Windows-Video or Real-Video?

[kapow]

I am working on a site that will provide streaming video. Soon I will select the host for the streaming files. In the future I would like to provide both 'Real' and 'Windows' video so a visitor can choose. However I will use one of these for the first phase (to save money). Which is the best for the site visitor?

I think IE will play .asf files by default so perhaps it is better to offer Windows because most viewers don't need to download the plugin.

Real is the most common on high profile sites with streaming video e.g. BBC - so perhaps I should go with the one the big guys use.

Any opinions, experience greatly appreciated.

[Crazy_Fool]

windows media player will play .asf by default - that means some 90%+ of your site visitors should be able to view those videos or play those sounds without any additional software. i've just set up a site to stream .asf files and it works a treat.

i have no idea about real player software these days - the download just to play a soundclip was huge - a serious case of overkill. i don't know if i dowloaded the right product or not (and don't really care either) but it ended up annoying me because it kept crashing.

but then again, my colleague that deals with our streaming stuff says real is the best and he won't touch windows stuff!

[papabaer]

I use REAL technology for my streaming for many reasons, not the least of which it is easy to work with. I also get a good feeling when I too, see many of the big sites using REAL technolgy.

For me, the reliability has always be great. I also think the system resource useage is somewhat better. Real is cross-platform as well.

[richlowe]

I personally would not touch Real with a ten foot pole while wearing an isolation suit with a pexiglass wall between us. The product is more of a marketing machine than a video player (at least that's the way it seems to me).

Richard Lowe

[keyplyr]

Everytime I ran REAL it intrusivey planted itself in my start-up tray and caused a lot of havoc with my firewall by attempting to call home, so I cleaned it outa my machine and have never looked back.

[littleman]

Being a Linux user there is no way I could watch windows media player format legally. So I would have to vote for REAL.

[kapow]

Thanks for the feedback, its a big help.

Does windows media player work on a Mac?

Once you have the Real Player does it throw advertising at you?

Does anyone know if either Real or Windows handle streaming better, particularly for standard 56k connection?

[Filipe]

Depending on your servers' drive space, I'd offer both if it's a cost-effective/time-effective solution for you. REAL is better for streaming, but the software is intrusive (or at least it used to be. Constantly changing my file associations without my permission.) and often the streaming files can be larger (though not necessarily always).

As was mentioned, 70% - 90% of your users will be able to use the ASF files without a plugin, and that's a serious bonus if I've ever heard one. Aside from the hard drive considerations, using both shouldn't hurt you. If you show the file size of each, then users will usually choose the one that's smaller (if you point out they're of equal quality), thus saving you bandwidth - just another headache avoided.

[madcat]

Has anyone thought about utilizing Flash MX's video capabilities? If only for the video. The way I see it, and I've yet to find any nice tutorials -- Is you could basically eliminate the need for a space hog pop-up console and have the video sit flat on the screen.

-Just a thought...

(edited by: madcat at 2:18 am (utc) on May 29, 2002)

[sparrow]

>>Does windows media player work on a Mac?<<

Yes it does, I just emailed a hyperlink to the windows media player's for mac yesterday to a mac user who was having problems with Quicktime player not reading mpg files.

I personnaly can not stand Real Time, it's a resource hog as well as irrating. Blah :(

I vote for windows media

[jatar_k]

I have done a ton of real media streaming(big corporate webcasting etc) and have been very happy with it. I admit that I am not 100% up to speed with windows media format but I would say that, in my experience, real media is reliable and easy to program. Ram and smil files are easy to create and syncing multiple feeds and providing extra features in real player is very straight forward.

[kapow]

Thanks again everyone ;)

The host/server I plan to use requires that I choose either windows or real. Both = two servers/accounts. I will probably do this in 6-9 months. But I need to make the best start I can with one of the options only.

As I am new to this I am leaning to Real becase it sounds easy to setup and control. I hate the intrusive stuff but will perhaps live with it.

Windows: 'Most people have the plugin'. This is a huge bonus but I need to know that I can setup the site without too many headaches.

Can anyone tell me where to get 'Windows Media Producer' (ie the bit of software that converts AVI's and creates the html streaming parameters). Had a look at Microsoft website but couldn't find it.

Flash MX. I'd like to know more about this for future ideas. My current project is too far into development to change now.

[Robert Charlton]

In side by side comparisons I've seen, and it's been a while, Real seems to deliver a better looking image at dial-up transfer rates, and Windows video looked better at broadband speeds.

[kapow]

> better looking image at dial-up transfer rates.

Thats very important to me. Despite the hype about braodband most people are on 56k modem I - hear.