or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Snow Leopard's QuickTime may pack Pro features at no cost
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Snow Leopard's QuickTime may pack Pro features at no cost - Page 2

post #41 of 67
Maybe someone should point out that developer releases usually come with an unlocked QT Pro, not just Snow Leopard...
post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanHolo View Post

Maybe someone should point out that developer releases usually come with an unlocked QT Pro, not just Snow Leopard...

Well, someone did ask this question in the thread.

I think they key here may be that the "registration" tab of QT preferences is absent - has that always been the case with developer releases?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

By SN I presume you mean SL. Also, it was more like 1.5 OS releases ago. Tiger was on the first Intel Macs, remember?

What's the point of not upgrading your Intel systems? You do realize G5s would benefit little, if at all, from the advancements Snow Leopard promises, right?

You are right, I mean SL. Hard to make a point when I can't even type well. So first of all, yes Tiger was released when the Intels came out, but of course there was a PPC or Intel version so I wasn't counting that. Tiger was, to me, obviously written for PPC first.

Second, I understand that many of the "under the hood" features will only benefit some of the Intel machines, but that's not what I was talking about to begin with. I know that my G5 won't really handle Grand Central, etc. but it WOULD handle 64 bit code, and certainly I should be able to take advantage of Quicktime X included, better Exchange support, ZFS formatting, etc., correct? If the only way I can get these improvements to my user experience is to upgrade, why are these features . . . which don't seem very platform dependent . . . only going to be available to those with a newer motherboard?
post #44 of 67
Does this mean that we will be able to import and convert MPEG2 files without paying the $29.95 tax? A full feature version of TiVO desktop would probably shortly follow....
post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by macshark View Post

Does this mean that we will be able to import and convert MPEG2 files without paying the $29.95 tax? A full feature version of TiVO desktop would probably shortly follow....

Who knows; hopefully it does. MPEG2 playback is currently a separate "tax". The MPEG2 component and QT pro are two distinct "products".
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Who cares what the call it, its name of no consequence, besides marketing.

My god. I thought it was obvious.

Media and Internet
Using media technology pioneered in OS X iPhone, Snow Leopard introduces QuickTime X, a streamlined, next-generation platform that advances modern media and Internet standards. QuickTime X features optimized support for modern codecs and more efficient media playback, making it ideal for any application that needs to play media content. http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/

Starting from last June:
Using media technology pioneered in OS X iPhone, Snow Leopard introduces QuickTime X, which optimizes support for modern audio and video formats resulting in extremely efficient media playback. Snow Leopard also includes SafariĀ® with the fastest implementation of JavaScript ever, increasing performance by 53 percent, making Web 2.0 applications feel more responsive. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008...owleopard.html
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hawk View Post

You are right, I mean SL. Hard to make a point when I can't even type well.

Just making sure we were talking about the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hawk View Post

So first of all, yes Tiger was released when the Intels came out, but of course there was a PPC or Intel version so I wasn't counting that. Tiger was, to me, obviously written for PPC first.

Perhaps, but I could have swore the story was Tiger was originally written with the idea of moving to Intel in the future. It may not have taken as much advantage of the new Intel hardware as Leopard did, but I don't know how one goes about measuring that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hawk View Post

Second, I understand that many of the "under the hood" features will only benefit some of the Intel machines, but that's not what I was talking about to begin with. I know that my G5 won't really handle Grand Central, etc. but it WOULD handle 64 bit code, and certainly I should be able to take advantage of Quicktime X included, better Exchange support, ZFS formatting, etc., correct? If the only way I can get these improvements to my user experience is to upgrade, why are these features . . . which don't seem very platform dependent . . . only going to be available to those with a newer motherboard?

Well you're probably right about it being technically possible, but to answer that question, I think we have to look at it from Apple's perspective. PowerPC Macs capable of running Leopard are now a minority. Most serious "pros" previously on G5s have moved to faster Intel hardware. Most of Apple's consumer growth happened after the transition.

So I could potentially see the QuickTime X playback mechanism being offered to PPC Macs because they already have QuickTime. The other things you mention - ZFS write support and Exchange - are brand new so I question if they'd bother supporting the ever-shrinking PPC minority by giving away the few new customer-facing features Snow Leopard will have.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

Just making sure we were talking about the same thing.


Perhaps, but I could have swore the story was Tiger was originally written with the idea of moving to Intel in the future. It may not have taken as much advantage of the new Intel hardware as Leopard did, but I don't know how one goes about measuring that.



Well you're probably right about it being technically possible, but to answer that question, I think we have to look at it from Apple's perspective. PowerPC Macs capable of running Leopard are now a minority. Most serious "pros" previously on G5s have moved to faster Intel hardware. Most of Apple's consumer growth happened after the transition.

So I could potentially see the QuickTime X playback mechanism being offered to PPC Macs because they already have QuickTime. The other things you mention - ZFS write support and Exchange - are brand new so I question if they'd bother supporting the ever-shrinking PPC minority by giving away the few new customer-facing features Snow Leopard will have.

