Slashdot Log In
10th Anniversary of Quicktime
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Dec 03, 2001 01:28 PM
from the something-to-think-about dept.
from the something-to-think-about dept.
An anonymous reader submitted a story about the 10th anniversary of QuickTime which might not seem like such a big deal unless you set your mental wayback machine to 1991 and remember what we didn't have back then. Bits from Brian Eno and others. Worth reading.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Why do I feel like... (Score:3, Funny)
Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Yay to it's 10th anniversary, I guess... but I doubt it will see it's 15th.
QuickTime isn't a codec (Score:4, Informative)
QT doesn't have a codec, precisely. It's a framework. The QT format allows for multiple codecs.
For example, QT for the Mac comes standard with the following codecs for video:
You can also install your own codecs. I seem to have:
There are a comparable array of audio codecs.
Most of the stuff you see on the web these days is Sorenson. But content creators usually don't work in Sorenson; they work in the higher-quality codecs. I'm leaning towards On2VP3 these days, although in the past I was pretty much a straight-up Indeo man.
It also allows you to encode without using a codec, i.e. raw data & Big Files. This is what the really serious editors with the Really Big Drives (Avid and so on) use.
BTW, the DivX ;-) player for the Mac uses a QuickTime framework, and can play the DivX inside QT player.
Quicktime is not a compression algorithm (Score:5, Informative)
While the most popular codecs involved will change, Quicktime will be around for a long time to come.
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:5, Interesting)
The video you're watching in RealPlayer was at one point a QuickTime file
QuickTime is also much more than just streaming video or Sorenson streams. It handles all kinds of media, and a QuickTime movie is actually a wrapper for multiple media tracks. So you can easily add a MIDI soundtrack (just by cutting and pasting) to a video presentation, playing the lightweight music file through the built-in software synth that supports DownLoadable Sounds (DLS). Then you can layer on a Flash movie for an interface, and a spoken narrative in MP3. You can add transitions that are built-into QuickTime itself. All of these tracks exist within the single wrapper file.
Really, you can't overstate how important QuickTime has been and is now to any kind of computer multimedia.
Microsoft's earlier Video for Windows effort was even found in court to contain stolen QuickTime code. The didn't just copy the architecture, they also used Apple code. It's not surprising, but it's just symbolic of how much more of a leader Apple has been on this front.
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore even with windows if you want support for many of these codecs you still have to go out and hunt down the codec. One of the most annoying things with avi files is the you never know what format they are in. The avi format actually can use as many as 15 separate formats (codecs) which are incompatable with each other.
What I have yet to see anywhere else is a single multimedia layer comprising MIDI synth, picture, video, panoramas, etc.
/rant/
It really is not Apple's fault that Linux developers have payed so little attention to developing Linux based solutions for Apple formats. I finbd it amazing how much of the horrible proprietary windows junk finds it's way to my linux/BSD boxen and how poor support is for Apple things. And then the galling thing is that Apple takes the blame for it here. One example was a suggestion that Apple by using their own filesystem for the iPod was horrible and proprietary and they should have used Fat 32. (reality check here) Apple should ditch their own file format and use Microsofts? kidding, right?
Microsft calls GPL evil, and Apple hires OSS developers and gives source code for core of their _current OS_ away and some of you guys still bash Apple for M$... go figure...
/rant/
Rant Rant (Score:4, Informative)
It really is not Apple's fault that Linux developers have payed so little attention to developing Linux based solutions for Apple formats.
If the quality of responses here is representative of the Linux/Open Source community at large, and I hope it is not, then it would seem that they can't even comprehend what QuickTime is.
QuickTime is not a movie format, at least in the sense that a LOTR trailer is a movie. It is not a codec. It is not an application with a window. It is an architecture and a set of organizing principles to tie time-dependent data together that negotiates amongst an essentially unlimited number of codecs and data formats.
