Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

When will Quicktime be ready for prime time?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 11:31:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.

The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
know what is. (!)

So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?

Pigeon
April 13, 2004 11:31:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Pigeon Hohl" <pigeon@dontfeed.org> wrote in message news:meXec.8279$A_4.5950@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>
> The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
> and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
> in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
> I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
> a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
> know what is. (!)
>
> So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
> enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
> to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?

Whenever I come across a website that uses QT .mov
(and the far more insidious Real Media) clips, I write the
web designer(s) a polite note asking them to please join
the 21st century. There's no excuse for it anymore.
Properly encoded MPEG-1 with decent source matches
or beats QT in almost all cases.

BTW one does not need QT to view MPEG4.

Rick
Anonymous
April 13, 2004 11:31:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Pigeon Hohl wrote:

> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> having to download the free QT player.

That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 12:03:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:31:30 GMT) it happened Pigeon Hohl
<pigeon@dontfeed.org> wrote in
<meXec.8279$A_4.5950@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:

>It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
>there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
>having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
>folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
>the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>
>The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
>and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
>in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
>I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
>a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
>know what is. (!)
>
>So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
>enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
>to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?
>
>Pigeon
I dunno, there is for example no quicktime 6 plugin for netscape in Linux
last time I looked.
Really really weard.
I just put DivX on my site, that people who have Linux can play with
mplayer -cache 512 url
(and that in .avi format).

So, and even mediaplayer plays that after downloading, if DivX codec
installed.
The windows .wmv is also very good, especially with low bitrates, but
all sorts of license stuff you have to think aboy IIRC.
There will probably likely never be just ONE format.
JP
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 1:08:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <407C4D8E.7A1C1CA4@hotmail.com>,
Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Pigeon Hohl wrote:
>
> > It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> > there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> > having to download the free QT player.
>
> That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen.


New to usenet?

Pigeon
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 1:38:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <c5hg4u$1pp10$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:


> Properly encoded MPEG-1 with decent source matches
> or beats QT in almost all cases.
>


From the samples I've seen, the file sizes have been much larger
with MPEG 1 to get quality comparable to Quicktime.
I'm trying to get the best quality at the smallest possible size.


> BTW one does not need QT to view MPEG4.


Can you point me to some on-line samples I can check next time I'm on a
Windows machine--without downloading any special plug in?

Are you saying that Windows and Linux media players can view Mp4 video
right now--as is?

This would be great--if it's true.

Pigeon
April 14, 2004 1:38:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Pigeon Hohl" <pigeon@dontfeed.org> wrote in message news:a5Zec.8834$A_4.1484@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In article <c5hg4u$1pp10$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Properly encoded MPEG-1 with decent source matches
> > or beats QT in almost all cases.
> >
>
>
> From the samples I've seen, the file sizes have been much larger
> with MPEG 1 to get quality comparable to Quicktime.
> I'm trying to get the best quality at the smallest possible size.

For web use? People either have broadband or they don't.
And 85% of the world still doesn't. A few MB (or even
more than a few) won't make much difference.

> > BTW one does not need QT to view MPEG4.
>
>
> Can you point me to some on-line samples I can check next time I'm on a
> Windows machine--without downloading any special plug in?
>
> Are you saying that Windows and Linux media players can view Mp4 video
> right now--as is?

No. But the point is, it's faster/easier/better to simply install
a codec, rather than install an entirely separate viewer.

Rick
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 1:38:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c5hq99$1uq7b$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Pigeon Hohl" <pigeon@dontfeed.org> wrote in message
news:a5Zec.8834$A_4.1484@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > In article <c5hg4u$1pp10$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Properly encoded MPEG-1 with decent source matches
> > > or beats QT in almost all cases.
> > >
> >
> >
> > From the samples I've seen, the file sizes have been much larger
> > with MPEG 1 to get quality comparable to Quicktime.
> > I'm trying to get the best quality at the smallest possible size.
>
SNIP

> No. But the point is, it's faster/easier/better to simply install
> a codec, rather than install an entirely separate viewer.

