum talk 03:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Differences between versions missing or changed features
I noticed that WMP 11 no longer (at least i'm unable to find or activate it) contains an internet radio tab / option. I looked for a plug-in but was unable to find one. Seems like a strange feature to leave off after having been in the WMP 9 & 10 versions. Might be helpful to add a note of what features changed or are missing. Unable to find a complete listing of features for each version on Micrsofts WMP pages so i came here. But unfortunately didn't find a thorough enough article to decipher between the versions.


 * I don't have a list of changed features from each release for you. However, I can tell you that the Windows Media page (currently) links to the Radio tuner page. I believe that I once found the radio tuner in my WMP 11 client by accident, but I may be mistaken. This looks to be the official way of tuning stations now. I would add this link to the article, but I don't see a relevant place for it, and it would look out of place in the External Links section with no rationale for its presence. -- Lewellyn talk 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Phoning home
There has long been speculation that WMP makes internet connections, including some that apparently can't be disabled. So far all I'm digging up are forum threads which aren't citable material. Certainly, you can see the activity yourself with a sufficient firewall (ie. NOT the windows one, which takes the liberty of letting MS stuff through without question), though I'm thinking a lot of that will be retrieving file information as instructed in the options.

One particular forum thread from a long time ago (XP & WMP10 days) I remember listed 4 IPs, 2 of which were Microsoft but the other 2 were owned by something like yahoo and one other corporate one, neither of which have any discernible business with that info. I'll see if I can dig it up.

It just seems that it's fairly well known online, that if you want to use that program you need to take pains to block it at the firewall level, yet there's no mention here. The more controversial WGA phoning home gets a mention I see.

81.101.248.235 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Forums aren't reliable sources, and speculation is discouraged on Wikipeida.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Media Player Classic
There was a Wikipage for this free, open source WMP 6.4 looking video player, but no the search query redirects to this page. WTF happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.52.60 (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're referring to Media Player Classic which has its own page. You didn't mention which term you searched for - that might be relevant/interesting. --Preppy (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Windows Media Player 11 and Windows Media Player 12
I suggest Windows Media Player 11 and Windows Media Player 12 articles to be merged into this article (Windows Media Player) due to the following reasons:


 * 1) Lack of contents: (Specifically, Overlap and Text) Windows Media Player 12 article is no more than a signle paragraph long and can be fitted under a new heading, "future developments", in this article. Windows Media Player 11 article looks longer but has a lot of duplicate information, including "History", parts of "Features" and a monstrous infobox containing a duplicate screenshot.
 * 2) Lack of notability: Both articles (Windows Media Player 11 and Windows Media Player 12) contain portions that fail to prove notable, encyclopedic or helpful. (I do not deny that Windows Media Player itself is a notable topic, but it is obviously not as notable as Microsoft Windows, Adobe Photoshop, Internet Explorer or Firefox.) A combination of the three articles definitely helps to improve this issue.

I encourage everyone to provide feedback. If no significant objection is registered, after some time (say a month) any Wikipedian is welcome to go ahead and merge the articles -- this humble included!

I'm appending merge proposal tags to the article. Fleet Command (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with the merge if all of the info from "new features" and "removed features" is going to be retained. If info is going to be dropped for sake of merging, I'm not okay with that. Also, WMP12 features and under-the-hood changes (switch from DirectShow to Media Foundation) aren't yet documented on Microsoft.com, the WMP12 article will grow as they're documented. - xpclient  Talk 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for feedback. I assure you, I'm not going to remove anything during merger (unless it opposes Wikipedia rules, but I spot no such thing yet.)
 * Remeber, merging them is to help "keep" not to "remove". These articles are having low notability. One of these days someone will put a Notibility Failure tag on them and then within a month they may be gone. Let's merge to keep them. Fleet Command (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose that, the Windows Media Player page is already very big, and would become too big with the merge. SF007 (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * May I register an objection? In my humble opinion, Windows Media Player
 * is not going to be much bigger after the merger as we have duplicate information.
 * is not that big to be called "very big", especially in comparison to articles like Internet Explorer, Photoshop and Microsoft Windows.
 * is going to be smaller very soon -- with or without a merger -- as it has contents that are tagged as defying Wikipedia notability policy. Such contents don't last long.
 * Now, if I guarantee that the size of Windows Media Player would remain optimal after the merger, would you support the merger? Fleet Command (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * kinda-Neutral Hey FleetCommand, I am now neutral about this, merge them if you want, but let me just tell you: The article might not be "very big" but stuff like that table with history of versions is just a piece of "bloat". Also, regarding "as it has contents that are tagged as defying Wikipedia notability policy. Such contents don't last long.", let me point you to: Notability - Contents of articles should not be deleted based on the notability guideline (that is not even policy) - Let's just say my "vote" is weak merge for the article about WMP 11 and neutral about WMP 12 (I really hope no information is lost...) Cheers ---SF007 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[~snip~] Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline [~snip~]"
 * Thanks for the comment. I had read the notability guideline and deletion policy. Unfortunately, deletion is not ruled out. Notability guideline says:"Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted[~snip~]"In addition, the deletion policy also states the following reason for deletion:"Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):


