# Websites running away from Qucktime?



## mi5moav (Jun 25, 2005)

Another one bites the dust. First it was MSNBC that went windows only with their video clips. Now it looks like CNN is going Windows media only with their video clips. Does anyone know of a good news outlet that still uses QT clips and if no... why all the defections and does Apple even care about QT anymore? Does it even make any money off of it anymore?


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 25, 2005)

mi5moav said:
			
		

> Another one bites the dust. First it was MSNBC that went windows only with their video clips. Now it looks like CNN is going Windows media only with their video clips. Does anyone know of a good news outlet that still uses QT clips and if no... why all the defections and does Apple even care about QT anymore? Does it even make any money off of it anymore?


Have you forgotten what the _MS_ in _MSNBC_ stands for? As for CNN, you will notice that its news videos are now free. You will also notice that clicking to play them sends you to a window which implores you to download Windows Media Player. This is called an _advertisement_. CCN's news videos are now paid for by Microsoft advertisement money. Do you really think that it is in Apple's best interests to get into a bidding war with Microsoft over news videos?


----------



## gerbick (Jun 25, 2005)

Well, let's see.  BBC uses Real Player now mostly.  They don't have any affiliation with Microsoft... nor Real for that matter.

It's all about choices, and lately, Quicktime gets bigger and bigger, filesize.  And in the Flash that I use, *.wmv seems to be getting smaller and smaller.  Especially when I use Microsoft's Media Encoder to crunch it down... does an even better job than Sorenson Squeeze.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 26, 2005)

QuickTime movies have not been getting bigger and bigger in terms of filesize -- in fact, the exact opposite has been happening.

We first had .mov in the 90s (which is still used, filesize has remained pretty constant)... then we had MPEG4, which was MUCH smaller (and better!)... now, we have H.264, which makes the file size even smaller still (and even better still!)... when exactly did QuickTime file sizes get bigger?

Microsoft does have a pretty good stronghold in the small-scale streaming video market... it's unfortunate.  QuickTime peaked every once in a while for the last 10 years or so, and was almost the de-facto standard in the beginning.  It's unfortunate that a technology so widespread (runs very well on both Intel/Windows and Mac hardware/software -- unlike WMP) and transparent to the user is not dominant... but then, we have to remember that our computing world is dominated by Microsoft, so it shouldn't be surprising that use of WMP over QuickTime is extremely widespread.

A lot of websites used to offer a choice between 2 or 3 media players (WMP, QT, Real) and offered a "smart" preference so you only had to select once (probably a simple cookie on your system).  That takes server space and triples the amount of streaming video support (in terms of both machine and human) those companies would require.

Sucks.


----------



## Shookster (Jun 26, 2005)

I think Microsoft invests more in their streaming video technology than Apple does. It's because Microsoft desperately wants WMV to be the standard for Video On Demand and other such services. They would make a hell of a lot of money doing that.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 26, 2005)

As long as whatever is used is playable on Macs and as on as many platforms as possible, I'm not really bothered. But many sites I've tried using Microsoft video formats seem to offer poorer performance than Quicktime equivalents, never really objectively tested it though. Real as used on the BBC (and I use BBC pages a lot) seems to be very lumpy on Linux and Mac compared to Windows, again I've not wasted time testing it but that seems to be my impression.


----------



## Randman (Jun 26, 2005)

It also matters that most of these sites aren't the friendliest to navigate through and so they cater to Windows folks, which makes up the most numbers. But, if you notice, most movie trailers are in Quicktime.

QT is doing quite well, on the PC and Mac side.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 26, 2005)

Although I did notice Revenge of the Sith didn't appear on the Apple site, unlike the previous two, I thought that was odd.  Unless I just missed it.


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 26, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> Although I did notice Revenge of the Sith didn't appear on the Apple site, unlike the previous two, I thought that was odd.  Unless I just missed it.


This is why you don't see the Star Wars Episode III trailer on the QuickTime webpage.