Now, it just so happens that one common use of QuickTime is LOTR trailers. It also just so happens that a lot of people use the Sorenson codec. It also just so happens that there's a somewhat ugly piece of software called the QuickTime Player 4 (but the previous version still works and is nicer). However, that doesn't define what QuickTime is. Maybe people are confused by the fact that the name QuickTime is used in conjunction with other words. Maybe people are confused by the fact that the word used in QuickTime is "movie," even though Apple goes to great lengths to explain that it is not necessarily a literal movie of image frames. Honestly, though, I would expect a community of hackers to be able to look under the hood.
For the people talking about MPEG4, well, it does begin to approach this level of universality, but that's because it is based on Quicktime, with Apple contributing heavily to the standard! MPEG4 is, to all extents and purposes, a new version of QuickTime with some codecs included.
There is nothing to stop you, me, or any Open Source developer from using the QuickTime architecture and file format to do anything from a movie player to controlling the geometry in a 3rd-person shooter to keeping track of thunderstorm data. However, in order to do that, it is necessary to appreciate the value of an overarching architecture rather than a tool to do a thing in a file format.
I wonder if this lack of what must be called "vision" is emblematic of Open Source. I certaintly hope it is not. However, it would be consistent with some of the problems with making a desktop acceptable to the consumer.
One doesn't need to integrate software to the point of stupidity as does Microsoft. However, to achieve synchronicity in a system of pieces, it is even more important to have architectures and organizing principles on the order of QuickTime.
I can produce an image file on the Macintosh and write drivers for QuickTime and be sure that any reasonably well written image-processing program on the Macintosh will be able to use it automatically without my having to do anything else, and that's just the beginning. Doesn't anyone think this kind of capability would be useful on an open operating system?
History (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.friendsoftime.org/ [friendsoftime.org]
-J
I remember... (Score:2)
The Internet (Score:3, Offtopic)
Now look at us. I'm sitting here, reading news on a website named after some punctuation, and worrying about if i can talk about the newest Microsoft internet explorer to my boss, or risk being fired, and turned to the police because i know too much.
Re:The Internet (Score:4, Funny)
Just reload the page at comments(-1).
(geez.. next time I read
You would think with OS X (Score:1, Flamebait)
You would think Apple would easily be able to port over Quicktime to Linux and want to give it away in order to keep M$ from dominating yet another market.
I guess I am just not smart enough to figure out why you would not want to market to non-M$ers. I say give the player away! Make it up on QTpro for Linux like they do with the Win products.
QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:4, Interesting)
they treated it as multiplatform product, ignrored what the competition was doing, updated it frequently to accomodate new technology and changing hardware/software bases, didn't try to make a fortune off of it, and worked with their user/developer base to make sure they got what they needed to deploy it, and treated it as an "open standard" to a large degree
QT has the most stable and best rendering collection of COCDEC's of any of the video players, and for quality of presentation, QT 3D is still way ahead of the competition...
the number and variety of the CODEC's available for QT show a mature platform that can do just about anything possible with the hardware available
i'm associated with a web design company that has done over 200 commercial web sites, including record artists and film sites....
and 3 years ago everyone of the media companies we did business with always wanted QT, NOW, when we get new "Developer Guidelines", they almost always ask for Real or WindowsMedia...
we've continued to push QT, but just finished a film site that we were ordered to use WindowsMedia "or else"
at this rate, WindowsMedia and REAL will not be leaving much room for a competitive product in the next 18-36 months
Hey Apple, how about QT for LINUX???? can it save the day????
or is QT going to be another "stranded" product???
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:5, Informative)
However, that said, QT is a superior product in many ways and it has every possibility of becoming a media platform if of itself. M$ knows this and it scares the hell out of them. This is why they are trying so hard to defeat QT and even tried to kill it a couple of years ago by leveraging Office for Macintosh against Apple.
Don't be suprised to see QT media devices being produced in the next couple of years. All tying into the "Digital Hub" concept.
QuickTime clients are horrible (Score:1, Flamebait)
Birth of Multimedia (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, quicktime allowed the birth of multimedia. The attitudes from the first posters were along the line of "say thank you, and don't forget to kick it as you walk on by"
Of course, if you really like MS Brand Duct Tape, then keep on kicking.
