Subject:OPINIONS: Webserver....RA vs Windows

Posted by: fosko

Date:8/1/2002 2:15:26 PM

I'm about to launch a web page for Multi media showcase. The Hosting company I'm thinking about going with (POWWEB.com.... check them out. great price & features) says they have UNIX servers and do not support Windows Media.

What do you think ??
I've read some pretty negative press on here about RA, and I prefer Media player...but is it really that much of an issue ?

Subject:RE: OPINIONS: Webserver....RA vs Windows

Reply by: ATP

Date:8/2/2002 12:36:19 PM

*personally* i hate Real Audio. the Real Audio player is one of the most bloated and tricky programs to install. if during the installation you unmark every bogus setting you'll find it has blatantly turned these features back on a few steps further in the install process. and when you've finally installed it you still need to tweak a lot of settings in order for it to pop up Only when needed.

and i've never been too impressed with the sound quality of RM either, as opposed to wma streams. in the ideal situation it'd all be 128 kbps mp3, but i know that isn't going to happen.

but please, don't let my personal gripes with everything concerning Real Media deter you from your path. i'm sure lots of people think Real Media is the be all end all of audio streaming online.

Subject:RE: OPINIONS: Webserver....RA vs Windows

Reply by: jgalt

Date:8/2/2002 1:15:33 PM

I'm not too choked up about Real Media either but I understand from a couple of webmasters that it is easy for them to use. I dislike the "trickery" used by the installation of the player(s)that do things behind your back and the poor audio quality of most of the streamed files. Most of them seem to be at a sample rate of 11KHz.

Subject:RE: OPINIONS: Webserver....RA vs Windows

Reply by: ramallo

Date:8/2/2002 2:40:33 PM

Hello,

I always use rm for web work, is more democratic, users from others OS can access to this imformation (WMA is Windows only).

Real Media have players for Windows, Linux, Unix, Mac, etc.

Unix/Linux servers don't work with WMA, Unix/Linux servers are the majority of internet servers.

Bye

Subject:RE: OPINIONS: Webserver....RA vs Windows

Reply by: Chienworks

Date:8/2/2002 3:32:24 PM

I serve up Windows Media on my Linux server with no problems. As it was, they would play in MediaPlayer with a simple click on the URL. I made a small addition to the /etc/mime.types file to add mappings for .wax and .wvx files and now they auto stream as well.

Subject:RE: OPINIONS: Webserver....RA vs Windows

Reply by: ramallo

Date:8/2/2002 4:33:59 PM

Hello Chienworks,

A question:

You can see in Linux this files?

Regards

Subject:RE: OPINIONS: Webserver....RA vs Windows

Reply by: Chienworks

Date:8/2/2002 9:02:55 PM

Ramallo: yes. my video sharing site runs on my RedHat Linux server
http://www.vegasusers.com/vidshare/

These are mostly video WMV files, but audio WMA files would work just as well. I did have to edit the mime.types file to add in mapping for WVX and WAX files, but that was a 5 second job. If you use a server belonging to a web hoster they should be willing to make that change for you.

Subject:RE: OPINIONS: Webserver....RA vs Windows

Reply by: Jessariah

Date:8/3/2002 4:29:09 PM

I'm on a national server ADDR.COM where you can get 50 MB and email for $7.95/mo. and I stream RM and WM from my sites.

As for preferences, I actually think Real is better, but I think they sunk themselves with the way they've handled their "REALOne" upgrade. Personally, I've been going more toward WM, though I'm having trouble figuring out why it won't stream in Netscape (it actually opens the files as text files for some reason...)

Subject:RE: OPINIONS: Webserver....RA vs Windows

Reply by: ramallo

Date:8/4/2002 11:03:27 AM

Hello Chienworks,

Maybe I don't explain clear (I believe by my very bad english). I know that you can put the files on your web server (Like any file), but you don't have a Windows Media streamig server for Unix/Linux, and you don't have any program for play this files on Linux/Unix computer.

If you want make a "for Windows only" media, the Windows Media formats will be a good solution, but in this point I agree with Jessariah, I prefer Real Media (I made a very good videos for the net), and all the people can see and ear my work (No OS dependent like Windows Media).

Other contender will be Quicktime, is more open than Windows Media, and have one of the very best video quality.

Regards

Subject:RE: OPINIONS: Webserver....RA vs Windows

Reply by: jdg

Date:8/5/2002 3:59:48 PM

what chienworks is doing is not tru "streaming". a streaming server is like a broadcast, a one to many type thing. what he is doing (and i do too) is one to one. make sense? a one to one type thing is good for alot of things, but not live content or traditional "broadcast" type scenerios.

good luck!