Probably because you aren't looking in the right place. A quick look at the Windows versions of iTunes and the QuickTime player show a lot of similarity to their MacOS X siblings. It is my understanding that behind the Mac-like GUI, a substantial fraction of MacOS X was ported to Windows to support QuickTime and iTunes on that platform.
I don't agree at all. If you have any examples to support your claim that a substantial fraction of Mac OS X was ported to Windows (x86) in order to allow for QuickTime and iTunes, and better yet, to show us how a substantial fraction of Mac OS X is able to be ported and still be able to be 21.5 MB, the size of the SetupiTunes.exe in XP, then it'd be easier for me to see what you're saying.
Oh great another browser for windows, just what we need \. Safari will not offer anything really profound or intuitive to the windows platform, it would be just another browser amongst the millions. If you really want to use Konquer , install Cygwin or NX, they?re great programs.
Apple is a hardware company. They are in the business of selling hardware. Any software they make is done only to promote hardware sales. Why is iTunes on Windows? To sell more iPods. From this perspective, why would Apple port Safari to Windows? They won't. It's never going to happen.
I don't agree at all. If you have any examples to support your claim that a substantial fraction of Mac OS X was ported to Windows (x86) in order to allow for QuickTime and iTunes, and better yet, to show us how a substantial fraction of Mac OS X is able to be ported and still be able to be 21.5 MB, the size of the SetupiTunes.exe in XP, then it'd be easier for me to see what you're saying.
You seem to labor under the delusion that QuickTime is an application. It is not. QuickTime is the multimedia layer of MacOS X. This is not in dispute. As multimedia layer of MacOS X, it comprises a substantial fraction of the OS. QuickTime for Windows is a port of QuickTime for the MacOS X, not some other software under the same name. Porting QuickTime to Windows does not magically transform it to something else. It remains a substantial fraction of MacOS X.
You seem to labor under the delusion that QuickTime is an application. It is not. QuickTime is the multimedia layer of MacOS X. This is not in dispute. As multimedia layer of MacOS X, it comprises a substantial fraction of the OS. QuickTime for Windows is a port of QuickTime for the MacOS X, not some other software under the same name. Porting QuickTime to Windows does not magically transform it to something else. It remains a substantial fraction of MacOS X.
No, QuickTime in Windows is just an application. And a very bad one at that. Its not a multimedia layer of Windows XP, and it has no resemblance to the original QuickTime in Mac OS X, apart from the name and the same company.
The media layer in XP is Windows Media Player, and I seriously doubt that Microsoft would let anyone, let alone Apple, substitute their own media layer with QuickTime.
If you ever use Windows, fire up QuickTime (if its even there, 'cause you gotta download it) and you will see the difference between QuickTime in Mac OS X and QuickTime in WindowsXP.
No, QuickTime in Windows is just an application. And a very bad one at that. Its not a multimedia layer of Windows XP, and it has no resemblance to the original QuickTime in Mac OS X, apart from the name and the same company.
The media layer in XP is Windows Media Player, and I seriously doubt that Microsoft would let anyone, let alone Apple, substitute their own media layer with QuickTime.
If you ever use Windows, fire up QuickTime (if its even there, 'cause you gotta download it) and you will see the difference between QuickTime in Mac OS X and QuickTime in WindowsXP.
Apart from a few minor cosmetic differences I think the applications are the same. The application on the mac isn't groundbreaking, it's the fact it's built into finder so brilliantly. But if WMP is built into windows how can the EU demand that they ship computers without it? A mac without quicktime wouldn't work properly.
Apart from a few minor cosmetic differences I think the applications are the same. The application on the mac isn't groundbreaking, it's the fact it's built into finder so brilliantly. But if WMP is built into windows how can the EU demand that they ship computers without it? A mac without quicktime wouldn't work properly.
Yes, its built into the finder, vis-a-vis the system. On Windows its just another application. Its not any different from say, DivX player or VLC.
But, Windows Media Player is built into the Explorer somewhat, though not to the extent of QuickTime on Finder.
