When will Quicktime be ready for prime time?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.

The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
know what is. (!)

So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?

Pigeon
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Pigeon Hohl" <pigeon@dontfeed.org> wrote in message news:meXec.8279$A_4.5950@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>
> The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
> and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
> in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
> I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
> a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
> know what is. (!)
>
> So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
> enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
> to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?

Whenever I come across a website that uses QT .mov
(and the far more insidious Real Media) clips, I write the
web designer(s) a polite note asking them to please join
the 21st century. There's no excuse for it anymore.
Properly encoded MPEG-1 with decent source matches
or beats QT in almost all cases.

BTW one does not need QT to view MPEG4.

Rick
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Pigeon Hohl wrote:

> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> having to download the free QT player.

That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:31:30 GMT) it happened Pigeon Hohl
<pigeon@dontfeed.org> wrote in
<meXec.8279$A_4.5950@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:

>It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
>there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
>having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
>folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
>the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>
>The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
>and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
>in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
>I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
>a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
>know what is. (!)
>
>So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
>enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
>to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?
>
>Pigeon
I dunno, there is for example no quicktime 6 plugin for netscape in Linux
last time I looked.
Really really weard.
I just put DivX on my site, that people who have Linux can play with
mplayer -cache 512 url
(and that in .avi format).

So, and even mediaplayer plays that after downloading, if DivX codec
installed.
The windows .wmv is also very good, especially with low bitrates, but
all sorts of license stuff you have to think aboy IIRC.
There will probably likely never be just ONE format.
JP
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <407C4D8E.7A1C1CA4@hotmail.com>,
Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Pigeon Hohl wrote:
>
> > It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> > there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> > having to download the free QT player.
>
> That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen.


New to usenet?

Pigeon
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <c5hg4u$1pp10$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:


> Properly encoded MPEG-1 with decent source matches
> or beats QT in almost all cases.
>


From the samples I've seen, the file sizes have been much larger
with MPEG 1 to get quality comparable to Quicktime.
I'm trying to get the best quality at the smallest possible size.


> BTW one does not need QT to view MPEG4.


Can you point me to some on-line samples I can check next time I'm on a
Windows machine--without downloading any special plug in?

Are you saying that Windows and Linux media players can view Mp4 video
right now--as is?

This would be great--if it's true.

Pigeon
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Pigeon Hohl" <pigeon@dontfeed.org> wrote in message news:a5Zec.8834$A_4.1484@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> In article <c5hg4u$1pp10$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Properly encoded MPEG-1 with decent source matches
> > or beats QT in almost all cases.
> >
>
>
> From the samples I've seen, the file sizes have been much larger
> with MPEG 1 to get quality comparable to Quicktime.
> I'm trying to get the best quality at the smallest possible size.

For web use? People either have broadband or they don't.
And 85% of the world still doesn't. A few MB (or even
more than a few) won't make much difference.

> > BTW one does not need QT to view MPEG4.
>
>
> Can you point me to some on-line samples I can check next time I'm on a
> Windows machine--without downloading any special plug in?
>
> Are you saying that Windows and Linux media players can view Mp4 video
> right now--as is?

No. But the point is, it's faster/easier/better to simply install
a codec, rather than install an entirely separate viewer.

Rick
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c5hq99$1uq7b$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Pigeon Hohl" <pigeon@dontfeed.org> wrote in message
news:a5Zec.8834$A_4.1484@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > In article <c5hg4u$1pp10$1@ID-82690.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Rick" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Properly encoded MPEG-1 with decent source matches
> > > or beats QT in almost all cases.
> > >
> >
> >
> > From the samples I've seen, the file sizes have been much larger
> > with MPEG 1 to get quality comparable to Quicktime.
> > I'm trying to get the best quality at the smallest possible size.
>
SNIP

> No. But the point is, it's faster/easier/better to simply install
> a codec, rather than install an entirely separate viewer.

Rick, it may be faster/easier/better for you to simply install a codec or a
QT player. However, let's say you want to deliver video to a diverse group
of net users that are for the most part in large companies with large IT
departments. Your target audience consists of a few people in one or two
small departments of those companies. What choices make sense for you now?
How will you handle all the customer service calls asking, "How do I play
your video?" It is one thing to provide a solution appropriate for your
girlfriend who is off to college. It is quite another to deal with
compatibility issues in a business environment. It is why so many of us
struggle along with MPEG 1 rather than formats capable of higher quality vs.
file size.

