Posted by Neil Smith [MVP Digital Media] on 01/10/77 11:41

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 14:05:45 -0000, "Specs" <No.Spam@Thanks.com> wrote:

>
>"HangingJester" <hangingjester@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:t5nOf.366$ld2.288@fed1read11...
>> Ty Ford wrote:
>> > On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:09:06 -0500, Ritz wrote
>> > (in article <k04Of.177$EK1.0@fe10.lga>):
>> >
>> >
>> ><SNIP>
>> >
>> > Thanks! I did check and they said an .avi would do instead of a .wmv. Is
>> > there much difference?
>>
>>
>> Yes, an .avi codec file can be played on more computers. .wmv & .wma
>> are both Microsoft Media codec's. Created, because Microsoft doesn't
>> like to "play well' with others. DivX is based on a 'hacking' of the
>> codec. Not all .wmv files are the same, and this is why a particular
>> media player may not be able to play newer WMV10 files.
>>
>> ~ Jester
>
>This is utter nonsense.

Agreed.

>AVI is not a codec it is a wrapper format in much the same way as MOV is.
>Many different codecs can be embedded in the .avi format for use in many
>different situations a la MOV.

Continue to agree.

>Divx is not a hack, Divx4 is none other than MPEG4 aka H.264.

To clarify I guess the user was working on the impression that DivX
was created from hacked MPEG4 source, rather than it is a hack now.

I use hack in the most positive sense above, of "polishing a turd" ;-)

Disagree on last point. H264 is *not* equivalent (aka) H264 : read
more here http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=96059

Cheers - Neil

[Back to original message]