Talk:Windows Media Video

message: "When encapsulated in ASF file format, WMV can support digital rights management facilities intended to protect intellectual property rights."
Shouldnt it be "copyright" instead of intellectual property which is a broad term that covers many other things such as patents, etc?
Neither should be used.  The claim that DRM protects anything is contentious and therefore not NPOV. Wonderstruck 06:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrase intelectual property sentence 

message: WMV sucks, it buffers all the time. So you play, and then its pauses and you have to wait for it to buffer, it sucks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frap (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffering 

message: According to M. Holitscher, an Open Source expert at Microsoft Switzerland, SMPTE 421M (VC-1) is an international video Standard and the WMV9 codec the standard-conform implementation of VC-1 by Microsoft. He says that even though an open standard, WMV9 is not open source and hence still propietary, because implementers using VC-1 are required to pay licensing fees to the SMTE and the MPEG LA, who hold patents on the format. He also says Microsoft is happy to grant licences for specific purposes, but I havn't been able to find licence agreements e.g. allowing bundling the codec with a free Linux distribution. Apparently Microsoft has granted licences for the proprietary Linux systems Linspire and Turbolinux. I have therefore corrected the article slightly.
Funnily enough, the Videolan Client (VLC, a free open source video player) seems to contain the WMV8 codec which according to this article is more proprietary than WMV9. However it can't play most WMV files, just some of them.
--Theosch 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propietary or not 

message: Utterly extraordinary that there is no criticism section in this article.
Windows Media Video (and Windows Media Player) are heavily criticised on the web. Look it up.
:This reader (B.A. Economics)  thinks it's absurd that this piece could be written and also considered to be in English.   It's absolutely no wonder that the Wall Street smart-asses inserting such truncated jargon into "computer-models" got themselves and too many others caught in such a cock-up.  Writers of this type and "programmers" obviously need adult supervision. Where are the "editors" in Wikipedia? 
      ....signed....Charlie Griffith.
The criticism section is misleading and not relevant to the article. It focuses chiefly on DRM, but DRM is a separate, discrete component - neither the file format nor the video codec depend on DRM. If one is to criticize Windows Media Video for the simple fact that it can be used with Windows Media DRM and PlayReady DRM, should we also criticize MPEG-4 video for being usable with PlayReady DRM, OMA DRM or Marlin DRM? I vote that the DRM criticisms be removed since they are not actually criticisms of the format/codec.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.99.62 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I don't think this article should be defining WMV as a format and including information about MS MPEG-4 codecs. They were never considered a part of the WMV codec series, so what's the point? An ASF file with an MS MPEG-4 codec shouldn't even carry a .wmv extension so it's difficult to even argue that a "WMV file" can carry non-WMV codecs. Sure, it can, but it's an intentional misnomer in that case.
I vote that references to MS MPEG-4 codecs be removed from the article.
:The article is about the video formats used. Not about the software used (also but that's not the main point). 
It's a common misconception/myth that a codec and video format are the same. 
They are NOT, a codec is the compressor/decompressor software. If you are talking about wmv video, then you are talking about video that conforms to certain standards that make it wmv, therefor it is a standard. 
Here is a nice link about it, includes DivX as an example: 
Some video formats have multiple implementations e.g. Dirac has dirac-research and schrödinger which are two distinct codec that produce files conforming to the Dirac standard. And I totally agree with removing MPEG-4, no idea why it's appearing in virtually every video-codecformat article even when it's not relevant. --Thelennonorth (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format or Codec? 

message: This article mentions almost nothing about the timeframe of this file format. When was it first released? When did it gain significant usage? If and when did it overcome competing formats? Etc. Anybody know this stuff? 72.73.208.64 07:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we would teeter off into OR really quickly here.  The first version of WMP that I see "supporting" WMV was the version 6.2 beta (6.2 became 6.4) from April 1999.  But WMV is just a subset of ASF, so WMP5.2 would have been able to play WMV fine, dating back to May 1998.  And ASF was first brought to "official" market with NetShow Player 1.0 back in December 1996.  (This ignores the alpha DirectShow filter, ActiveMovie Stream, and also the NetShow Player 1.0 beta.)  So you would need to define "first release".  I don't think there has been any great tracking of the rise and fall of formats - that would certainly be fascinating if unreliable data.  Preppy 23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd define the "first release" as when the format was officially supported, which according to you would be WMP 6.2 from April 99. In any case though, I think the article would be much improved if some of what you said above was included in the currently scant history area. It's a shame that nobody tracks format usages; It hit me recently that nearly every video file I download now is a WMV, but 5 years ago AVIs and MPGs appeared to be dominant. That realization is actually why I was reading the article in the first place. 72.73.208.64 17:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be safest in dividing it in unstable/stable. And I would define the first release as when the first stable version of the software with support for that format comes out. --Thelennonorth (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeframe 

message: The image :Image:Photo Story 3 for Windows.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Photo Story 3 for Windows.jpg

message: The WMV format can't be both open and proprietary at the same time. Please clarify. --hdante (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The specification is open because it's standardized and everybody can look into it. However the specification can also fail to be good enough to define a format that won't break or leave back-ports for proprietary Microsoft bits. Microsoft has patents on wmv and that's why it's open and still proprietary. Because for everything you do, you have to ask MS to grant you a license to use it. --Thelennonorth (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open and proprietary 

message: I think the phrase "video compression format" already says that the format is compressed. I wouldn't waste time by saying "compressed compression format" (Sorry if my English isn't good, I'm German) --Luettsegler (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "compressed video compression format" 

message: The section labeled "Video Quality" talks about the good compression ratio. Those are two separate issues, thus the talk of compression ratio is mislabeled and the issue of video quality is left unaddressed.63.3.9.1 (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Header, Wrong info 

message: Hi,
could you add a column with the release date in the Versions table?
Thanks 2001:9E8:6369:A300:576E:8E31:D6A1:9A5C (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version release dates