Well, the EU can demand and Windows is shipping without them. But, in order to do that, Microsoft is creating a different version of XP. That's because you can't remove WMP. But you can remove QuickTime - the application - if you want.
The EU is arguing, successfully, that Microsoft is eliminating competition by not giving the user the option to uninstall WMP and by bundling it with the OS. Because Microsoft is a giant in OS software, its impact is much bigger than that of Apple bundling QuickTime.
Yes, its built into the finder, vis-a-vis the system. On Windows its just another application. Its not any different from say, DivX player or VLC.
But, Windows Media Player is built into the Explorer somewhat, though not to the extent of QuickTime on Finder.
Well, the EU can demand and Windows is shipping without them. But, in order to do that, Microsoft is creating a different version of XP. That's because you can't remove WMP. But you can remove QuickTime - the application - if you want.
The EU is arguing, successfully, that Microsoft is eliminating competition by not giving the user the option to uninstall WMP and by bundling it with the OS. Because Microsoft is a giant in OS software, its impact is much bigger than that of Apple bundling QuickTime.
Anyway, if I'm wrong, please correct me.
Windows can work without WMP the framework isn't required as much. OS X wouldn't work without quicktime. If Apple had the majority they couldn't be asked to remove it, it's built into the finder. Windows hasn't got WMP built into it.
Windows can work without WMP the framework isn't required as much. OS X wouldn't work without quicktime. If Apple had the majority they couldn't be asked to remove it, it's built into the finder. Windows hasn't got WMP built into it.
You are ignoring one thing: whatever you build, you can also take out. IE is also built into the kernel, but it can be taken out; if Microsoft wants to take it out. Apple can continue to provide the media layer but not bundle the application called QuickTime. That's what Microsoft will do. They will only take out the application, not the entire media layer. .wma will still be playable, but you will be required to download WMP yourself, or choose something else, and download some other media player, like WinAMP, etc.
I'm not saying anything about QuickTime in OS X, I'm saying that QuickTime in OS X functions differently from QuickTime in XP.
And WMP is also built into Explorer. If you open a Folder that contains music, you will see on the left side a column that says:
" 1. Play All
2. Shop for music online
3. Copy All items to Audio CD "
That's built in right into the Explorer, and there's no way you can take it out. You can hide it, but not eliminate it. That's what I call being built-in.
You are ignoring one thing: whatever you build, you can also take out. IE is also built into the kernel, but it can be taken out; if Microsoft wants to take it out. Apple can continue to provide the media layer but not bundle the application called QuickTime. That's what Microsoft will do. They will only take out the application, not the entire media layer. .wma will still be playable, but you will be required to download WMP yourself, or choose something else, and download some other media player, like WinAMP, etc.
I'm not saying anything about QuickTime in OS X, I'm saying that QuickTime in OS X functions differently from QuickTime in XP.
And WMP is also built into Explorer. If you open a Folder that contains music, you will see on the left side a column that says:
" 1. Play All
2. Shop for music online
3. Copy All items to Audio CD "
That's built in right into the Explorer, and there's no way you can take it out. You can hide it, but not eliminate it. That's what I call being built-in.
I don't agree at all. If you have any examples to support your claim that a substantial fraction of Mac OS X was ported to Windows (x86) in order to allow for QuickTime and iTunes, and better yet, to show us how a substantial fraction of Mac OS X is able to be ported and still be able to be 21.5 MB, the size of the SetupiTunes.exe in XP, then it'd be easier for me to see what you're saying.
Fine, you want proof.
06.10 $
pwd
/cygdrive/c/programme/iTunes
06.10 $
strings iTunes.exe | grep ^CF
CFIAt
CFIAu
CFIA
CFPR
CFPR
CFPQ
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFPQ
CFPR
CFPQ
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFArray
CFString
CFAllocator
CFNull
CFType
CFData
CFDictionary
CFBoolean
CFNumber
CFSet
CFHTTPMessage
CF$UID
CFPropertyListAllowImmutableCollections
CFPropertyListCreateFromXMLData(): Old-style plist parser: missing semicolon in dictionary.
