Another Windows Vista "Issue"

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by steve, Mar 26, 2007.

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    On Windows XP, in Windows Movie Moviemaker, I'm offered 18 different pre-set
    modes for publishing movies....including many permutations of 320x240 and
    640x480.

    Windows Vista Home offers you 6.....and they are all PAL oriented with no
    640x480 or 320x240 at all.

    There is also no preset bit rate between 117kbps and 1.0mbps.......

    I wanted to make 320x240 at 320kbps for upload to YouTube as this is the
    closest spec to what YouTube actually deliver via flash video.

    The consequence of using the new Windows MovieMaker on Vista is that it
    nopw takes me almost 3 times longer to get my vids processed on Youtube as
    they must be completely re-rendered from odd-ball PAL resolutions to the
    320x240 YT defaults.

    One more way in which Vista is effectivly a downgrade from XP.
     
    steve, Mar 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:05:20 +1200, steve wrote:

    > On Windows XP, in Windows Movie Moviemaker, I'm offered 18 different pre-set
    > modes for publishing movies....including many permutations of 320x240 and
    > 640x480.
    >
    > Windows Vista Home offers you 6.....and they are all PAL oriented with no
    > 640x480 or 320x240 at all.
    >
    > There is also no preset bit rate between 117kbps and 1.0mbps.......
    >
    > I wanted to make 320x240 at 320kbps for upload to YouTube as this is the
    > closest spec to what YouTube actually deliver via flash video.
    >
    > The consequence of using the new Windows MovieMaker on Vista is that it
    > nopw takes me almost 3 times longer to get my vids processed on Youtube as
    > they must be completely re-rendered from odd-ball PAL resolutions to the
    > 320x240 YT defaults.
    >
    > One more way in which Vista is effectivly a downgrade from XP.


    This is because you are not supposed to be sharing video on the Internet -
    that is theft(r) of someone's IP.

    The fact that it is your own is immaterial - Micro$oft does not want you to
    share video on the Internet. :eek:|


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 26, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Mar 26, 6:05 pm, "steve" <> wrote:
    > On Windows XP, in Windows Movie Moviemaker, I'm offered 18 different pre-set
    > modes for publishing movies....including many permutations of 320x240 and
    > 640x480.
    >
    > Windows Vista Home offers you 6.....and they are all PAL oriented with no
    > 640x480 or 320x240 at all.
    >
    > There is also no preset bit rate between 117kbps and 1.0mbps.......
    >
    > I wanted to make 320x240 at 320kbps for upload to YouTube as this is the
    > closest spec to what YouTube actually deliver via flash video.
    >
    > The consequence of using the new Windows MovieMaker on Vista is that it
    > nopw takes me almost 3 times longer to get my vids processed on Youtube as
    > they must be completely re-rendered from odd-ball PAL resolutions to the
    > 320x240 YT defaults.
    >
    > One more way in which Vista is effectivly a downgrade from XP.


    Yes, you can create a custom profile and specify the resolution and
    bit rate.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/moviemaker/expert/customprofile.mspx

    Note: For vista, the user must create the shared profile folder using
    administrator permissions from Explorer.

    Movie Maker Vista did reduce the number of profiles because the list
    in XP was overwhelming. Unless YouTube has a max file upload size, I
    would recommend using the default profile and then letting YouTube
    convert to flash. Always starting with the best possible quality and
    then encoding to the final destination format will yield the best
    results. Transcoding from Windows Media low resolution to Flash low
    resolution will not look as good as transcoding from Windows Media
    full resolution to Flash low resolution

    Cheers
    Nathan
    Microsoft NZ
     
    Nathan Mercer, Mar 26, 2007
    #3
  4. On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:31:19 -0700, Nathan Mercer wrote:

    >> The consequence of using the new Windows MovieMaker on Vista is that it
    >> nopw takes me almost 3 times longer to get my vids processed on Youtube as
    >> they must be completely re-rendered from odd-ball PAL resolutions to the
    >> 320x240 YT defaults.
    >>
    >> One more way in which Vista is effectivly a downgrade from XP.

    >
    > Yes, you can create a custom profile and specify the resolution and
    > bit rate.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/moviemaker/expert/customprofile.mspx
    >
    > Note: For vista, the user must create the shared profile folder using
    > administrator permissions from Explorer.


