| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Apple Debuts QuickTime 6 Public Preview | |
|
||
| Time: 15:55 EST/20:55 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Julien Jay | ||
Welcome to QuickTime 6, featuring MPEG-4, the next-generation of the most advanced digital media technology on the Internet. This latest release of Apple’s cutting-edge digital media software for both Mac and Windows-based computers delivers unparalleled quality for creating, playing and streaming audio and video content over the Internet. Here’s what’s new with QuickTime 6: MPEG-4 File Format (.mp4), MPEG-4 Video, AAC Audio, Instant-On, Skip Protection, Updated User Interface. The public preview version works with Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Click the link below to start your download: | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 322 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
6:31:35 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 2960 (156.80.64.164) at 6/5/2002 3:45:45 PM |
|
#1,
Wow. Timely post. Thanks! TL |
| #27 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/5/2002 5:21:11 PM |
|
Tech, #1 is wrong.
Enforcer, what I am referring to is your idea of getting MS to assist Apple... That's laughable. Since Apple had QT for Win before Microsoft had a viable media player, and since Apple has never viewed Quicktime as a codec for a format but rather an architecture for many formats and capabilities, I don't see what making you happy but completely abandoning their strategy would do for them. Why doesn't history apply? |
| #28 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/5/2002 6:04:26 PM |
|
Anonymous loser, I am aware of and know and have said little to contradict this crap you post. If you psychopaths would like to believe that Microsoft is largely responsible for mpeg-4, go ahead. It's funny though... And so are your silly bullets. Contributions: 2 separate bullets are financial contributions--great, I had no idea MS had money. Recent activity: "Microsoft is one of the companies that contributed patents that are relevant to MPEG-4 video implementations." That's a recent activity? OR is it a way to restate the previous bullets (as many of these bullets do) to produce a PR-like list of crap? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 at 18:33. |
| #29 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 6/5/2002 8:13:11 PM |
|
It would not completely abandon their strategy. As I stated earlier, if not a codec, they could at least enlist Microsoft's help in making a decent port of their player software for Windows. It doesn't matter that QT came before Windows media. What matters is customer satisfaction which drives acceptance of the platform. MS regularly supports other companies in getting their software working correctly on Windows. They have done this in the past with Apple when compatability issues arise. It shouldn't be a big deal for them to help Apple get their player software optimized for Windows. In its current form, the QT player has many critics due to its many problems on Windows. Some of its problems stem from Apple trying to take the exact design philosophies for the Mac player and transferring them to Windows, and the player's apparent quick-port implementation.
Would you rather Apple lose end-users by keeping its current problem-filled player, or possibly gain users by either producing a player better suited to and better optimized for Windows, or at least an architecture that can be utilized by other players that perform better under Windows, yet maintain format compatability. QT worked well in other players until Sorenson came along. But as stated above, they can keep the format's reliance on their player if they desire. Just find someone capable of creating an adequate Windows version. This post was edited by n4cer on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 at 20:19. |
| #30 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/5/2002 8:35:41 PM |
| Fine, enforcer, but my point being is that QT has been the single largest bone of contention between Apple and MS since '96. I don't think the current state of the app is due to either companies attempts to wall up their development and not cooperate... Rather, it's the result of backstabbing, double-crossing, changes in both companies strategies, the underlying benefits and drawbacks of the platform that each piece of software deploys on, etc... The same things said about QT on the PC are also said of WMP on the Mac--maybe a bit less vocally because actual usage is substantially lower (WMP on mac vs. QT on PC). I guess you don't care about this because you would prefer to marginal the small community of mac users (read purchasers)... that's anyone's prerogative. But as I noted above by moving through different markets where tech investments can be recouped through sales, Apple probably makes more money off of QT than MS makes off of WM.... particularly if the idiot above is right that MS doesn't charge for licensing WM tech for ISVs... which I highly doubt. |
| #31 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/5/2002 8:40:58 PM |
| By the way, are you saying QT 6 is worse than 4 or 5, because I don't see how they would lose end losers that they don't have. I would imagine that Apple has attracted some Win users over the past year simply because of movie trailers--the idea that PC user's find this the only useful reason for QT shows how pathetic PC users are at understanding high quality media... And they have probably even attracted some users to the Mac platform if they worked with video and saw the difference in Mac QT performance vs. PC QT... and even some ostricized Nixers out there who still can't view it but now have the best free and open streaming media server... In other words, I think Apple, with its small and overextended resources, tries to improve PC QT, but the current situation doesn't cause them fears that they are losing marketshare. |
| #32 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 6/5/2002 9:50:00 PM |
|
QT6, at least in its current form, is somewhat worse than 4 and 5, which had problems themselves. Apple had less problems with QT on the PC, at least from a UI and probably a processor utilization standpoint before they switched to the metallic interface. Again, I am keeping in mind that this is a preview, but it still needs work. I get higher CPU useage with the new player versus version 5 when playing version 5 content. When playing MP4 video content, the CPU utilization can get to 70 percent or higher. Hopefully, this will be remedied in a later release. I'm certain this is an implementation problem, because if MP4 were this intensive, it would never be accepted. With a few exceptions, many movie trailers can also be viewed at WindowsMedia.com.
Upon playing some content just now, I am not having as many fullscreen problems as I did initially, bet there is still a drain on the CPU and a jumpiness in video at times (even in normal view). Video quality is good, but in many ways comparable to Windows Media. I think Corona will be better, but acknowlege that MP4 is pretty good. If the player is optimized more (and MP4 licensing isn't unreasonable), I believe it will do well. |
| #33 By 3339 (67.116.253.230) at 6/5/2002 10:57:43 PM |
| yeah, anon, I'll be concerned about how I treat you when you get around to adopting an identity that I can actually converse with. Until then I could care less. And I would also continue to assert that asf is in fact based on mpeg-4. And I would also assert that the only time I mention "formats" is when I say that several derivative "formats" were derived from mpeg-4. At some level--especially considering your entirely incorrect notion that the bulk of mpeg technology was developed by Microsoft--I would hope you would allow some generality on my part considering I was trying to wrap MS mpeg-4 codec, DivX, and asf into one thought. Especially since I haven't been running around saying mpeg-4 isn't just a format, it's a toolkit!!!!! But I digress... you're wrong if you think those blurbs represent a basis for a theory that Microsoft is in large part the creator of mpeg technology! |
| #34 By 3339 (67.116.252.46) at 6/5/2002 11:29:11 PM |
|
enforcer, please go on... I am honestly concerned about QT6 performance on the PC, but I don't care to at work and don't really have the resources (media, apps, and pro key). I've been in Mac and Nix discussions where the discussion has progressed to benchmarks--playback under various loads,encoding/content creation in different apps (QTpro, FCP, Premiere, etc...), translating files, using old and new and different codecs in QT, etc... I'm curious--when you keep going on about cpu usage--what is the effect of this cpu usage? You mention the effects on the content: jumpiness, quality. Anything else? interface stability/visbility? drain on other apps either in the background or foreground? etc?
My own experience has been solid, with some program bugginess (clearly, Apple was actually pressuring MPEGLA more than was perceived). I'm just testing on my iMac for now--400mhzG3, 128MB RAM running 10.1.5. CPU usage is high but every app in OS X grabs as much as it wants or needs, it seems; there are no ill effects. Basically, just running a browser, the finder, and some processes, I have say 10-20% cpu usage which jumps to 60%-70% upon start... It settles to 50-60%. If I start a stream, I get instant play, can scrub the complete track (with my mousewheel or the slider by the way) very smoothly and can see the track speed up and slow down, can move the player window around without any problems. I can then proceed to open as many apps as I want--first, I just did mail, address book, textedit, preview, omniweb, opera--the simple small stuff--without any problem, cpu usage spiking no higher than 95%... I then opened imusic, iphoto, imovie, idvd, sketch, dreamweaver, bbedit, and several network and system utilities--still no problems but apps are taking time to open in the background or foreground as the track plays and I play with the viewer and track. I now open illustrator, photoshop, acrobat within classic mode--still no glitches... when classic starts (and comes to the foreground) I get my first "drag" on the image... once in the foreground, the movie plays by fine... I got a hiccup when imovie starts--it crashes (but Apple says this preview is incompatible with QT iApps). Before the 11MB 1:18 long movie ends, before even, say the last 20 seconds are up, all of the OS 9 apps are open. With the remaining time, I play around with dragging and resizing the player window more--no problems, although when doing this at the time of the imovie crash, the gui pixilated and redrew once. This was my first attempt to "test" it, and further attempts have essentially been identical. That's just my honest, personal experience, and on a Mac at that so who cares, right? In my mind, OS X is getting toward primetime, and QT 6 will make quite an impact. We'll see. I'd like to hear some of the things you experience, and I wanted to ask: is all of your audio content WMA, or do you use other formats? and how much do you have? My guess is that the entire .mp3 world can and will quickly migrate to .mp4. |
| #35 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 6/6/2002 5:49:51 AM |
|
Concerning CPU usage:
Ever since Apple's switch to the metallic interface, the QT has exhibited a few problems. One of those problems has been excessive window repaints. When QT is opened, its loading time is pretty fast, and probably comparable to most other applications. But while it is open, even with no content playing, actions that invalidate portions of QT's client area result in excessive repaints. Dragging windows over QT, using QT's menus, etc., all result in slow repaints of it's window, as well as slowing the repaint of other windows. When video content is playing, other windows don't even have to be moved over QT's client area to produce this effect. Simply moving a window (even when not over QT's client area) becomes a slower process. QT's menus do not always blend correctly with videos that are playing (can be invisible at times), and using the menus while a video is playing is a very slow process. I don't know for sure, but it seems as if threading wasn't used properly. As said before, the interface itself is bulkier than a standard Windows app. I don't know what exactly is required in rendering the QT app window (number of rendering passes, etc.), so I can't really be too technical about it. On the good side, I have yet to run into the bug that resulted in QT 5 being rendered invisibly. Hopefully, this has been fixed. Using other apps while QT is displaying content is acceptable in general, but QT can cause some operations to be slower than usual. I value honest, real-world performance claims (whatever the platform) because (in this case) it allows for comparison of how the player works on each platform, and what needs to be improved. Currently, the only Mac at my disposal is and emulator running OS 8, so I can't test on OS X for comparison purposes at the moment. I have seen user comments for both sides, however. Concerning audio: I generally prefer audio in WMA format because, in my experience, it is better than mp3 and mp3 pro. It does sound better while saving space and/or bandwidth. If Corona delivers on its promisses, the format will be even further ahead of mp3 in compression, and offer the added benefit of 24/96 multichannel audio. I do currently have a number of mp3s on my computer from acquiring songs over the net, but whenever I rip my own personal content, I rip to WMA. I also look for WMA versions of songs whenever possible. I don't think there is any more trouble in going to WMA from mp3 than going from mp3 to mp4. I know that, in general, there can be quality loss from transcaoding from one compression format to another, but I have a number of WMAs that were converted from mp3s with no perceptable quality loss. Though it is best to use the highest quality source material available. As said previously, I do believe AAC is also better than mp3 and mp3 pro, and welcome the format. Finally, there will be something better than mp3 that hopefully, anti-MS users will switch to. I still belive, however, that based upon the limited listening demos available on Apple's site, current WMA technology, and Corona's performance claims, that the Windows Media Professional will offer better results in both video and audio. Until I see a release version of Corona, I can only speculate, though. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 322 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
6:31:35 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