Rick, it may be faster/easier/better for you to simply install a codec or a
QT player. However, let's say you want to deliver video to a diverse group
of net users that are for the most part in large companies with large IT
departments. Your target audience consists of a few people in one or two
small departments of those companies. What choices make sense for you now?
How will you handle all the customer service calls asking, "How do I play
your video?" It is one thing to provide a solution appropriate for your
girlfriend who is off to college. It is quite another to deal with
compatibility issues in a business environment. It is why so many of us
struggle along with MPEG 1 rather than formats capable of higher quality vs.
file size.

Steve King
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 2:00:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:29:02 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C4D8E.7A1C1CA4@hotmail.com>:

>
>
>Pigeon Hohl wrote:
>
>> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
>> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
>> having to download the free QT player.
>
>That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen.
Yes and no, because there is no quicktime 6 plugin for netscape in Linux,
any site who does that prevenst Linux users from seeing whatever it is
they have.
Apple should fix this.
Or we should really use a different format.
mpeg4 is just fine.
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 2:00:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:29:02 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C4D8E.7A1C1CA4@hotmail.com>:
>
> >
> >
> >Pigeon Hohl wrote:
> >
> >> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> >> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> >> having to download the free QT player.
> >
> >That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen.
> Yes and no, because there is no quicktime 6 plugin for netscape in Linux,
> any site who does that prevenst Linux users from seeing whatever it is
> they have.
> Apple should fix this.
> Or we should really use a different format.
> mpeg4 is just fine.

My point was that for ANY multimedia type, regardless of whether it's mpeg-4
or some new format from the ET hackers on Setus Prime 7, you're going to have
to have a codec installed in order to view it!

Perhaps the "solution" is to file a lawsuit forcing Microsoft to include
Quicktime player, and for Linux to include Mplayer and Mplayer-plugin (and
the codec pack). No scratch that, that's no solution.

The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download the
plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying in your
beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
grief. That's just SO lame.

It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a few
weeks ago in another group).

Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 2:03:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> My point was that for ANY multimedia type, regardless of whether it's
mpeg-4
> or some new format from the ET hackers on Setus Prime 7, you're going
to have
> to have a codec installed in order to view it!

For wmv files, all flavors of Windows already have the necessary codecs
installed.

> Perhaps the "solution" is to file a lawsuit forcing Microsoft to
include
> Quicktime player, and for Linux to include Mplayer and Mplayer-plugin
(and
> the codec pack). No scratch that, that's no solution.

We agree there.

> The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download
the
> plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying
in your
> beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin!
Good
> grief. That's just SO lame.

A _lot_ of people will just not do that due to the overblown fear of
viri, trojans, etc. I guess you don't work with corporate types very
much?

> It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
> includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a
few
> weeks ago in another group).

Agreed.

> Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.

I wholeheartedly disagree on that one.

Personally, I think Quicktime is already ready for primetime.
Unfortunately, only for people who have Apple boxes. I've made a
decision on my site to only offer wmv files. Like I said before, Windows
users don't have to do _anything_ to be able to view them, which takes
care of 90% of computer users. The other 10% that run Apple or Unix
variants will already know what they have to do to view them. They're
already used to operating in a Windows centric world.
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 3:09:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>,
Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download the
> plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying in your
> beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
> grief. That's just SO lame.


Clearly I'm just not as smart as you;
thanks for taking the time to enlighten me.

Now, when people tell me that they can't view my Mp4 movies
from their windows machines, we can safely suspect they are even dumber
than me; since it's such a simple matter of just downloading a
"freakin" plug-in, you would think they would just "freakin" do it.

I mean, how could they be so stupid?

What a bunch of morons, eh?

Sorry to waste your time.

You may now continue wading through the less-dumb
"What Digicam Under $600 should I Buy?" threads...

Pigeon
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 3:15:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <2a2dnf3YeaO_7OHd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote:

> It is one thing to provide a solution appropriate for your
> girlfriend who is off to college. It is quite another to deal with
> compatibility issues in a business environment. It is why so many of us
> struggle along with MPEG 1 rather than formats capable of higher quality vs.
> file size.


Thanks for pointing that out. There are many, many instances where
downloading a player or a plug-in is simply not an option.