It is sort of like bitching at your grandfather:"I wish you were never born". Which is not exactly bright, on several levels.
Say What You Like (Score:3, Funny)
Same goes for QuickTime. Whine all you like about it not being on Unix, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was the embassador of streaming video for the internet. To this day, without going into the nitty gritty and platform issues, I still prefer the quality of QuickTime over any other format, and will select a QuickTime stream given a choice from any other number of alternatives.
Linux users that yearn for Quicktime! (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately some aspects of the UI don't work but the movies play nicely. I can't wait until TransGaming's WineX [transgaming.com] or stock Wine [winehq.com] runs Quicktime movies as good as mplayer [mplayerhq.hu] plays
Does anyone know exactly how crosspollination between these projects work? I would say that besides GNU and Linux, Wine has the potential to be the most useful piece of code ever created.
10 years and still no Open Source implementation (Score:1, Troll)
It has been 10 years since quicktime, most other codecs have been around for a while (MPEG, etc).
There are a lot of misc implementations of quicktime, mpeg, etc. Most are mediocre at best. Certainly none are of the quality I expect from Open Source software.
I mean even DVD support for Linux isn't that great (hi MPAA!).
So what is the problem? Why can't we get a stable Open Source project that handles video, supports multiple codes, and is Open Source?
Do I have to rely on the crossover plugin and the proprietary QuickTime on Linux? I hope not?
Kevin
happy bithday quicktime :) (Score:1)
Ten years already? (Score:1)
Revisionist History (Score:1, Flamebait)
It seems to me that Sarnoff Labs (RCA) devloped a digital video system that would play back from CD-ROM around 1983, then sold it to Intel in the late 80s which was productized as DVI by around 1990. Subsequently, Microsoft and Apple trumpeted their respective file formats (Quicktime and AVI) but in reality both formats used essentially the same codecs.
If anyone remembers the San Francisco Canyon/Apple/Microsoft/Intel debacle, you'll know just how similar these technologies really are. The Sarnoff Labs technology is likely the progenitor, much the same way that Mosaic is the progenitor of all of the major web browsers.
QT made Myst possible (Score:3, Informative)
the biggest fault from the article (Score:1)
Perhaps Monkey-boy ballmer can star in there next video, sweat filled crap
Hypercard? (Score:1)
A little joke... (Score:1)
what don't you get? (Score:1)
Closed Source
-- Multics
An Article With Real Substance^H^H^H^H^H Bullshit (Score:2, Troll)
Aside from the overblown technological utopianism in this article that would make Theodore Roszak (The Cult of Information) physically ill, we have this man's opinion. Robert X. Cringley, self declared cyber evangelist telling us that QuickTime is the end-all, be-all of ALL multimedia formats. Aside from the fact that he's always prone to blow things out of proportion, Cringley has very little technical knowledge, let alone an understanding of software strucutre (or "guts" as he puts it). (Note he completely ignores that most features found in QuickTime today such as streaming capability and portal functionality were derived from RealMedia's software.) Oh yes, QuickTime has brought about a revolution in digital media! It brought democracy to the web! And nobody has ever duplicated it or surpassed it since! Nonsense.
This is all just foolishness and people need to calm down. It's a media format wrapper (not a codec like MPEG as most of these Slashfools are contending). That's all. QuickTime didn't start a revolution. It didn't change the world. And it certainly isn't the greatest thing in multimedia today. Similar technologies were being developed by a number of groups at the same time and we have equivalent if not better tools for producing and converging digital media today.
Re:An Article With Real Substance^H^H^H^H^H Bullsh (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a QuickTime movie of my rabbits, on my personal homepage in 1995 which, if you had the QT plugin installed, would start playing as soon as it calculated it could reliably play the whole movie without having to pause. The little control bar filled up with gray and then it started playing automatically... very cool.
Considering that the prototype of pro-quality streaming was QuickTime Conferencing [friendsoftime.org] in 1994, allowing n people each to stream video to n-1 friends, I think you've got your chronology turned around a bit.
