Xp & Mp3

Windows XP and MP3s may not mix
By Evan Hansen
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 12, 2001, 5:35 p.m. PT

Microsoft is weighing how much support it will offer in its upcoming Windows XP operating system for MP3s, a popular music format that competes with the company's own Windows Media technology.

Test versions of the new operating system have alternately included and excluded an encoder, or "ripper," that would allow people to convert audio tracks from CDs to the MP3 format, according to Windows XP Product Manager Tom Lammel. A decision has not been made on whether a ripper will be included in the final version of Windows XP, which will be released in October.
Even if the company does include an MP3 ripper, it is likely to be a version that does not produce high-quality copies because the cost would be prohibitive to the company, Lammel said.
Including a ripper would represent a shift from Microsoft's current stance toward MP3. Although previous versions of its operating system have supported MP3 rippers from other companies, Microsoft's own audio and video software, Windows Media Player, has converted audio files only to the Windows Media format, dubbed WMA.
Lammel said an early test version of Windows XP included a ripper, but it has been dropped from the most recent beta. A decision on whether it will be reinstalled is not expected until later this summer.
With or without its own MP3 ripper, the latest version of Microsoft's media technology will likely have the highest level of support yet for the MP3 format, Lammel said. That's because Windows Media 8, which will be embedded in Windows XP, has been designed for the first time to support third-party MP3 encoders.

Microsoft's historically wary approach toward MP3s reflects its campaign to replace the renegade format with its own Windows Media Audio technology, as well as the slow inroads the company has made on that front.
Microsoft's repositioning would be a bigger deal if Windows Media Player would no longer play MP3 files, said Guernsey Research analyst Chris LeTocq.
"What's really interesting is that you can rip MP3s with Windows Media Player using somebody else's encoder," LeTocq said. "I think the message here is Microsoft doesn't want to pay the license fee for the encoder."

Microsoft has long proclaimed the superiority of its codec, or the mathematical formula that is used to compress bulky audio files to a manageable size with the minimum damage to the sound quality. According to Microsoft, WMA offers the same audio quality as MP3 using about half the file size--a potential benefit for those who want to store large amounts of digital music on a PC or a portable MP3 player.

Thomson Multimedia, which licenses the rights to MP3 technology, on Thursday plans to respond with an upgrade to its format, dubbed MP3Pro. The new codec will reduce file sizes while improving the sound quality, Thomson says. (WOO-HOO!!! – JS)

In addition, record labels have been supportive of WMA because it includes built-in anti-copying technology.

All the same, consumers have overwhelmingly endorsed MP3s, which have been traded by the billions on file-swapping services such as Napster.

By considering whether to include a ripper within Windows XP, Microsoft could be tacitly acknowledging the popularity of a format that is virtually synonymous with music on the PC. However, even if it includes a ripper, the company appears concerned with undermining its own format.

In testing an embedded MP3 encoder in an early beta of Windows XP, for example, Microsoft opted to license a budget version of the technology that provides considerably less fidelity than other available versions.

Microsoft's Lammel said the sticking point was the price. Thomson offers to license its MP3 technology to third-party encoding developers for $2.50 per unit, according to its Web site. In addition, it offers a demonstration option for a flat fee of $100,000.
Microsoft has not said how much it will charge for Windows XP, which is scheduled for release in October.

My experience with WMA isn't what Microsoft has promised. 128kbps is kinda standard for MP3, but a 64kbps WMA doesn't compare. I think that 10:1 compression is the threshold for any lossy format like JPEG, MPEG, and MP3; anything more than that is crappy. If the Microsoft guys think they can do better without reducing quality they're kiding themselves.

As for integrating an MP3 codec I don't think they should. The FHg codec that came with earlier Win's was not worht the disk space it took up. LAME has exe's, dll's, and even a direct show filter but Microsoft won't want to use those. They'll want thier own codec which will enevitbly suck.

We can do just fine without Microsoft.

[schmooky007]

edit:

nevermind