XviD codec for W98 and Media Player Classic.

98 Guy wrote in :

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

I have version 1.0.5.2427 of ffdshow.ax

With or without KernelEx?

My system(s) have Kex, but I have no idea if it's needed for that
version of the K-lite codec pack.

The K-lite that I have, I installed in Feb 2010. It includes
mediaplayer classic (version 6.4.9.0, looks like file-date March 20 /
2006).

FFDshow files seem to date mostly between nov/dec 2008 and jan 2009.

Looks like I installed it from a file called klite285.exe, which I don't
know off-hand where I got it from, but it looks like this link will give
you a nice selection of choices:

http://alteversion.de/k-lite/


Thanks. Related to the ffdshow.ax you have, I found that the one I have seems
to be the latest known to work without problems, but there might be some
leeway. There is another, dated just ten days later, that will start to
install, but fail to register ffdshow.ax, and a manual attempt with regsvr32
fails too. Slightly later again, anmd they start saying that the one that
fails is the last to succeed.

My guess is that self registry fails in later builds, but someone
reconstructed the registry entries needed, from a different OS, and used
those to regiter the version you have when in W9X. Did you see anything that
might indicate that they'd do this?

I read that ffdshow does not include splitters, and K-Lite does, amongt other
things, so I will check it out because it seems that interoperability was a
main aim for them, so they might have taken ffdshow compatibility a lot
further. Apparently all main branch compiling was done with GCC as I hoped,
but I don't know enough to explore that usefully. I guess the K-Lite people
may have compiled a modified source anyway.

CCCP is another possible source, but the one I tried won't install. I'll try
your link to find the latest that works. In the main ffdshow branch, it looks
like ffdshow_rev2322_20081114_clsid.exe is as definitive as it gets, given
that it starts breaking W9X compatibility just ten days later.

98 Guy wrote in :

http://alteversion.de/k-lite/

I checked 288 from that list to see if anything beyond yours installed. it
did, but the ffdshow.ax is older, by about nine months. I did find an
FLVsplitter.ax in it though! First time for me. It works, not every file (is
stream type dependent), but enough that I may be able to play all formats I
need in one player. Fullscreen FLV is also possible in MPC, the standalone
FLVplayer, though efficient, could never do that fluently.

I might find a K-lite that fits better, but if not, then
ffdshow_rev2322_20081114_clsid.exe plus a few files pulled from K-Lite should
allow nearly everything on W9X.

Addended below:

Bill in Co wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

That videohelp site has version histories for lots of files on its site,
so you may find something in that regard. Here is the ffdshow link,
and on it you'll find the changelogs for ffdshow.
http://www.videohelp.com/tools/ffdshow


Large log! Not all that useful though. For example:

1668
Introducing Layer for Unicode on Windows 9x.
trunk : re-enable Windows 9x support.
beta4 branch is updated at the same time.

Not sure what version is meant by 1668, nor is there any word of when 9x
support stopped, but it certainly did, and was not logged as such.

The aspect ratio thing is very unclear from that log, but it is clear
that
they revisit the issue a lot so they do intend to keep it accessible to
us, from what I can see.

It also seems that they try to keep the size down to around 5 MB for much
of the development, so bloat is presumably reigned in.

There are curious hints like 'removed references to WAVpack from web
stuff'
or some such. Very cryptic. Not sure why WAVpack wasn't to their liking,
but perhaps it has to do with being closed source despite free to use.

Anyone know which latest FFDshow reliably works on W9X? I doubt there's a
definitive answer, if the makers never logged any discontinuation, so
personal accounts of success will be all we have. I don't mind trying
FFdshow
but I'll find it easier to take seriously if I don't have to blunder
about
for months trying everything they ever released, in an effort to get
satisfaction. Yes, I know about the philosopher Jagger, but the
philosopher House says work smart, not hard...

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a bell.

I don't have a definitive answer on this for you, and would be surprised
if
anyone here does either. :-) I guess the documentation at the
videohelp
site and the ffshow sites is a bit sparse.

But I thought I throw these two ideas out to you:

Since there were so many releases, you could probably use a divide and
conquer approach, and just try out versions released in 6 month intervals,
and potentially narrow it down from there. Still a bit of work, however.
:-)

I can tell you that on my Win98SE computer, I wasn't able to play mp4
files,
so I installed a version of the K-Lite Codec Pack for Win98 last year
(which
installed ffdshow), and that seems to work well on my Win98 computer.

The K-Lite Codec Pack version was version 345 (3.4.5.0) (for Win98), and
when I select properties on its ffdshow.ax file, it shows version
1.00.3.1464, build date 05/09/2007, although the ax file date in explorer
is
9/10/2007.

Lest this post be misconstrued by anyone reading this, this is not a blanket
endorsement of installing codec packs!! (which I generally tend to stay
away from :-).