Steve King
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:29:02 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C4D8E.7A1C1CA4@hotmail.com>:

>
>
>Pigeon Hohl wrote:
>
>> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
>> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
>> having to download the free QT player.
>
>That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen.
Yes and no, because there is no quicktime 6 plugin for netscape in Linux,
any site who does that prevenst Linux users from seeing whatever it is
they have.
Apple should fix this.
Or we should really use a different format.
mpeg4 is just fine.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:29:02 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C4D8E.7A1C1CA4@hotmail.com>:
>
> >
> >
> >Pigeon Hohl wrote:
> >
> >> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> >> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> >> having to download the free QT player.
> >
> >That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen.
> Yes and no, because there is no quicktime 6 plugin for netscape in Linux,
> any site who does that prevenst Linux users from seeing whatever it is
> they have.
> Apple should fix this.
> Or we should really use a different format.
> mpeg4 is just fine.

My point was that for ANY multimedia type, regardless of whether it's mpeg-4
or some new format from the ET hackers on Setus Prime 7, you're going to have
to have a codec installed in order to view it!

Perhaps the "solution" is to file a lawsuit forcing Microsoft to include
Quicktime player, and for Linux to include Mplayer and Mplayer-plugin (and
the codec pack). No scratch that, that's no solution.

The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download the
plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying in your
beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
grief. That's just SO lame.

It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a few
weeks ago in another group).

Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> My point was that for ANY multimedia type, regardless of whether it's
mpeg-4
> or some new format from the ET hackers on Setus Prime 7, you're going
to have
> to have a codec installed in order to view it!

For wmv files, all flavors of Windows already have the necessary codecs
installed.

> Perhaps the "solution" is to file a lawsuit forcing Microsoft to
include
> Quicktime player, and for Linux to include Mplayer and Mplayer-plugin
(and
> the codec pack). No scratch that, that's no solution.

We agree there.

> The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download
the
> plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying
in your
> beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin!
Good
> grief. That's just SO lame.

A _lot_ of people will just not do that due to the overblown fear of
viri, trojans, etc. I guess you don't work with corporate types very
much?

> It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
> includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a
few
> weeks ago in another group).

Agreed.

> Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.

I wholeheartedly disagree on that one.

Personally, I think Quicktime is already ready for primetime.
Unfortunately, only for people who have Apple boxes. I've made a
decision on my site to only offer wmv files. Like I said before, Windows
users don't have to do _anything_ to be able to view them, which takes
care of 90% of computer users. The other 10% that run Apple or Unix
variants will already know what they have to do to view them. They're
already used to operating in a Windows centric world.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>,
Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download the
> plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying in your
> beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
> grief. That's just SO lame.


Clearly I'm just not as smart as you;
thanks for taking the time to enlighten me.

Now, when people tell me that they can't view my Mp4 movies
from their windows machines, we can safely suspect they are even dumber
than me; since it's such a simple matter of just downloading a
"freakin" plug-in, you would think they would just "freakin" do it.

I mean, how could they be so stupid?

What a bunch of morons, eh?

Sorry to waste your time.

You may now continue wading through the less-dumb
"What Digicam Under $600 should I Buy?" threads...

Pigeon
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <2a2dnf3YeaO_7OHd4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote:

> It is one thing to provide a solution appropriate for your
> girlfriend who is off to college. It is quite another to deal with
> compatibility issues in a business environment. It is why so many of us
> struggle along with MPEG 1 rather than formats capable of higher quality vs.
> file size.


Thanks for pointing that out. There are many, many instances where
downloading a player or a plug-in is simply not an option.

Pigeon
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:03 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>:


>The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download the
>plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying in your
>beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
>grief. That's just SO lame.
>
>It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
>includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a few
>weeks ago in another group).
>
>Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a month
ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch some
site.
Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3 month
later you found it was expired...
So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all have a
fast link.
JP
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:03 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>:
>
> >The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download the
> >plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying in your
> >beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
> >grief. That's just SO lame.
> >
> >It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
> >includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a few
> >weeks ago in another group).
> >
> >Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
> Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a month
> ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch some
> site.
> Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3 month
> later you found it was expired...
> So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all have a
> fast link.
> JP

This is a "video" group.

Quicktime is a video player.

I like seeing video in whatever format it's in. If I don't have the plugin, I
download it. Not a big deal.

I've used a modem too - I've downloaded 200 MB of Linux updates over a modem
(right before I decided that if I was going to use Linux I needed broadband. ;->

But I've never griped about having to download a Quicktime player.

It's just stupid to be griping about something so trivial.

Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by millions of
people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security fixes... ;->
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407C7937.285890C0@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:03 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> > <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > >The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download
the
> > >plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying
in your
> > >beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
> > >grief. That's just SO lame.
> > >
> > >It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
> > >includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a
few
> > >weeks ago in another group).
> > >
> > >Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
> > Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a
month
> > ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch
some
> > site.
> > Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3
month
> > later you found it was expired...
> > So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all
have a
> > fast link.
> > JP
>
> This is a "video" group.
>
> Quicktime is a video player.
>
> I like seeing video in whatever format it's in. If I don't have the
plugin, I
> download it. Not a big deal.
>
> I've used a modem too - I've downloaded 200 MB of Linux updates over a
modem
> (right before I decided that if I was going to use Linux I needed
broadband. ;->
>
> But I've never griped about having to download a Quicktime player.
>
> It's just stupid to be griping about something so trivial.
>
> Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by
millions of
> people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security
fixes... ;->

Keith, you don't seem to get it. You are (probably from you use of the
language) one freakin' teenager with nothing but time on your hands. The
rest of us are talking about solutions for video delivery to people in
corporate environments, who can barely find their keyboards, who cannot
install anything on their computers for fear of their jobs, but who need to
see our stuff. When you grow up, you'll have a wider view of the world.

Steve King
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407C7937.285890C0@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:03 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> > <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > >The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download
the
> > >plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying
in your
> > >beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
> > >grief. That's just SO lame.
> > >
> > >It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
> > >includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a
few
> > >weeks ago in another group).
> > >
> > >Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
> > Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a
month
> > ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch
some
> > site.
> > Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3
month
> > later you found it was expired...
> > So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all
have a
> > fast link.
> > JP
>
> This is a "video" group.
>
> Quicktime is a video player.
>
> I like seeing video in whatever format it's in. If I don't have the
plugin, I
> download it. Not a big deal.
>
> I've used a modem too - I've downloaded 200 MB of Linux updates over a
modem
> (right before I decided that if I was going to use Linux I needed
broadband. ;->
>
> But I've never griped about having to download a Quicktime player.
>
> It's just stupid to be griping about something so trivial.
>
> Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by
millions of
> people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security
fixes... ;->
>

And, to add to my other points earlier posted... in the past decade I have
not run across a single client using Linux. So, I don't spend a lot of time
worrying about that.

Steve King
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Pigeon Hohl wrote:
> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.

If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
downloading a movie over the internet anyway.

-Richard
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Pigeon Hohl wrote:

> It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>
> The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
> and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
> in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
> I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
> a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
> know what is. (!)
>
> So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
> enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
> to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?
>
> Pigeon

I wrote this in response to another topic, but I think it fits here too..

There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can create
using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.
This is something new that allows you to embed a .flv video into a flash
application. You then place your flash embedded file into your web
page. Why??.. because if you used Flash as your player, you would solve
a huge amount of compatibility problems and not force anyone to install
another application on their computer. Flash players have a near 98%
saturation on browsers right now over every OS. This option is a little
bit more complex as you'll have to do your homework on this new format,
but it might be worth it to you.

Hope this helps.
-Richard
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
> Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can
create
> using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.

I realize I'm in the vast _minority_ here but I won't allow that
bandwidth hogging piece of s/w on my computer, even though I'm no longer
on dialup. For people on dialup, Flash does nothing but increase the
time it takes for a site to load. A with Flash enabled sites, it's hard
to read with all that blinking and moving going on. IMO, it's the most
abused "feature" anyone can put on their website. A perfect example is
here:

http://www.stevengotz.com/premiere.htm

This guy knows a _lot_ about Premier but try to navigate his site
_without_ Flash enabled. I lose count after _nine_ separate instances
asking me if I want to install Flash. Why do people insist on wanting
people to install s/w just to enable them to navigate a site?

Sorry, but putting video on a site with Flash is not a good idea for
most people... imo of course.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
news:Mc1fc.2164676$iA2.252692@news.easynews.com...
> Pigeon Hohl wrote:
>
> > It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> > there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> > having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> > folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> > the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
> >
> > The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
> > and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
> > in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
> > I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
> > a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
> > know what is. (!)
> >
> > So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
> > enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
> > to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?
> >
> > Pigeon
>
> I wrote this in response to another topic, but I think it fits here too..
>
> There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
> Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can create
> using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.
> This is something new that allows you to embed a .flv video into a flash
> application. You then place your flash embedded file into your web
> page. Why??.. because if you used Flash as your player, you would solve
> a huge amount of compatibility problems and not force anyone to install
> another application on their computer. Flash players have a near 98%
> saturation on browsers right now over every OS. This option is a little
> bit more complex as you'll have to do your homework on this new format,
> but it might be worth it to you.
>
> Hope this helps.
> -Richard
>
Thanks for mentioning Flash. Some people seem to hate web sites that use
it, but I suspect that they are substantailly in the minority. I'm working
on a new web site. I'll make sure to look at your suggestion.

