Posted by Wilbur Post on 12/16/05 18:21

"Biz" <spamoff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:zBCof.42579$6e1.1413@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> All version of XviD are free, DivX Pro is pay only...Its no different
> than Coke vs. Pepsi really, they are both cola drinks. Since XviD is
> free, more people tend to use it. There are many DivX/XviD capable
> players out there, the Phillips 642 is well known because its so
> inexpensive, beyond that its an absolute POS...its a lousy DVD player
> compared to almost any other player. If you want a decent one, get
> teh Pioneer DV-588




I see the reviews on it (and most of the Pioneers) are only so-so and
it's only about $10 more than the Philips 642. There's got to be some
topnotch players that handle Divx and also update their firmware (like
Philips used to).



'.... "Wilbur Post" <wilbur@post.com> wrote in
> message news:iq2dnYEUUpsAbT_enZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> I have the codec but how is Xvid related to Divx, if at all?
>>
>> I see various explanations and programs like Gspot and Avi Codec will
>> identity a file as an Xvid file and say that the Divx codec is
>> Junkxxx (where xxx is a version #), or actually have a real Divx
>> version included, or no Divx codec at all.
>>
>> Why is Xvid used and not just Divx 5 or Divx 6? Is Xvid used for
>> greater compression? The only player I know of that can handle Divx
>> well is the Philips 642 and some say it's not great with Xvid.
>>
>> Even Videohelp.com isn't that clear on the delineation between divx
>> and Xvid.
>
>
>

[Back to original message]