----------



## mi5moav (Jun 26, 2005)

It looks like if Microsoft gets all the news media outlets to use windows media then all the cell phone companies will have no choice but to use Windows media in their cellphones to bring us video content. So, this is not good if Apple is looking to bring itunes to mobile phone users. So, if this Cingular deal does goe through, Motorola will have to include both QT and Windows Media Player on their phones. I think MLB is already using Windows Media. Of course their are java players but I have a feeling within 3 years or less every cell phone out their will have a Windows or Windows Media Logo load before any video clip is payed on a cell phone.

I know that MSNBC is in partnership with Microsoft...though speculation is that may end.(wonder if Apple and NBC may team up now that Microsoft has gone with CNN) The problem is that unless you have Windows they won't even let you play their video. Supposedly becuase of DRM issues or whatever...though I can watch MSNBC videos using virtual pc.

Apple to acquire NBC


----------



## gerbick (Jun 26, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> QuickTime movies have not been getting bigger and bigger in terms of filesize -- in fact, the exact opposite has been happening.


Matters... between 5.0, 6.0, and now 7.0, I've seen some bloat.  Only via tweaking do I keep the same filesizes as the prior version.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 27, 2005)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> This is why you don't see the Star Wars Episode III trailer on the QuickTime webpage.


Yeah I know it was on that site, but Apple carried the last two as well, that's what I mean't. I just thought it was odd. Anyway...


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 27, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> Yeah I know it was on that site, but Apple carried the last two as well, that's what I mean't. I just thought it was odd. Anyway...


It's not odd at all. Even though it was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, the Universe changed a lot between Episode II and Episoode III. Fox wants you do join up before you can can view the Episode III trailer. Otherwise, they won't let you see it.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 27, 2005)

I see, for a fee I guess  I guess my brain was far far away


----------



## fryke (Jun 27, 2005)

Yep, the Star Wars 3 thing has not much to do with "sites moving away from QT". In General, though, I think Apple has to maybe rethink their strategy with QuickTime. They've done a lot for video in General, but good deals with news sites etc. could help QuickTime even more.


----------



## Ripcord (Jun 30, 2005)

I don't know much about what's happening in the content serving side of the business, but my personal experience is that users tend to *hate* the Quicktime player.

Most users I talk to (admittedly mostly Windows users) avoid the Quicktime player like the plague.  Not because of anti-Apple sentiment, but because compared to alternatives the _player just stinks_.

I have to admit I have a lot of sympathy for this.  Here are the common complaints (that I share, though most of these are Windows-oriented):

* Player quality is just terrible.  Slow, unreliable, memory hog, especially on Windows.  The player underneath is largely unchanged from the OS 9 days, and the interface just doesn't *feel* modern, no matter how much brushed metal and shalack is laid on top of it.
* Nagware.  NO, I do NOT want to spend $30 so that I can view movies in full screen.  Stop asking me (or, in QT7, stop reminding me that I'm running crippleware with the "Pro-only" upgrade reminder menu items)
* The fact that I have to spend $30 so that I can view movies in full screen!  Come on, guys, you might as well charge users $20 for popup blocking in Safari, or spam filters in Mail.app...  I don't care how many other features I will never, ever use come with it.
* Sneakware.  QT historically has really, REALLY wants to be the default player for everything in Windows.  This is one of the main things that lost Real so much market share.  Admittedly, both players have gotten a bit better about it, but the memory remains (and QT is much less obvious about what it's going to do)
* iTunes sneakware.  Yes, you and I know that there used to be that tiny link on the iTunes download page for the version that didn't forcefully install QuickTime without telling you.  However, 99% of users wouldn't notice that during the first download, and 95% wouldn't know any better on the second.  Good bundling for Apple (I guess), but when the download doesn't mention that Quicktime will be installed, neither does the Installer, and there's no way to deselect Quicktime installation, you can't help but think they're up to no good.  Certainly when Microsoft does the same thing it enrages armies (and lawyers).
    - I notice that the download page no longer has a Quicktime-free option.  Does that mean that they got smart and don't force-install Quicktime, or that it's installed by default without ANY option not to??
* Horrible browser plugin/integration.  Why, oh why, in 99.999% of cases, can't I select to view movies in a separate viewer (not embedded in a standalone page)?  At the very least, give me the option to view the movie at x2 magnification so I can actually **SEE** those 180x120 movies on my 20" widescreen.

