Inside Mac OS X Snow Leopard: QuickTime X

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Let me restate it then. It doesn't actually matter what the label is. If you drop a paper into a trash bin or a recycle bin, once the Janitor empties it, you're not getting the information on that paper back again. It's gone either way, so the metaphor holds regardless of the name.



    How is that really so difficult for you to understand?



    You are mixing up the concepts of physical paper and the information printed on it. The paper is the implementation. In computing the bits are the implementation. You should not burden users with implementation concepts. It makes for inconsistency and thus bad designs.
  • Reply 82 of 88
    The Quicktime team needs a spanking...



    I'm guessing none of them actually use the software they write? Or they'd never stick the controller over the image area, and they'd include export options.



    The controller over the image area could be a preference, that is if QT X had preferences...



    Thanks for the downgrade apple!
  • Reply 83 of 88
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ijoyner View Post


    You are mixing up the concepts of physical paper and the information printed on it. The paper is the implementation. In computing the bits are the implementation. You should not burden users with implementation concepts. It makes for inconsistency and thus bad designs.



    I don't see that at all. Forget what I said about bits and its storage, which is why I restated it, I didn't think you'd keep focus on that.



    Either you put a "document" into the "trash" or a "document" into the "recycle bin", once the "trash" or "recycle bin" it's empty, the document is gone, nobody should have any fantasies of ever seeing it again. Take away the metaphor quotes and apply it to physical objects and it still holds. I'm not seeing how it's more confusing one way or the other.
  • Reply 84 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    Anyone else confused what direction Quicktimes now going in? The article talked about all the new features, but as Quicktime X is only on Snow Leopard unlike every other version of Quicktime and also every other media player, what exactly is the point of Quicktime now? If compatibility was a compatibility concern before that made developers use Flash instead, Apple have just made it ten times worse.



    I'm not confused because I've read this entire 23 page Ars Technica report on Snow Leopard including this link to page 16 on how Quicktime X and Quicktime 7 Pro happily coexist in 10.6.



    I'm sure Quicktime X is a good thing that is making things ten times better.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post


    The Quicktime team needs a spanking...



    I'm guessing none of them actually use the software they write? Or they'd never stick the controller over the image area, and they'd include export options.



    The controller over the image area could be a preference, that is if QT X had preferences...



    Thanks for the downgrade apple!



    Apple didn't downgrade anything. You still have the option of installing the Quicktime 7 Pro Player with all your export and preference options. If you read from the above link you will understand how Quicktime 7 Pro and Quicktime X coexist in peaceful harmony during this transitional period to pure 64-bit code. Snow Leopard is like a bridge from 32-bit to 64-bit land. If you take the time to read the full Ars Technica Snow Leopard Report - even if you just read one page a day for three weeks - you will better understand where we are and where we're going.



    This recommendation means to take nothing away from the excellent series AppleInsider is producing for us on the subject as well.
  • Reply 85 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post


    I'm not confused because I've read this entire 23 page Ars Technica report on Snow Leopard including this link to page 16 on how Quicktime X and Quicktime 7 Pro happily coexist in 10.6.



    I'm sure Quicktime X is a good thing that is making things ten times better.Apple didn't downgrade anything. You still have the option of installing the Quicktime 7 Pro Player with all your export and preference options. If you read from the above link you will understand how Quicktime 7 Pro and Quicktime X coexist in peaceful harmony during this transitional period to pure 64-bit code. Snow Leopard is like a bridge from 32-bit to 64-bit land. If you take the time to read the full Ars Technica Snow Leopard Report - even if you just read one page a day for three weeks - you will better understand where we are and where we're going.



    This recommendation means to take nothing away from the excellent series AppleInsider is producing for us on the subject as well.





    Well, when apple takes away functionality, it is in fact a downgrade. While it does co-exist, I can't just double click on a newly created .mov file from Cinema 4D or After Effects and have it open in QT 7 Pro.. I now have to drag and drop it onto it... and while that may not seem like a big deal to some, but to those who do this a lot, this is a total pain in the ass...



    And yeah.. QT X might be on an awesome road to the future...but right now, it's seriously sitting at a rest stop, taking a dump on professionals.
  • Reply 86 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post


    Well, when apple takes away functionality, it is in fact a downgrade. While it does co-exist, I can't just double click on a newly created .mov file from Cinema 4D or After Effects and have it open in QT 7 Pro.. I now have to drag and drop it onto it... and while that may not seem like a big deal to some, but to those who do this a lot, this is a total pain in the ass...



    And yeah.. QT X might be on an awesome road to the future...but right now, it's seriously sitting at a rest stop, taking a dump on professionals.



    It only takes a moment to get info on the type of file you always want to open in QT 7 and tell it to always open all of those types of files in QT 7.



    QT X transcodes radically faster than QT 7 so I'm not sure why you think QT 7 is so wonderful. I don't.
  • Reply 87 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't see that at all. Forget what I said about bits and its storage, which is why I restated it, I didn't think you'd keep focus on that.



    Either you put a "document" into the "trash" or a "document" into the "recycle bin", once the "trash" or "recycle bin" it's empty, the document is gone, nobody should have any fantasies of ever seeing it again. Take away the metaphor quotes and apply it to physical objects and it still holds. I'm not seeing how it's more confusing one way or the other.



    Jeff,



    I'll concede it's a subtle point. Users familiar with Mac know it's the equivalent of trash. But imagine a complete computer novice. Recycle bin could mean long-term storage or archive. As a software and concept designer myself, I believe terminology should be more precise, not cutesy.



    But this is just an example of Microsoft general terminology and confusion of concepts. The basic point is that implementation is visible. The metaphors are mixed. To use Fred P. Brooks terminology from Mythical Man Month, it lacks conceptual integrity and that is the root of all problems in software production. Maybe that's why Microsoft fails to deliver convincing products lately and is on the way down.



    Perhaps this is difficult to see, but it is an essential point and really is the underlying difference between Apple and Microsoft and maybe most other differences could be traced to this.



    Thanks for the interesting discussion.



    Ian
  • Reply 88 of 88
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ijoyner View Post


    I'll concede it's a subtle point. Users familiar with Mac know it's the equivalent of trash. But imagine a complete computer novice. Recycle bin could mean long-term storage or archive.



    I suppose it's possible, but I'm very skeptical that a typical novice would think that. There are plenty of dumbarses out there, but they're going to get themselves into trouble with just about anything anyway.



    Quote:

    As a software and concept designer myself, I believe terminology should be more precise, not cutesy.



    I agree, but I really don't think this is the one to use as a good example. Windows is a mess in many ways, but the examples you gave aren't where I would start fixing things.
Sign In or Register to comment.