Wmp10 Vs. Real Player

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Watching Nasa shuttle feeds to my free Real Player vs. Windows Media Player 10
(which I'm forced to use) with XP raises the following:
1) Real's picture is considerably higher quality at lesser Kbps
2) Currently there is no sound from the Wmp10 via Yahoo/digital either
playing it in iExplorer or the Wmp10.
3) Wmp10's stream can take a minute + to begin whereas Real starts in
seconds.

Poor show WMP10.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

WMP10 via Yahoo takes 7 seconds to load with sound. Sounds like theres a
problem with your machine.
--
That's just like my opinion, Man........


"Will" wrote:

> Watching Nasa shuttle feeds to my free Real Player vs. Windows Media Player 10
> (which I'm forced to use) with XP raises the following:
> 1) Real's picture is considerably higher quality at lesser Kbps
> 2) Currently there is no sound from the Wmp10 via Yahoo/digital either
> playing it in iExplorer or the Wmp10.
> 3) Wmp10's stream can take a minute + to begin whereas Real starts in
> seconds.
>
> Poor show WMP10.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

WMP10 is an awesome player but Real Player supports more devices than
WMP 10, including the iPod--and arguably offers a nicer UI.

regards,
ssg MS-MVP

Will wrote:

> Watching Nasa shuttle feeds to my free Real Player vs. Windows Media Player 10
> (which I'm forced to use) with XP raises the following:
> 1) Real's picture is considerably higher quality at lesser Kbps
> 2) Currently there is no sound from the Wmp10 via Yahoo/digital either
> playing it in iExplorer or the Wmp10.
> 3) Wmp10's stream can take a minute + to begin whereas Real starts in
> seconds.
>
> Poor show WMP10.
>