O.K. I'm sorry for implying that you didn't know that. But if you go to VersionTracker and read some of the dumb reviews over there ("it won't play my bastardised DivX/mp3 pron AVIs!!!! QuickTime suxors!!!!!!!"), you'll realise that really not everyone does know it.
Perhaps this is more debatable than I thought.
I'm not sure how providing a complete set of entirely new APIs, properly supporting more than two channels of sound, and sample rates greater than 44.1 KHz for the first time, could be considered as less improvement than QT5 --> QT6. To be honest, It seems that my view of the QT5 --> QT6 transition is the same as your view of QT6 --> QT7.
Apple completely rewrote QT for ver 6. The problem it had was that like a lot of programs, frameworks, etc., it was difficult to upgrade. These things get more and more complex over the years until they become too difficult to modify without causing so many code changes that the debug process becomes overwhelming.
Adobe had that problem with PS. So version 5 was almost completely rewritten as a modular series of components plugged into a small main central core. Now it's easy to modify, add, and subtract from the program without effecting other parts.
Apple did the same thing to QT for ver. 6. Now they can also add, modify, or subtract much more easily and quickly, without having to debug the entire program.
With changes in the market coming ever more quickly, and with Apple adding services every few months, this became necessary.
Adding API's, codecs, etc., is more easily done because of it.
This is why 6 was more significant an upgrade than 7 is.
Are you sure you're not confusing QT6 and QT7, mel?? Seriously.
QT6 was a cleanup, ala Carbon. APIs changed as legacy crud was ditched. It was a paring down of the old structures and frameworks into something more manageable, in preparation for...
QT7 was a rewrite, ala Cocoa. APIs were mostly stable, but under the hood it changed *dramatically*. New APIs were added, to boot.
I guess it all depends on what you consider a 'change': API or code.
Are you sure you're not confusing QT6 and QT7, mel?? Seriously.
QT6 was a cleanup, ala Carbon. APIs changed as legacy crud was ditched. It was a paring down of the old structures and frameworks into something more manageable, in preparation for...
QT7 was a rewrite, ala Cocoa. APIs were mostly stable, but under the hood it changed *dramatically*. New APIs were added, to boot.
I guess it all depends on what you consider a 'change': API or code.
Yeah, I'm sure of that. Without the code changes, Apple would have had a Hell of a time moving it to Cocoa in the first place.
Well yes, but that's like saying that moving an app from Mac Toolbox to Carbon was a bigger change than moving it to Cocoa, IMO.
QT6 was a cleanup, QT7 was a revamp. 6 required some good forward thinking design, while 7 required lots and lots of grunt work. IMO, 7 is a much bigger deal both on the back end and what it means to developers, but we can agree to disagree, it's not really an important point.
Well yes, but that's like saying that moving an app from Mac Toolbox to Carbon was a bigger change than moving it to Cocoa, IMO.
QT6 was a cleanup, QT7 was a revamp. 6 required some good forward thinking design, while 7 required lots and lots of grunt work. IMO, 7 is a much bigger deal both on the back end and what it means to developers, but we can agree to disagree, it's not really an important point.
No, it's not really that important. What's done is done.
No, it's not really that important. What's done is done.
Mel, to my point I agree that QT is part of the Mac OS I guess I was referring to iPod users that are upgrading. That drives the sales of the prokeys. And I agree with everyone else, you are wrong about QT7 and QT6 Sorry had to ahve fun with that. But of course QT is the heart of the Mac OS, and as such should be included. It is like buying and car and then having to add headlights, sure you could drive it, but only during the day.
Mel, to my point I agree that QT is part of the Mac OS I guess I was referring to iPod users that are upgrading. That drives the sales of the prokeys. And I agree with everyone else, you are wrong about QT7 and QT6 Sorry had to ahve fun with that. But of course QT is the heart of the Mac OS, and as such should be included. It is like buying and car and then having to add headlights, sure you could drive it, but only during the day.
Think what you like. I'm not going to reactivate that discussion.
heh. agree to disagree is the best strategy for now...
okay so i re-installed winXP64bit with nVidia 81.85 drivers. Quicktime 7.0.3 Pro works very well for HD trailers and the like. no more vertical flicker / tearing issues, playback is now smooth as silk with crisp sound.
heh. agree to disagree is the best strategy for now...
okay so i re-installed winXP64bit with nVidia 81.85 drivers. Quicktime 7.0.3 Pro works very well for HD trailers and the like. no more vertical flicker / tearing issues, playback is now smooth as silk with crisp sound.
just something to think about...
When you say HD, which format do you mean? And can I assume that you are talking about H.264?
yeah. apple-encoded 720p h.264 quicktime7 movie trailers ...btw they can be played (with some artifacts though) with videolan vlc 0.8.4.something
I can play those without a problem on a Digital audio upgraded with a Powerlogix dual 1.8 GHz 7447 board. 1080p H.264 plays, but it skips frames and occasionally stutters.
All is well on a dual 2GHz G5.
And I sure hope so on that new Quad I'm planning for in January.
I can play those without a problem on a Digital audio upgraded with a Powerlogix dual 1.8 GHz 7447 board. 1080p H.264 plays, but it skips frames and occasionally stutters.
All is well on a dual 2GHz G5.
And I sure hope so on that new Quad I'm planning for in January.
720p and 1080p support through Vid cards first, don't know about encoding, lots of work to do there to make it speed up.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
O.K. I'm sorry for implying that you didn't know that. But if you go to VersionTracker and read some of the dumb reviews over there ("it won't play my bastardised DivX/mp3 pron AVIs!!!! QuickTime suxors!!!!!!!"), you'll realise that really not everyone does know it.
