K-Lite also offers “variants” ranging from a basic barebones codec-only package to one that offers extra bells and whistles, such as a nifty third-party media player and extra DirectShow filters. K-Lite’s site on the other hand made it very easy for me to find exactly what downloads I needed to get for my version of Windows.Īnother point in K-Lite’s favor is the fact that, unlike Shark007 where the installation had to be done exactly a certain way in order to make the new codecs recognizable in Windows, particularly 64-bit editions, K-Lite could be installed in any way, shape or fashion with all the defaults left as they are, regardless of what edition was ultimately installed. In terms of site quality, Shark007’s page lacked a great deal in coherency and was a bit too “noisy”.
I went to the developer sites for Shark007 and K-Lite respectively in order to retrieve the codec packs. And now, I present to you all an epic codec pack comparison showdown! Download and installation Each codec pack was tested in a clean install of Windows by themselves so as not to mess with the results. Since it’s always good to find the best software for any given situation, I decided to give K-Lite a whirl and note any differences. At the request of one of my readers, who goes by the handle “ craigkra” on TechRepublic, I was asked to make a blow-by-blow comparison of Shark007 and another codec pack I had never heard of before, called K-Lite.
App face-off: Shark007 versus K-Lite codec packsĪ reader asked for a comparison of Shark007 and K-Lite and Matt Nawrocki obliged.īack in June, I reviewed a software package that gives Windows a much needed booster shot in the audio and video codec department, allowing one to watch or listen to content in formats not typically supported out of the box by Windows Media Player.
0 kommentar(er)