Pigeon
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 3:26:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:03 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>:


>The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download the
>plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying in your
>beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
>grief. That's just SO lame.
>
>It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
>includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a few
>weeks ago in another group).
>
>Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a month
ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch some
site.
Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3 month
later you found it was expired...
So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all have a
fast link.
JP
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 3:26:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:03 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>:
>
> >The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download the
> >plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying in your
> >beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
> >grief. That's just SO lame.
> >
> >It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
> >includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a few
> >weeks ago in another group).
> >
> >Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
> Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a month
> ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch some
> site.
> Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3 month
> later you found it was expired...
> So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all have a
> fast link.
> JP

This is a "video" group.

Quicktime is a video player.

I like seeing video in whatever format it's in. If I don't have the plugin, I
download it. Not a big deal.

I've used a modem too - I've downloaded 200 MB of Linux updates over a modem
(right before I decided that if I was going to use Linux I needed broadband. ;->

But I've never griped about having to download a Quicktime player.

It's just stupid to be griping about something so trivial.

Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by millions of
people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security fixes... ;->
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 3:26:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407C7937.285890C0@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:03 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> > <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > >The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download
the
> > >plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying
in your
> > >beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
> > >grief. That's just SO lame.
> > >
> > >It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
> > >includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a
few
> > >weeks ago in another group).
> > >
> > >Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
> > Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a
month
> > ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch
some
> > site.
> > Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3
month
> > later you found it was expired...
> > So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all
have a
> > fast link.
> > JP
>
> This is a "video" group.
>
> Quicktime is a video player.
>
> I like seeing video in whatever format it's in. If I don't have the
plugin, I
> download it. Not a big deal.
>
> I've used a modem too - I've downloaded 200 MB of Linux updates over a
modem
> (right before I decided that if I was going to use Linux I needed
broadband. ;->
>
> But I've never griped about having to download a Quicktime player.
>
> It's just stupid to be griping about something so trivial.
>
> Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by
millions of
> people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security
fixes... ;->

Keith, you don't seem to get it. You are (probably from you use of the
language) one freakin' teenager with nothing but time on your hands. The
rest of us are talking about solutions for video delivery to people in
corporate environments, who can barely find their keyboards, who cannot
install anything on their computers for fear of their jobs, but who need to
see our stuff. When you grow up, you'll have a wider view of the world.

Steve King
>
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 3:26:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407C7937.285890C0@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:03 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> > <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > >The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download
the
> > >plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying
in your
> > >beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
> > >grief. That's just SO lame.
> > >
> > >It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
> > >includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a
few
> > >weeks ago in another group).
> > >
> > >Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
> > Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a
month
> > ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch
some
> > site.
> > Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3
month
> > later you found it was expired...
> > So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all
have a
> > fast link.
> > JP
>
> This is a "video" group.
>
> Quicktime is a video player.
>
> I like seeing video in whatever format it's in. If I don't have the
plugin, I
> download it. Not a big deal.
>
> I've used a modem too - I've downloaded 200 MB of Linux updates over a
modem
> (right before I decided that if I was going to use Linux I needed
broadband. ;->
>
> But I've never griped about having to download a Quicktime player.
>
> It's just stupid to be griping about something so trivial.
>
> Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by
millions of
> people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security
fixes... ;->
>

And, to add to my other points earlier posted... in the past decade I have
not run across a single client using Linux. So, I don't spend a lot of time
worrying about that.

Steve King
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 6:06:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Pigeon Hohl wrote:
> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.

If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
downloading a movie over the internet anyway.

-Richard
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 6:19:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Pigeon Hohl wrote:

> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>
> The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
> and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
> in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
> I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
> a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
> know what is. (!)
>
> So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
> enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
> to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?
>
> Pigeon

I wrote this in response to another topic, but I think it fits here too..

There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can create
using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.
This is something new that allows you to embed a .flv video into a flash
application. You then place your flash embedded file into your web
page. Why??.. because if you used Flash as your player, you would solve
a huge amount of compatibility problems and not force anyone to install
another application on their computer. Flash players have a near 98%
saturation on browsers right now over every OS. This option is a little
bit more complex as you'll have to do your homework on this new format,
but it might be worth it to you.