CFPropertyListCreateFromXMLData(): The file name for this data might be (or it might not): %@
That enough? As you can see, iTunes for Windows contains a ton of headers from CoreFoundation. Since CoreFoundation is *Mac OS X*'s API to unify Carbon and Cocoa features, obviously we have quite a straight port here.
And if you've never seen any Aqua in iTunes for Windows, I'll have to assume you've never launched the app at all.
Apple can continue to provide the media layer but not bundle the application called QuickTime.
The application isn't called Quicktime - it's called Quicktime Player!
Quote:
And WMP is also built into Explorer. If you open a Folder that contains music, you will see on the left side a column that says:
That's different. Quicktime is actually what does the display and image processing for a heck of a lot of apps. The finder preview was one example, but how about opening strange graphics in iphoto? Video export in imovie? Handling sound files such as Ogg or Wav in iTunes? Or, leaving Apple's apps, how about displaying images in Omniweb? Providing more export formats in GraphicConverter? These apps would all break without Quicktime.
Microsoft's linking, as far as I'm aware, just counts as a few built-in shortcuts. Certainly, Quicktime is built in a lot deeper than the example you posted.
That enough? As you can see, iTunes for Windows contains a ton of headers from CoreFoundation. Since CoreFoundation is *Mac OS X*'s API to unify Carbon and Cocoa features, obviously we have quite a straight port here.
And if you've never seen any Aqua in iTunes for Windows, I'll have to assume you've never launched the app at all.
The application isn't called Quicktime - it's called Quicktime Player!
This doesn't matter much, because you know what I mean when I say QuickTime. I mean the player. I don't see what's so important here as to stress the difference.
Quote:
That's different. Quicktime is actually what does the display and image processing for a heck of a lot of apps. The finder preview was one example, but how about opening strange graphics in iphoto? Video export in imovie? Handling sound files such as Ogg or Wav in iTunes? Or, leaving Apple's apps, how about displaying images in Omniweb? Providing more export formats in GraphicConverter? These apps would all break without Quicktime.
Microsoft's linking, as far as I'm aware, just counts as a few built-in shortcuts. Certainly, Quicktime is built in a lot deeper than the example you posted.
Amorya [/B]
Agreed. However, I don't know why we got to what QuickTime does and whether it would break or not. I think me and MacCrazy were talking about how Microsoft is gonna take out WMP for the EU market and he said that if Apple does the same thing it would break the system. I said that it would, but that WMP is also built in to some extent though certainly not as much as QuickTime.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Probably because you aren't looking in the right place. A quick look at the Windows versions of iTunes and the QuickTime player show a lot of similarity to their MacOS X siblings. It is my understanding that behind the Mac-like GUI, a substantial fraction of MacOS X was ported to Windows to support QuickTime and iTunes on that platform.
I don't agree at all. If you have any examples to support your claim that a substantial fraction of Mac OS X was ported to Windows (x86) in order to allow for QuickTime and iTunes, and better yet, to show us how a substantial fraction of Mac OS X is able to be ported and still be able to be 21.5 MB, the size of the SetupiTunes.exe in XP, then it'd be easier for me to see what you're saying.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What?! Then how come I don't see Aqua AT ALL on Windows 2000/XP?
suspicious
Originally posted by MacCrazy
suspicious
what's suspicious?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
what's suspicious?
well someone said you had to port aqua, you said they hadn't for windows, so I said what the guy said was suspicious, probably more suspect though.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I don't agree at all. If you have any examples to support your claim that a substantial fraction of Mac OS X was ported to Windows (x86) in order to allow for QuickTime and iTunes, and better yet, to show us how a substantial fraction of Mac OS X is able to be ported and still be able to be 21.5 MB, the size of the SetupiTunes.exe in XP, then it'd be easier for me to see what you're saying.
