Wmp10 Vs. Real Player

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.
2 answers Last reply
More about wmp10 real player
  1. 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.
    >
  2. 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.
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Windows XP