 * So, you see, deletion is what generally happens. Besides, I have seen a number of articles losing some parts to notability deletions. A handful of articles on computer games or some of their aspects are totally gone. (I don't remember their names right now, but I'll check the deletion log.) So, when I saw these two articles, I was alarmed.
 * Still, I have no authority to change your vote or disregard it. If the number of Oppose votes are enough, then neither I nor any other courtous Wikipedian will be merging. All I'm allowed to do is persuation (which I'm actually doing). Fleet Command (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You slightly missed my point... yes, subjects of articles might get the article deleted (eg: the band I just formed yesterday), but CONTENTS of articles (eg: WMP 11 inside the WMP article) are NOT supposed to be deleted IF inside a "notable" article. But I agree with your reasoning, and like I said, I don't mind a merging... Just don't let "deletionists" delete content of articles JUST based on "notability", because that is not in the policy/guidelines (eg: It is fine to mention the father/grandma/uncle/sister/brother/etc of obama, even if they are not "notable")SF007 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged! Fleet Command (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong merge for Windows Media Player 11. No more (significant) development - as somebody said: not going to be much bigger. Weak oppose for Windows Media Player 12 (as this is a software in development, I would wait until the final version is released before merging). w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose for both, but for 12 more strongly as it is a major version change from 11, eg. its support for m4a and divx.Tmwerty (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. Fleet Command (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WMP12 was recently merged into this article by User:74.193.33.93. However, I see that the merge was extremely premature as this is nowhere near a consensus to merge WMP12. As such, I undid it. Plus the article is way too disorganized. One would need a shovel and an augur to find any version specific information If my two cents are any worth, I would advise against a merge till the entire article is rewritten with a proper flow and layout and a good navigational structure. Consider developing the article in a sandbox first. --soumtalk 04:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You did well, soumtalk. This discussion is still to be in progress for 10 more days.


 * As for the quality of the article, why didn't you feel free to go ahead and rewrite the article? A good idea is always welcome after all. Although, the text is going to be rewritten during the merger (if we merge), rewriting and merging a good text is far more easier. Fleet Command (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Because I don't do that anymore. At least try not to. --soumtalk 08:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am user '74.193.33.93' I thought the article was short and missed the discussion. I will tyr to be more watchful next Time. Althogh WMP 12 is reallt short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.38.146 (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, 74.193.38.146, you should have voted here instead. And if you had, the decision would have been in favor of a merger. Now, you should be more careful. We want to merge not to splash one short article into the face of the other, as you did. Fleet Command (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Support- Windows Media Player 11 and 12 are part of the windows media player family, just as internet explorer 7 & 8 are part of the internet explorer family. although the internet explorer family has separate articles for each version, it also has a "mini- article" for each version inside the main article. this is the ideal layout for a software line such as windows media player, Microsoft windows, or even Linux. --68.7.26.96 (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, everyone, Heads up. It is 1 May and time to conclude the discussion. Here is the summary of the votes.

