Windows Media Player 9 for Mac OS X

[coolbreeze]

'Bout time. Maybe this one will ACTUALLY play .wmv files. Is that so difficult?

[scorpion]

By fall, won't Apple incorporate support for these codecs without third-party (or M$oft) support? Doesn't it just seem logical? Please correct my ignorance.

[youngr40]

Hello

As much as I am not a big fan of Microsoft, this is good news.

We live in a world of many different technologies/platforms/standards and this is good news.

A lot of web content on the web is only available in the Windows media format and it is good see Microsoft makes the right choice and is planning an updated Version of Windows Media Player for Mac.


Regards
Roland
www.rolandjyoung.co.uk

[soggywulf]

Try http://mplayerosx.sourceforge.net/

It's free, and it plays most of the avi/divx/wmv stuff, in addition to some other formats.

Plus you don't have to gunk up your HD with MS garbage. :)

[j33pd0g]

Doesn't VLC play windows media stuff? Oh, wouldn't be nice if you had to play windows media stuff, you could play it in QT? I would rather have them release codecs for QT.

[stefman]

Well at least this MS product has not been cancelled yet. :rolleyes:

[Steamboatwillie]

Is this supposed to compete with iTunes? I think I am missing something here.

[MorganX]

It's about time. Everybody is using WM9 and Apple has no comparable streaming video.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by Steamboatwillie
Is this supposed to compete with iTunes? I think I am missing something here.

I can't imagine this version of WMP to be the same as the Windowz version, more like an updated version of the current media player for Mac OS.
Good thing they're updating it.

[MacGizmo]

The only sites I ever see this nasty, ugly, buggy media player use are porn sites! Why does MS even bother with a Mac version???

[AhmedFaisal]

The current player is a piece of dogpoop so its about time they come out with a new player, although it will only be relevant for streaming video. Thank goodness after the WMA Audio desaster with DivX AVIs containing WMA 8 tracks nobody is using proprietary **** like that in AVIs anymore.
Cheers,

Ahmed

[centauratlas]

So, will this enable playback of the Terminator 2 Extreme DVD? (e.g. "the complete theatrical version of the film in Microsoft Windows Media 9 series, playable in high resolution and 5.1 sound directly from your PC's DVD-ROM")

[chubakka]

It's called quicktime... and it's better.

Morgan = Troll???

[tcmcam]

Originally posted by Steamboatwillie
Is this supposed to compete with iTunes? I think I am missing something here.
This isn't going to be the full Windows Media Player like that in Windows XP. The XP version is a full jukebox (even though iTunes blows it away). This is simply a "player". Glad to hear it will work inside of Safari.

No matter what you think of Microsoft, the Mac platform needs to have access to the most common media formats just for "feature parity". As much as we hate to admit it, it's not a Quicktime world on the web.

Let's hope this gets RealMedia to support a GOOD safari plug-in (as well as Shockwave, Flash, etc). It kills me that most of these companies only list IE Mac or maybe Netscape Mac as "supported" browsers. (for example, RealPlayer plug-in in Safari for me shows the video, but the "control button" area is always just a black "dead zone" on the screen)

Jack

[Wes]

Originally posted by MorganX
It's about time. Everybody is using WM9 and Apple has no comparable streaming video.

Mp4 hasn't hit your block yet?

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by chubakka
Morgan = Troll???

Oh good grief.

Why would he be a troll? Because he said WMP is better?

I think chubakka a troll, for saying QT is better, and with no evidence to back it up. :rolleyes:

[djcobb44]

Like it or not, we need this. Also, I'll be able to watch videos on Launch.com again, on Mac OS X.

[Mudbug]

I think we should all show our support of the technology by NOT downloading it. What a waste of drive space. I've been able to exist quite happily not having a WMA player on my mac for anything, and plan to continue doing so.

[youngr40]

Hello

Don't knock it, if Microsoft want to develop Media player 9 for Mac OS X, let them, your not being forced to download and install it.

Lets face it at some point you may need a to access a file that needs WMP 9.

Which is why I am happy there doing it, at least I would have the software available on hand.

Would you rather have to goto a Windoz box to view the file?, not me.

I'd hate to see a Microsoft with draw development for Mac OS X.

Regards
Roland
www.rolandjyoung.co.uk

[MorganX]

Originally posted by chubakka
It's called quicktime... and it's better.

Morgan = Troll???

Quicktime does not "stream" it downloads and plays.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Wes
Mp4 hasn't hit your block yet?

Quicktime does not Stream. It does what media player did about 5 years ago. It downloads the file, and starts to play after downloading a certain percentage. Hoping then that the remainder of the file will have downloaded by the time playback of the partial download catches up.

