just use media player 6.4, if you really really dont want to though, 9 is better than 7 or 8 were, but still bloatedOriginally posted by jeff-20@May 19, 2003 @ 04:17 PM
I have not been satisfied with the windows XP update downloads... they seem to make matters worse for me.
Now I have the option of upgrading my Windows Media Player 8 to 9.
Should I do it? Is anyone running 9 and what are the differences? Are you glad you downloaded it?
Probably not, but then again most people who "never have any problems" with Microsoft (or Linux, or BSD, or MacOS...) do one or more of the following:Am I like the only person who never has any problems with Microsoft programs?
Originally posted by racketboy@May 20, 2003 @ 12:25 AM
I just like a media player that doesn't need a 3Ghz processor to run without hesitation.
It's just not right
One thing I also notice is that alot of the time people have unrealistic expectations of their software. "How come winxp is so slow on my 486!!!!111" (Ok a bit of an extreme example but you get the point.Originally posted by racketboy@May 20, 2003 @ 01:32 PM
good points GB900, but that doesn't excuse the sluggish performance of WMP9
WinAmp will play any major audio format.Originally posted by gameboy900@May 20, 2003 @ 07:11 PM
Yes WinAmp is smaller and faster than WMP9 but then again it was designed to run a more limited number of file formats. WMP9 was designed to run just about any format out there.