Perhaps this is more debatable than I thought.
I'm not sure how providing a complete set of entirely new APIs, properly supporting more than two channels of sound, and sample rates greater than 44.1 KHz for the first time, could be considered as less improvement than QT5 --> QT6. To be honest, It seems that my view of the QT5 --> QT6 transition is the same as your view of QT6 --> QT7.
Apple completely rewrote QT for ver 6. The problem it had was that like a lot of programs, frameworks, etc., it was difficult to upgrade. These things get more and more complex over the years until they become too difficult to modify without causing so many code changes that the debug process becomes overwhelming.
Adobe had that problem with PS. So version 5 was almost completely rewritten as a modular series of components plugged into a small main central core. Now it's easy to modify, add, and subtract from the program without effecting other parts.
Apple did the same thing to QT for ver. 6. Now they can also add, modify, or subtract much more easily and quickly, without having to debug the entire program.
With changes in the market coming ever more quickly, and with Apple adding services every few months, this became necessary.
Adding API's, codecs, etc., is more easily done because of it.
This is why 6 was more significant an upgrade than 7 is.
Are you sure you're not confusing QT6 and QT7, mel?? Seriously.
QT6 was a cleanup, ala Carbon. APIs changed as legacy crud was ditched. It was a paring down of the old structures and frameworks into something more manageable, in preparation for...
QT7 was a rewrite, ala Cocoa. APIs were mostly stable, but under the hood it changed *dramatically*. New APIs were added, to boot.
I guess it all depends on what you consider a 'change': API or code.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Are you sure you're not confusing QT6 and QT7, mel?? Seriously.
QT6 was a cleanup, ala Carbon. APIs changed as legacy crud was ditched. It was a paring down of the old structures and frameworks into something more manageable, in preparation for...
QT7 was a rewrite, ala Cocoa. APIs were mostly stable, but under the hood it changed *dramatically*. New APIs were added, to boot.
I guess it all depends on what you consider a 'change': API or code.
Yeah, I'm sure of that. Without the code changes, Apple would have had a Hell of a time moving it to Cocoa in the first place.
QT6 was a cleanup, QT7 was a revamp. 6 required some good forward thinking design, while 7 required lots and lots of grunt work. IMO, 7 is a much bigger deal both on the back end and what it means to developers, but we can agree to disagree, it's not really an important point.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Well yes, but that's like saying that moving an app from Mac Toolbox to Carbon was a bigger change than moving it to Cocoa, IMO.
QT6 was a cleanup, QT7 was a revamp. 6 required some good forward thinking design, while 7 required lots and lots of grunt work. IMO, 7 is a much bigger deal both on the back end and what it means to developers, but we can agree to disagree, it's not really an important point.
No, it's not really that important. What's done is done.
Originally posted by melgross
No, it's not really that important. What's done is done.
Mel, to my point I agree that QT is part of the Mac OS I guess I was referring to iPod users that are upgrading. That drives the sales of the prokeys. And I agree with everyone else, you are wrong about QT7 and QT6
Originally posted by Brendon
Mel, to my point I agree that QT is part of the Mac OS I guess I was referring to iPod users that are upgrading. That drives the sales of the prokeys. And I agree with everyone else, you are wrong about QT7 and QT6
Think what you like. I'm not going to reactivate that discussion.
okay so i re-installed winXP64bit with nVidia 81.85 drivers. Quicktime 7.0.3 Pro works very well for HD trailers and the like. no more vertical flicker / tearing issues, playback is now smooth as silk with crisp sound.
just something to think about...
Originally posted by sunilraman
heh. agree to disagree is the best strategy for now...
okay so i re-installed winXP64bit with nVidia 81.85 drivers. Quicktime 7.0.3 Pro works very well for HD trailers and the like. no more vertical flicker / tearing issues, playback is now smooth as silk with crisp sound.
just something to think about...
When you say HD, which format do you mean? And can I assume that you are talking about H.264?
Originally posted by melgross
When you say HD, which format do you mean? And can I assume that you are talking about H.264?
yeah. apple-encoded 720p h.264 quicktime7 movie trailers
Originally posted by sunilraman
yeah. apple-encoded 720p h.264 quicktime7 movie trailers
I can play those without a problem on a Digital audio upgraded with a Powerlogix dual 1.8 GHz 7447 board. 1080p H.264 plays, but it skips frames and occasionally stutters.
All is well on a dual 2GHz G5.
And I sure hope so on that new Quad I'm planning for in January.
Originally posted by melgross
I can play those without a problem on a Digital audio upgraded with a Powerlogix dual 1.8 GHz 7447 board. 1080p H.264 plays, but it skips frames and occasionally stutters.
All is well on a dual 2GHz G5.
And I sure hope so on that new Quad I'm planning for in January.
720p and 1080p support through Vid cards first, don't know about encoding, lots of work to do there to make it speed up.
Originally posted by Brendon
720p and 1080p support through Vid cards first, don't know about encoding, lots of work to do there to make it speed up.
Both ATI and Nvidia are promising that, but it hasn't gotten here yet, either for PC's or Macs.
Originally posted by melgross
Both ATI and Nvidia are promising that, but it hasn't gotten here yet, either for PC's or Macs.
Patience is a virtue that carries allot of wait
Originally posted by Brendon
Patience is a virtue that carries allot of wait
Tell me about it!
Clever!