WMP9 does true streaming. The only competing streaming media is Real media and I find WM9 audio and video to be superior.

I will be able to watch ESPN GO again once this is available on OS X. And it will be a pleasure to have a WMP9 Safari plug in that works in place.

[mac15]

looks like my info for macbytes did well :)

[Wes]

Originally posted by MorganX
Quicktime does not Stream. It does what media player did about 5 years ago. It downloads the file, and starts to play after downloading a certain percentage. Hoping then that the remainder of the file will have downloaded by the time playback of the partial download catches up.

WMP9 does true streaming. The only competing streaming media is Real media and I find WM9 audio and video to be superior.

I will be able to watch ESPN GO again once this is available on OS X. And it will be a pleasure to have a WMP9 Safari plug in that works in place.

Oh I SERIOUSLY beg to differ, what do you call Macworlds about a year back when Steve announced that they were live on the largest mp4 stream ever?

Quote from the Apple QT page:
"When it comes to streaming audio and video, QuickTime provides the higest quality, lowest cost, and easiest setup. (See independent review.) In addition, QuickTime holds the record for delivering the largest-ever live event on the Internet. QuickTime offers content providers the choice of two methods for delivering high quality media over the web for real-time viewing:

Apple’s revolutionary Fast Start technology allows users to watch or listen to media as it is being downloaded. Introduced in 1997, this method ensures high-quality playback regardless of users’ connection speeds."

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/whyqt/

I know apple would blow their own trumpet but they can't lie about their techonology, can they?

EDIT: More info on the record breaking webcast 'CUPERTINO, California—January 9, 2002—Apple® today announced record-breaking Internet attendance via its QuickTime® webcast of Steve Jobs’ keynote at Macworld San Francisco. More than 81,000 simultaneous viewers watched the live Internet stream, nearly doubling the previous record set six months ago at Macworld New York. More than 11 terabytes of content were served during the two-hour webcast, which attracted more than 160,000 unique web visitors. During the peak of the webcast, more than 16.5 gigabits per second of video were streamed at broadband rates to viewers worldwide. '

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jan/09quicktime.html

[RHutch]

Originally posted by Wes
Oh I SERIOUSLY beg to differ, what do you call Macworlds about a year back when Steve announced that they were live on the largest mp4 stream ever?

Quote from the Apple QT page:
"When it comes to streaming audio and video, QuickTime provides the higest quality, lowest cost, and easiest setup. (See independent review.) In addition, QuickTime holds the record for delivering the largest-ever live event on the Internet. QuickTime offers content providers the choice of two methods for delivering high quality media over the web for real-time viewing:

Apple’s revolutionary Fast Start technology allows users to watch or listen to media as it is being downloaded. Introduced in 1997, this method ensures high-quality playback regardless of users’ connection speeds."

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/whyqt/

I know apple would blow their own trumpet but they can't lie about their techonology, can they?

EDIT: More info on the record breaking webcast 'CUPERTINO, California—January 9, 2002—Apple® today announced record-breaking Internet attendance via its QuickTime® webcast of Steve Jobs’ keynote at Macworld San Francisco. More than 81,000 simultaneous viewers watched the live Internet stream, nearly doubling the previous record set six months ago at Macworld New York. More than 11 terabytes of content were served during the two-hour webcast, which attracted more than 160,000 unique web visitors. During the peak of the webcast, more than 16.5 gigabits per second of video were streamed at broadband rates to viewers worldwide. '

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jan/09quicktime.html

Thank you for posting this. I was just digging up the info on the Apple QT page myself. It seems pretty clear that QT does indeed do streaming.

[youngr40]

Originally posted by MorganX
Quicktime does not Stream. It does what media player did about 5 years ago. It downloads the file, and starts to play after downloading a certain percentage. Hoping then that the remainder of the file will have downloaded by the time playback of the partial download catches up.

WMP9 does true streaming. The only competing streaming media is Real media and I find WM9 audio and video to be superior.

You will QuickTime does stream it depending upon the audio or video, whether how is set-up

The file could be a simple movie file on web server, then you get fast start streaming which you have explained about

Then you have 3 types of streaming,

One demand, you click on a icon and starts streaming from streaming server.

rtsp://qt.yourmaclife.com/yml/YML030709s.mov

Could be a continuous stream playing again from a streaming server in a loop. So when you join its already playing.

Or it could be a live stream again which Apple use frequently from a streaming server.

I think you'll find quicktime can stream files

Regards
Roland

[niar]

Originally posted by coolbreeze
'Bout time. Maybe this one will ACTUALLY play .wmv files. Is that so difficult?

