[MPlayer-users] xine vs. mplayer

[Dominik Mierzejewski]

On Wednesday, 01 May 2002, gabor farkas wrote:
[snip]
> xine is easier to install... that's true.. it's only about downloading
> the rpms, and do 'rpm -i something.rpm'... or you can use a graphical
> frontend to rpm....
> 
> mplayer is harder to install... there are many reasons, the most
> important is that runtime-cpu-detection was just implemented... that
> means that while xine can detect your processor, and use it's advanced
> features ( mmx, 3dnow etc..), mplayer could do it only at compile time..
> but mplayer now has runtime-cpu-detection...
> (actually i don't know if xine use any kind of optimization for the
> processor, but i think he does )

Well, actually, now you have MPlayer in RPM, too. I've worked with the
developers for the past few days to include an optimal feature set
in the package and polish some details. Go to the following URL
http://home.elka.pw.edu.pl/~dmierzej/mplayer.html and try it out.

> the second problems are plugins...
> xine has a plugin architecture, that means you install it, and after
> that you install a program which displays the movie in X, an another
> could display the movie in a text-console etc...
> 
> mplayer has to detect the input/output-plugins at compile-time...

That's true, but even now, some parts are already made into plugins
(for example vidix).

-- 
"The Universe doesn't give you any points for doing things that are easy."
        -- Sheridan to Garibaldi in Babylon 5:"The Geometry of Shadows"
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rathann(at)rangers.eu.org>