    Why should a *user* need Administrator permissions in order for the user
    to set up a "custom profile". Surely that should be a simple
    user-configurable option.

    Just another example of Micro$oft gone wrong with it's user management,
    IMHO.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 26, 2007
    #4
  5. On Mar 26, 6:05 pm, "steve" <> wrote:
    > On Windows XP, in Windows Movie Moviemaker, I'm offered 18 different pre-set
    > modes for publishing movies....including many permutations of 320x240 and
    > 640x480.
    >
    > Windows Vista Home offers you 6.....and they are all PAL oriented with no
    > 640x480 or 320x240 at all.
    >
    > There is also no preset bit rate between 117kbps and 1.0mbps.......
    >
    > I wanted to make 320x240 at 320kbps for upload to YouTube as this is the
    > closest spec to what YouTube actually deliver via flash video.
    >
    > The consequence of using the new Windows MovieMaker on Vista is that it
    > nopw takes me almost 3 times longer to get my vids processed on Youtube as
    > they must be completely re-rendered from odd-ball PAL resolutions to the
    > 320x240 YT defaults.
    >
    > One more way in which Vista is effectivly a downgrade from XP.


    Yes, you can create a custom profile and specify the resolution and
    bit rate.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/moviemaker/expert/customprofile.mspx

    Note: For vista, the user must create the shared profile folder using
    administrator permissions from Explorer.

    Movie Maker Vista did reduce the number of profiles because the list
    in XP was overwhelming. Unless YouTube has a max file upload size, I
    would recommend using the default profile and then letting YouTube
    convert to flash. Always starting with the best possible quality and
    then encoding to the final destination format will yield the best
    results. Transcoding from Windows Media low resolution to Flash low
    resolution will not look as good as transcoding from Windows Media
    full resolution to Flash low resolution

    Cheers
    Nathan
    Microsoft NZ
     
    Nathan Mercer, Mar 26, 2007
    #5
  6. On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:07:03 -0700, Nathan Mercer wrote:

    > Note: For vista, the user must create the shared profile folder using
    > administrator permissions from Explorer.


    The user shouldn't need administrator privileges in order to make
    basic preference changes in an application.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 27, 2007
    #6
  7. steve

    steve Guest

    "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mar 26, 6:05 pm, "steve" <> wrote:
    >> On Windows XP, in Windows Movie Moviemaker, I'm offered 18 different
    >> pre-set
    >> modes for publishing movies....including many permutations of 320x240 and
    >> 640x480.
    >>
    >> Windows Vista Home offers you 6.....and they are all PAL oriented with no
    >> 640x480 or 320x240 at all.
    >>
    >> There is also no preset bit rate between 117kbps and 1.0mbps.......
    >>
    >> I wanted to make 320x240 at 320kbps for upload to YouTube as this is the
    >> closest spec to what YouTube actually deliver via flash video.
    >>
    >> The consequence of using the new Windows MovieMaker on Vista is that it
    >> nopw takes me almost 3 times longer to get my vids processed on Youtube
    >> as
    >> they must be completely re-rendered from odd-ball PAL resolutions to the
    >> 320x240 YT defaults.
    >>
    >> One more way in which Vista is effectivly a downgrade from XP.

    >
    > Yes, you can create a custom profile and specify the resolution and
    > bit rate.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/moviemaker/expert/customprofile.mspx


    Thanks! Now I just wonder how I was supposed to know this? A note on that
    big, empty page where you choose the output characteristics in WMM would
    have been nice.

    > Note: For vista, the user must create the shared profile folder using
    > administrator permissions from Explorer.


    .......and a note to that effect would have been nice. Maybe it's in the
    help. I'll check it out. But for critical, related items, a small pointer to
    additinoal info would be most useful for the average home user if no one
    else.

    > Movie Maker Vista did reduce the number of profiles because the list
    > in XP was overwhelming.


