Unimpressed by Windows Media Player 11
 Jim Rapoza
When Microsoft made the newest version of their Windows Media Player available for download earlier this week, I decided to put it through its paces with my extensive media library. The first look at the Windows Media Player shows what looks to be a massively changed interface and for the most part it is. Like IE 7 and the upcoming Office 2007, Windows Media Player has switched from a predominantly menu based toobar to a menu free toolbar with large funtion buttons (though as in those applications the Classic Menus can be restored). The default toolbar buttons in Windows Media Player 11 are Now Playing, Library, Rip, Burn, Sync and Urge (a built-in link to the Urge online music store). However, while the look of Windows Media Player has changed, much of the functionality and usability remains pretty much the same. I do like that when clicking one of the toolbar buttons I was presented with options specific to that task (such as ripping a CD) but then again, that's pretty much the way menus work. Navigation has been improved and sorting through your music collection is now easier in Windows Media Player. In general, most jukebox tasks are easier to do now in Windows Media Player 11. So compared to previous versions of the application, Windows Media Player 11 is a solid upgrade and users of Windows XP SP2 systems should upgrade (users of older Windows systems are stuck with the older versions). However, when compared to pretty much every other media jukebox available today, Windows Media Player 11 is only so so. |
The Upside of Success: When Portals Take Off
Business Value Patterns for SOA
A Case of Role-Based Identity
Comments (15)
STUNNING review. Well written.
wait for it...
wait for it...
Wait a sec, what paces did you put it through with your extensive media library?
What paces did you put "pretty much every other media jukebox available today" through? What jukeboxes are they? What comparison actually occured here? What jukebox would I be more impressed with? For library functionality? Mp3 player syncing? Streaming from the web? Streaming to other devices?
Wow, I wish I could get paid for downloading a program, clicking a menu or two, and being unimpressed.
Posted by chuck | November 1, 2006 7:03 PM
I'm more specifically unimpressed because the synch to my Archos AV700 is completely stuffed now. DVR-MS files take 4-5 times longer to convert (reported to WMP newsgroup and acknowledged by MS 2 months before fianl release), when I attach the device it takes 10 minutes or so to work out which files need synchronising and if I open MCE while doing this the application freezes. Some files already on the device show up as already on the device, others show up as skipped. Several large video files from DVR-MS already on the Archos aren't recognised as being already on there so my PC is going through the long, long process of reconverting them at much slower speeds - and I'm running a dual Xeon system with 2Gb RAM. The WMP ripper is still unable to recognise many UK CDs weeks after their release e.g. new Pet Shop Boys, Paul Carrack etc, hardly obscure stuff.
Posted by Alistair Burns | November 1, 2006 7:36 PM
chuck in response #1 is right. i could write a more extensive (and USEFUL) from the time my cheeks hit the porcelin to the time my hand hits the two-ply.
They pay you for this?
Posted by agree with chuck. can i have a job? | November 1, 2006 8:03 PM
Dude, you're definitely no Mary Jo. Get some info, not vapid spin.
Posted by AC | November 1, 2006 8:05 PM
Seriously, they call this journalism? Bring back Mary Jo, all these schmoes here are horrible.
Posted by Joseph | November 1, 2006 8:15 PM
I agree with Joseph. Bring back Mary Jo or I'll stop visiting this web site if we continue getting articles like this.
Posted by Paul | November 1, 2006 8:48 PM
doesn't sound like much of an upgrade over wmp9, except ms has put in some links to buy music, and thats just spam. still doesn't hold candle to real one player for sound or functionality. an upgrade should be better for the user not for for ms.
Posted by jargonize | November 1, 2006 9:21 PM
You call this a "review"!
.... pure drivel....
Posted by tom | November 1, 2006 10:09 PM
Whew! I can tell you really put it through its paces! What with all great points you brought up! Oh wait...there weren't any...Alistair Burns comment is a more useful review than this joke that he is commenting on. Just useless.
Posted by pasco | November 1, 2006 11:01 PM
I have to agree with the previous posts, thats a pretty awful review. One has to wonder how much time you actually spent with WMP 11. To say its "so so" compared to "prety much any other media jukebox available today" really makes me think you either tested the wrong product or you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by Andrew | November 1, 2006 11:57 PM
Yeah, Chucks right, where's the beef on this article?
Boo... Boo...
Anyway, I have a very huge music library, all legit music on original Music CD's. I did notice that MediaPlayer 11 did have a hard time mixing up the CD artwork downloaded and the music published dates were mixed up and incorect on some of my older CDs. Yes the MS'MediaPlayer is an improvement over the older versions. However, I will stick with iTunes after spending some (real) time with the Microsoft application. It's too bad that MS doesn't play or rip in mp4 -- But we all know how that goes.
Posted by Douglas S. Taylor | November 2, 2006 1:02 AM
God bless the internet, where lacklustre writing is held to account like nowhere else.
For the record, I agree. I used to get F's for this type of thing in high school. Well, not really, but I would have.
Posted by Ben | November 2, 2006 1:20 AM
I was realy looking forward to some info about the library functionality. Earlier versions couldnt cope with my 100gb+ mp3 collection, witch is not thát big at all, right?
It looks like the article is somehow truncated, right after the last alinea. It's not a bad piece, just not complete.
Can we see the rest please?
Posted by Roland Wolters | November 2, 2006 1:49 AM
Hmm - I added this site hoping it might be a repalacement for the old osopinion site, and provide some useful microsoft news for my workday (its on my morning dailies)
however - the two articles i hit this morning were absolutely useless. and they were the only ones i felt were interesting...
on a side note - i have roughly 180gb of mp3's (all correctly directoried and tagged)
WMP10 & MCE can't cope with this - the search is pathetically slow (minutes) compared to winamp on the same library (a half-second or so per character on the as-you-type search)
also, the MCE music interface is unusable - fine with 5 albums, crap with 50, and unusable with 500+
Posted by Tristan Scott | November 2, 2006 4:34 AM
mary jo wasnt much better. she simply re-worded what real news-diggers found out. good riddens, but this bloke's post was WEAK.
Posted by forget mary jo | November 2, 2006 6:25 AM