Ah, that's a good clarification then.
Since Firefox doesn't support ActiveX by default, and the 1998 WMP plug-in
for Netscape Navigator 3.0 is ... from 1998 and no longer supported (to my
knowledge), I believe you would need at this time to use the ActiveX Plug-in
for Firefox--
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=206213
if you wanted this to work.
-Zach
--
Speaking for myself only.
See
http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--
"Onyerbike" <> wrote in message
news:4894004B-CFC7-4B4A-8DFB-...
>I primarily use Firefox, not IE. But I just checked in IE, and it is
>enabled,
> and video links work fine in IE. When I'm in Firefox, I get a new window
> opened saying that no Media Player is detected. When I click the button to
> Get The Player, it takes me to the Microsoft Download Center to download
> WMP
> 11 for XP.
>
> Is there something in Firefox that I should be enabling that I might have
> missed? Shouldn't it be automatically detected?
>
> "zachd [MSFT]" wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you have WMP enabled in IE's Tools:Manage Add-Ons?
>>
>> --
>> Speaking for myself only.
>> See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> --
>> "Onyerbike" <> wrote in message
>> news:E32F50E1-056A-418E-A11B-...
>> > Ever since buying my new computer with Vista, I can't watch video
>> > links.
>> > For
>> > example, when I click on the video news links on cnn.com, I get a
>> > window
>> > saying Windows Media Player is not detected, and I'm directed to
>> > manually
>> > download the plug-in. But I do have WMP - the newest version is on my
>> > computer, and I've used it. But no matter what I do, I can't get it to
>> > be
>> > recognized for links. I have resorted to opening RealPlayer and going
>> > to
>> > the
>> > site on there, and then opening the link in RealPlayer.
>> >
>> > Is this yet another Vista peccadillo, or is there something I should be
>> > doing to fix this annoying problem?
>>
>>
>>