Sadly, at this point _I'd rather watch movies in Real Player than in Quicktime_.  I'd say so would the majority of non-zealot users.  Think about that.

QT 7 is a baby step in the right direction.  However, a new codec and slightly spiffed interface is not what it needs.  Apple has let their QT opportunity dwindle for waaay too long.  Please, just hire a few more developers (or SOMETHING) and show the other guys how it's done!


----------



## Ripcord (Jun 30, 2005)

Actually, I guess the installer mentions that it will install Quicktime (and at least now allows the user to turn "Make Quicktime my Default Player" off, which is on by default)...However, it looks like they've eliminated the Quicktime-free installer altogether??  At the very least they're hiding it better, but can anyone confirm that I'm wrong?


----------



## Shookster (Jun 30, 2005)

I've got one to add to that. Why oh why would I want a Quicktime icon in the system tray? I only need it running when I actually want to play a movie. I don't want it there all the time.

On that note, why does iTunes insist on running the iPod service in the background? I haven't even got an iPod and I want to disable it but it keeps coming back.


----------



## fryke (Jun 30, 2005)

Erhm, I hope this thread won't just become a discussion of whether or not QT on Windows is any good...

But fact is: iTunes _depends_ on Quicktime, therefore QT must be installed on Windows - or iTunes just doesn't run. They could've put another copy of Quicktime _inside_ iTunes, but I guess _that_ would've been called bloatware, then. That the installer wants QT to be the default for everything was a reaction to Microsoft (illegally) taking over every filetype with every update to Windows and/or Windows Media Player. At least Apple's installer _asks_ about it. (Well, I guess Windows does now, too, since that was part of what they had to change when they were found guilty.)


----------



## Pengu (Jun 30, 2005)

how many windows apps DONT just associate themselves, or ask when first launched?

the iPod service is running so that you dont have to do anything when you do finally get one. it provides the apple "it just works"(tm) experience.


----------



## Ripcord (Jun 30, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Erhm, I hope this thread won't just become a discussion of whether or not QT on Windows is any good...



The discussion supposedly is about websites running away from Quicktime.  Were I a content producer or distributor, I would certainly be extremely concerned about users' uptake of the player app.  I think the discussion (yes, mostly Windows-based, but, well, that's where the vast, vast majority of players are) is very appropriate.



> But fact is: iTunes _depends_ on Quicktime, therefore QT must be installed on Windows - or iTunes just doesn't run.



Funny, it ran just fine while I was testing this and had Quicktime completely uninstalled.  However, I see that you're right, their website now claims that QT is required.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 30, 2005)

I'm more than OK with QuickTime, but I hate QT Player (without it being pro). Justifiably, too - it's horrible - particularly on a PC.

And it's looked like that for years!

The only PC users I know who leave QT Player on their systems are those who know where to obtain QT Pro keys (if you understand my drift). So Apple isn't gaining anything from them.

Apple - get rid of the splash nag. Get QT out of the system tray (and out of memory). Give QT Basic full-screen playability. Rework the QT icons so they actually utilise the advantages of the OS (alpha blending on icons for instance - though I haven't seen QT7 for Windows).

The splash nag and the full-screen playability is true on the OS X platform too. It's a joke. People don't trust QT Player, so they don't like QT. So they don't use QT sites.

I still think all online content should be in MPEG form these days, and Microsoft really ought to open the WMV3 codec.


----------



## Shookster (Jul 1, 2005)

Ripcord said:
			
		

> Funny, it ran just fine while I was testing this and had Quicktime completely uninstalled. However, I see that you're right, their website now claims that QT is required.



Ah, I've tried that. You can't use the iTunes Music Store.

I used to use WMP because it was already installed on the system and *seemed* pretty good. It was only when I got an iPod and was forced to use iTunes and Quicktime that I realised how boated and buggy it was. The Real lawsuit should have sorted out that problem except Microsoft were very crafty in pricing their non-WMP edition. They made it the same price as the normal edition so that people wouldn't buy it because they'd get less value for money.


----------



## fryke (Jul 1, 2005)

texanpenguin said: "People don't trust QT Player, so they don't like QT. So they don't use QT sites."

