Jump to content

Talk:DirectShow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


i think history should be at the end

[edit]

The history of directshow is less interesting than its present status. I think that the history part should be further down ater end-user tools.Lea phys (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing anti-AVI troll

[edit]

deleted "This probably explains why AVI (the format used by Video for Windows) continues to be used in spite of its obsolescence.". It's clearly not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.162.119 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor typo

[edit]

In the external links section, there's a word which I think should be prolific? Prolofic doesn't seem right.ExpatEgghead 18:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Apple technologies

[edit]

Perhaps someone with the proper background could briefly compare DirectShow to the video framework in MacOS/OSX (Quicktime, Core Video, etc.)? unsigned

DirectShow moved to Platform SDK

[edit]

The DirectShow library have been moved to the Microsoft Platform SDK, and is hence not a part of DirectX an more [1]. The article should be updated to account for this. --Fredrik Orderud 21:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I've known this for some time - but simply changing it like you did is quite confusing. It would be better to say something like "was previously in the DirectX library but is now in the Platform SDK" etc. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone add a bit more description on the future of DirectShow, now that it is out of the PlatformSDK as of 2006? This pretty much means DirectShow is dead, right? What do developers use now? 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Six years later, presumably MSDN addressed this question. –82.113.98.214 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review work

[edit]

RN has done some excellent work in improving the quality of this article, and with the recent peer review, we've gotten a number of other ideas to work on. I've addressed a number of those things today, including knocking out the second-person per WP:MOS#Avoid_the_second_person and improving the overall quality of wikilinks. This article is getting better by day! Warrens 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Warrens! Just another star in the night T | @ | C 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives

[edit]

Shouldn't alternatives like GStreamer be cited ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.233.64.48 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wording Ambiguity

[edit]

I want to point out an ambiguity in the following sentence.

"ActiveMovie was first available as an add-on to Windows 95 and that required Internet Explorer 3.0."

This sentence is composed of two independent clauses, and ought to have a comma before "and that required," but it's unclear what "that" refers to. The sentence could mean that ActiveMovie required IE3, that Win95 required it, or that the whole clause (presumably making it available) required it. D021317c 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dxmlogomsmall.gif

[edit]

Image:Dxmlogomsmall.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. ....[((additional instructions archived because this issue has been addressed already; see History for this Talk page for full Bot instructions.))] ...Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update, Sept 2007 : Rationale is available on the image page.

Ratings for Quality and Importance (2007 Sept)

[edit]

Regarding the "wikipedia unrated" status this page: I don't know what criteria the raters use, but I for one find this article ( version as of 17 September 2007 ) to be one of the best technical/computing articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. Kudos to the authors! - Libertas 04:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's an incredible article now; given the subject matter just amazing. Only problem is the reliance on primary sources and new standards of inline citations and a few weasel words. All you have to cite the stuff (I've just tagged literally everything that needs it, except for the primary sourcing which might be acceptable), clean the few remaining stragglers of weasels and you've got one of the best technical featured articles ever basically. Ryan Norton 08:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh by the way, large edits were performed by the original designer of DirectShow judging by the username and edit patterns; a stub + a bunch of stuff I wrote + that + contributions from various others = amazing article. Ryan Norton 08:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs updating

[edit]

"Microsoft plans to replace DirectShow with Media Foundation in future Windows versions beginning with Windows Vista." - Vista is now in the past, not the future... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.187.144 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is DirectShow is to be gradually phased out and replaced by Media Foundation. Vista took baby steps towards this and Windows 7 took some more. If they suddenly replaced DirectShow, it'd break lots of media stuff. - xpclient Talk 06:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from ActiveMovie

[edit]

Hello.

It think ActiveMovie should be merged into this article. According to the article, as well as this source [2], ActiveMovie is the old name of DirectShow. Also, ActiveMovie is a very small article and won't add much to the size of this article.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're different, and they shouldn't be merged. Robert K S (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move ActiveMovie to Internet Explorer 3, the DirectShow and DirectX articles are already rather long. –89.204.138.20 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently FleetCommand does not more use this account, I've removed his old merge proposal for now. –82.113.98.214 (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MSDN

[edit]

After replacing a citation request with the relevant DirectShow (2012-12) documentation it occured to me that this reference should already exist in the article, and in fact there is an almost identical DirectShow (2006-01) reference claiming to address Microsoft DirectShow 9.0. Somebody knowing what's better for any definition of better should unify these references. Fact: almost all "citation requests" boil down to "let me google this for you". :-( 89.204.138.20 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quartz

[edit]

I'm not sure about the codename Quartz business, there is a system32\quartz.dll in Windows 2000 and Windows 7, and from some trips to codec hell I vaguely recall that this DLL is responsible for some ancient Intel video formats. –89.204.138.20 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on DirectShow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on DirectShow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft's MSFT Becky Weiss

[edit]

"Microsoft's MSFT Becky Weiss" should probably be "Microsoft's Becky Weiss", shoudn't it? "MSFT" likely means "Microsoft", and I believe it is a "code" attached to user names on MSDN blogs and other places, to indicate that the author works at Microsoft. It's not like "MSFT" is a title or honorific. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DirectShow&oldid=1199533065"