![]() |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1
|
Look, I used to think that windows media player sucked and that other media players were much better, like media player classic, but after making a direct comparison of all of my media players, i've found that windows media player actually has by far, the best image quality.
Check out the comparisons ![]() ![]() ![]() top left: Media Player Classic top right: KM Player bottom left: VLC Player bottom right: Windows Media Player 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The north Coast
Posts: 1,036
|
I have to admit. It looks as though you have a point! Which also brings up another point. Some software developed by Microsoft deserves credit where credit is due. Although I believe Microsoft's software is often bloated and at times lame and sometimes a down right security nightmare. I does get it right on occasions. Window's 7 maybe the latest example. This comes from someone who would love to see linux make a larger footprint in the OS market.
Cheers Wdhpr |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Progradminstrateditor
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Frankfurt, GER
Posts: 1,203
|
I think it is not the picture quality of Windows Media Player that is subject to the critics. It's everything else.
Scary in my opinion is, not knowing what WMP is doing in the background and most of all what information is getting in out to the internet. WMP is very bloated and also subject to many security threads. However, it still is a good player at the front end. Btw. I love "Fearless"
__________________
Best regards, George |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 143
|
What about GOM player? Will you check that. It's all i use, because i prefer only downloading a codec when GOM needs it...
__________________
Windows 3.0, IBM PS/2 i486/DX2, 256K RAM, 50MB HDD, Integrated onboard gfx... |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|