And I don't know what you mean by "portal functionality" but if you mean what I think, that's pretty trivial :)
Well, that's kind of the point; it wasn't just a codec. At a time when everyone else was doing FLC animation (shudder) or straight-shot MPEGs, Apple envisioned a media format which was extensible and flexible. Its design played well with time. Basically the multimedia revolution has been another case of Apple being the skunkworks R&D department for the entire industry.
Re:A Post With Real Substance^H^H^H^H^H Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
1. That isn't "most features" that is one feature (two if you rally consider "portal functionality" a feature).
2. QuickTime's streaming technology is drastically different from Real's; It uses some of the same codecs as non-streaming video and really helps blur the line between streaming and non-streaming video, making the different versions of the video much easier to manage. QuickTime also uses the RTSP standard.
3.QuickTime's streaming technology delivers at least 4x the clarity of the same video encoded with the Real codec at the same bitrate, so in any event you have to admit that QT streaming video runs circles around Real and WM
4. QuickTime Streaming Server is open source, so you can go look at the "guts" yourself and stop your reflexive Apple-bashing
Oh yes, QuickTime has brought about a revolution in digital media!
True; the sarcastic parts of your post seem to be more accurate.
And nobody has ever duplicated it or surpassed it since!
I think a large part of the article was about how many people have duplicated it. QT still ships with the best codecs, integrates more technologies, and lets content creators do more, so player notwithstanding it is still the best video technology.
It's a media format wrapper (not a codec like MPEG...
That is why it was such a revolutionary technology, although Apple does take a role in the development of some of QT's important codecs, the reason QT allowed multimedia to spread was that it allowed you to deal with codecs transparenttly, even today most people still just think they're dealing with QuickTime video whether it is compressed with the Video or Sorenson codecs, nor will they be aware if the audio is uncompressed, MP3, PureVoice, or QDesign, or even if the author switches codecs midstream (do that with your "equivalent if not better tools").
QuickTime didn't start a revolution. It didn't change the world.
Yeah, that multimedia thing never really caught on.
The author has a very valid point: QuickTime is one of the very few technologies that was responsible for the explosion of a technology and is still the premier technology for it. Don't try to tell me that there are better technologies for multimedia content delivery; real multimedia professionals are not using MPEG or Real, and WM is almost as big a joke as the current Real codec. Today, Cleaner and the Sorenson codec are the Photoshop of high quality web multimedia, sure there are GIMPs of web multimedia, but don't try to say they are better.
I know many /.ers can't use real QuickTime, and I really think Apple should create a Linux version, but lets not have a bunch of sour grapes.
Too bad it's a media program now... (Score:2)
Quicktime definitly has not gotten better in the 10 years it has been out.
Hypercard Hardware? (Score:2)
Wasn't hypercard the popular freebie utility included with Macs back in the late 80's? Was the name later reused for a hardware device?
Why no open source codecs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorensen is probably the highest quality video codec with good compression for QuickTime. But there are a dozen other free codecs, including the widely available H.263 codec.
QuickTime is available on Linux, it's only the Sorenson codec that is not.
Given these simple facts, why does the Linux community continue to bitch about the absense of QuickTime for linux? Where are the open-source codecs to replace Sorenson? Why isn't the community insisting that web authors use a more widely available codec than Sorenson?
Or, to invert the question, why aren't the few open-source codecs that _are_ being developed being developed as QuickTime codecs? Why can't I get OggVorbis as a QuickTime codec? If the open source world built codecs for QuickTime, they would be usable with a minimum of fuss on Mac OS, Windows, and Linux, which would have a huge impact on adoption. Plus, so much of the boilerplate work, like authoring and playback software, would already be done for them!
It's sad, the opportunity being wasted like this.
-pmb
VP3 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why no open source codecs? (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be mistaken about the way codecs are developed. Generally, you develop a codec and create an implementation, and if you want it to be widely adopted you make source available for that implementation (if not completely open source, then you make it available to the standards bodies and their members). The individual developers (Apple in the instance of QuickTime) then implement the codec in their software, in most cases. If Ogg isn't available for QuickTime, that's the result of QuickTime not being popular in Ogg's target audience, as well as Apple not taking the time to implement Ogg (probably because Ogg isn't popular in Apple's target audience, either).