VOTES:

RESULTS:
 * Windows Media Player 11: Merger is to be carried out. It has gained dominant support.
 * Windows Media Player 12: Merger is to be postphoned for another month. No conclusive decisions can be made at this time. Neither supports nor oppositions significantly outweight each other. However, time and further developments of the article may prove significant to a final consensus.

Please feel free to discuss about the results for 3 more days. You may register objection about how your vote is counted. After 3 days, the discussion will be archived. Fleet Command (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections? Everyone thinks the results are fair? So it is concluded, sealed and archived. Thank you all. Fleet Command (talk)

Post tally discussion
I would still advise against going ahead with the merger on the current article - its too fundamentally messed up to gain a good structure post-merge. I had fundamentally rewrote the article in-place once in the past but it has degraded beyond recognition. I would still suggest that a new article be developed offline (in a separate subpage) as a monolithic article which talks about the current released version throughout and specific versions be given their own section, without any constraint on how much space they take. If any section becomes too large, it can be split out and replaced with a summary in the parent article. We can reuse any text from the current article as necessary, but starting with a blank slate allows us to escape the pitfall most rewrites-to-fix-an-article fall into - the new information is moulded to fit into the structure already defined; not much thought is given into how to improve the basic structure, layout and navigational flow of the article.

I would have done it myself but I don't have the time to undertake such an undertaking. But if someone else takes the initiative, I can chip in time to time. Just my two cents. But if the person actually performing the rewrite feels he can better serve the goals by taking a different approach, who am I too disagree? --soumtalk 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks for your comments, experienced one! Actually, that was the plan. I'm going to initate the merger within a few hours (when I set my affairs right). I'll be setting up a draft subpage in my user page and I'll send notification. However, I'll not be keeping the draft in there until it reaches God-like perfection. Rome is not built overnight and certainly not inside a sand box. Fleet Command (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't have to. Once it becomes complete enough, it should be moved to the mainspace. The feedback gained after an article "goes live" is the most important piece in its endeavor to gain quality status. I am sure you already knew that :) Good luck with the rewrite. --soumtalk 14:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm nearly overburdened. I need help finding sources. I've set up a draft. You'll find it here but don't be suprised if you see little progress: User:FleetCommand/Draft. We can have a discussion there too. Fleet Command (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

REQUESTING ASSISTANCE! PLEASE! HELP ME FIND SOURCES!
Hi, everyone.

Please help! I'm overburdened. It is three month now that I am working on this draft article and I HARDLY FIND ANY SOURCE! Please help me find verifiable sources!

Right now, there is virtually no verifiable source that explicitly says: Windows Media Player functionality and media support can be expanded via codecs! I have been all over the MSDN and Wikipedia and searched a lot but I find nothing. Some sources speak of a certain codec (or certain codecs) that can expand the functionality of Windows Media Player but none say that it can be expanded in general. There is no verifiable evidence that for example I can create a "FleetCommand Video Codec" and make Windows Media Player support a new, for example, "Fleet Command Video Format". Some sources on the other hand, speak about expanding media support of Windows and DirectShow filter but there is no evidence that these are connected to Windows Media Player. I also run into an article which described exactly what I needed about Windows Media Player 10, but lacked credibility because it has posted a screenshot of Windows Media Player 9. (Wikipedia Administrators will shoot it down on sight!)

This section of the article is not my only problem. The rest of the article also needs sources. It is as if

Common, Wikipedians. Please help finish this merger. All we need is sources. I'm sure a group of people which work together can finish, in no time at all, what a single person alone couldn't in three month.

Thanks in advance.

Badly in need of assistance, Fleet Command (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

History section totally fails verification
History section of this article not only lacks sources, but also contains strange statements which seem to be either POV or Original Research, mainly because it claims three different lines of products called "Media Player" existed, allegedly known as "Media Player", "Media Player 2" and "Windows Media Player", each starting with an extraordinary version number. For example, it claims that the first version of Windows Media Player was version 6.4, without providing any source.

These allegations are all extraordinary and require sources. I'm tagging them properly and will delete them if they are not proved within a reasonably long period of time; say three month.