You seem to labor under the delusion that QuickTime is an application. It is not. QuickTime is the multimedia layer of MacOS X. This is not in dispute. As multimedia layer of MacOS X, it comprises a substantial fraction of the OS. QuickTime for Windows is a port of QuickTime for the MacOS X, not some other software under the same name. Porting QuickTime to Windows does not magically transform it to something else. It remains a substantial fraction of MacOS X.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You seem to labor under the delusion that QuickTime is an application. It is not. QuickTime is the multimedia layer of MacOS X. This is not in dispute. As multimedia layer of MacOS X, it comprises a substantial fraction of the OS. QuickTime for Windows is a port of QuickTime for the MacOS X, not some other software under the same name. Porting QuickTime to Windows does not magically transform it to something else. It remains a substantial fraction of MacOS X.
No, QuickTime in Windows is just an application. And a very bad one at that. Its not a multimedia layer of Windows XP, and it has no resemblance to the original QuickTime in Mac OS X, apart from the name and the same company.
The media layer in XP is Windows Media Player, and I seriously doubt that Microsoft would let anyone, let alone Apple, substitute their own media layer with QuickTime.
If you ever use Windows, fire up QuickTime (if its even there, 'cause you gotta download it) and you will see the difference between QuickTime in Mac OS X and QuickTime in WindowsXP.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
No, QuickTime in Windows is just an application. And a very bad one at that. Its not a multimedia layer of Windows XP, and it has no resemblance to the original QuickTime in Mac OS X, apart from the name and the same company.
The media layer in XP is Windows Media Player, and I seriously doubt that Microsoft would let anyone, let alone Apple, substitute their own media layer with QuickTime.
If you ever use Windows, fire up QuickTime (if its even there, 'cause you gotta download it) and you will see the difference between QuickTime in Mac OS X and QuickTime in WindowsXP.
Apart from a few minor cosmetic differences I think the applications are the same. The application on the mac isn't groundbreaking, it's the fact it's built into finder so brilliantly. But if WMP is built into windows how can the EU demand that they ship computers without it? A mac without quicktime wouldn't work properly.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apart from a few minor cosmetic differences I think the applications are the same. The application on the mac isn't groundbreaking, it's the fact it's built into finder so brilliantly. But if WMP is built into windows how can the EU demand that they ship computers without it? A mac without quicktime wouldn't work properly.
Yes, its built into the finder, vis-a-vis the system. On Windows its just another application. Its not any different from say, DivX player or VLC.
But, Windows Media Player is built into the Explorer somewhat, though not to the extent of QuickTime on Finder.
Well, the EU can demand and Windows is shipping without them. But, in order to do that, Microsoft is creating a different version of XP. That's because you can't remove WMP. But you can remove QuickTime - the application - if you want.
The EU is arguing, successfully, that Microsoft is eliminating competition by not giving the user the option to uninstall WMP and by bundling it with the OS. Because Microsoft is a giant in OS software, its impact is much bigger than that of Apple bundling QuickTime.
Anyway, if I'm wrong, please correct me.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yes, its built into the finder, vis-a-vis the system. On Windows its just another application. Its not any different from say, DivX player or VLC.
But, Windows Media Player is built into the Explorer somewhat, though not to the extent of QuickTime on Finder.
Well, the EU can demand and Windows is shipping without them. But, in order to do that, Microsoft is creating a different version of XP. That's because you can't remove WMP. But you can remove QuickTime - the application - if you want.
The EU is arguing, successfully, that Microsoft is eliminating competition by not giving the user the option to uninstall WMP and by bundling it with the OS. Because Microsoft is a giant in OS software, its impact is much bigger than that of Apple bundling QuickTime.
Anyway, if I'm wrong, please correct me.
Windows can work without WMP the framework isn't required as much. OS X wouldn't work without quicktime. If Apple had the majority they couldn't be asked to remove it, it's built into the finder. Windows hasn't got WMP built into it.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Windows can work without WMP the framework isn't required as much. OS X wouldn't work without quicktime. If Apple had the majority they couldn't be asked to remove it, it's built into the finder. Windows hasn't got WMP built into it.
You are ignoring one thing: whatever you build, you can also take out. IE is also built into the kernel, but it can be taken out; if Microsoft wants to take it out. Apple can continue to provide the media layer but not bundle the application called QuickTime. That's what Microsoft will do. They will only take out the application, not the entire media layer. .wma will still be playable, but you will be required to download WMP yourself, or choose something else, and download some other media player, like WinAMP, etc.
