4 ms·

I always wonder why people go gaga googoo over VLC, when there's Media Player Classic with K-lite which does a lot of the same things better. I remember watchi

I always wonder why people go gaga googoo over VLC, when there's Media Player Classic with K-lite which does a lot of the same things better. I remember watching 1080p blurry rips in MPC without any problems in 2008 while VLC would spend 1 year doing some sort of buffering upon opening then struggling to play the video correctly.

kingcharles 5y ago
Can you tell me why MPC + K-Lite is better? I've been gone from the Internet for 8 years. Before I left I used VLC for everything. When I just got a laptop I was convinced to install PotPlayer as "being better". Having been gone for such a long time I assumed there was a tectonic shift in the media player space. Perhaps I was wrong?
- Cyph0n 5y ago
  VLC is an excellent media player. It is actively developed and runs on many platforms.
- datenarsch 5y ago
  MPC-HC is just as good as VLC and maybe a little less cluttered. It's Windows only of course, but if that isn't a limiting factor, then it's a very good alternative to VLC in my opinion.
  - tasty_freeze 5y ago
    From the home page: "MPC-HC is not under development since 2017. Please switch to something else."
    - kdjfjf7d7 5y ago
      The version packaged with K-lite is frequently updated to this day, last release today.
    - datenarsch 5y ago
      It's still actively being developed, the author just created a new project page for it for some reason. You can find it at https://github.com/clsid2/mpc-hc https://github.com/clsid2/mpc-hc
- agumonkey 5y ago
  I never like vlc approach. It did everything but there was always 7 fingercuts in the process. Or it was slower, less ergonomic. MPC, MPV were more my daily drivers.
jjulius 5y ago
You're arguing that MPC is better than VLC because of an issue you encountered 13 - almost 14 - years ago?
- kdjfjf7d7 5y ago
  No, I'm pointing out that a better player already existed since the inception of VLC.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    MPC is better? Maybe if you run windows. But if you don't then MPC isn't only not better, it's completely irrelevant. VLC on the other hand supports pretty much everything under the sun, so you can safely recommend it without playing the "what kind of computer do you have?" game.
  - fnordfnordfnord 5y ago
    Lots of better players existed at the inception of VLC. Most existing players that worked at all were probably better. That's how most projects start off.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
VLC works on other operating systems for a start.
zppln 5y ago
Well, I've personally always wondered why people advocate MPC. During like 15+ years of use I can't recall having a single issue with VLC. And that's from consuming basically everything from the VCD era and onwards. In my experience VLC has been as close to flawless software as one can get.
- kdjfjf7d7 5y ago
  I dont think VLC is bad by any means or that anyone shouldn't use it, I just don't understand the comments I often see on HN acting like it's some unprecedented software that's unlike anything else.
  - twostorytower 5y ago
    It plays any media file you throw at it out of the box and doesn't require any codec packs installed. On top of that, it has a ton of other features including network support. Simple as that.
    - usr1106 5y ago
      > It plays any media file I also believed this until I got a family support case a couple of weeks ago. I learned that if the bitrate is too high for the PC to handle vlc badly fails. (This was a fanless Intel PC, so the CPU is very much low end despite not being particularly old.) Of course I would not expect vlc to do any miracles here, but at least I would expect an error message explaining the problem. ffmpeg gives me warnings all the time if buffers are too small etc. In vlc I'd expect it a bit less cryptic... Ideally it would still play the video with reduced quality. Whether that's at all doable I don't know. Just decoding I-frames would be the most naive approach, but probably also a not lead to very much usable results. Actually the family member found one solution themselves: Play it at reduced speed. VLC could have figured out that automatically. (And of course give a clear message to the user why it does that.)
      - astrange 5y ago
        > Ideally it would still play the video with reduced quality. Whether that's at all doable I don't know. It isn't really. It's possible if the video has B-frames but it's hard to predict how much dropping will cause how much recovery, and if you drop almost anything else the possible error is unbounded.
the_af 5y ago
In my case, because VLC opens and plays flawlessly any video file you throw at it and that other players struggle with. That and it's FOSS and available in every OS I ever used. What else is there to think about?
asdf_snar 5y ago
It might come down to difference of experiences. As soon as software bites you once, I think most people feel differently towards it. I think the reason VLC gets (and in my opinion, deserves) a lot of praise is that a large part of the user base has never felt bitten. Personally, I have never once had trouble getting VLC to run a media file, and I can't say that for any other media player. Granted, I don't know any other media players, and I don't know if it's hard to make a good one -- but that's kind of the point. I want a limited range of features from a media player: ability to make sound really loud, adjust timing of subtitles, speed up / slow down. All of those "just work" for VLC and have very basic navigation (that's good). VLC has allowed me to be comfortably oblivious to all the codec crap I remember dealing with over a decade ago.
GhettoComputers 5y ago
Used to do the same with klite codec pack and a patch to play HD videos on windows. It wasn't "better" though, it was just what tutorials suggested you installed to play more videos. VLC just works now, its on every platform, and I used it to run any video that MPC couldn't play. Then I just used it to play everything, and I can do that on every platform I use, they all have VLC.

kingcharles 5y ago

Can you tell me why MPC + K-Lite is better? I've been gone from the Internet for 8 years. Before I left I used VLC for everything. When I just got a laptop I was convinced to install PotPlayer as "being better". Having been gone for such a long time I assumed there was a tectonic shift in the media player space. Perhaps I was wrong?