Fleet Command (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll work on it through the course of May. I already suspect that the bit about "Media Player 2" is going to be difficult to source... getting details about the internal machinations at Microsoft in the 1990s can be really tricky.  There's certainly nothing in TechNet or MSDN about it, and online tech journalism didn't really come together until 1999.  Maybe there's something buried away in computer magazines, but.... yeah, I'm not going to be able to track down and read hundreds of decade-old computer magazines. :)   Warren -talk- 15:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, Hi, Warren! Thanks for your help. I knew I'd see you around. But there are things you'd like to know:
 * Parts of the article may dramatically change in May: As you may know, everyone have consented to carry out a merger and I've accepted the duty. (After I sent you the invitation, I thought you'd participate too!) I'm sure neither I nor you really want portions of our works to overlap and feel her precious time wasted. Although, if it happened, no hard feelings; we'll sort it out in no time.
 * Your best sources will be About dialog boxes of different Media Player versions and Microsoft Windows Media web site. If only you could come by with older Windows versions, run them inside Microsoft Virtual PC and take screenshots...
 * What I'm going to say is just a friendly advice: Please do not spend your precious time on excessive details like "Media Player 2" being the internal name and such. You'll need to spend a lot of time and may eventually come by nothing more credible than a personal weblog. Besides, such things are not really interesting to anyone. Experience tells me that they can be easily marked unencyclopedic, fancrufts or excessive details and may end up getting deleted. Just take it easy, find some major facts and be done with it. It's better state them in a neutral fact-tell manner and let everyone figure out how many lines of media player was out there. Although, it was just a friendly advice, you know...
 * Perhaps you'd like to visit Media Player (Microsoft) and its talk page too. There are a few precious clues in there. Fleet Command (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One critical source found:
 * "http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/versions.aspx"
 * This is strategic! Fleet Command (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed almost all the information about "Media Player 2" except that at one time it was the internal name of WMP, I found a source that verifies that it was but it probably can't be considered reliable. -- Gudeldar (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gudeldar. Thanks for your contribution. Your source from John McGowan is OK. Fleet Command (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So...
...was this article written by Microsoft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.116.114 (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written by a collaborative community of volunteer editors. Microsoft making this article on it's own would be a conflict of interest.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Imagery
Hi. Windows Media Player shows a dark screen containing seemingly random lines and patterns containing colours that respond to the sounds of the recording. Should the article mention this? An image would also be helpful to illustrate if possible. Thanks. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 20:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mplayer2 redirects here, probably shouldn't
Mplayer2 is a fork of mplayer http://www.mplayer2.org/. This is already mentions on the MPlayer page. (24.150.41.31 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC))
 * ✅Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Are there any sources to note that wmp is being made less useful?
My experience is that after version 9 it has been going downhill. I never used Winamp to rip until this month. Now I am because wmp12 that came with Windows7 was unable to name the tracks for 2 recently purchased cds while Winamp was. Why is microsoft deleting so many useful features?1archie99 (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Visualizations "lost" on WMP11 & WMP12?
I added a new section to the "features" portion. I need help with this: are the "Ambience" and "Musical Colors" visualizations supported for WMP11 & WMP12. I upgraded by WMP from WMP10 to WMP11 and I still have Ambience and Musical colors and I downloaded the new Dungeon Siege visualization from the Microsoft visualization gallery. This is said by those people who work at Microsoft that Wmp11 and Wmp12 both refrain from having the Ambience, Particle, Plenoptic, Spikes and Musical Colors. Album Art, Alchemy, Bars and Waves, Battery, and Dungeon Siege are the 5 current visualizations that would be supported in my WMP. However my WMP11 visualzation menu has this:
 * Album Art
 * Alchemy
 * Ambience
 * Bars and Waves
 * Battery
 * Dungeon Siege
 * Musical Colors

Somehow, I am lucky I still have Ambience and Musical Colors and that I added a new subsection to the "Features" section on the WMP page. ImhotepBallZ (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Windows Media Player 11
I heard that Windows Media Player 11 can work for Windows 7. Windows Media PLayer 11 is origianlly included with 2008 Server, XP, and Vista, according to the "VERSIONS" table. I have a Windows 7 laptop and recently upgraded to Windows 7. Should I add Windows 7 to list of versions that WMP11 is included with? Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImhotepBallZ (talk • contribs) 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Windows Media Player in Windows 8
Windows 8 is the first version in a long time in which the Media Player remained unchanged. The version of WMP is 12.0, the same on found in Windows 7. The only two notable thing that changed with WMP is the about box and lack of ability to play DVD movies out of the box. In the about box, the copyright has been updated to 2012 (in the Developer Preview of Windows 8, the copyright was still 2009).

