Windows 11 New Media Player Uses 3.5x More RAM, Charges for Popular Video Codecs

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 5:13 PM UTC

concinds wrote: post #29

est31 wrote: post #16

Removing HEVC support wasn't their choice but probably stems from the licensing pools increasing their prices [1]. Windows media player probably sees very little usage nowadays and probably even less for HEVC, when most content playback happens via streaming and browsers today. As for the RAM increase, well that's probably a consequence of the general trend of doing frontend engineering via JS/TS instead of using OS…

'It's worse for our users, but easier for our developers' is an unacceptable tradeoff, they deserve the backlash.

Post by srdjanr » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 5:20 PM UTC

SupLockDef wrote: post #42

cfiggers wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... Yes, but there's nuance here. Using 400 MB of RAM vs 100 MB of RAM is close to unnoticeable in a world of a GB+ for a single Chrome tab ... And if "easier for our developers" means the end user is getting more regular updates with fewer critical issues, then it's not an uncomplicated tradeoff at all, parts of it are actually synergistic.

There is no nuance in 400%...

Post by whatevaa » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

functionmouse wrote: post #4

megamike wrote: post #2

Is vlc still popular and widely used or is there a new 'kid' in town?

mpv is really good but a little light on the GUI; I recommend VLC for most people

Post by notpushkin » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 5:29 PM UTC

accrual wrote: post #35

IronWolve wrote: post #21

Do people still use the K-Lite Codec Pack so their players have all the codecs installed? Or just use vlc?

I loved the K-Lite Codec Pack and CCCP (Combined Community Codec Pack) back in the XP days, especially while exploring MKVs and anime, but I virtually never run into a media file that VLC or MPC-HC can't play by default these days. Just drop it in and it plays.

Post by t-writescode » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

pdhborges wrote: post #36

cfiggers wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... Yes, but there's nuance here. Using 400 MB of RAM vs 100 MB of RAM is close to unnoticeable in a world of a GB+ for a single Chrome tab ... And if "easier for our developers" means the end user is getting more regular updates with fewer critical issues, then it's not an uncomplicated tradeoff at all, parts of it are actually synergistic.

How come I have never seen this tradeoff work in practice?