All good points, but I failed to answer the one question you asked earlier . . . I like to have my machines all on the same version, especially server vs. client. If I can't upgrade the PPC machines, then I will CHOOSE to not upgrade the Intel machines either. So even if SL would be BETTER for the Intel (big if, of course) I won't know it until all of the PPC machines are gone.
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hawk View Post

You are right, I mean SL. Hard to make a point when I can't even type well. So first of all, yes Tiger was released when the Intels came out, but of course there was a PPC or Intel version so I wasn't counting that. Tiger was, to me, obviously written for PPC first.

Second, I understand that many of the "under the hood" features will only benefit some of the Intel machines, but that's not what I was talking about to begin with. I know that my G5 won't really handle Grand Central, etc. but it WOULD handle 64 bit code, and certainly I should be able to take advantage of Quicktime X included, better Exchange support, ZFS formatting, etc., correct? If the only way I can get these improvements to my user experience is to upgrade, why are these features . . . which don't seem very platform dependent . . . only going to be available to those with a newer motherboard?

You make good points, but at some point, Apple has to move back to a single platform again if it wants to stay ahead of the development curve. Making Snow Leopard for both Intel and PPC would be a HUGE undertaking; they've already slowed down the upgrade cycle from one version to the next of OS X with Snow Leopard. Which tells you just how much of an under-the-hood overhaul they are doing. If they were to make all of these "features" available to PPC users too, they'd be doing the rest of the customers who have upgraded to Intel a disservice, by spending man hours catering to those who paid them less recently. They'd also be leaving the OS rather bloated with extra code that will soon no longer be needed.

It's tough, but you have to make those cut off decisions to keep momentum going.
post #50 of 67
Whether or not someone has to pay for it, I just wish they would release a QuickTime that could PROPERLY playback Mpeg 2 Files and ALL of it's variations. I can play back a file and see the video, but it DOES not playback the Audio which to me is ABSURD! I don't even mind paying a little more for the codec. Come one Apple, it's already the 2009's and we still don't have a way to play back Mpeg 2 properly. (at least without the help of third party software which is free)
post #51 of 67
Speaking of 64 bit, is Snow Leopard going to introduce 64 bit Quicktime? While that seems a very desirable thing, it seems it would also require a lot of reworking of code in QT based apps - like Final Cut for example. Is Apple planning to take the pro apps 64 bit as well?
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Do you have a source for that? I've not heard that before, and I can't find any corroboration.

I believe the version for Snow Leopard is called "X".

Ah, I see that Abster got there first.
post #53 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post

I bought the Pro licence once and at the next major upgrade it turned out I had to pay the Pro upgrade again... Once bitten...

I got burned the same way. Surfed it up after that, so I don't care.
post #54 of 67
I don't think Apple are going to do anything like what's suggested at all. If I remember correctly, this happened too in the Leopard beta cycle. The betas had full-featured quicktime in them, while the shipping product had the lite version with Pro available to buy.

I see no reason to think that Apple are going to do anything different this time. I get the feeling this whole story's been blown up out of nothing except misunderstanding Apple's standard practice in betas.
post #55 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post

I bought the Pro licence once and at the next major upgrade it turned out I had to pay the Pro upgrade again... Once bitten...

And how many times have you been told to read first?

And if Quicktime Pro or Quicktime X, whatever it is called is included, it won't be free. It shouldn't be. It will just be buried in the cost.

And like all previous major upgrades the price will be either $79 or $129. And I'll be in line the moment it is made available.
post #56 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

And how many times have you been told to read first?

And if Quicktime Pro or Quicktime X, whatever it is called is included, it won't be free. It shouldn't be. It will just be buried in the cost.

And like all previous major upgrades the price will be either $79 or $129. And I'll be in line the moment it is made available.

I agree that this is one way for Apple to justify a $129 price tag for an OS that will have fewer visible improvements than most. I truly hope that it actually finally supports more codecs, if Apple wants to have the best OS for media, the first thing it needs to do is support more formats and containers.

Anyway including the QT Pro cost in SL will suck for VLC and Miro users.
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

I agree that this is one way for Apple to justify a $129 price tag for an OS that will have fewer visible improvements than most. I truly hope that it actually finally supports more codecs, if Apple wants to have the best OS for media, the first thing it needs to do is support more formats and containers.

Anyway including the QT Pro cost in SL will suck for VLC and Miro users.

Hi Hattig

I honestly believe that Snow Leopard will blow the socks off what we have and are capable to do with our multi-core Macs.

Right now the issue with developers is that the system is not being fully developed. It is like the chicken and the egg. Unfortunately, multi-core processors (and obviously we are talking about Intels) hold a minor segment of the total computer user base. And it is and will be a major outlay for software developers to create applications to fully benefit from the new release.

