Talk:Miro (video software)

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can it read rmvb? 89.214.25.177 (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot being used is very old - at version 0.9.9 while the current version is 2.0.3. I presume that uploading a newer one (as the ui is significantly different enough) would be worthwhile? Faemir (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Go right ahead! --85.77.199.25 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the screenshot from 0.9.9 to 3.5. CyberWasteland (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The substantive content of the article is barely a dozen sentences or so (as of this note); it is dwarfed by a multi-screen table of the version revision history, down to four-decimal version numbers, some only days apart, most giving no information other than the version number and date. This seems awkward and not very useful. Perhaps just a brief mention of major upgrades, and a note on the name change, would suffice?KTK (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should provide the intended pronunciation. I for one haven't been able to locate it... Cub

Sort of on that note, I've been wondering how they decided on this name. What immediately came to mind for me is that "miro" in Japanese means "look" (the imperative, as in, "Look over there!") If that's where they got the name, then it would be pronounced "MEE-roh". Does anyone know where they got the name? NoriMori (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/mIɹo/ according to the speaker in the video on the getmiro.com homepage 24.101.187.174 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think note should be made in the article that this softwares newest version, 3.0.3 by default it seems contains malware, something Ad-Aware id's as "Zugo (fs)" ..

80.220.201.10 (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above poster is probably referring to the toolbar added by the installer for the Windows build. See [1] where the Participatory Culture Foundation representatives explain why they use the Zugo installer and that users have the choice of not using the installer. See also [2] and [3]. I may be too close to this topic having used Miro on Windows, both the official Windows build and a portable apps build, and having found and removed Zugo traces on my PC (flagged as adware and toolbar Zugo by

VIPRE, see [4]). The toolbar appears to be not present in the portable version, see https://www.virustotal.com/file/b7c70e9ccd14b3a098029a4ac10363e8f93f00df89cfadc29f94093cbde7f24a/analysis/

.

However, from a wikipedia viewpoint I searched for reliable sources that mention Miro with Zugo or toolbar: Google news only found [5] and [6]. Google web search finds many more results including this list of software derived from this Installers Hall of Shame list that also bundle toolbars and other adware. That list includes such well-known software as Adobe Flash Player, Avast, Google Earth, and Sun Microsystems Java installer, none of whose articles mentions adware or bundling. One exception is IrfanView#Search Engine Toolbar cited by a CNET post. This CNET Editors' review criticizes the toolbar installation in MIRO but does not label it adware or malware. Finally, Martin Brinkmann of Ghacks covered adware bundling in other installers in this post. -84user (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody fix my reference if I don't get back to this in time. Also the references and links are all mixed up.--tumaru 03:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumaru (talk • contribs)

I remove some reports of scumwaare in Miro as this is certainly caused by people that downloaded 3rd party infected versions of miro (vla suffers a similar problem because of its good name.

It would be good if this topic got covered from the other angle, here is an official blog post on the topic

http://blog.l0cal.com/2011/07/07/these-companies-that-mislead-our-users/

coverage of that blog post: http://www.geek.com/articles/news/vlc-media-player-suffering-in-face-of-crapware-and-uncaring-google-2011077/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientus (talk • contribs) 12:05, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Restored deleted malware section, which was properly cited. The official site for Miro Video Converter [7] hosts a Windows installer that tries to install some "AVG anti-virus" package with an overreaching EULA. It's not some third party doing this. John Nagle (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When pushed, the authors admitted that the drive-by installer was added to produce revenue.[8]. John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/674vofIJQ?url=http://blog.getmiro.com/2007/03/a-name-change/ to http://www.getmiro.com/blog/2007/03/a-name-change/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927131044/http://www.getmiro.com/blog/2007/07/announing-miro/ to http://www.getmiro.com/blog/2007/07/announing-miro/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://develop.participatoryculture.org/index.php/ConversionMatrix
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bugzilla.pculture.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15208

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the intro text has been updated, most of the body of the article is still written as if Miro and a bunch of the PCF's other defunct projects are still active. Given that it's a dead project, and the article is now only useful for historical purposes (eg for anyone wanting to study the code, or the evolution of independent media in the digital age), it probably makes sense to heavily prune it down to what can be found it suitable third-party sources. What do others think? --Danylstrype (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]