What file path is Deskscapes looking for the MPEG-2 codec in? What registry entries?

I am going to see if I can find an X64 MPEG-2 Codec, or maybe Deskscapes is just not looking in the right spot. To me it does not seem right that it needs an X64 Codec to function. Why do all other 32 bit codecs function fine with everything else? Its not like these codecs are a device driver that must be 64 bit to function with a 64 bit operating system.

Further evidence that is doesn't make sense is that when I "Click here for more information" when I get the MPEG-2 error, it brings me to this stardock page: https://www.stardock.com/products/deskscapes/nocodec.asp

Which then links to this microsoft page about using third party decoders for non ultimate or premium versions of Vista.

"Please visit this Microsoft page for a description of solutions for other versions of Windows Vista."

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/plugins.aspx

Cyberlink is included there as well as a compatible Mpeg-2 Decoder, as per microsoft. Therefore, it should work. Nothing says anything about 64bit.


So does someone know where Deskscapes is looking for the codec?

Were you surprised? 

I think you were the only one looking I'll bet the number of (1) Vista Business, (2) 64 bit, users wanting to (3) run videos [or Dreams] are fairly small.  Adding this to the https://www.stardock.com/products/deskscapes/nocodec.asp page would probably be the best option with the least hassle and no licensing or accountability.

Glad you found your solution.  Thanks for sharing the link.        

so let me get this rite
od and the beta deskscapes runs on vista 64bit premium
and to get the mpegs running u download the k-lite codec pack as mentioned above
someone please confirm thanks

Thanks for the edit then.

Sorry about that.

Breathless19: You may want to read the Patent holders section here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2

It seems there might be a special method for freeware distribution BUT the end user is then responsible for purchasing a patent license directly.  I suspect directing our users to such a codec would probably not be considered as non commercial use.

The article on ffmpeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffmpeg) which is used by many of the free decoders is also worth reading.  Especially the legal status section.

The licensing costs is part of the reason why Windows Vista business does not come with a mpeg2 decoder already.

This is off this page: https://www.stardock.com/newsitem.asp?id=1010


Note that the February 2008 is referring to both the free and enhanced versions. Also note, this quote makes a clear distinction between the beta (available to OD subscribers only) and the final release, and that the "February 2008" refers to the full product. It seems that you do indeed have a "firm date".

This is the exact double-talk that gets software development shops in trouble over release dates. You should not commit to any dates. Period. The second you give out any kind of a timeframe, you run the risk of not meeting it. That in itself is not a big deal, it just means some PR person comes out and says something akin to "sorry, we're running late." But denying what's clearly stated on your website (and then dismissing questions with a statement quoted above) is just unprofessional and disrespectful to potential customers by making THEM look stupid instead.

A little leeway?
This is probably the same type of VAPORWARE that BootVista became.

And where is the logic in spending 50 bucks,
just to get something that is in fact available as a free version,
OR, costs 20 bucks for some enhancements?

I'd rather they don't give time frames they cannot keep for the sake of some free publicity. About the "buy OD" comment, why would I spend $50 for something that costs $20? ObjectDesktop offers nothing else besides DeskSpaces that I want for my PC. Also, the try-before-you-buy method never hurt anyone.

Fuzzy, you state things SO much more politely than I ever possibly could. And people wonder why I don't work in customer service.....

While I'm disappointed with the fact that Stardock missed their own deadline, I'm glad that they're worried about more than that (i.e. stability, user-friendliness, etc.)