Hope this helps.
-Richard
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 6:19:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
> Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can
create
> using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.

I realize I'm in the vast _minority_ here but I won't allow that
bandwidth hogging piece of s/w on my computer, even though I'm no longer
on dialup. For people on dialup, Flash does nothing but increase the
time it takes for a site to load. A with Flash enabled sites, it's hard
to read with all that blinking and moving going on. IMO, it's the most
abused "feature" anyone can put on their website. A perfect example is
here:

http://www.stevengotz.com/premiere.htm

This guy knows a _lot_ about Premier but try to navigate his site
_without_ Flash enabled. I lose count after _nine_ separate instances
asking me if I want to install Flash. Why do people insist on wanting
people to install s/w just to enable them to navigate a site?

Sorry, but putting video on a site with Flash is not a good idea for
most people... imo of course.
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 6:19:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
news:Mc1fc.2164676$iA2.252692@news.easynews.com...
> Pigeon Hohl wrote:
>
> > It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> > there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> > having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> > folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> > the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
> >
> > The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
> > and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
> > in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
> > I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
> > a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
> > know what is. (!)
> >
> > So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
> > enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
> > to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?
> >
> > Pigeon
>
> I wrote this in response to another topic, but I think it fits here too..
>
> There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
> Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can create
> using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.
> This is something new that allows you to embed a .flv video into a flash
> application. You then place your flash embedded file into your web
> page. Why??.. because if you used Flash as your player, you would solve
> a huge amount of compatibility problems and not force anyone to install
> another application on their computer. Flash players have a near 98%
> saturation on browsers right now over every OS. This option is a little
> bit more complex as you'll have to do your homework on this new format,
> but it might be worth it to you.
>
> Hope this helps.
> -Richard
>
Thanks for mentioning Flash. Some people seem to hate web sites that use
it, but I suspect that they are substantailly in the minority. I'm working
on a new web site. I'll make sure to look at your suggestion.

Steve King
April 14, 2004 6:19:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Morrmar" <morrmar@myway.com-no spam> wrote in message news:X52fc.25818$UC4.19991@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> > There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
> > Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can
> create
> > using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.
>
> I realize I'm in the vast _minority_ here but I won't allow that
> bandwidth hogging piece of s/w on my computer, even though I'm no longer
> on dialup. For people on dialup, Flash does nothing but increase the
> time it takes for a site to load. A with Flash enabled sites, it's hard
> to read with all that blinking and moving going on. IMO, it's the most
> abused "feature" anyone can put on their website. A perfect example is
> here:
>
> http://www.stevengotz.com/premiere.htm
>
> This guy knows a _lot_ about Premier but try to navigate his site
> _without_ Flash enabled. I lose count after _nine_ separate instances
> asking me if I want to install Flash. Why do people insist on wanting
> people to install s/w just to enable them to navigate a site?
>
> Sorry, but putting video on a site with Flash is not a good idea for
> most people... imo of course.

Agreed, at least 99%. If you use Flash, always have a bypass
option, with a way to navigate around the site without using it.

Rick
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 1:49:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Steve King wrote:

> "Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:407C7937.285890C0@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >
> > > On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:03 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> > > <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>:
> > >
> > > >The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download
> the
> > > >plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying
> in your
> > > >beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
> > > >grief. That's just SO lame.
> > > >
> > > >It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
> > > >includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a
> few
> > > >weeks ago in another group).
> > > >
> > > >Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
> > > Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a
> month
> > > ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch
> some
> > > site.
> > > Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3
> month
> > > later you found it was expired...
> > > So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all
> have a
> > > fast link.
> > > JP
> >
> > This is a "video" group.
> >
> > Quicktime is a video player.
> >
> > I like seeing video in whatever format it's in. If I don't have the
> plugin, I
> > download it. Not a big deal.
> >
> > I've used a modem too - I've downloaded 200 MB of Linux updates over a
> modem
> > (right before I decided that if I was going to use Linux I needed
> broadband. ;->
> >
> > But I've never griped about having to download a Quicktime player.
> >
> > It's just stupid to be griping about something so trivial.
> >
> > Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by
> millions of
> > people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security
> fixes... ;->
>
> Keith, you don't seem to get it. You are (probably from you use of the
> language) one freakin' teenager with nothing but time on your hands. The
> rest of us are talking about solutions for video delivery to people in
> corporate environments, who can barely find their keyboards, who cannot
> install anything on their computers for fear of their jobs, but who need to
> see our stuff. When you grow up, you'll have a wider view of the world.
>
> Steve King
> >

Grow up yourself.

