Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Video player in web page

  • Subject: Re: Video player in web page
  • From: Travis Newbury <tn@swingers.com>
  • Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:18:41 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <d38dh3$1lku$2@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>
  • Newsgroups: alt.html
  • References: <plj5e.8589$p71.5009@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net> <d34p8c$1ohl$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <BDr5e.3194$L97.2514@fe04.lga> <pan.2005.04.09.09.01.47.585247@tobyinkster.co.uk> <d38dh3$1lku$2@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk alt.html:285277
Roy Schestowitz wrote: 
Why use Real?   The coverage of real is a fraction of that what
Microsoft media player has.

Not according to Macromedia...
http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/

How can this be? Doesn't Windows come with Media Player (still in the EU)?
Even Windows 98 comes with decent compatibility. If you included some
decoders like DivX, I imagine you'd still end up above the mere 42%.
Then again, I hope the charts are correct.

Media player , (and Flash) both have come with windows since widows 98? I would have guessed the 2 plug ins would have been a little closer in numbers. But either way, I am obviously on the right track with Flash. 98%

--
-=tn=-

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index