I'm not saying anything about QuickTime in OS X, I'm saying that QuickTime in OS X functions differently from QuickTime in XP.
And WMP is also built into Explorer. If you open a Folder that contains music, you will see on the left side a column that says:
" 1. Play All
2. Shop for music online
3. Copy All items to Audio CD "
That's built in right into the Explorer, and there's no way you can take it out. You can hide it, but not eliminate it. That's what I call being built-in.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You are ignoring one thing: whatever you build, you can also take out. IE is also built into the kernel, but it can be taken out; if Microsoft wants to take it out. Apple can continue to provide the media layer but not bundle the application called QuickTime. That's what Microsoft will do. They will only take out the application, not the entire media layer. .wma will still be playable, but you will be required to download WMP yourself, or choose something else, and download some other media player, like WinAMP, etc.
I'm not saying anything about QuickTime in OS X, I'm saying that QuickTime in OS X functions differently from QuickTime in XP.
And WMP is also built into Explorer. If you open a Folder that contains music, you will see on the left side a column that says:
" 1. Play All
2. Shop for music online
3. Copy All items to Audio CD "
That's built in right into the Explorer, and there's no way you can take it out. You can hide it, but not eliminate it. That's what I call being built-in.
agreed
Safari for Windows?
You mean Firefox?
Originally posted by MacCrazy
agreed
when you click play all it actually opens WMP and the same with pictures, windows picture viewer is open, explorer has very little built into it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I don't agree at all. If you have any examples to support your claim that a substantial fraction of Mac OS X was ported to Windows (x86) in order to allow for QuickTime and iTunes, and better yet, to show us how a substantial fraction of Mac OS X is able to be ported and still be able to be 21.5 MB, the size of the SetupiTunes.exe in XP, then it'd be easier for me to see what you're saying.
Fine, you want proof.
06.10 $
pwd
/cygdrive/c/programme/iTunes
06.10 $
strings iTunes.exe | grep ^CF
CFIAt
CFIAu
CFIA
CFPR
CFPR
CFPQ
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFPQ
CFPR
CFPQ
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFPR
CFArray
CFString
CFAllocator
CFNull
CFType
CFData
CFDictionary
CFBoolean
CFNumber
CFSet
CFHTTPMessage
CF$UID
CFPropertyListAllowImmutableCollections
CFPropertyListCreateFromXMLData(): Old-style plist parser: missing semicolon in dictionary.
CFPropertyListCreateFromXMLData(): The file name for this data might be (or it might not): %@
CFURL
CFTimeZone
CFDate
CFStorage
CFUniqueString-%lu%lu$
CFCharacterSetBitmaps.bitmap
CFUniCharPropertyDatabase.data
CFUnicodeData-L.mapping
CFCharacterSetCheckForExpandedSet
CFCharacterSet
CFLocale
CFBinaryHeap
CFBitVector
CFBag
CFTree
CFXMLNode 0x%x>{typeID = %d, string = %@}
CFXMLNode
CFXMLParser
CFBundleInfoDictionaryVersion
CFBundleExecutable
CFBundleIdentifier
CFBundleVersion
CFBundleDevelopmentRegion
CFBundleLocalizations
CFBundlePackageType
CFBundleSignature
CFBundleIconFile
CFBundleDocumentTypes
CFBundleURLTypes
CFBundleName
CFBundleDisplayName
CFBundleShortVersionString
CFBundleGetInfoString
CFBundleGetInfoHTML
CFBundleTypeName
CFBundleTypeRole
CFBundleTypeIconFile
CFBundleTypeOSTypes
CFBundleTypeExtensions
CFBundleTypeMIMETypes
CFBundleURLName
CFBundleURLIconFile
CFBundleURLSchemes
CFBundleInfoPlistURL
CFBundleNumericVersion
CFBundleExecutablePath
CFBundleCFMLoadAsBundle
CFBundleAllowMixedLocalizations
CFBundle/CFPlugIn 0x%x <%@> (%@%sloaded)
CFBundle 0x%x <%@> (%@%sloaded)
CFBundle
CFBundleDisableStringsSharing
CFPlugInDynamicRegistration
CFPlugInDynamicRegisterFunction
CFPlugInUnloadFunction