I only did it (and very selectively, I might add, in terms of which codecs I
actually installed, to allow me to be able to play mp4 files on my Win98
computer. And IIRC, I think I installed an older version of the codec pack,
but I can't recall now.

Or, to put it another way, I wasn't going to spend a year online looking
individually for what I might need to get the mp4 files to be able to play,
when what I needed was contained and readily available from within the codec
pack (but only selectively installed, I might add) :-).

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message . ..
I will consider FFdshow too, as I have what look like good results from
ffdshow_rev2322_20081114_clsid.exe, though it's too soon to be sure. It looks
like it's from before ffdshow started to try to do too much, and ruled out
users of W98. If anyone knows the history better than me and can explain
where things changed, and what point I should explore it to find the best
version, please tell me. All I know so far is that at some point W98 support
was revoked, and also that during progress on various XviD codecs, aspect
ratio correction was removed from user control, then later put back in our
control. I don't even know if this one I'm testing now was from before or
after that time when aspect ratio control was taken from us.



Here is where to-go to see the changed by OS V.
http://www.oldapps.com/category/video_utilities

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a bell.


He wrote a heavyweight tractatus on the subject of need.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a bell.


He wrote a heavyweight tractatus on the subject of need.

Tracatus??? You mean treatise?
I couldn't find anything on any philosopher "Jagger" with a cursory search.
(I assume you're not kidding around here and talking about Mick Jagger, who
certainly is no philosopher, despite the words from his famous song of the
1960's. :-) (He's a rock artist, yes. But not a philosopher).

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a bell.


He wrote a heavyweight tractatus on the subject of need.

Tracatus??? You mean treatise?
I couldn't find anything on any philosopher "Jagger" with a cursory
search. (I assume you're not kidding around here and talking about Mick
Jagger, who certainly is no philosopher, despite the words from his
famous song of the 1960's. :-) (He's a rock artist, yes. But not a
philosopher).


I thought tractatus sounded better, it delivers with more scholastic
topspin... Watch the first episode of House (MD), and all will be explained.
Just googling 'philosopher jagger' will serve well enough. My whole take on
this stuff is the more seriously it is phrased, the funnier it is.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a bell.


He wrote a heavyweight tractatus on the subject of need.

Tracatus??? You mean treatise?
I couldn't find anything on any philosopher "Jagger" with a cursory
search. (I assume you're not kidding around here and talking about Mick
Jagger, who certainly is no philosopher, despite the words from his
famous song of the 1960's. :-) (He's a rock artist, yes. But not a
philosopher).


I thought tractatus sounded better, it delivers with more scholastic
topspin... Watch the first episode of House (MD), and all will be
explained.
Just googling 'philosopher jagger' will serve well enough. My whole take
on
this stuff is the more seriously it is phrased, the funnier it is.

I thought I had done that with the Googling. I was expecting a result like
Nietsche or Kant or Plato to show up (some examples of true philosophers),
but didn't see anything - just a lot of Mick Jagger. :-). What's his first
name?

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a bell.


He wrote a heavyweight tractatus on the subject of need.

Tracatus??? You mean treatise?
I couldn't find anything on any philosopher "Jagger" with a cursory
search. (I assume you're not kidding around here and talking about
Mick Jagger, who certainly is no philosopher, despite the words from
his famous song of the 1960's. :-) (He's a rock artist, yes. But
not a philosopher).


I thought tractatus sounded better, it delivers with more scholastic
topspin... Watch the first episode of House (MD), and all will be
explained.
Just googling 'philosopher jagger' will serve well enough. My whole
take on
this stuff is the more seriously it is phrased, the funnier it is.

I thought I had done that with the Googling. I was expecting a result
like Nietsche or Kant or Plato to show up (some examples of true
philosophers), but didn't see anything - just a lot of Mick Jagger.
:-). What's his first name?




Mick!
He IS 'the philosopher Jagger'. That's why it's funny.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a bell.


He wrote a heavyweight tractatus on the subject of need.

Tracatus??? You mean treatise?
I couldn't find anything on any philosopher "Jagger" with a cursory
search. (I assume you're not kidding around here and talking about
Mick Jagger, who certainly is no philosopher, despite the words from
his famous song of the 1960's. :-) (He's a rock artist, yes. But
not a philosopher).


I thought tractatus sounded better, it delivers with more scholastic
topspin... Watch the first episode of House (MD), and all will be
explained.
Just googling 'philosopher jagger' will serve well enough. My whole
take on
this stuff is the more seriously it is phrased, the funnier it is.

I thought I had done that with the Googling. I was expecting a result
like Nietsche or Kant or Plato to show up (some examples of true
philosophers), but didn't see anything - just a lot of Mick Jagger.
:-). What's his first name?




Mick!
He IS 'the philosopher Jagger'. That's why it's funny.

OK, I didn't originally catch it as a joke. (I had thought I might find a
real philosopher there, who might be worth checking out. :-)