You can play .wmv files with mplayer (http://mplayerosx.sourceforge.net/)

[Lanbrown]

I hate sites that only put media in proprietary formats and require you to use either Windows Media Player or RealPlayer to use it. They should be using a common format like MP3. Virtually everything can play an MP3 and the user can choose their player.

The only real reason why MS is doing this is to promote their format and have a larger base to sell their technology. They spent around 500 million on DRM and they want to make every penny and more back on it. The larger the base, the easier it is to sell.

[wondermite]

Uses of WMP have dropped by 70% in the last 18 months. Even Microsoft says it's more of a legacy support than anything else.

And who the heck is desperate enough on a MAc to use the WMP? Need your porn, do ya?

[MorganX]

Originally posted by youngr40
You will QuickTime does stream it depending upon the audio or video, whether how is set-up

The file could be a simple movie file on web server, then you get fast start streaming which you have explained about

Then you have 3 types of streaming,

One demand, you click on a icon and starts streaming from streaming server.

rtsp://qt.yourmaclife.com/yml/YML030709s.mov

Could be a continuous stream playing again from a streaming server in a loop. So when you join its already playing.

Or it could be a live stream again which Apple use frequently from a streaming server.

I think you'll find quicktime can stream files

Regards
Roland

I stand corrected. WMP9 on OS X is a good thing because virtually no one uses Quicktime Streaming Server. And just about every place I frequent uses Windows Media Streaming Services.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Lanbrown
I hate sites that only put media in proprietary formats and require you to use either Windows Media Player or RealPlayer to use it. They should be using a common format like MP3. Virtually everything can play an MP3 and the user can choose their player.

The only real reason why MS is doing this is to promote their format and have a larger base to sell their technology. They spent around 500 million on DRM and they want to make every penny and more back on it. The larger the base, the easier it is to sell.

Too much storage space, too much bandwidth. That is why you have proprietary codecs.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by wondermite
Uses of WMP have dropped by 70% in the last 18 months.

I have no idea how many people are using Windows Media Player. But everywhere I go is using Windows Media 9 Codecs and streaming. IGN that was Quicktime only has now gone Windows Media 9 (Quicktime files are available for downloading).

I'd like you to clarify your dropped by 70%. Player or use of Windows media? In the past 18 months there's been a flood of consumer devices implementing Windows Media Playback. DVDs, Car Stereos. We're experiencing different realities.... nobody's using it... good grief.

[GetSome681]

some of you people are the biggest babies i've ever seen. a company is producing a new version of an app to function with os x that will enable use of different video formats on the mac, and people are getting pissy?

this shouldn't be a war over what format is best, it's a war over compatiblility and with MS releasing this, it helps the mac win that war.

take this scenario...
a PC user switches to a mac. his friend makes a funny clip and sends it to him. however, his friend encoded it in let's say asf or wmv. if the guy on the mac didn't have a way to open it, he'd be pissed, and i doubt he'd be on a mac much longer.

of course there are other programs out there that can open these files, however wmp9 does have some nice features, especially if you've witnessed some of the high definition stuff made for it.

this is good people. would you rather MS just drop support for everything on the mac? i guarantee that if that happened things would be worse than better. just download it, and use it as rarely as possible. if you don't have the 20 MB disk space for it, then get a new hard drive, it's 2003.

[Docrjm]

Long live standards. A lot of the debate here between Morgan and others would be moot if common standards were adhered to. Proprietary codecs are more to do with market share than standards. MP4 has been accepted as a scalable media standard for audio and video, why can m$ not conform? Oh1 they never conform, they create new standards!!!! These then only fully function with their product, why!! Market share!!

[d00d]

I'm not trying to be mean here or anything man, but you should probably stop talking because you've made it painfully obvious you don't know anything about these technologies. Quicktime has had streaming for years. MP4 is a new high grade streaming protocol as well. I could go into more technical detail about multimedia, the net, and streaming, but there's no point. It's all out there on the web and in books. You're woefully ignorant on the subject and the only qualitative comment you can make is that most sites you visit support Windows Media and not Quicktime. You should probably stop posting before you make even more of an ass of yourself.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by d00d
I'm not trying to be mean here or anything man, but you should probably stop talking because you've made it painfully obvious you don't know anything about these technologies. Quicktime has had streaming for years. MP4 is a new high grade streaming protocol as well. I could go into more technical detail about multimedia, the net, and streaming, but there's no point. It's all out there on the web and in books. You're woefully ignorant on the subject and the only qualitative comment you can make is that most sites you visit support Windows Media and not Quicktime. You should probably stop posting before you make even more of an ass of yourself.

ROFLMAO. Get a life.