That's a great explanation from the technical implementation point of view, but completely ignores the reality of the end users who actually use software instead of write software.
When you say "The individual developers (Apple in the instance of QuickTime) then implement the codec in their software...", you miss the point of QuickTime.
If the OV developers released their codec as a QuickTime plugin, it would work on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, in any authoring or playback application that understands QuickTime.
Sure, Apple could do the integration for the OV developers. But why should they?
Apple has given the world an open, extensible architecture for multimedia. And no one is using it, because they either believe they need to own the whole widget (Real), or can't be bothered with anything as mundane as users (OV).
For example, Real could implement their entire business on top of QuickTime, and the user experience wouldn't be any different at all, but Real would suddenly only need to do 1/2 the engineering.
The really sad thing is that Apple would rather keep people using their player, so they can display their nag screens, than make plugins readily available for other players, or make a deal with Sorenson to make the format open to others to make those plugins for them.
The plugins (codecs) that Apple ships work in any QuickTime player. The QuickTime Player that Apple ships/sells is just ONE implementation of a QuickTime player. QuickTime itself is free, and widely available! Apple's QuickTime Player is NagWare for buying Apple's Pro Player, but you can get all of the same functionality from any of dozens of other freeware and shareware player applications.
In fact, you can play QuickTime movies from SimpleText on the Mac! That's about as minimal a player as you can find!
In my perfect world, the Open Source community would realize that QuickTime is a vehicle they could "embrace and extend", ensuring that their platforms are first class multimedia citizens.
After all, QuickTime is just an API. There's no reason why the QuickTime API couldn't be the native multimedia API for Linux, even if they shared none of the codecs!
-pmb
Star Wars and QT use (Score:1)
I think it is just because it is the only way to view the latest Star Wars and LOTR trailer. Personally that's the only reason I downloaded QT software.
Might be nice in principle, but.... (Score:1)
Quicktime, quick to tell me I don't have right ver (Score:2)
On a windows platform they were better than REAL, but not WMV
multimedia monopoly (Score:1)
Just plug in this $10000 HyperCard... (Score:2, Insightful)
Converting a single three-minute music video from videotape to a digital video could literally take several days... It required an expensive video editing system, that included a $10,000 professional video card called a HyperCard, a Macintosh and a laser disc player.
Admittedly, I originally presumed Apple's graphical programming language (based on an index card metaphor) was hardware, but that was when I was in Jr. High. These guys could use some fact checking.
typical rewriting of history (Score:1, Flamebait)
I would view Quicktime as more of what big software companies keep doing: using their market position to push through a proprietary document standard. Video ought to be encoded in open, non-proprietary formats, but thanks to Apple, Microsoft, and RealNetworks, almost all our on-line video content requires you to use proprietary software, and almost all our on-line video content will become inaccessible in a few years.
We shouldn't be grateful to Apple for this; to the contrary: we should hold Apple responsible and make sure this doesn't happen again in the future.
Stoopid mistakes in article (Score:1)
While other groundbreaking software has faded into irrelevance -- anybody remember VisiCalc? Mosaic? -- QuickTime has shown remarkable adaptability and staying power.
Mosaic lives on in Internet Explorer and Netscape, and all modern spreadsheets derive conspicuously from VisiCalc. Ms. Chmielewski's opus, in addition to being poorly researched, is as irrelevant as a losing ticket for yesterday's lottery. Let us hope that someday she either learns to do her homework, or at least take kickbacks from the companies whose press releases she regurgitates.
Pioneer in digital video? What about the Amiga? (Score:3, Interesting)
My familiarity with this field is week, but I acknowledge the need to maintain an accurate history free from marketting hype. It was my understanding that the Amiga with the early VideoToaster cards was the first consumer-targetted machine with video editting capabilities, and that the capabilities of Video Toaster was well beyond anything QT could do for several version.