    I didn't feel at all overwhelmed. I felt enabled. :)

    > Unless YouTube has a max file upload size, I
    > would recommend using the default profile and then letting YouTube
    > convert to flash. Always starting with the best possible quality and
    > then encoding to the final destination format will yield the best
    > results. Transcoding from Windows Media low resolution to Flash low
    > resolution will not look as good as transcoding from Windows Media
    > full resolution to Flash low resolution


    Thanks. To be honest, I haven't noticed any difference between the 100MB
    vids I uploaded and the 10 mb versions I also uploaded......they both appear
    to stream at the same apparent level of quality provided I do not fall below
    the base bitrate of the stream. That may just be apparent and not
    real.....but my blurry eyes don't much care. ;-)

    Thanks for the help, Nathan. Much appreciated.
     
    steve, Mar 27, 2007
    #7
  8. On Mar 27, 7:03 am, Dianthus Mimulus <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:31:19 -0700, Nathan Mercer wrote:
    > >> The consequence of using the new Windows MovieMaker on Vista is that it
    > >> nopw takes me almost 3 times longer to get my vids processed on Youtube as
    > >> they must be completely re-rendered from odd-ball PAL resolutions to the
    > >> 320x240 YT defaults.

    >
    > >> One more way in which Vista is effectivly a downgrade from XP.

    >
    > > Yes, you can create a custom profile and specify the resolution and
    > > bit rate.

    >
    > >http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/moviemaker/expert/customprof...

    >
    > > Note: For vista, the user must create the shared profile folder using
    > > administrator permissions from Explorer.

    >
    > Why should a *user* need Administrator permissions in order for the user
    > to set up a "custom profile". Surely that should be a simple
    > user-configurable option.
    >
    > Just another example of Micro$oft gone wrong with it's user management,
    > IMHO.


    Isn't the H meant to stand for humble?
     
    Nathan Mercer, Mar 28, 2007
    #8
  9. steve

    EMB Guest

    Nathan Mercer wrote:

    >
    > Isn't the H meant to stand for humble?

    In Lennier's case it stands for halfwitted.
     
    EMB, Mar 28, 2007
    #9
  10. steve

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote:
    >
    >Isn't the H meant to stand for humble?


    It stands for "honest", Nathan. Some people here would say it's a foreign
    concept for you (Microsoft), but I couldn't possibly comment. :)

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
     
    Don Hills, Mar 28, 2007
    #10
  11. In article <>, "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote:
    >On Mar 27, 7:03 am, Dianthus Mimulus <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:31:19 -0700, Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >> >> The consequence of using the new Windows MovieMaker on Vista is that it
    >> >> nopw takes me almost 3 times longer to get my vids processed on Youtube as
    >> >> they must be completely re-rendered from odd-ball PAL resolutions to the
    >> >> 320x240 YT defaults.

    >>
    >> >> One more way in which Vista is effectivly a downgrade from XP.

    >>
    >> > Yes, you can create a custom profile and specify the resolution and
    >> > bit rate.

    >>
    >> >http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/moviemaker/expert/customprof...

    >>
    >> > Note: For vista, the user must create the shared profile folder using
    >> > administrator permissions from Explorer.

    >>
    >> Why should a *user* need Administrator permissions in order for the user
    >> to set up a "custom profile". Surely that should be a simple
    >> user-configurable option.
    >>
    >> Just another example of Micro$oft gone wrong with it's user management,
    >> IMHO.

    >
    >Isn't the H meant to stand for humble?


    Isn't a dianthus some kind of flower ? ... carnation or pink IIRC ... and if
    so, do you often listen to them .. or perhaps, talk to them ? :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Mar 28, 2007
    #11
  12. On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:19:04 +1200, Don Hills wrote:

    >>Isn't the H meant to stand for humble?

    >
    > It stands for "honest", Nathan. Some people here would say it's a foreign
    > concept for you (Microsoft), but I couldn't possibly comment. :)


    Heh heh heh.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 28, 2007
    #12
  13. On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:45:24 +0000, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > Isn't a dianthus some kind of flower ? ... carnation or pink IIRC


    Carnations are a variety of Dianthus.


    --
    Dianthus Mimulus

    When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
    When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.
     
    Dianthus Mimulus, Mar 28, 2007
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bucky Breeder

    00ps! Another Windows Vista fan letter

    Bucky Breeder, Dec 19, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    411
    Tester
    Dec 19, 2006
  2. =?Utf-8?B?YWRub24=?=

    Windows Vista 64 or Windows Vista 32 for AMD 64 FX-57

    =?Utf-8?B?YWRub24=?=, Feb 5, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    560
    Aaron Kelley
    Feb 7, 2007
  3. I love Google
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,024
  4. PeeCee
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,242
    Mr. Arnold
    Dec 21, 2007
  5. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Micro$oft slips yet another feature out of M$ Windows Vista

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 12, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    740
    Peter
    Mar 15, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page