Good news. Thanks for the feedback.
Rob

Pardon my ignorance, but I was under the impression that Windows Media files didn't require a server to stream? I thought that was the benefit of using them over Real Media, which requires two files and a server. Can someone clear this up for me? I was planning to use Windows Media on my web site.

Thanks,
Luxo

Window Media Files CAN be streamed from, for example, a web server instead of a Windows Media Server. They can also be played locally. In fact, I think the same is true of real media files. The files I spoke of played FINE locally, and only experienced problems when I put them on the server. The server was having trouble reading them, I guess because the indexing was not quite right.

That said, the advantage of putting streaming media files on a media server is scalablity and multicasting. Streaming formats are designed to provide uninterupted audio, and if a bandwidth crunch comes sacrifice a segment of the video. A web server is not designed for this purpose and can have noticable deterioration if more than 15-25 users access a media stream at the same time. If the web server is busy, streaming may be less than ideal with even fewer users. A media server is designed to deliver multiple programs to multiple users and can do other sophisticted things (with a bunch of work) like bandwidth throttling. A media server can also support multicasting if the routers on your network are set up to support multicasting protocols. This means that a single copy of the program can be sent to the most distant router switch, and it is only from their that each user gets their own copy (with pre-recorded media multicasting is like a TV tape broadcast, not on demand which is always unicast).

Finaly, why Windows Media and not Real Media. For me four reasons. I find Microsoft's encoding and preparation tools better suited to my needs than RealMedia's tools. There is no Real Media tool for Computer Screen capture for example. Second, Windows media server is bundled free with NT server and can be used to deliver either to the Internet or on an intranet and is easy to administrate.(There is a free Basic Real Server for up to 25 streams on Internet, but it is NOT lisenced for Intranet use) Third, my subjective belief is that although it goes back and forth, MS's codecs provide better quality at lower bandwidth currently. And fourth, and what keeps this from being off-topic :-), as of VV3, the Windows Media format can be used as both and INPUT and an OUTPUT format for video editing, while Real Media is strictly an output format.

If you have high level DV content, there is no reason not to try both Real Media and Windows Media formats as streaming formats. If you are integrating this content with other web content, then the availability of other Web Tools may be a consideration. In either case, both RM and WM will benefit from a Streaming Media server for delivery over simple delivery from a web server.

Sorry for the long quasi-off-topic post, but you ask ;-)

Rob Baer

Wow, thanks for all the info, Rob. I will check with my ISP to see if they provide any kind of streaming media server for Windows Media, since it has such obvious benefits. We'll have to see. Again, thanks!

Luxo

Hi DrRob,

Did that actually fix the problem for you?

I installed a demo of Video Factory as suggested but the problem persists. :( Any ideas anyone..? :(

Many thanks,
Steve

Hi,

I hasd the same problem: WMV files won't play back via a WIndows Media Server. I tried the demo download as suggested, but the problem persists. :(

Any ideas..? :(

Thanks,
Steve