Cyph0n 5y ago
VLC is an excellent media player. It is actively developed and runs on many platforms.
datenarsch 5y ago
MPC-HC is just as good as VLC and maybe a little less cluttered. It's Windows only of course, but if that isn't a limiting factor, then it's a very good alternative to VLC in my opinion.
- tasty_freeze 5y ago
  From the home page: "MPC-HC is not under development since 2017. Please switch to something else."
  - kdjfjf7d7 5y ago
    The version packaged with K-lite is frequently updated to this day, last release today.
  - datenarsch 5y ago
    It's still actively being developed, the author just created a new project page for it for some reason. You can find it at https://github.com/clsid2/mpc-hc https://github.com/clsid2/mpc-hc
agumonkey 5y ago
I never like vlc approach. It did everything but there was always 7 fingercuts in the process. Or it was slower, less ergonomic. MPC, MPV were more my daily drivers.

jjulius 5y ago

You're arguing that MPC is better than VLC because of an issue you encountered 13 - almost 14 - years ago?

kdjfjf7d7 5y ago
No, I'm pointing out that a better player already existed since the inception of VLC.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  MPC is better? Maybe if you run windows. But if you don't then MPC isn't only not better, it's completely irrelevant. VLC on the other hand supports pretty much everything under the sun, so you can safely recommend it without playing the "what kind of computer do you have?" game.
- fnordfnordfnord 5y ago
  Lots of better players existed at the inception of VLC. Most existing players that worked at all were probably better. That's how most projects start off.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

VLC works on other operating systems for a start.

zppln 5y ago

Well, I've personally always wondered why people advocate MPC. During like 15+ years of use I can't recall having a single issue with VLC. And that's from consuming basically everything from the VCD era and onwards. In my experience VLC has been as close to flawless software as one can get.

kdjfjf7d7 5y ago
I dont think VLC is bad by any means or that anyone shouldn't use it, I just don't understand the comments I often see on HN acting like it's some unprecedented software that's unlike anything else.
- twostorytower 5y ago
  It plays any media file you throw at it out of the box and doesn't require any codec packs installed. On top of that, it has a ton of other features including network support. Simple as that.
  - usr1106 5y ago
    > It plays any media file I also believed this until I got a family support case a couple of weeks ago. I learned that if the bitrate is too high for the PC to handle vlc badly fails. (This was a fanless Intel PC, so the CPU is very much low end despite not being particularly old.) Of course I would not expect vlc to do any miracles here, but at least I would expect an error message explaining the problem. ffmpeg gives me warnings all the time if buffers are too small etc. In vlc I'd expect it a bit less cryptic... Ideally it would still play the video with reduced quality. Whether that's at all doable I don't know. Just decoding I-frames would be the most naive approach, but probably also a not lead to very much usable results. Actually the family member found one solution themselves: Play it at reduced speed. VLC could have figured out that automatically. (And of course give a clear message to the user why it does that.)
    - astrange 5y ago
      > Ideally it would still play the video with reduced quality. Whether that's at all doable I don't know. It isn't really. It's possible if the video has B-frames but it's hard to predict how much dropping will cause how much recovery, and if you drop almost anything else the possible error is unbounded.

the_af 5y ago

In my case, because VLC opens and plays flawlessly any video file you throw at it and that other players struggle with. That and it's FOSS and available in every OS I ever used. What else is there to think about?

asdf_snar 5y ago

It might come down to difference of experiences. As soon as software bites you once, I think most people feel differently towards it. I think the reason VLC gets (and in my opinion, deserves) a lot of praise is that a large part of the user base has never felt bitten. Personally, I have never once had trouble getting VLC to run a media file, and I can't say that for any other media player. Granted, I don't know any other media players, and I don't know if it's hard to make a good one -- but that's kind of the point. I want a limited range of features from a media player: ability to make sound really loud, adjust timing of subtitles, speed up / slow down. All of those "just work" for VLC and have very basic navigation (that's good). VLC has allowed me to be comfortably oblivious to all the codec crap I remember dealing with over a decade ago.

GhettoComputers 5y ago

Used to do the same with klite codec pack and a patch to play HD videos on windows. It wasn't "better" though, it was just what tutorials suggested you installed to play more videos. VLC just works now, its on every platform, and I used it to run any video that MPC couldn't play. Then I just used it to play everything, and I can do that on every platform I use, they all have VLC.