Quicktime7 Windows Preview3

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
The Macintel pieces continue to fall into place.

720p h.264 is relatively smooth and fluid on windozeXP1 amd venice 2.2ghz nvidia 6600gt 128 vram, 1gb dram



Preview2 was a little slow but I think they've made great progress on Preview3. not perfect yet, but coming along. just try playing 720p wmvhd on a mac



I am starting to think Apple is full steam ahead on Macintel now, and it will be their assault of the decade on market share. It's now or never, and they are definitely banking strongly on their Macintel push



hmm Intel announcement aug23 will show us possibly what macintels will be using? life after intel netburst etc?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 6
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    sidenote: i believe if and when iTunes Video store on h.264 shows up, then they'll give quicktime7 fullscreen player version away for free, leaving pro for transcoding type stuff.
  • Reply 2 of 6
    skatmanskatman Posts: 609member
    720p H.264 runs without any problems on my 1.1 GHz Pentium M ULV notebook with 855 GME graphics.

    It should fly on your venice!
  • Reply 3 of 6
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sunilraman

    The Macintel pieces continue to fall into place.

    720p h.264 is relatively smooth and fluid on windozeXP1 amd venice 2.2ghz nvidia 6600gt 128 vram, 1gb dram



    Preview2 was a little slow but I think they've made great progress on Preview3. not perfect yet, but coming along. just try playing 720p wmvhd on a mac



    I am starting to think Apple is full steam ahead on Macintel now, and it will be their assault of the decade on market share. It's now or never, and they are definitely banking strongly on their Macintel push




    Why are you talking about the Windows version of QT7 and Intel Macs?



    They don't have anything to do with each other, and QuickTime 7 is already running on the Developer Transition Kit.
  • Reply 4 of 6
    They have a good deal to do with each other. QuickTime 7 involves itself much more with the hardware (Core Image, Core Video). Don't rant about them being Mac OS X technologies, the "Core" nature of these things involves a great deal of hardware level things, most prominently communication with the GPU and CPU and who does what work in their relationship. So, if Apple can make QuickTime work on Windows (ala. Intel) machines, with Accelerate and SSE3, then making it work on a Mactel is that much closer to optimized.



    Come to think of it, I remember back when Core Video was shown as an integral part of QuickTime and people were all wondering how they were going to be able to offer the same performance on a PC. Apple is killing 2 birds with 1 stone.



    edit: I missed that last line JLL. I don't recall any performance measurements for QuickTime or if they did an HD playback on the demo machine, but I'd bet that development with each is resulting in improvements to the other.
  • Reply 5 of 6
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by macserverX

    They have a good deal to do with each other. QuickTime 7 involves itself much more with the hardware (Core Image, Core Video). Don't rant about them being Mac OS X technologies, the "Core" nature of these things involves a great deal of hardware level things, most prominently communication with the GPU and CPU and who does what work in their relationship. So, if Apple can make QuickTime work on Windows (ala. Intel) machines, with Accelerate and SSE3, then making it work on a Mactel is that much closer to optimized.



    Come to think of it, I remember back when Core Video was shown as an integral part of QuickTime and people were all wondering how they were going to be able to offer the same performance on a PC. Apple is killing 2 birds with 1 stone.



    edit: I missed that last line JLL. I don't recall any performance measurements for QuickTime or if they did an HD playback on the demo machine, but I'd bet that development with each is resulting in improvements to the other.




    yeah that was what i was on about. in hindsight when we look at 2000-2005 and the deployment of iTunes and Quicktime for windows, we can read more into the behind the scenes 'secret double life' R&D at apple. their technology development for both mac os X on PPC, mac os X on intel, and windows on intel ; attempts at platform and hardware abstraction, are starting to payoff now.



    for quicktime as a case study, there are definitely separate builds they have to continue to deploy for the next few months, ie,



    (a)quicktime on mac os x ppc (soon to go to universal?)

    (b)quicktime universal binary for mac os x ppc/intel

    (c)quicktime on windows intel/amd



    but it looks like they are getting their strategy together on how to do this in an efficient way.



    mainly i was impressed with (c)quicktime on windows running h.264 quite well. it does fly frame-rate wise on my venice3000+, there is a nitpicky "vsync-type-flicker" however.



    in any case software development is one of apple's core strengths now, my main point was that i am getting a confident, secure feeling about macintel rollout based on these demonstrated software development strengths.



    who knows, once iWork has a spreadsheet they could roll out a iWork for windows. that way the "apple trojan horses" iTunes, quickTime and iWork will be inplace on windows, software that complements the iPod drive to Switching to OS X on MacIntel/MacPPC



    going further into speculation, Quicktime7 h.264 720p and 480p near-flawless playback on Windows is critical for any iTunes video store.



    some real smart software development managers and coders at apple. i'm bloody impressed, i must say.
  • Reply 6 of 6
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by macserverX

    So, if Apple can make QuickTime work on Windows (ala. Intel) machines, with Accelerate and SSE3, then making it work on a Mactel is that much closer to optimized.



    I'm posting here from an Apple Developer Transition Kit, and QT7 already works as I said.



    Again, finishing QT7 for Windows won't have an impact on QT7 on Intel Macs - if they are somehow connected, it would be the other way around.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by macserverX

    edit: I missed that last line JLL. I don't recall any performance measurements for QuickTime or if they did an HD playback on the demo machine, but I'd bet that development with each is resulting in improvements to the other



    HD playback is great considering the GMA900 chipset.
Sign In or Register to comment.