You have to trust me in that I see that differently. The people I know mistrust Microsoft. And even on their PCs (Yes, I'm constantly trying to tell them they can't mistrust MS and use Windows at the same time...), they actually like QuickTime more - just because of that. They don't use the player much, but they choose QT on websites where there is an option to choose. They've heard of security issues with WMP and they feel the movie quality is better in QT.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jul 2, 2005)

I'm like that too. But you have to realise that the majority of people certainly do NOT mistrust MS. QuickTime doesn't behave in an expectable way, so it frustrates most users.


----------



## fjdouse (Jul 2, 2005)

The impression I get from poor Windows users is that Apple software on PCs suck eggs.  I used Quicktime on a PC once and it wasn't as nicely done as it is on a Mac.  My business partner uses a PC and cannot stand it... or Quicktime 

Quicktime is great on a Mac, Windows Media Player is crap on a Mac
Quicktime is crap on a PC, Windows Media Player (I'm told) is great on a PC


----------



## contoursvt (Jul 3, 2005)

Ripcord hit the nail on the head. I primarily use Windows (I have a B&W G3 but it doesnt get used often anymore)... and I cant stand quicktime anymore. I have always found quicktime to feel slow to launch and at least on windows it was always a bit buggy. I hate the nagging and to be honest, I find quicktime to be quite poor. I remember back when I was running an XP 2100 amd system and was trying to watch a 640x480 clip in quicktime at near full screen resolutions and I was getting huge framerate drops and 100% cpu usage. I downloaded a WMV version of the same file and CPU usage was no more than say 50% to 60% and no frame drops. 

In fact, I hate quicktime so much, that its only second to me hating Realplayer which I refuse to install at all. If I want to watch something that is realplayer format... I just dont    Ya I'd rather just skip what ever it is. I was going to do the same for Quicktime until I found this:

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/QuickTime_Alternative.htm

Its free, it doesnt nag me and uses mediaplayer classic as its player.

Also how come MOV files dont seem to stream as nice. I mean lets say someone happens to post a MOV file on their website. You click on it and the browser pretty much sits there until download is done and then it plays. WMV files play almost instantly.


----------



## Shookster (Jul 3, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> Quicktime is great on a Mac, Windows Media Player is crap on a Mac
> Quicktime is crap on a PC, Windows Media Player (I'm told) is great on a PC



Actually, I thought WMP was better on a Mac. It crashes less, it doesn't freeze or hang and because they like to cripple their Mac programs, it's a lot less bloated.

I think all of their software's better on a Mac. They crippled MSN Messenger, but in some ways that's good because they seemed to run out of ideas for version 7 and just added load of things that they could make money from. For example, you can search using MSN search for a text string typed into the chat window by clicking a "Search" button underneath the "Send" button. This then displays sponsored results in the chat window. Utterly pointless, particularly as your partner can't see the results anyway, thus making it ill-suited as an IM feature.

Oh, btw, iTunes doesn't work if you install Quicktime Alternative.


----------



## contoursvt (Jul 3, 2005)

I'm strictly a Winamp guy    itunes is nice but it feels kinda heavy. I'm probably too picky. I want everything blindingly fast and dont like waiting for anything to happen. I'd upgrade to a faster box but I'm broke after going with this dual xeon 3Ghz setup with the 15k scsi drives and 2 gig ram and X800XT    It was damn expensive. Well not unreasonably so. Probably the price of an entry level dual G5 2.0.  I chose the biggest heaviest server case I could find so it will never ever get stolen. LOL


----------



## Pengu (Jul 3, 2005)

right. you could have also spent the money you spent on that case on this new invention, insurance.


----------



## contoursvt (Jul 3, 2005)

Well pengu, unless I could insure something the price of a dual G5 2.0  for say 2-3 years for $100 (price difference in the case) then I'm pretty sure I've made the right choice    Oh not to mention the incredible cooling its got. I was pretty amazed. Super hot running 3Ghz xeons running at 100% load and getting no hotter than 55C is very good especially considering that the coolers are passive. No loud cpu fans for me. Case fans are 120mm (3 of them) and are variable speed depending on temperature. Maybe some of the poor people with the dual G5's should try and switch to this case seeing some are complaining about very high temps    Its not pretty but definitly has room and does the job.

http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/1.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/2.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/3.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/4.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/5.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/6.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/7.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/8.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/9.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/10.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/chenbro/11.jpg


----------



## fjdouse (Jul 3, 2005)

My eyes! My eyes!  Take that PC away!!