Currently our software is a work in progress just to keep it up to date with today's flavours. We had to forego legacy systems, but we know that the future is in multi-core and we can't wait enough to see how it runs in full mode. My guys have certainly demanded the latest Macs to meet it and although the 8 is blazing fast it is still running in low gear for 99% of what we use daily.
post #58 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

I agree that this is one way for Apple to justify a $129 price tag for an OS that will have fewer visible improvements than most. I truly hope that it actually finally supports more codecs, if Apple wants to have the best OS for media, the first thing it needs to do is support more formats and containers.

Isn't Perian enough? With Perian installed, it's pretty rare that QuickTime can't handle a video that I throw at it, though I don't download pirated videos, those tend to involve fad codecs anyway, the popular codec choice of pirates seems to change every few months.

Quote:
Anyway including the QT Pro cost in SL will suck for VLC and Miro users.

I don't understand why you think this. I haven't seen where QT Pro causes a single bit of problems for VLC. I've not heard of Miro though. The only "problem" I can think of is that users won't need to run VLC very often, and given VLC's occasional crashes and goofy scrubber behavior, I don't see using VLC less is a problem.
post #59 of 67
We know that Quicktime for SL is getting a complete rework and it looks like the previous pay for pro features will be included. I'm sure the codec support will be weak for legal reasons, but including Perian is simple.

What I'm curious about is how QT will change for Windows. Will it get a rework, too? Will the Pro features be included? I think this would go a long way to making QT a useful app on WIndows, not just an annoying app that comes along with iTunes.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

@Jim

You may not like the Roughly Drafted blogger, but he does some good articles. His "Road to Leopard" series was smashingly good. So are many of the others. So just note that he is Prince McLean here and avoid the articles if you dislike him so much.

And the other 99% of his articles are complete crap that you'd think were written by Apple's PR department.

I have to agree with Jim. If AppleInsider is just going to be a front for RD crap, they should just merge the websites and be done with it. At the very least, hyperlinks going to RD should be identified as doing so in the article. And maybe Dilger could just use his real name instead of hiding behind an alias.
post #61 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by sausage&Onion View Post

nuff said.

Wholeheartedly agree!!! I've given feedback to Apple a few times over the years on how they market QuickTime (especially to Windows business users).

This is great news but should have been implemented years ago!
post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post

I bought the Pro licence once and at the next major upgrade it turned out I had to pay the Pro upgrade again... Once bitten...

Seriously, I purchased QT Pro about 4 times in the past 8 years! (and I complained on a mac specific message board somewhere on the Internet each and every time!)
post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

And the other 99% of his articles are complete crap that you'd think were written by Apple's PR department.

I have to agree with Jim. If AppleInsider is just going to be a front for RD crap, they should just merge the websites and be done with it. At the very least, hyperlinks going to RD should be identified as doing so in the article. And maybe Dilger could just use his real name instead of hiding behind an alias.

Relax, Caliminius. It's not the end of the world!

Dilger does try to be factual rather than emotional like you.

Again. Relax.
post #64 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Isn't Perian enough? With Perian installed, it's pretty rare that QuickTime can't handle a video that I throw at it, though I don't download pirated videos, those tend to involve fad codecs anyway, the popular codec choice of pirates seems to change every few months.



I don't understand why you think this. I haven't seen where QT Pro causes a single bit of problems for VLC. I've not heard of Miro though. The only "problem" I can think of is that users won't need to run VLC very often, and given VLC's occasional crashes and goofy scrubber behavior, I don't see using VLC less is a problem.

I have every player I can find on my machine, including QT Pro. I have no problems with any of them except for the problems that are known anyway.

One problem I've always had with Player from Apple is that I can't do video adjustments to any MPEG files, but I can on everything else that will play. I've always thought that was odd.

The other thing is that Apple should include a gamma adjustment as VLC has. Along with brightness and contrast, that enables videos to be much better. Of course, I'd also love to see a black level and a white level adjustment. RGB gammas, and, and, and...
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by John E C View Post

Dilger does try to be factual rather than emotional like you.

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha -- pauses to wipe away tear -- hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Priceless.

Cheers

Jim
post #66 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post

I bought the Pro licence once and at the next major upgrade it turned out I had to pay the Pro upgrade again... Once bitten...

In a similar fashion, one of my payments to Apple for QT Pro license was followed in about one month with Apple issuing a new version release, instantly obsoleting my $30 payment to them. I was not happy (even tried customer service... )

So I hope they finally come around to making the whole range of so-called pro features part of the free QuickTime distribution.
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #67 of 67
Apple has reasons NOT to support PPC 64. Pushing its customers to buy new hardware is NOT one of them. Based on the publicly available information, I can see 2 reasons:
  1. Apple is moving to a new compiler, which does not support PPC 64 - PPC 32 and Intel 32/64 only.
  2. Apple is introducing 64 bit kernel. I am not a kernel expert but I am pretty sure that an optimized kernel for another platform is not just a recompile, the point above notwithstanding.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Snow Leopard's QuickTime may pack Pro features at no cost