Does Media Player 6.4 run under WinXP?

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
I just built a WinXP machine. I dont like media player 7.x. i'm probably going to uninstall it

Will Media player 6.4 work?
 

spanky

Lifer
Jun 19, 2001
25,716
4
81
yes. media player 6.4 is actually in the OS. as someone previously mentioned... just run mplayer2.exe

Edie - just checked... yes it is 6.4
 

NicColt

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2000
4,362
0
71
>It's very small and simple. Later versions are very bloated.

true and here's the other gib... even though it says 6.4 and your in XP it will still use the WMP8 Engine and not the original 6.4 engine.
 

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0
Originally posted by: NicColt
>It's very small and simple. Later versions are very bloated.

true and here's the other gib... even though it says 6.4 and your in XP it will still use the WMP8 Engine and not the original 6.4 engine.

Actually it's just WMP8 with 6.4 skin applied. You can tell that it looks slightly different from 6.4. I haven't tried returning to "full mode" from running mplayer2, though. I just use WMP 8.0 with atomic skin.
 

FatAlbo

Golden Member
May 11, 2000
1,423
0
0
There has to be something more than just WMP8 with a skin applied. I have some DivX files that refuse to play while using WMP8, but it'll run just fine in the 6.4 installed with XP. You can also change the DivX playback properties in 6.4 (adjusting quality, brightness, gamma, etc.), which is something that couldn't be done in WMP8. Besides, the About dialog box even shows 6.4.09.1121.
 

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0
Originally posted by: FatAlbo
There has to be something more than just WMP8 with a skin applied. I have some DivX files that refuse to play while using WMP8, but it'll run just fine in the 6.4 installed with XP. You can also change the DivX playback properties in 6.4 (adjusting quality, brightness, gamma, etc.), which is something that couldn't be done in WMP8. Besides, the About dialog box even shows 6.4.09.1121.

Interesting.

BTW, my original posts were misleading. I haven't ***confirmed*** yet. :)