Talk:Windows Media Encoder

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Studio Edition

The ref has broken. Matthew_hk t c 13:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so rotten as to be unusable

I'm sure the codec itself is fantastic, but i'm having trouble getting to a point where I can even make an objective assessment. Is anyone else finding the supplied user interface so buggy and mind-bendingly slow / bottlenecked as to be functionally broken? I've ended up at this page sort of as a sideline of going off to see if anyone else has used that SDK to make something a little quicker. IE something that doesn't typically take two or three minutes to switch between certain tabs, or entries in a source list, when I click between them on setting up an encode from one or more 250-mb-ish (15 minute) SVCD MPG2 sources. God only knows what it's doing. Perhaps re-reading and re-analysing each file in full every. single. time. or something. Also, having some kind of batch encode function would be nice... just figured out that if I hit Start now, everything on my source list would be lumped into the same file with the same name (or perhaps the last one on the list would overwrite everything that went before). It manages to do the clever thing of automatically naming it when you load in - and remembering the basic encode settings (eg bitrate) - but doesn't auto change the name or allow you to set "use same as input" or any kind of renaming rule (and forgets even the vaguely more advanced settings - like resolution). Arrrrgh. Most freeware tools work better than this.

so, off we go, maybe there's some in the article maintext? 193.63.174.10 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]