I happen to be someone who works with Linux every day for a living and has no
tolerance for bullsh*t like this.

The fact remains that Quicktime (Sorenson codec) is an excellent quality format,
which is why so many people like to produce trailers in that format.

If you're too lazy or stupid to download a player, then too bad so sad for you,
but the fact remains that Quicktime is very much "ready for primetime".

So stop the stupid whining already that it wasn't pre-installed for you (you
sound like a bunch of cry-babies with nothing better to bitch that you're not
getting enough freebies), and grow the hell up yourself, butt-munch.

Don't bother replying, I killed this topic in my reader...
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 1:50:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Richard Ragon wrote:

> Pigeon Hohl wrote:
> > It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> > there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> > having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> > folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> > the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>
> If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
> downloading a movie over the internet anyway.
>
> -Richard

Bingo!

Very well said.
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 4:10:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407D6BBC.7417F8A9@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Richard Ragon wrote:
>
> > Pigeon Hohl wrote:
> > > It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> > > there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> > > having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> > > folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> > > the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
> >
> > If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
> > downloading a movie over the internet anyway.
> >
> > -Richard
>
> Bingo!
>
> Very well said.
>

So, Keith had his feelings hurt and is opting out of the thread. Good. He
never once addressed the issue that I tried to explain, i.e., that QT is
often just impossible for use for Windows dominent business use. On the
other hand, for individual users who are even mildly computer literate it is
terrific. Looks good. Small file size. But, it is still not a geek centric
world. If it ain't built in to the box that's a huge problem to overcome.

Steve King
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:26:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Steve King wrote:

> "Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:407D6BBC.7417F8A9@hotmail.com...
>
>>
>>Richard Ragon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pigeon Hohl wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
>>>>there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
>>>>having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
>>>>folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
>>>>the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>>>
>>>If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
>>>downloading a movie over the internet anyway.
>>>
>>>-Richard
>>
>>Bingo!
>>
>>Very well said.
>>
>
>
> So, Keith had his feelings hurt and is opting out of the thread. Good. He
> never once addressed the issue that I tried to explain, i.e., that QT is
> often just impossible for use for Windows dominent business use. On the
> other hand, for individual users who are even mildly computer literate it is
> terrific. Looks good. Small file size. But, it is still not a geek centric
> world. If it ain't built in to the box that's a huge problem to overcome.
>
> Steve King

Steve, this would be a business decision by the system administrators,
and not by the users of the computers. There's absolutely nothing wrong
with running QT on windows what-so-ever. It runs quite good on windows,
and I personally have the Pro version which gives me tools to be able to
convert QT to .AVI, or even .MPG files.

So, I don't know where this is going.. Except round and round.

-Richard
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:26:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

He
> > never once addressed the issue that I tried to explain, i.e., that QT is
> > often just impossible for use for Windows dominent business use. On the
> > other hand, for individual users who are even mildly computer literate
it is
> > terrific. Looks good. Small file size. But, it is still not a geek
centric
> > world. If it ain't built in to the box that's a huge problem to
overcome.
> >
> > Steve King
>
> Steve, this would be a business decision by the system administrators,
> and not by the users of the computers. There's absolutely nothing wrong
> with running QT on windows what-so-ever. It runs quite good on windows,
> and I personally have the Pro version which gives me tools to be able to
> convert QT to .AVI, or even .MPG files.
>
> So, I don't know where this is going.. Except round and round.
>
> -Richard
>