I couldn't find the exact dates on the Video Toaster inception, in my brief search, but I know the amiga was circa '85. Is it that the Toaster isn't considered a consumer-grade video editting tool, or that it is hardware as opposed to QT, or that it came out after 1991 or that the amiga is simply forgetting in a corner of modern computer history?
wow (Score:1)
probable inaccuracy in article (Score:2)
Longevity (Score:1)
After all this was content created circa 1991/1992 and was being played back with QT5 !
Admittedly there was a little scrabbling to find some pretty old codecs that have long since dropped from view - but once found they worked fine on Saturday !
Quicktime for Java exists (Score:2, Interesting)
2- Quicktime for Java is available from the regular quicktime installer. Go install the thing and write a movie player on Linux., or for your other java-enabled portables. I don't know what you're complaining about!
3- Quicktime is the basis of the next mpeg standard precicely because it is widely available and a great architecture for combining all kinds of different media. It is robust and scalable (very tiny streams all the way to HDTV). This is not a closed platform, and will only become more open when mpeg4 is finalized. Sorrensen is licensed, but there are just as many other small-compression formats you can get for free that plug-in to the QT architecture just as well.
4- I use different operating systems for different things. Unix has traditionally been great for server things, Macs for graphics and multimedia, and Windows has been good for keeping Tech Support staff, Security Experts and Lawyers gainfully employed. I am so happy under MacOS X to have a Unix server AND Quicktime AND a decent GUI. I'm not saying it's better for anybody else, but I really like it. If I didn't like it, or I wanted to continue to use other OSes as well, or thought Apple charged too much for hardware, I wouldn't be running it-- but I also wouldn't be complaining that they should give it all away for free.
-The Minister of Quicktime
1991 (Score:1, Offtopic)
-jfedor
QuickTime and NeXTTime (Score:1)
What will be a change for sure is if Steve finally goes for it and lets the Cocoa/Objective-C version of QuickTime with all the NeXTTime stuff merged into it instead of continuing using just the Carbon stuff.
Dark Age of Camelot is Best game of 2001 IMHO (Score:1)
Quicktime is about time, not media (Score:1)
The reason that QuickTime was chosen for MPEG-4 and will survive into the future, is that QuickTime at its core models time, not audio, video, or other media.
maybe this is off-topic... (Score:1)
but when i go to mtv.com, i expect to see music videos... on ANY computer. it seems that they are using realmedia because of corporate alliances.
fuck that.
they should be creating content for everone, not a select few who choose to buy/use certain software.
the same holds true to msnbc and almost all nbc affiliates. i can't look at video feed because... gee-whiz... nbc is in bed with microsoft.
sorry guys - i have mac os x. i expect to be supported. if you expect to be supported as well, take a page from cnn.com's playbook. that's about the only site i can think of that's both large, and (to a good extent) platform-independent.
what is adb? (Score:1)
what is adb?
Re:Ergh. (Score:1)
a) THEY don't provide the support for the pet plataforms
b) the 'superior technology' is not open (and hence can't/shouldn't be a standard)
Re:Apple's a Black Hole (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/stre
Re:quicktime? (Score:1)
Re:Yeah right! (Score:5, Informative)
What Quicktime got right (and it saddens me to see people falling over themselves to flame it B3KUZ 1TZ PRUHP1Et4RY) was that they spec'ed a really nice, solid API with architectural room to grow. When Quicktime was released, mainstream personal computers had 16-33 MHz CPU's, maxed out at 8-16 megabytes of RAM, a 32-bit video card cost >$1000, etc.
Quicktime's API was so clean that a video playing application (such as Popcorn or the original Simple Player) written for Quicktime 1.0 in 1991 can still run on top of Quicktime 5.x today, taking advantage of all the codecs written in the interim period. When Apple added PNG support to Quicktime, any program that relied on Quicktime for graphics file import immediately gained the ability to read PNG files, without even a recompile.
Quicktime is not a video player, it is not a streaming plugin, and it is not a replacement for MPEG.