No Metro Version
Windows Media Player does not have a Metro Style version. Metro style apps are apps in Windows 8 that uses the new Windows Runtime (WinRT). There are separate metro style music and video app, but those are labeled as version 1.0.

I would like to note, however, that the Metro Style mail, calender, people, and photos app are a future versions of Windows Live Essentials software. This is because the version number of Windows Live Essentials 2011 is 15. The metro style versions of these apps are labeled to be version 16.

In conclusion, there is no Windows Media Player metro version, but there are metro versions of Windows Live Essentials Apps

--Part of a bigger project to better the world! (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Historic screenshots with recent interface themes
The screenshots currently posted on this page do not illustrate the history of the software product as well as they could. The user interface should be typical to the time when the application was released or used most frequently (while possibly showing modern videos of topics unrelated to Microsoft).

The topic of the article is not the removal of, re-introduction of, or enabling of Windows Media Player, where an illustration of the software being fuctional in a foreign environemt would be fitting (such as in the article about Internet Explorer).

The unintended contrast between graphic elements following different styles, such as rounded and rectangular, makes the overall UI design look uglier than it really was. Such screenshots are as good as providing an album artwork cover with a year of its reissue prominently stamped across the center of it as the sole illustration for music article, cofusing readers unfamiliar with the history around that product. It is quite difficult already to put the different "versions" of the player on a timeline.

-- J7n (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Inability of WMA 12 to rip CD tracks to a target directory, unwarranted deletion
Yesterday, I added the following text to the section "2.4 Disc burning, ripping, and playback" of this article.

"Windows Media Player 12 (at least some, if not all versions) CANNOT RIP CD TRACKS. There is no setting to select a target directory. Thus, if a user tries to rip tracks, if they are ripped at all, they disappear into a Windows 7 "Library" --- effectively a black hole from which they cannot be recovered."

The text was deleted with this comment: "When you add or change contents in articles, as you did to Windows Media Player, please cite a reliable source. Contents without source may be deleted peremptorily. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)"

Here is my response:

1. The section without my contribution reads:

"Disc burning, ripping, and playback

Windows Media Player features integrated Audio CD-burning support since version 7 as well as data CD burning support since Windows Media Player 9 Series on Windows XP and later. Data CDs can have any of the media formats supported by the player. While burning Data CDs, the media can, optionally, be transcoded into WMA format and playlists can be added to the CD as well. Starting with WMP 9 Series, audio CDs can be burnt with volume leveling.

Audio CDs can be ripped as WMA or WMA 10 Pro (WMA 10 Pro in WMP 11 and later) at 48, 64, 96, 128, 160 and 192 kbit/s, WMA lossless (470 to 940 kbit/s) (9 Series on XP and later), WMA variable bitrate (from 40-75 kbit/s up to 240-355 kbit/s), MP3 at 128, 192, 256 and 320 kbit/s, or uncompressed WAV (WAV ripping in WMP 11 and later). Since WMP 9 Series, 24 bit high-resolution CDs (HDCDs) are also supported, if capable audio hardware is present. Audio can be ripped using error correction and ripped audio can be protected with Windows Media DRM. Ripping to MP3 is supported only in Windows Media Player 8 for Windows XP and later if a compatible MP3 encoder is installed. Windows Media Player 10 included the Fraunhofer MP3 Professional encoder. Information on CDs such as album name, artist and track listings can optionally be automatically downloaded from the online Windows Media database when the CD is inserted. Version 11 added support for ripping audio CDs to WAV and WMA 10 Pro formats. For burning, version 11 shows a graphical bar indicating how much space will be used on the disc and introduced Disc spanning which splits a burn list onto multiple discs in case the content does not fit on one disc.”