Richard, I do not disagree with anything you or others have said about the
viability of putting a QT player on computers nor do I disagree with the
idea that QT is a top performing delivery tool. What I am trying to say,
evidently very badly, is that the installed base determines what formats
suppliers like myself utilize. I from time to time have to post files for
approval by people in many different facilities within a company with
offices across the country whose equipment is administered by a gaggle of
system administrators. It is simply not profitable for me to spend the time
communicating with all of these people to get them to install QT. And, the
people I really need to reach with my material are disinclined to fight
these battles for me. They just want to see the material, say its good to
go as an expert on the content or change this or that. So I make my
material available in a form suitable for playing on their systems AS THEY
ARE. If Microsoft were to do a deal with Apple to include QT as part of
their operating system, I would use it, not that that is even remotely
likely. My job is to produce video and get it to my clients with the tools
they have. Nothing said here implies that I prefer a particular codec or
that I have a bias for or against MS or Apple or Linux.

Given the circumstances I described above, would you take a different
approach? And, if so, what?

Steve King
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:29:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:35:19 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C7937.285890C0@hotmail.com>:

>Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by millions of
>people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security fixes... ;->
I still use win 98, and all the rest in Linux.
So who cares about updates ;-)
JP
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:39:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:50:04 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407D6BBC.7417F8A9@hotmail.com>:

>
>
>Richard Ragon wrote:
>
>> Pigeon Hohl wrote:
>> > It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
>> > there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
>> > having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
>> > folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
>> > the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>>
>> If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
>> downloading a movie over the internet anyway.
>>
>> -Richard
>
>Bingo!
>
>Very well said.
No it is nonsense, and this because anyone is free to download, there are many
types of plugings, and indeed wmv you need no plugin for and so saves you 10MB
download, and a dollar or more anytime if you have dial up here.
And many short movies in quicktime are not even 10 MB.
NEVER insult the visitors of your website by ONLY presenting latest tech,
which, very often is NOT better, ALWAYS also present an older standard.
At least this was net etiquette before the 'shockwave' 'future splash'
'realplayer' 'quicktime' and a lot of other high bandwidth bloated stuff
appeared that kidies like you get a hard one from.
You do not make it with me that way.
JP

>
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:43:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Morrmar wrote:

>>There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
>>Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can
>
> create
>
>>using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.
>
>
> I realize I'm in the vast _minority_ here but I won't allow that
> bandwidth hogging piece of s/w on my computer, even though I'm no longer
> on dialup. For people on dialup, Flash does nothing but increase the
> time it takes for a site to load. A with Flash enabled sites, it's hard
> to read with all that blinking and moving going on. IMO, it's the most
> abused "feature" anyone can put on their website. A perfect example is
> here:
>
> http://www.stevengotz.com/premiere.htm
>
> This guy knows a _lot_ about Premier but try to navigate his site
> _without_ Flash enabled. I lose count after _nine_ separate instances
> asking me if I want to install Flash. Why do people insist on wanting
> people to install s/w just to enable them to navigate a site?
>
> Sorry, but putting video on a site with Flash is not a good idea for
> most people... imo of course.

Getting tried of making this argument over and over.. but.

An automobile can be used to take your kids to the hospitable in case of
an emergency.. A automobile can also be used to run down a whole bunch
of people on the sidewalk.. Does this make the automobile a bad thing?
Of course not, the driver is who is responsible. So, the same goes
for flash.. most people get a hold of Flash MX, and suddenly think they
are Flash Artist just because they can push the right buttons on a
program. In the hands of amateurs this can be a really bad thing..

So.. Why are you not blaming the author of the web page, instead of the
tools that he used?

-Richard
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 4:16:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:49:24 -0700, Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Quicktime is very much "ready for primetime".

Only with QT alternative. Otherwise, it requests an astounding,
irritating, absurd, insulting amount of computer power. I would rather
convert a Mov to an Avi, than open it in Apple's player.
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 8:34:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <XN6dnT4Mns9PKuDdRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
"Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote:

> If Microsoft were to do a deal with Apple to include QT as part of
> their operating system, I would use it, not that that is even remotely
> likely.


This sort of gets back to the original question:

Will Quicktime *ever* become wide-spread?

