<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><rss version="2.0" xml:base="https://www.webmaster-forums.net/crss/node/1027860" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title></title>
    <link>https://www.webmaster-forums.net/crss/node/1027860</link>
    <description></description>
    <language>en</language>
          <item>
    <title></title>
    <link>https://www.webmaster-forums.net/html-css-and-javascript/video-webpages#comment-1164855</link>
    <description> &lt;p&gt;I&#039;ve been experimenting with some flash video.  Nicer than I thought but the file is still 1.7 meg (twice the .rm file) and I can&#039;t figure out how to get my test .flv file into a webpage.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I can&#039;t vouch for the accuracy of this statement but I came across this statement:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;blockquote class=&quot;bb-quote-body&quot;&gt;Quote: Flash MX-compatible player 6 or later ... penetration now averaging around 96%. That’s compared to figures of 63% for Windows Media Player, 62% for Real Player and 56% for QuickTime.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To me the WMP numbers seem WAY too low.  RP seems about right but I doubt QT is over half the general public.&lt;/p&gt;
 </description>
     <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:13:08 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>fifeclub</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1164855 at https://www.webmaster-forums.net</guid>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title></title>
    <link>https://www.webmaster-forums.net/html-css-and-javascript/video-webpages#comment-1164818</link>
    <description> &lt;p&gt;I&#039;d go with Quicktime, because it offers you a decent range of quality, and is probably the most widely supported format, without incurring the hate of RealPlayer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Embedding the video in Flash is also a really good idea.&lt;/p&gt;
 </description>
     <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>CptAwesome</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1164818 at https://www.webmaster-forums.net</guid>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title></title>
    <link>https://www.webmaster-forums.net/html-css-and-javascript/video-webpages#comment-1164812</link>
    <description> &lt;p&gt;One thing I&#039;d like to know is what are the popular formats/cleints for NON windows OS&#039;s. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now, my $.02 on my preferences:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over the years, I have disliked Quicktime for one main reason, their user interface. Now I admit I haven&#039;t tried it in a year or so, but gave up on it as when veiwing a 300xsomething video on a screen at 1280x1024, that is pretty tiny. I wanna be able to zoom the sucker &lt;img src=&quot;https://www.webmaster-forums.net/misc/smileys/wink.png&quot; title=&quot;Wink&quot; alt=&quot;Wink&quot; class=&quot;smiley-content&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Real player I didn&#039;t care for for all the crap that they crammed in with it, however Windows media player is just as bloated anymore IMO. I did switch back to real player mainly becasue, well that is what they stream the Big Brother live video streams with. Plus also the site i use for Bible resouces uses that for audio versions of the verses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whenever possible, I prefer WinAmp to play my audio/video. I now use that for listening to online radio/video broadcasts. (I had never used their &quot;media&quot; listing before recently to see what all streams were available, FREE).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I have played a little with displaying video via flash, and found it generally was overall just a little larger than whatever format I imported. I will say I have never played around much with the encoding video, so I may have missed how to make them smaller.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;-Greg&lt;/p&gt;
 </description>
     <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:27:34 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Greg K</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1164812 at https://www.webmaster-forums.net</guid>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