----------



## contoursvt (Jul 3, 2005)

LOL I said it was ugly   Anyway that my primary box and my B&W G3 is now my 2nd box. Anyway the point was that quicktime on the PC kinda sucks and its probably why there might be some sites not using it anymore.

LOL I just thought of something. fjdouse, you have a mac mini. I think I can put at least 15 of those mac minis in this server case. LOL.


----------



## fjdouse (Jul 3, 2005)

Ye Gods! ;-)  You should have seen the PC's I've had, my old Linux/MythTV box was called Leviathon - for a good reason.

Now, take some Apple medicine and buy a nice Mac my friend... 

..and yep, I tend to agree with you about Quicktime on the PC - Apple should do better to demonstrate to PC users that they can make really good software.


----------



## Pengu (Jul 3, 2005)

yes. using windows because the box is too heavy to steal as opposed to using a real OS on a box that is theoretically stealable is the perfect choice.


----------



## contoursvt (Jul 3, 2005)

By real OS if you mean one that has little software selection in stores, has kernel panics at least 5x more than XP ever has bluescreens, feels heavy and sluggish on the GUI, still has permission issues that are rediculous and has terrible openGL performance for games or anything fun and who's last revision is bad enough that every single last mac owner in our graphic design department switched back to 10.3.9 since 10.4 was more problematic than release candide (beta) ever was for XP. Sounds great. Where can I sign up?


----------



## Shookster (Jul 3, 2005)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> By real OS if you mean one that has little software selection in stores, has kernel panics at least 5x more than XP ever has bluescreens, feels heavy and sluggish on the GUI, still has permission issues that are rediculous and has terrible openGL performance for games or anything fun and who's last revision is bad enough that every single last mac owner in our graphic design department switched back to 10.3.9 since 10.4 was more problematic than release candide (beta) ever was for XP. Sounds great. Where can I sign up?



I don't understand what's wrong with Tiger. I think it's great.


----------



## contoursvt (Jul 3, 2005)

Well I personally have not tried it but at work on my 2nd box I use 10.3.9 and the graphic design dept runs the same. The guys at the design departement went out and picked up 10.4 and within 2 weeks all were frustrated for assorted reasons and went back down. One guy said that its got too many little bugs and that maybe 6 months from now after a few updates, it will be ready. He said itw as unstable and he has probs with certain apps he could not get going and also claimed that it felt slower on his dual 1.25 G4. I'm only going by what I've heard from people who use MacOS every day and I know they have more experience with it than me. I do mostly PC support and some mac support but I dont know it well enough to be the primary support person. My B&W G3 is not bad but I have had my share of kernel panics - more than I'd like and I hardly have any software on there. Maybe the box needs a firmware update but I personally have not found it as stable as Win2k or XP (virus and spyware aside)


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jul 3, 2005)

Yeah, I'm calling BS on your assessment. Just as someone needs to know Windows well enough to not get infected with adware/spyware within 10 minutes of being connected to the internet, your graphics people need to know Macs. If they are having kernel panics - there is a problem. 

Mac OS X is rock solid. No OS is without problems though. If you receive a kernel panic, there is something wrong wither either:
a) Your HD
b) Your memory
c) an app/kernel extension

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the KP's happen at random intervals, it's not a particular app causing them. Have them remove any 3rd party RAM and try running with the factory RAM for awhile to see if that alleviates the problem. If that doesn't, then the problem is most likely the hard drive. Perform a back up, wipe the drive and zero it out, do a fresh install, and add you files back slowly. 

Tiger has been running on my Mac and every Mac in my office just fine since the week after it's release. We're running Photoshop CS, Studio MX, and a dozen or so smaller apps with zero problem. And speeds are as fast as Panther. Actually, faster, especially in the startup routines, which are considerably shorted with Tiger.