Steve King
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Morrmar" <morrmar@myway.com-no spam> wrote in message news:X52fc.25818$UC4.19991@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> > There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
> > Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can
> create
> > using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.
>
> I realize I'm in the vast _minority_ here but I won't allow that
> bandwidth hogging piece of s/w on my computer, even though I'm no longer
> on dialup. For people on dialup, Flash does nothing but increase the
> time it takes for a site to load. A with Flash enabled sites, it's hard
> to read with all that blinking and moving going on. IMO, it's the most
> abused "feature" anyone can put on their website. A perfect example is
> here:
>
> http://www.stevengotz.com/premiere.htm
>
> This guy knows a _lot_ about Premier but try to navigate his site
> _without_ Flash enabled. I lose count after _nine_ separate instances
> asking me if I want to install Flash. Why do people insist on wanting
> people to install s/w just to enable them to navigate a site?
>
> Sorry, but putting video on a site with Flash is not a good idea for
> most people... imo of course.

Agreed, at least 99%. If you use Flash, always have a bypass
option, with a way to navigate around the site without using it.

Rick
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Steve King wrote:

> "Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:407C7937.285890C0@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >
> > > On a sunny day (Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:03 -0700) it happened Keith Clark
> > > <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in <407C653B.A71BC512@hotmail.com>:
> > >
> > > >The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download
> the
> > > >plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying
> in your
> > > >beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
> > > >grief. That's just SO lame.
> > > >
> > > >It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
> > > >includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a
> few
> > > >weeks ago in another group).
> > > >
> > > >Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
> > > Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a
> month
> > > ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch
> some
> > > site.
> > > Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3
> month
> > > later you found it was expired...
> > > So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all
> have a
> > > fast link.
> > > JP
> >
> > This is a "video" group.
> >
> > Quicktime is a video player.
> >
> > I like seeing video in whatever format it's in. If I don't have the
> plugin, I
> > download it. Not a big deal.
> >
> > I've used a modem too - I've downloaded 200 MB of Linux updates over a
> modem
> > (right before I decided that if I was going to use Linux I needed
> broadband. ;->
> >
> > But I've never griped about having to download a Quicktime player.
> >
> > It's just stupid to be griping about something so trivial.
> >
> > Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by
> millions of
> > people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security
> fixes... ;->
>
> Keith, you don't seem to get it. You are (probably from you use of the
> language) one freakin' teenager with nothing but time on your hands. The
> rest of us are talking about solutions for video delivery to people in
> corporate environments, who can barely find their keyboards, who cannot
> install anything on their computers for fear of their jobs, but who need to
> see our stuff. When you grow up, you'll have a wider view of the world.
>
> Steve King
> >

Grow up yourself.

I happen to be someone who works with Linux every day for a living and has no
tolerance for bullsh*t like this.

The fact remains that Quicktime (Sorenson codec) is an excellent quality format,
which is why so many people like to produce trailers in that format.

If you're too lazy or stupid to download a player, then too bad so sad for you,
but the fact remains that Quicktime is very much "ready for primetime".

So stop the stupid whining already that it wasn't pre-installed for you (you
sound like a bunch of cry-babies with nothing better to bitch that you're not
getting enough freebies), and grow the hell up yourself, butt-munch.

Don't bother replying, I killed this topic in my reader...
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Richard Ragon wrote:

> Pigeon Hohl wrote:
> > It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> > there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> > having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> > folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> > the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
>
> If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
> downloading a movie over the internet anyway.
>
> -Richard

Bingo!

Very well said.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:407D6BBC.7417F8A9@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Richard Ragon wrote:
>
> > Pigeon Hohl wrote:
> > > It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
> > > there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
> > > having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
> > > folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
> > > the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.
> >
> > If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
> > downloading a movie over the internet anyway.
> >
> > -Richard
>
> Bingo!
>
> Very well said.
>

So, Keith had his feelings hurt and is opting out of the thread. Good. He
never once addressed the issue that I tried to explain, i.e., that QT is
often just impossible for use for Windows dominent business use. On the
other hand, for individual users who are even mildly computer literate it is
terrific. Looks good. Small file size. But, it is still not a geek centric
world. If it ain't built in to the box that's a huge problem to overcome.

Steve King
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom