This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

ComputingMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcomputers,computing, andinformation technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. MicrosoftMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating toMicrosoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. Microsoft Windows:ComputingHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMicrosoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject Computing.

If I was to put a WMV on a DVD-r, would i be able to watch it on a DVD player?

Forget It!

"When encapsulated in ASF file format, WMV can support digital rights management facilities intended to protect intellectual property rights."

Shouldnt it be "copyright" instead of intellectual property which is a broad term that covers many other things such as patents, etc?

Neither should be used. The claim that DRM protects anything is contentious and therefore not NPOV.Wonderstruck06:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a lot of speculation about the origin of WMV. From my own sources inside MS, I believe a lot of this technology came from Rico Malvar's research group.

WMV sucks, it buffers all the time. So you play, and then its pauses and you have to wait for it to buffer, it sucks.—The precedingunsigned comment was added byFrap (talk •contribs)15:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

According to M. Holitscher, an Open Source expert at Microsoft Switzerland, SMPTE 421M (VC-1) is an international video Standard and the WMV9 codec the standard-conform implementation ofVC-1 by Microsoft. He says that even though an open standard, WMV9 is not open source and hence still propietary, because implementers using VC-1 are required to pay licensing fees to the SMTE and the MPEG LA, who hold patents on the format. He also says Microsoft is happy to grant licences for specific purposes, but I havn't been able to find licence agreements e.g. allowing bundling the codec with a free Linux distribution. Apparently Microsoft has granted licences for the proprietary Linux systems Linspire and Turbolinux. I have therefore corrected the article slightly.

Funnily enough, the Videolan Client (VLC, a free open source video player) seems to contain the WMV8 codec which according to this article is more proprietary than WMV9. However it can't play most WMV files, just some of them.--Theosch20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WMV can have a multitude of Microsoft-developed subsequent codecs. (Different versions of Windows Media Videocodecsformats and Windows Media audiocodecsformats) The creators of vlc are in a region where software patents don't count. And rely on reverse-engineering the formats from produced files. Older formats have had more time to be reverse-engineered and have more content that was produced over time by users that eases the reverse-engineering. (WMV8 existed before WMV9) Eventually, over time patents laps, then the format is free to be dissected for Open Source software's gain. The ffmpeg project tries to have codecs for every video/audio/multimedia format available! Fantastic project because it incorporates a lot of old and unsupported formats on which software patents have run out. --Thelennonorth (talk)15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly extraordinary that there is no criticism section in this article.Windows Media Video (and Windows Media Player) are heavily criticised on the web. Look it up.

This reader (B.A. Economics) thinks it's absurd that this piece could be written and also considered to be in English. It's absolutely no wonder that the Wall Street smart-asses inserting such truncated jargon into "computer-models" got themselves and too many others caught in such a cock-up. Writers of this type and "programmers" obviously need adult supervision. Where are the "editors" in Wikipedia?

     ....signed....Charlie Griffith.

The criticism section is misleading and not relevant to the article. It focuses chiefly on DRM, but DRM is a separate, discrete component - neither the file format nor the video codec depend on DRM. If one is to criticize Windows Media Video for the simple fact that it can be used with Windows Media DRM and PlayReady DRM, should we also criticize MPEG-4 video for being usable with PlayReady DRM, OMA DRM or Marlin DRM? I vote that the DRM criticisms be removed since they are not actually criticisms of the format/codec.— Precedingunsigned comment added by50.125.99.62 (talk)00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be defining WMV as a format and including information about MS MPEG-4 codecs. They were never considered a part of the WMV codec series, so what's the point? An ASF file with an MS MPEG-4 codec shouldn't even carry a .wmv extension so it's difficult to even argue that a "WMV file" can carry non-WMV codecs. Sure, it can, but it's an intentional misnomer in that case.I vote that references to MS MPEG-4 codecs be removed from the article.

The article is about the video formats used. Not about the software used (also but that's not the main point).

It's a common misconception/myth that a codec and video format are the same. They are NOT, a codec is the compressor/decompressor software. If you are talking about wmv video, then you are talking about video that conforms to certain standards that make it wmv, therefor it is a standard. Here is a nice link about it, includes DivX as an example:[1]Some video formats have multiple implementations e.g. Dirac has dirac-research and schrödinger which are two distinct codec that produce files conforming to the Dirac standard. And I totally agree with removing MPEG-4, no idea why it's appearing in virtually every video-codecformat article even when it's not relevant. --Thelennonorth (talk)21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that complicated, people. WMV is a digital media format and brand. It most narrowly refers to the Windows Media Video family of video codecs, but in a more general context it can refer to any file containg video compressed with a WMV-branded codec. For example, an ASF file containg PhotoStory (WVP2) video can be considered a WMV file, but a MPEG-2 TS file containing VC-1 video would not be considered a WMV file because nothing about it carries Windows Media branding.— Precedingunsigned comment added by50.125.99.62 (talk)00:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the wmv video doesn't work in my computer. It says buffer-over-follow.. and sometimes it says virus!!! It works under linux much more better and it proves that Microsoft is stupid enough that they are not able to manage their own technology.. So please do not create any technology.. For the sake of universe, for the sake of human being .. PLEASE!!!—The precedingunsigned comment was added by212.12.136.186 (talk)13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Secondly, when I choose time frame from middle of the video it doesnt show.. In any case you should start from begining.... Also what is this buffering thing???...—The precedingunsigned comment was added by212.12.136.186 (talk)14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sometimes I am getting funny mails with attached videos in wmv format. then happyly I open the mail, and start to read and open the attached video, then praying to god by wishing the video to be run.. After sometime it says Virus Alert!!! W. T. F. is that!!!!!! I will make this page overflow by writing entries for each my disappointment!.. MS is equal to "Virus Framework".. MS users is equal to "Virus cleaner stupids".. Thanks.. I couldnt watch my video but I wrote this essay.. It made me really relaxed..

Go away.—Precedingunsigned comment added by4EV1 (talk •contribs)22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wmv stands for windows media virusspreader. Corporate secret. lol ;)--Thelennonorth (talk)15:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions almost nothing about the timeframe of this file format. When was it first released? When did it gain significant usage? If and when did it overcome competing formats? Etc. Anybody know this stuff?72.73.208.6407:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we would teeter off into OR really quickly here. The first version of WMP that I see "supporting" WMV was the version 6.2 beta (6.2 became 6.4) from April 1999. But WMV is just a subset of ASF, so WMP5.2 would have been able to play WMV fine, dating back to May 1998. And ASF was first brought to "official" market with NetShow Player 1.0 back in December 1996. (This ignores the alpha DirectShow filter, ActiveMovie Stream, and also the NetShow Player 1.0 beta.) So you would need to define "first release". I don't think there has been any great tracking of the rise and fall of formats - that would certainly be fascinating if unreliable data.Preppy23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd define the "first release" as when the format was officially supported, which according to you would be WMP 6.2 from April 99. In any case though, I think the article would be much improved if some of what you said above was included in the currently scant history area. It's a shame that nobody tracks format usages; It hit me recently that nearly every video file I download now is a WMV, but 5 years ago AVIs and MPGs appeared to be dominant. That realization is actually why I was reading the article in the first place.72.73.208.6417:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be safest in dividing it in unstable/stable. And I would define the first release as when the first stable version of the software with support for that format comes out. --Thelennonorth (talk)15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The imageImage:Photo Story 3 for Windows.jpg is used in this article under a claim offair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets therequirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have anexplanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is anon-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice byFairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, seeWikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WMV format can't be both open and proprietary at the same time. Please clarify. --hdante (talk)20:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specification is open because it's standardized and everybody can look into it. However the specification can also fail to be good enough to define a format that won't break or leave back-ports for proprietary Microsoft bits. Microsoft has patents on wmv and that's why it's open and still proprietary. Because for everything you do, you have to ask MS to grant you a license to use it. --Thelennonorth (talk)15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase "video compression format" already says that the format is compressed. I wouldn't waste time by saying "compressed compression format" (Sorry if my English isn't good, I'm German) --Luettsegler (talk)16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it now. --Luettsegler (talk)20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section labeled "Video Quality" talks about the good compression ratio. Those are two separate issues, thus the talk of compression ratio is mislabeled and the issue of video quality is left unaddressed.63.3.9.1 (talk)01:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

could you add a column with the release date in the Versions table?

Thanks2001:9E8:6369:A300:576E:8E31:D6A1:9A5C (talk)00:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• Start-Class Microsoft articles
• Mid-importance Microsoft articles
• WikiProject Microsoft articles
• Start-Class Microsoft Windows articles
• High-importance Microsoft Windows articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• WikiProject Microsoft Windows articles