Did your friend with the dual 1.25ghz (same machine I have at work) do a clean install, an archive install, or an upgrade? If the latter, have him try either a clean install or an archive/install. That should fix most problems.



			
				contoursvt said:
			
		

> Well I personally have not tried it but at work on my 2nd box I use 10.3.9 and the graphic design dept runs the same. The guys at the design departement went out and picked up 10.4 and within 2 weeks all were frustrated for assorted reasons and went back down. One guy said that its got too many little bugs and that maybe 6 months from now after a few updates, it will be ready. He said itw as unstable and he has probs with certain apps he could not get going and also claimed that it felt slower on his dual 1.25 G4. I'm only going by what I've heard from people who use MacOS every day and I know they have more experience with it than me. I do mostly PC support and some mac support but I dont know it well enough to be the primary support person. My B&W G3 is not bad but I have had my share of kernel panics - more than I'd like and I hardly have any software on there. Maybe the box needs a firmware update but I personally have not found it as stable as Win2k or XP (virus and spyware aside)


----------



## nixgeek (Jul 3, 2005)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> By real OS if you mean one that has little software selection in stores, has kernel panics at least 5x more than XP ever has bluescreens, feels heavy and sluggish on the GUI, still has permission issues that are rediculous and has terrible openGL performance for games or anything fun and who's last revision is bad enough that every single last mac owner in our graphic design department switched back to 10.3.9 since 10.4 was more problematic than release candide (beta) ever was for XP. Sounds great. Where can I sign up?



Usually I try and stay out of this, but here goes...

*Windows is a REAL OS* 
Personally, I think a real OS is something that allows you to do your tasks safely and securely without the fear of some rogue application installing itself and mucking up of your computing experience.  This also includes the myriad of software that is necessary to run in the background to prevent these rogue applications from installing themselves.

I also think each revision of said "real OS" should make your computer function FASTER, not SLOWER.  I don't know about you, but each version of Mac OS X that I've used (from 10.1 to 10.3) has made the system feel _faster_ and more stable than the last.  If you had problems, then consider that it might have been the way you installed 10.4.  I don't know how many times I've told people to install Windows a certain way but you still see people "upgrading" from previous versions incorrectly, and then wonder why everything is messed up. 

Also regarding speed, if you are expecting stellar performance on OS X with a B&W G3 that was introduced a little over 6 years ago, I would like to see you get even the SLIGHTEST performance you'd get on OS X with your G3 Power Mac on a comparable PC from that year running the latest Windows XP.

And here we are still waiting for Loooooooooooong-in-the-tooth-horn to show us a REAL OS.  Although it seems more like hot air since almost everything promised has been removed.  ::sleepy:: 

*Lack of Mac Software in Stores*
I don't know about you, but for most of the major apps out there, there's always (for the most part) a Mac equivalent.  Office, IE (if you choose to use that), Adobe, Macromedia, etc. etc.....  They are all there.

As far as I know, the rest of the apps that aren't on the Mac seem to be poorly developed applications for people that would rather by cheap.  Well, you get what you pay for.  It is very rare to find bargain third-class applications for the Mac since most Mac users wouldn't even bother with such trash.

If by lack of software you mean games??  If you haven't noticed, most of the major games are also available for the Mac.  And even some Mac only titles offer wonderful gameplay, which I'm sure many Mac users can attest to.

Which brings me to my next mention...

*Slower Performance for Games Ported to the Mac*
Again, the emphasis here is PORTED.  Consider that many Windows games are written for DirectX.  This is mainly the reason why most games ported to the Mac perform sluggishly since Mac OS X uses OpenGL.  Most of these ports are not done well either because they don't have the manpower for the port, or they just don't care.  What about those games that were written using OpenGL from the start?  I'm sure those would be running a lot faster compared to the DirectX-Windows-to-Mac ports.  And what about those original games for the Mac???  Trust me, I'm sure they run QUITE fine.

I hate this bickering about OSes as much as anyone else, but I think someone has to come out with the rebuttal.  Anyways, for the record I run Mac OS Classic, Windows, Linux, and I use Mac OS X at my job.  Each and everyone of the machines that I've installed an OS on has been running without issues, although I do have to say that Windows lags behind, especially since I have to protect it with so much software so that it's not compromised in 12 minutes!  There are too many factors to say whether one is more stable than the other, so its safe to say that each can be as solid as the other but it's only as stable as the installation performed by the installer.