I see that MS Explorer is bundled with new Macs; MS Office is virtually
ubiquitous in the Mac world; Microsoft now owns Virtual PC.

So why will we never see Quicktime bundled with Windows?

Pigeon
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 8:36:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <407D6B94.3780BD6C@hotmail.com>,
Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Don't bother replying, I killed this topic in my reader...


Good riddance. And not a minute too soon.

Pigeon
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 1:54:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Your videos requires windows media player. Windows Media Player is a
> program that has to be installed, and doesn't even come with the
Windows
> OS. Simple fact.. I tried it with WindowsXP, and it launched with
> associating it with my windows media 9 player plugin and then launched
> it and played.. You should at least place the "windows media player
> needed" logo on your page.

I don't understand how you say it's a separate program that needs to be
installed. I've never had to install Media player seperately from any
install of Windows I've ever done. In fact, trying to _remove_ it is
almost impossible. The only thing you can do is remove it from the Start
menu and the Desktop. I use Media Player Classic from Sourceforge.net
and had to manually set all of my video associations to it from Windows
Media Player just to use it instead of WMP.

> However, I also tried to click on the links with my Red Hat Linux Box,
> and it tried to simply download the file with no way to handle it??
> Same with my Mac OSX machine..
>
> So it appears that you've locked out a huge group of not only Linux
> people, but Mac people too.. Which is entirely your right by the way,
> but in no way is your web page cross compatible.

I mean no disrespect here, but it's not a huge group... probably less
than 5-10% of all computers and most of them are Apple. And I feel that
most people who use Unix variants and Apple boxes will know how to view
a wmv, becasue they are quite used to working in a Windows centric
world. The file has been accessed over a thousand times now and I have
yet to receive a complaint about a user being unable to view it. That's
not to say it hasn't happened but again, with the small percentage of
non-Windows users, it's not a concern to me.

> Here's a much better example of a video web site done entirely in
Flash.
>
> http://www.reevolution.tv/main.php
>
> The Flash provides a user with simple, easy to navigate menus, while
> embedding the video into the flash itself so that no additional
software
> (such as the windows media plug in) is needed. This provides minimal
> use of bandwidth, while maximizing cross compatibility. Which means
> that every single OS can access this site, and view it's content..
Even
> smart internet devices such as the new internet cell phones, and
> internet ready PDAs.

Sorry, I couldn't view your site because, as I've said, I will not
install the plug-in, for reasons I've already mentioned. So all I get
with your site is a big box with a small red X in it.

Like most things on Usenet, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this
one. <g>
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 9:42:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Morrmar wrote:

>>Your videos requires windows media player. Windows Media Player is a
>>program that has to be installed, and doesn't even come with the
>
> Windows
>
>>OS. Simple fact.. I tried it with WindowsXP, and it launched with
>>associating it with my windows media 9 player plugin and then launched
>>it and played.. You should at least place the "windows media player
>>needed" logo on your page.
>
>
> I don't understand how you say it's a separate program that needs to be
> installed. I've never had to install Media player seperately from any
> install of Windows I've ever done. In fact, trying to _remove_ it is
> almost impossible. The only thing you can do is remove it from the Start
> menu and the Desktop. I use Media Player Classic from Sourceforge.net
> and had to manually set all of my video associations to it from Windows
> Media Player just to use it instead of WMP.

Wow.. This shows you the power of Microsoft.. You didn't even know that
Windows Media Player 9 has to be installed separately. It doesn't come
with Windows XP.

Here's the download page:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/g...

There are several ways that Microsoft mussels it into your system
without much thought on your part. In fact, people like you didn't even
know it. I recently installed a WindowsXP system and I tried to put it
off, but eventually it won out because of the XP updates needed. Several
updates claim they are WMP dependent. There's just certain winXP updates
that will refuse to upgrade on the machine, until you install it.
Microsoft used this very same tactic with the IE browser too claiming it
was necessary for the OS.

So somewhere along the line you probably installed it, wither it on
windowsupdate.com, on some game CD-ROM, or combined with another program
somehow.. Your the typical windows user that probably just hits the
next button, and doesn't even know what's going on in the background,
never even reading the EULA's.

