I hate it. There's everything else as well as what I have to say. I have decent internet however (I assume to save on bandwidth) the video will only buffer x amount from where you are so you can't pause a video for to buffer the entire thing. So I let it play through then start again and it buffers all over again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I used to let the entire video buffer and then play it through when I had slow internet that couldn't play video smoothly while streaming. However, now I have a fast enough connection there is no real reason to do that any more that I can see. It only buffers so much, but that doesn't really effect the experience and it saves a hell of a lot of potentially wasted bandwidth, both for Google and the user. And on the odd occasion when I really want to skip about, mess around with and look closely at things (or watch a something in really high res ) I'll use a tool to download the whole video and use mediaplayer. However, having said that, I bet there is a script knocking about that forces the video to fully load on Youtube.
Actually, there's a video explaining why they only buffer 40 seconds now: https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions/328181796
I was testing this out on a 720p video for my own curiosity. It does stop buffering at 40 seconds but if you press play it starts again. But when I restart the video it appears to start over but it's buffering from memory cause it's not using my internet. It will kick in soon but this is buffering not using internet after a restart just before where it says hd.
I resorted to buying YTD Pro and queueing all my favourite stuff in there. I have more hard drive space than bandwidth, so it makes sense. The throttling of the buffer just isn't intelligent enough to allow proper viewing on a middling internet connection like mine (~7Mb). Youtube isn't the only content provider that does this - I recently noticed AMD's download servers do it too. Trying to get a driver package, I'd get up to 2MB/s burst but it'd reliably crawl down to 150KB/s after a minute. That kind of throttling irritates me - my connection would allow me to get the file within 2 minutes, and their servers can deliver it that fast, but their automated controls mean that I can't get it in less than 20 minutes. I used filehippo in the end.
I also hate VM, I get half the speed I'm promised, the connection drops once an hour, and they throttle so much...
BT Business Infinity, 80mb connection, 5 IP's, no capping whatsoever, no FUP, £38p/m and great support. Screw you virgin.
You can also do this with VLC: Media > Open (Advanced) Network Tab > Paste video URL* > Play When the video starts to play: Tools > Media Information > Copy the actual video URL Paste into Firefox's** address bar; File > save *http, not https ** I'll just assume you're using the browser of champions. I guess you could scrape by with Chrome or perhaps Lynx. Does anyone use text browsers anymore? I'ma get Tim Berners-Lee on the phone, he'll know.
For Virgin Media, to get flawless YouTube; all you need to do is block VM's own caching servers. I'l find an instructional and post it when I have a moment.
Ever heard of this thing called JDownloader. You know, that free multiplatform downloader application which among other things let's you download Youtube videos. Random youtube link copied to clipboard, and this is what you get : PS: It has bunch of options about what to grab if you want to limit the list.
I'm an avid jdownloader user, but for a long time it would only download youtube videos in the lowest quality, despite me trying to tell it to do otherwise. Perhaps it's been ironed out since then, but at the time YTD was my only option. It's also much more streamlined, efficient and easy to use, and I like supporting well-made software with my money.
Sure, but $39.99 ? I buy good software which deserves it (Total Commander, WinRAR, DisplayFusion), but still, $40 for a Youtube downloader ? PS: And sometimes i buy software which doesn't deserve my money at all (*cough*Nero*cough* and especially their upgrade policy).
I'm pretty sure I didn't pay that for it, IIRC it was about $20. Maybe they're ramping up prices in response to their increasing popularity (I call this the Cyberlink Maneuver). I pirate Nero. I pirate it like it's gold-plated rubies. I pirate it with passion and vengeance. For the sake of Bit-Tech's forum policy on piracy, I expressly discourage anybody from following my example, but I pirate the hell out of it. Because I resent that they've been making essentially the exact same product for fifteen years while tacking on more and more useless gumpf to justify the same disproportionate price (I call this the Microsoft Office Maneuver).
I just don't use Nero anymore, as i don't have the installer anymore and it can't be downloaded anymore from their website, so my serial key for $50 or how much was it is useless. And i don't use pirated software either, there is no point anymore, as there is either a good free alternative, or it is built-in in the OS, or there is a product with better licence - for example i like Total Commander/WinRAR/DisplayFusion/Jaikoz because of their lifetime upgrade licences, so i don't have to pay for upgrades (yes, i bought a licence for TC and WinRAR, i am really strange am i ?).
