keel
6th December 2005, 22:54
For some reason the message I was responding to was closed.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=746715#post746715
As I had my answer ready, I'm taking the liberty of posting it.
just how many Apple shares do you have? You are the most blind apple loving invidual I've seen on this board.. anybody without blind brand loyalty would realize Apple's major flaws in the video area.No shares or payments/renumeration ever made by Apple to me. I have not only said good things about Apple, I have in my messages also pointed out that:
1. I don't agree with Apple's policy that you have to pay for full-screen playback in QT.
2. Apple has released an immature implementation of AVC.
3. Apple is not prioritizing its "to do" list in a way doom9 members would want
4. Doom9 members are not the typical QT users, because of its characteristics.
5. They are probably not fixing the bugs you'd like fixed.
6. They will probably never fix some bugs.
7. Apple's implementation of MPEG4 simple profile was not very good, and has admitted it.
8. I have not encouraged anyone to use QT and its H.264 for DVD ripping, and mentioned there are better solutions. No FUD there.
What about 3ivX, DivX5? Does ffplay or mplayer not work on the Mac?I mentioned in several posts that 3ivx offers a nice MPEG4 SP profile implementation on the Mac. But it's not a player, you still need QT to play it. Divx is also only a codec, and not a player so it still needs QT, and Divx does not work on OSX 10.4 and QT7. ffplay does not work on the Mac. There is an mplayer for the Mac, there are quite a few bugs
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=502356&group_id=62947&func=browse
I will admit some users might rather deal with mplayer's bugs than QT's.
And what the heck is it with that Mac fixation? Apple's market share in the computer biz is insignificant, it is easily toppled by Linux, and this reflects upon the the population of this forum as well, as well as open source projects, that are rather brought from Linux to Windows as to another OS because the potential userbase is so much larger.
People choose their own computer platforms. I work both on PCs and Macs, but prefer the Mac. It's never bothered me that I'm in the minority, why should it bother anybody else? Are you saying Mac users are not allowed to post if they say anything positive about their platform?
Hmm, let's see. Do I install a 30 MB package of a software that keeps running in my task bar unwanted, and requires content to be created according to its likings, or do I install the 3 MB package called ffdshow, that not only plays AVC, but does so without annoying limitations, and plays that many other codecs that QT turns red in shame. Or you could throw in another 3 MB and get MPC along with that so you get the free DVD player as well. It's no harder to install ffdshow than it is QT, but the size is one tenth and the gains are tenfold.ffdshow and MPC, afaik, don't work on the mac. VLC has only recently developed into a good player, and is becoming popular with Mac users. With 500 gig drives, 30 gig portable devices and high-speed internet, I don't think a 30 MB player is an undue burden to download once. This is only the file size of one high-quality scan, or a few minutes of video. How much CPU an application uses, and background processes, are issues.
And they're going to install QT? Hell no, any serious entity will stay away from any multimedia software, it's about working, studying, not leisure. Not sure if you've been on a US college campus recently, but digital video is used considerably in support of teaching, which means QT, Real or WM. I doubt you would find many schools without one or more of the three technologies. A considerable amount of instructional support is going on-line.
Meanwhile, most of the students with portable music players have iPods, which means iTunes and QT on their PC. I'm not defending it, just telling you the way it is.
I could go on and on ripping your argumentation apart but I'm too sick and tired of the whole QT here QT there crap. QT is the most annoying thing that happend to this forum in quite a while an I wish we could leave it and its limitations behind already.Well, I'm sorry, I really did not mean to aggrevate anyone. But no-one has to use QT if they don't want to, and I did not start any of the QT discussions. I predict with the introduction of the video iPod and Apple's H.264 there will be many more. If you don't want those topics discussed in doom9 you should make a clear rule and consistently enforce it.
And for christ's sake, QT != Apple so stop being offended already.I was not offended. I do admit I was defensive though, and I apologize. I'll try to become less so, and minimize my verbalization of liking QT/iTunes/iPod technologies so as not to annoy susceptible people in this forum. I will, however, continue to correct any facts that I think are wrong, and am willing to be corrected in return, when I am wrong, and will try to keep learning about video codecs, and act as a humble minority.