----------



## nixgeek (Jul 3, 2005)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> Well I personally have not tried it but at work on my 2nd box I use 10.3.9 and the graphic design dept runs the same. The guys at the design departement went out and picked up 10.4 and within 2 weeks all were frustrated for assorted reasons and went back down. One guy said that its got too many little bugs and that maybe 6 months from now after a few updates, it will be ready. He said itw as unstable and he has probs with certain apps he could not get going and also claimed that it felt slower on his dual 1.25 G4. I'm only going by what I've heard from people who use MacOS every day and I know they have more experience with it than me. I do mostly PC support and some mac support but I dont know it well enough to be the primary support person. My B&W G3 is not bad but I have had my share of kernel panics - more than I'd like and I hardly have any software on there. Maybe the box needs a firmware update but I personally have not found it as stable as Win2k or XP (virus and spyware aside)



What surprises me is that a company with critical files on its computers (be it Mac or PC) decides to upgrade to the latest version right after its release!  If I'm not mistaken, usually a company takes the time to test the software before the upgrade is performed in order to prevent incidents like this from happening.  This was poor decision-making on the part of those in charge at your job.

Again, you mentioned you G3 not being as stable as your Windows machines.  This is a 6 YEAR OLD COMPUTER.  Please share the specs of the components on that G3 and we might be able to tell you why it's so unstable.  For example, cheap memory will definitely give you kernel panics.  Running ANY Norton product will also cause instability on your Mac.  I can say the same about a PC running XP but using crappy software and components.  Again, we need the whole story here.


----------



## nixgeek (Jul 3, 2005)

LOL...how ironic!  ::ha:: 

WIndows Software: Ugly, Boring, and Uninspired


----------



## contoursvt (Jul 3, 2005)

Nixgeek, sorry you misunderstood. The company is still running 10.3.9. Its the users that upgraded their home machines to 10.4 when it was released and after two weeks, downgraded.


----------



## contoursvt (Jul 3, 2005)

I'm supposed to care about what some PSP playing 35 year old thinks?   And what hard hitting fasts... "its boring and ugly and I dont like it". Hey dont use that wrench on that car!!!! "how come???"  ... Its boring and ugly and it doesnt inspire me. LOL.  Sorry had to poke fun. 

I use windows because I find it more stable than OSX (at least on my G3 and the G4 and G5's at work). I also find it much snappier, dont have to deal with file permission issues. I have more games available incase I feel like playing (I'm getting older so I find less and less desire for video games but hey..never know). I also like the idea that I'm not tied into hardware from one manufacturer. If I lose a power supply for example, I can drive 3 minutes to one of 17 computer stores and pick up any brand and power I feel like and it will be 1/8th the price. Same goes for motherboard, processors or any other hardware. 

Most people I find hate microsoft or windows because they feel like their children have been murdered by bill gates or because they are jealous that he's made too much money or just want to go for the underdog. Since Win2k game out, I think windows has been exceptional as a stable and reliable platform. My server is still running win2k which I installed in 2002 and at work we have servers going back all the way to NT4 and they are still going strong.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jul 3, 2005)

ah the time old "lets jack a thread back to Win vs Mac" (someone may blast me for putting windows first there). well done. i'm going to comment, before the mods put a stop to it though....


i'm forced to use my parents dell after a year behind the helm of a dual g5 (my flats contract expired. only TWO months before i can move into my new place). it's so painful. less painfull since i trebled the ram, but painful never the less.

it feels like i'm booted into a skinned windows 98. it feels so... old! it is quite stable now, but it just feel like i'm using a VCR compared tho HD-DVD with MacOS. macos _feels_ powerful, and i think that means a lot. no one program can bring the system down, because it;s not allowed to. £0.02

but this is a thread about quicktime.

so:

i think, as a codec, in terms of image quality, it's very good. H.264 feels powerful. 

as an internet standard, it sucks. given the choice, WMA or Mov, i go WMA. it plays straight away. quicktime loads the whole bloody movie. Come on apple, it's not the 90's anymore. streaming video is here, and it works. (thing is, they CAN do it - watch the apple keynotes - they're all streamed quicktime.)

in terms of the software on the windows platform - its stupid. quicktime gives you a silly splash screen telling you to upgrade to pro while it takes ages to load, we don't even get that. it is slow, and the brushed metal is very slow on the aged OS.

and iTunes - beast of a program, but runs like a dog on windows, using 3 times as much ram as anything else, so everyone hates it. and everyones put off buying a mac - "the software's shoddy on a mac"


----------



## nixgeek (Jul 3, 2005)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> Nixgeek, sorry you misunderstood. The company is still running 10.3.9. Its the users that upgraded their home machines to 10.4 when it was released and after two weeks, downgraded.