Re:quicktime? (Score:5, Informative)
I know there are some people out there who are annoyed that Linux is unable to read some Quicktime files out there. That's not Apple's fault at all, rather it is the fault of the compression format used. Most of the Quicktime files are compressed using the Sorenson codec, because of the superior quality and great compression it offers. The problem is that Sorenson holds the patent on the codec and they have only produced a decoder for Windows and MacOS. In order for Linux users to play those Quicktime movies which use the Sorenson codec, Sorenson would have to produce a Linux version of the decoder. There are a few programs out there that can play Quicktime movies, but only the movies that use codecs supported by Linux.
The same thing has happened with AVI on the Mac. There are a few Intel codecs that are used by AVI files which have no Mac version of a decoder. Thus, viewing an AVI on a Mac is kind of a crap shoot. I'm sure that this is a planned thing by Intel. Fortunately AVI seems to be dying a slow death as better formats are appearing.
That being said, Quicktime fully supports mpg. In fact, there are only a few odd or proprietary formats that Quicktime can't or doesn't support.
Re:proof? (Score:2)
The next version of Quicktime will support MPEG4 but not DiVX.
The file format MPEG4 uses is the quicktime file format.
Re:Not an open format ! (Score:2)
I am fed up with this Quicktime !
I am running Unix systems on my machines and I am really fed up to hit the famous: This web page require a quick time plug-in, go to download it !
THERE IS NO QUICKTIME PLUG-IN FOR UNIX
How good can be a format that is not OPEN ????
Developper have to buy the right to code a reader for this format !
This is outrageous ! But, after all, Apple and Microsoft have the same goal... world domination. Microsoft had just done some steps further than Apple. That's all.
I am fed up with this Apache !
I am running Windows systems on my machines and I am really fed up to hit the famous: This IIS server needs to be patched in order to not kill routers and tie up Internet traffic with malicious worms like Code Red and Nimda! Go run Apache if you want a real Web server!
THERE IS NO APACHE WEB SERVER FOR WINDOWS!
How good can be a Web server be that is not running on Windows ????
Developper have to buy a non-Windows computer to run this Web server !
This is outrageous ! But, after all, Microsoft and Linux/UNIX have the same goal... world domination. Microsoft had just done some steps further than Linux. That's all.
Re:yuck (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, QuickTime isn't perfect, but it's the best alternative, IMO.
Mr. Sharumpe
Re:How about a decent plugin? (Score:2)
someone modded my original comment as 'flaimbait'. i think it's a reasonable complaint, after all, the MacOS plugin exposes an object model to AppleScript (hardly a standard) why not expose the same model to JavaScript?
Re:How about a decent plugin? (Score:1)
I knows its not javascript and has its own unique quirks but it is there none the less
Re:Hi. I'm Brian Eno. (Score:2)
Thank you for the compliment.
This response was, yes, meant to be sarcastic. Brian Eno is one of those guys who people in the music industry seem to attribute everything to. First he invented synth music. Then he invented electronica. Then he invented synthesized drums. On and on and on, like a snowball of stupidity. The guy is basically responsible for nothing. Synth music is over a hundred years old. Electronica was around in the late 1930s. Synthesized drums were around in the 1950s. Brian Eno popped up in the mid '70s, and took credit for the work of other obscure musicians and inventors..
I felt it was worthy of pointing this out, because to this day people still slap his name on news articles like he's some sort of authority. He isn't. Brian Eno's opinion on X, whatever X is, matters about as much as asking the local assistant pastry chef at a bakery about subatomic physics.
.
Re:Yeah right! (Score:1)
I would say that the Amiga invented "Multimedia" on computers, but Apple took it to the next level. Something Commodore probably could never have done because of their mismanagement. They never knew what they had. Commodore started out marketing the Amiga 1000 as a business computer with PC compatibility. Back then, a computer with pretty graphics couldn't possibly be a serious machine!
I use Quicktime every day in my work. I don't think I would want to be in the business of motion graphic design if I had to use something else.
Re:Amiga invented Multimedia (Score:1)
You can still get an Amiga emulator and see what you missed all those years ago.
http://cloanto.com/amiga/forever/
Join us.