There is not a single citation of a source in the entire section.

2. I have searched the internet for instructions regarding a target directory for ripping CD tracks with WMP 12. Every article repeats what MS says in the help files for the program. They all explain how to surf in a way which simply cannot be done. Therefore, any citation of a source regarding a target directory for ripping CD tracks with WMP 12 would be citation of a source which makes a false claim.

My suggestion is for people to try things for themselves rather than accept uncritically claims from MS, many of which are false (as anyone with any experience with MS knows).

Case closed. ---Dagme (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Although I appreciate due diligence, it does not replace a good source. I can as easily claim I searched the web and found abundant evidence to the contrary; that's why a source is needed. In addition, other stuff exists is one of the most hated discussion in Wikipedia. We are dealing with your stuff now, not other stuff.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

WMP on Windows 10
What version of Windows Media Player does WIndows 10 come with? --Miss Paris Slue (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi
 * That question can only be answered when Windows 10 goes RTM. We don't have time machines yet.
 * The preview so far comes with the same version that came with Windows 7. But I won't be surprised if they dropped the entire thing.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

m4a
The fact that Windows media player 11 can play apple .m4a files is not made clear in the main article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.178.169 (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because it cannot, unless a plug-in is installed for it.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10's DVD Player
Shouldn't the Windows DVD Player of Windows 10 be in it's own article?

I personally think that it's confusing to have both the historic dvdplay.exe, and the new Modern UI app.

The icons are also from the old Windows 2000 program and maybe if not a new article, it's own infobox will reduce confusion.

Matan2001 (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Matan2001: I don't think either version is notable enough to have an article of its own. You should feel free, though, to split the article into two sections, add two infoboxes, etc. Mdrnpndr (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @Mdrnpndr OK, I created a seperate infobox and split the article into 2. :) Matan2001 (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, we need the icon that windows 10 uses. Giorgos456 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

it's possible to run old DVD Player in newer Windows
I don't know why the talk page of DVD Player is redirected to WMP's talk page, but it's not my point. My point is that I've managed to actually run and successfully play a DVD using Windows 98SE DVD player in Vista (SP2 x86). Simply done this steps:
 * extract dvdplay from Windows 98 installation CAB
 * set compatibility with Windows 98/Me
 * run with "elevated" permissions (Run as Administrator).

Note: I have not tested it with Windows 7 or newer but I think it also should work. 62.152.151.253 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Windows Media Player 10 on Windows 2000
I have added Windows 2000 to the list of supported platforms for Windows Media Player 10. I know it is not officially supported by Microsoft however it has been successfully ported to Windows 2000 and thus I feel it should be mentioned here on the page. 71.13.16.249 (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

New version available
I currently run version 12.0.22504.1000, which is superior to the latest dev version on the wiki's page. However there is no information online about this version. I run Windows 11 22504, so this version of WMP could be a preview. If anyone has information about this version, please update the page. Win8x (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Media Player Screenshot.png

Pacific Microsonics
The page for Pacific Microsonics (of HDCD fame) redirects here, but this article makes no mention of them.

Is that a mistake? The only pages that link to Pacific Microsonics are the HDCD article and a talk page. Does there need to be a page for Pacific Microsonics at all? DDFoster96 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Move to "Windows Media Player Legacy"
This is the new name of the old player.

"Windows Media Player (2022)" should also be moved to "Media Player (Windows)", as that is the name of the new program. 2607:FB91:2292:CB7D:536:9096:E688:18E3 (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

– This is the new Windows Media Player. The first one got discontinued. Interstellarity (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Windows Media Player → Windows Media Player Legacy
 * Windows Media Player 2022 → Windows Media Player
 * Neutral 1, oppose 2. Unlikely that the program released in 2022 is the primary topic.  Perhaps a dabpage is the solution. 162 etc. (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:RECENTISM. No proof has been given the new software is the primary topic. I would support moving the 2nd to Media Player per its official name, WP:DIFFCAPS means that it can point to others in a hatnote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. Also oppose moving to Media Player as anything with that name can be seen capitalised. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The fact that a new version is released does not change that the original program was used for most of the time. Svartner (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)