Unfortunately, many people get burned because they feel the need to get the LATEST and GREATEST version the SECOND it's released without even considering that maybe their software might act strange after an upgrade.  I always tell people to wait before they upgrade, because there's always issues with upgrades.  This is on both Macintosh and WIndows platforms.

Personally, I believe that unless it improves your computing experience to a high degree, or if there's some critical security patch, then it's not worth upgrading the second the newer version is released.  Wait until it's been tested and reports have come out on bugs, and then if you feel the need, update.  Otherwise, if it ain't broke....


----------



## contoursvt (Jul 3, 2005)

I agree with you 100%. I believe if aint broke, dont fix it    I still use Photoshop 6 and I think its great. I also use Office2000 which I think has more features than I'd ever use. I run XP on my dual xeon which would benefit due to XP's proper support for hyperthreading (so I get my 4 virtual processors). On my older amd box, I just run win2k.


----------



## nixgeek (Jul 3, 2005)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> I agree with you 100%. I believe if aint broke, dont fix it    I still use Photoshop 6 and I think its great. I also use Office2000 which I think has more features than I'd ever use. I run XP on my dual xeon which would benefit due to XP's proper support for hyperthreading (so I get my 4 virtual processors). On my older amd box, I just run win2k.



On my PCs, I mainly run Linux.  I am running Kubuntu on a P3-600 to see if it's worth it for now, but once my main PC (P4 2.8 GHz which I got from a friend with a mobo for 50 bucks) is up and running I will probably install either Debian or Slackware.  OpenOffice on Linux has been great to me, and all the FOS software has met all my needs.  I also have a Motorola StarMax 4000 that I dual boot with Mac OS 9.1 and Debian for when I want to sequence music or do whatever, respectively...   I do plan on purchasing a newer Mac soon so I can run OS X at home....still debating whether to wait for the Intel Macs or pony-up the cash for a used G4 or a Mac mini.


----------



## contoursvt (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm thinking about trying to install linux again and just getting to know it as a server platform. My current server is a ancient ANCIENT dual ppro 200 box with 1gig EDO RAM, 2940uw scsi contorller, 9gig scsi boot and dual 120gig IDE on an ATA 100 controller. Its running win2k server. Its nice but I'm not learning anything new. You think it might be a pain installing linux on such an old box?  Video is a matrox millenium PCI and ethernet is an intel 10/100 so nothing odd about the system..other than it being really old and having no APM.


----------



## mindbend (Jul 4, 2005)

Lt Major Burns,

"Quicktime" does NOT necessarily load an entire movie. QT can be properly served using server side software (free with OS X server). I thnk there are even free third party solutions for QT serving, but I'm really not sure about that.

Alternatively, many QT movies are authored as progressive download, which basically means it plays as it goes. A fast enough connection will effectively make appear as a streaming video.

And I assume you mean WMV, not WMA?

Both formats (QT and Windows Media) can deliver excellent content when properly authored and served (and when the end user has the appropriate connection). To say one is automatically better based on a couple of downloads is absurd. I author for both. I prefer QT because it's vastly more extensible and uses true open standards, not hacked proprietorizations (I just made up a word). Not to mention the QT workflow is second to none.


----------



## Shookster (Jul 5, 2005)

mindbend said:
			
		

> Alternatively, many QT movies are authored as progressive download, which basically means it plays as it goes. A fast enough connection will effectively make appear as a streaming video.



Yeah, that happens with me although I often have to wait until it finishes anyway because it tends to skip frames etc. if it hasn't finished downloading for some reason, even if the section it is trying to play has already been downloaded.


----------

