QT on PC?
Something you come across frequently in platform contention discussions are bitter denunciations of QuickTime on the PC.
Now, I realize that some of this is just the usual partisanship, but since I don't use a PC I'm curious--
Is QT a poor performer on the PC? Is the vitriol just for the player, as opposed to the underlying architecture? If so, where does the problem lie? Does QT hijack processes and playback in an obnoxious way? Or is it just slow?
Is QT streaming and DL video performance worse on the PC? If so, can it be improved? Or are we dealing with MS lock-in here (meaning WM will always have the advantage due to system wide integration, plus MS has obvious reasons to not want QT to shine when run on their OS)? Is the reverse true for QT on the Mac (will always perform better than on a PC due to coupling to OS X architecture), or, like many things Mac, has Apple been obliged to make the QT architecture more portable than WM, in order to make inroads in a PC-centric world?
I'm asking because I would think broad adoption of the QT architecture for the ever burgeoning on-line and streaming media market would be almost the single best thing that could happen for Apple in terms of "controlling it's destiny".
I know that WM enjoys the numbers made inevitable by the PC/MS hegemony, but my impression is that iTunes and the QT movie preview site (I'm guessing they would be the culprits) have helped QT make some significant inroads in market penetration (apparently at the expense of Real).
I know that as of late I see more "WM or QT" being offered as the choice for on-line video, as opposed to" WM or Real". Obviously this is a real chicken and egg kind of thing, where more market share means more offered in the format means more market share.
But to keep expanding its influence I would think Apple would want to do everything in its power to make the QT experience on the PC, whatever that might entail, as "best in class" as is humanly possible.
Are they? Can they?
Now, I realize that some of this is just the usual partisanship, but since I don't use a PC I'm curious--
Is QT a poor performer on the PC? Is the vitriol just for the player, as opposed to the underlying architecture? If so, where does the problem lie? Does QT hijack processes and playback in an obnoxious way? Or is it just slow?
Is QT streaming and DL video performance worse on the PC? If so, can it be improved? Or are we dealing with MS lock-in here (meaning WM will always have the advantage due to system wide integration, plus MS has obvious reasons to not want QT to shine when run on their OS)? Is the reverse true for QT on the Mac (will always perform better than on a PC due to coupling to OS X architecture), or, like many things Mac, has Apple been obliged to make the QT architecture more portable than WM, in order to make inroads in a PC-centric world?
I'm asking because I would think broad adoption of the QT architecture for the ever burgeoning on-line and streaming media market would be almost the single best thing that could happen for Apple in terms of "controlling it's destiny".
I know that WM enjoys the numbers made inevitable by the PC/MS hegemony, but my impression is that iTunes and the QT movie preview site (I'm guessing they would be the culprits) have helped QT make some significant inroads in market penetration (apparently at the expense of Real).
I know that as of late I see more "WM or QT" being offered as the choice for on-line video, as opposed to" WM or Real". Obviously this is a real chicken and egg kind of thing, where more market share means more offered in the format means more market share.
But to keep expanding its influence I would think Apple would want to do everything in its power to make the QT experience on the PC, whatever that might entail, as "best in class" as is humanly possible.
Are they? Can they?
Comments
Second, once the installation is done, it resides on your taskbar while having absolutely no reason to do so.
Third, it places itself in the start-up folder. while, again, having absolutely no reason to do so.
Fourth, it does not even try to look even remotely like a Windows app. It looks like some bad OS 9 app. I'm horrified whenever I see it.
Fifth, no fullscreen playback. There's so much choice in the Windows world when it comes to media players that offering a player with no fullscreen is inviting people to denounce you as soon as they see you.
Sixth, QT Alternative is capable of playing any .mov out there, while offering every feature that a media player should have and yes, it does not place itself in the taskbar and start-up folder!
Originally posted by Gene Clean
QT on the PC is one of the worst media players to be offered to that platform. First of all, when you install it, it comes bundled with iTunes. I don't want iTunes. I may install it later on, but don't cripple my choice as to what I install.
Second, once the installation is done, it resides on your taskbar while having absolutely no reason to do so.
Third, it places itself in the start-up folder. while, again, having absolutely no reason to do so.
Fourth, it does not even try to look even remotely like a Windows app. It looks like some bad OS 9 app. I'm horrified whenever I see it.
Fifth, no fullscreen playback. There's so much choice in the Windows world when it comes to media players that offering a player with no fullscreen is inviting people to denounce you as soon as they see you.
Sixth, QT Alternative is capable of playing any .mov out there, while offering every feature that a media player should have and yes, it does not place itself in the taskbar and start-up folder!
Ok, that sounds like some of the unhappiness I've come across.
I've got a few questions-- are you saying that it is not possible to install a stand alone QT for windows? Is that not what this is?
Can things not be removed from the taskbar and startup folder?
No full screen sucks. Is it the QT Pro thing? Does Apple also do that for Windows? They must stop that. It's total bullshit.
So, to get back to my original post, I imagine that Apple wants PC users to like and enjoy using QT, and I'm trying to figure out if there are things that would make it a lot better on the platform.
Personally, task bar and start up folder installs don't strike me as deal-breakers, since I'm assuming they're easily removed if you don't like it and for everyone else it's just a way to prod them to use it, which of course is the whole point.
No stand alone player would bug me, but that doesn't appear to be true. I certainly could be wrong about that.
I can't speak to the look of thing-- is it that much different from the look of the Mac player? If not, I find it to be 'uncluttered". At any rate I doubt it much effects uptake on the PC.
No full screen is stupid, as I say. If Apple is serious about making QT a robust competitor across platforms they simply must abandon this ill conceived policy, especially now as we are moving towards full on DL video.
Any feelings about performance? Is it notably slower than other players? Buggy?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
QT on the PC is one of the worst media players to be offered to that platform. First of all, when you install it, it comes bundled with iTunes. I don't want iTunes. I may install it later on, but don't cripple my choice as to what I install.
Only semi-true. They suggest it that way, but it's still optional.
Second, once the installation is done, it resides on your taskbar while having absolutely no reason to do so.
Third, it places itself in the start-up folder. while, again, having absolutely no reason to do so.
True, but both of that is very common (sadly) among Windows apps.
Fourth, it does not even try to look even remotely like a Windows app. It looks like some bad OS 9 app. I'm horrified whenever I see it.
I wouldn't say that. It has improved a lot.
Fifth, no fullscreen playback. There's so much choice in the Windows world when it comes to media players that offering a player with no fullscreen is inviting people to denounce you as soon as they see you.
Yes. Same asinine thing on Mac OS.
Sixth, QT Alternative is capable of playing any .mov out there, while offering every feature that a media player should have and yes, it does not place itself in the taskbar and start-up folder!
I agree that Apple can do better.