Oh well..



> Like most things on Usenet, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this
> one. <g>

Understood.. I'm a professional web developer myself and my clients who
are business professionals want their sites to be assessable to the
maximum amount of people. Because you never know who that one user who
has that Mac machine, might end up buying a large amount of product or
service from my client. iTunes proved this when they first put up the
iTunes store.. Apple users make up only 5-10% of the computer users, but
that small percentage outsold every single PC based on-line music store,
and continues to do so week after week over again. However, amateur
sites like yours, you're not required to make them accessible to anyone,
and you have that right.

-Richard
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 10:39:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Wow.. This shows you the power of Microsoft.. You didn't even know
that
> Windows Media Player 9 has to be installed separately. It doesn't
come
> with Windows XP.

I certainly hope you are more informed about web development than you
are about Windows. Media Player is an _integral_ part of XP, you
_cannot_ install XP without installing media player. In fact, the EU is
suing MS because it's so integrated. See here:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/200...

and here:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115399,00.asp

> There are several ways that Microsoft mussels it into your system

Yeah, it's called installing the s/w.

> without much thought on your part. In fact, people like you didn't
even
> know it. I recently installed a WindowsXP system and I tried to put
it

People like me? You have no idea who I am or what my technical
capabilities are.

> off, but eventually it won out because of the XP updates needed.
Several
> updates claim they are WMP dependent. There's just certain winXP
updates
> that will refuse to upgrade on the machine, until you install it.
> Microsoft used this very same tactic with the IE browser too claiming
it
> was necessary for the OS.

Your ignorance of XP is showing, media player is installed with the OS.
You don't seem to be real *nix literate either, judging by Jan's post.
Better stick to Flash.

> So somewhere along the line you probably installed it, wither it on

Yeah, when I put the XP disk in and ran setup.exe.


> windowsupdate.com, on some game CD-ROM, or combined with another
program
> somehow.. Your the typical windows user that probably just hits the
> next button, and doesn't even know what's going on in the background,
> never even reading the EULA's.

Now tell me again exactly _how_ you know what type of person I am? You
_appear_ to be a typcial Usenet blowhard who thinks he knows more than
he does. Unlike you however, I don't ASSume anything about anyone on
Usenet, that way I don't prove myself ass. Too late for you.

> and continues to do so week after week over again. However, amateur
> sites like yours, you're not required to make them accessible to
anyone,
> and you have that right.

Gee, thanks. I feel much better now that you've told me I have that
right.
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 11:03:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Pigeon Hohl wrote:
> In article <XN6dnT4Mns9PKuDdRVn-uA@comcast.com>,
> "Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If Microsoft were to do a deal with Apple to include QT as part of
>>their operating system, I would use it, not that that is even remotely
>>likely.
>
>
>
> This sort of gets back to the original question:
>
> Will Quicktime *ever* become wide-spread?
>
> I see that MS Explorer is bundled with new Macs; MS Office is virtually
> ubiquitous in the Mac world; Microsoft now owns Virtual PC.
>
> So why will we never see Quicktime bundled with Windows?


The answer is Microsoft. They don't want to bundle anything that will
compete with their own proprietary format.
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 11:19:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> The answer is Microsoft. They don't want to bundle anything that will
> compete with their own proprietary format.


I would think it has more to do with licensing fees than anything else,
not counting Gates and Jobs egos of course. <g>
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 12:51:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Morrmar wrote:

>>The answer is Microsoft. They don't want to bundle anything that will
>>compete with their own proprietary format.
>
>
>
> I would think it has more to do with licensing fees than anything else,
> not counting Gates and Jobs egos of course. <g>
>
>

You might think that, but thinking it doesn't make it so.

In the early days of QuickTime (mid 80s), Apple actually provided the
player to Microsoft and IIRC it was bundled with Windows. Once Microsoft
figured out how to do it, they produced their own software and dropped
QuickTime.

Licensing fees have nothing to do with it. Apple provides the player
without charge. It has more to do with Microsoft wanting to leverage
their majority market share to force out the competition. This thread is
proof that it is working.
!