CFPlugInFactories
CFPlugInTypes
CFPlugInInstance
CFUUID
CFRunLoopMode
CFRunLoop
CFRunLoopSource
CFRunLoopObserver
CFRunLoopTimer
CFSocketRegistryRequest
CFSocket
CFSocketSetAddress(): listen() failed, error %d
CFSocketSetAcceptBacklog(): listen() failed, error %d
CFReadStream
CFWriteStream
CFProcessPath
CFKeyedArchiverUID
CFPlugInDynamicRegister
CFXCD
CFCm
CFCm
CFCm
06.10 $
strings iTunes.exe | grep ^NS
NSVWU0
NSYD
NSDecimalSeparator
NSExecutable
NSInfoPlistVersion
NSHumanReadableName
NSIcon
NSTypes
NSAppVersion
NSName
NSRole
NSUnixExtensions
NSDOSExtensions
NSMacOSType
NSR0%d
That enough? As you can see, iTunes for Windows contains a ton of headers from CoreFoundation. Since CoreFoundation is *Mac OS X*'s API to unify Carbon and Cocoa features, obviously we have quite a straight port here.
And if you've never seen any Aqua in iTunes for Windows, I'll have to assume you've never launched the app at all.
Originally posted by Chucker
[B]Fine, you want proof.
I wanted proof how a substantial fraction of Mac OS X can be ported to Windows and still be only 21 MB.
A couple of buttons looking like Aqua doesn't mean the entire Aqua was ported.
Otherwise, what to say about this?
http://www.deviantart.com/view/6173778/
that's not safari, that's firefox.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Apple can continue to provide the media layer but not bundle the application called QuickTime.
The application isn't called Quicktime - it's called Quicktime Player!
And WMP is also built into Explorer. If you open a Folder that contains music, you will see on the left side a column that says:
That's different. Quicktime is actually what does the display and image processing for a heck of a lot of apps. The finder preview was one example, but how about opening strange graphics in iphoto? Video export in imovie? Handling sound files such as Ogg or Wav in iTunes? Or, leaving Apple's apps, how about displaying images in Omniweb? Providing more export formats in GraphicConverter? These apps would all break without Quicktime.
Microsoft's linking, as far as I'm aware, just counts as a few built-in shortcuts. Certainly, Quicktime is built in a lot deeper than the example you posted.
Amorya
Originally posted by Chucker
That enough? As you can see, iTunes for Windows contains a ton of headers from CoreFoundation. Since CoreFoundation is *Mac OS X*'s API to unify Carbon and Cocoa features, obviously we have quite a straight port here.
And if you've never seen any Aqua in iTunes for Windows, I'll have to assume you've never launched the app at all.
They've reduced aqua in iTunes with 4.7.1
Originally posted by Amorya
The application isn't called Quicktime - it's called Quicktime Player!
This doesn't matter much, because you know what I mean when I say QuickTime. I mean the player. I don't see what's so important here as to stress the difference.
That's different. Quicktime is actually what does the display and image processing for a heck of a lot of apps. The finder preview was one example, but how about opening strange graphics in iphoto? Video export in imovie? Handling sound files such as Ogg or Wav in iTunes? Or, leaving Apple's apps, how about displaying images in Omniweb? Providing more export formats in GraphicConverter? These apps would all break without Quicktime.
Microsoft's linking, as far as I'm aware, just counts as a few built-in shortcuts. Certainly, Quicktime is built in a lot deeper than the example you posted.
Amorya [/B]
Agreed. However, I don't know why we got to what QuickTime does and whether it would break or not. I think me and MacCrazy were talking about how Microsoft is gonna take out WMP for the EU market and he said that if Apple does the same thing it would break the system. I said that it would, but that WMP is also built in to some extent though certainly not as much as QuickTime.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this.