Peace.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=746715#post746715
As I had my answer ready, I'm taking the liberty of posting it.
just how many Apple shares do you have? You are the most blind apple loving invidual I've seen on this board.. anybody without blind brand loyalty would realize Apple's major flaws in the video area.No shares or payments/renumeration ever made by Apple to me. I have not only said good things about Apple, I have in my messages also pointed out that:
1. I don't agree with Apple's policy that you have to pay for full-screen playback in QT.
2. Apple has released an immature implementation of AVC.
3. Apple is not prioritizing its "to do" list in a way doom9 members would want
4. Doom9 members are not the typical QT users, because of its characteristics.
5. They are probably not fixing the bugs you'd like fixed.
6. They will probably never fix some bugs.
7. Apple's implementation of MPEG4 simple profile was not very good, and has admitted it.
8. I have not encouraged anyone to use QT and its H.264 for DVD ripping, and mentioned there are better solutions. No FUD there.
What about 3ivX, DivX5? Does ffplay or mplayer not work on the Mac?I mentioned in several posts that 3ivx offers a nice MPEG4 SP profile implementation on the Mac. But it's not a player, you still need QT to play it. Divx is also only a codec, and not a player so it still needs QT, and Divx does not work on OSX 10.4 and QT7. ffplay does not work on the Mac. There is an mplayer for the Mac, there are quite a few bugs
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=502356&group_id=62947&func=browse
I will admit some users might rather deal with mplayer's bugs than QT's.
And what the heck is it with that Mac fixation? Apple's market share in the computer biz is insignificant, it is easily toppled by Linux, and this reflects upon the the population of this forum as well, as well as open source projects, that are rather brought from Linux to Windows as to another OS because the potential userbase is so much larger.
People choose their own computer platforms. I work both on PCs and Macs, but prefer the Mac. It's never bothered me that I'm in the minority, why should it bother anybody else? Are you saying Mac users are not allowed to post if they say anything positive about their platform?
Hmm, let's see. Do I install a 30 MB package of a software that keeps running in my task bar unwanted, and requires content to be created according to its likings, or do I install the 3 MB package called ffdshow, that not only plays AVC, but does so without annoying limitations, and plays that many other codecs that QT turns red in shame. Or you could throw in another 3 MB and get MPC along with that so you get the free DVD player as well. It's no harder to install ffdshow than it is QT, but the size is one tenth and the gains are tenfold.ffdshow and MPC, afaik, don't work on the mac. VLC has only recently developed into a good player, and is becoming popular with Mac users. With 500 gig drives, 30 gig portable devices and high-speed internet, I don't think a 30 MB player is an undue burden to download once. This is only the file size of one high-quality scan, or a few minutes of video. How much CPU an application uses, and background processes, are issues.
And they're going to install QT? Hell no, any serious entity will stay away from any multimedia software, it's about working, studying, not leisure. Not sure if you've been on a US college campus recently, but digital video is used considerably in support of teaching, which means QT, Real or WM. I doubt you would find many schools without one or more of the three technologies. A considerable amount of instructional support is going on-line.
Meanwhile, most of the students with portable music players have iPods, which means iTunes and QT on their PC. I'm not defending it, just telling you the way it is.
I could go on and on ripping your argumentation apart but I'm too sick and tired of the whole QT here QT there crap. QT is the most annoying thing that happend to this forum in quite a while an I wish we could leave it and its limitations behind already.Well, I'm sorry, I really did not mean to aggrevate anyone. But no-one has to use QT if they don't want to, and I did not start any of the QT discussions. I predict with the introduction of the video iPod and Apple's H.264 there will be many more. If you don't want those topics discussed in doom9 you should make a clear rule and consistently enforce it.
And for christ's sake, QT != Apple so stop being offended already.I was not offended. I do admit I was defensive though, and I apologize. I'll try to become less so, and minimize my verbalization of liking QT/iTunes/iPod technologies so as not to annoy susceptible people in this forum. I will, however, continue to correct any facts that I think are wrong, and am willing to be corrected in return, when I am wrong, and will try to keep learning about video codecs, and act as a humble minority.
Peace.