[j763]

Originally posted by MorganX
I stand corrected. WMP9 on OS X is a good thing because virtually no one uses Quicktime Streaming Server. And just about every place I frequent uses Windows Media Streaming Services.

MorganX,

You are really badly informed about QuickTime's abilities. Perhaps you're relying upon old information?

You *DO NOT* need to use QuickTime Streaming Server in order to stream QuickTime files. That's completely untrue.

QTSS is a really nice solution from Apple, but we must remember that there's Darwin Streaming Server (runs on loads of Linux distros -- redhat debian gentoo etc.etc., IRIX and even your beloved Win2K and Win2K3 Server) and RealNetworks' Helix Server product.

As much as I dislike RealNetworks (http://www.realnetworks.com), I have to admit that Helix (https://www.helixcommunity.org) is a great server solution. It's far superior to Microsoft's WMSS (http://www.realnetworks.com/solutions/leadership/advantage.html) (talk about doing more with less...). If for some strange reason I had to stream WM Files, I'd be using Helix, not WMSS.

So... Yes, QuickTime does handle streaming. In fact, I recall that QuickTime had the streaming ability before WMP did.

Plus, you don't have to use a Mac, nor an Apple OS, nor any Apple software in order to stream QuickTime.

QuickTime is a really fantastic player and does scare Microsoft... Remember the whole "killing babies" part of the anti-trust trial?

Before posting any information on these board, please make sure your info is up-to-date and correct!

Hope that helped you better understand QuickTime.

-j

[MorganX]

>>You *DO NOT* need to use QuickTime Streaming Server in order to stream QuickTime files. That's completely untrue.<<

I never said you did. I simply said virtually no uses Quicktime Streaming Server after someone mentioned it. "I" never said you have to use it. I said QT doesn't do streaming. Technically it does. For all meaningful purposes, and for the purpose of debating the need for WMP and the 9 codecs, it doesn't. Quick, give me the URL of a significant site doing QT streaming?

>>QuickTime is a really fantastic player and does scare Microsoft... Remember the whole "killing babies" part of the anti-trust trial?<<

I doubt that.

>>Before posting any information on these board, please make sure your info is up-to-date and correct!<<

::sigh:: enjoy your 15 minutes. Quicktime can stream.

>>Hope that helped you better understand QuickTime.<<

Not really interested in understanding technology no one is using. You've decided to tell anyone interested that you don't need QTSS to stream quicktime. What value is that to me?

[d00d]

Originally posted by MorganX
ROFLMAO. Get a life. Get an education.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by doc_mac
MP4 has been accepted as a scalable media standard for audio and video, why can m$ not conform? Oh1 they never conform, they create new standards!!!!

What would you have them do? They have invested heavily in developing their Codecs and APIs. They are flourishing on the web and in consumer devices, what would you have them do to conform? Anyone can add their codec to WMP 9.

What would you have them do? Would you have them layoff all their employees and become a shareware company?

[MorganX]

Originally posted by d00d
Get an education.

On what, why no one uses Quicktime streaming? The Net, or Multimedia in general?

[Wes]

Originally posted by MorganX
On what, why no one uses Quicktime streaming? The Net, or Multimedia in general?

Well, maybe you read a lot of microsoft site or maybe some other dubious sites... but I've seen quicktime used way more than real player, and a little less than WMP, but not this cavernous gap you describe.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by Wes
Well, maybe you read a lot of microsoft site or maybe some other dubious sites... but I've seen quicktime used way more than real player, and a little less than WMP, but not this cavernous gap you describe.

Very good. I can accept that. Give me a couple sites. I can't find any. The few I found, the Quicktime streams don't work. I searched Google, can't find more than a couple universities, they don't work.

I really would like to check out the performance of video streaming. If you have a few sites I'd like to visit them.

[AppleMatt]

This is good news. WMP hasn't been updated for almost two years.

For people saying it is only needed for porn, I have many TV music broadcasts encoded in WMP9 sent to me, and I have to fire up one of the PC's to play them.

What I do hope with this new version is however:

- Performance! QT can play a movie full-screen with no dropped frames on my 9600, WMP drops frames on my G3 fullscreen. Doesn't drop frames on my G4, but don't expect to use anything else while watching, it slaughters the CPU. IMO, this is a major area to be tackled.

Originally posted by tcmcam
No matter what you think of Microsoft, the Mac platform needs to have access to the most common media formats just for "feature parity". As much as we hate to admit it, it's not a Quicktime world on the web.

A voice of reason!

Matt

[henryblackman]

To MorganX:

There are plenty of sites that use Quicktime Streaming. Let's see:

www.rollingstone.com
sonymusic.com
rhino.com

If you visit www.apple.com/quicktime you'll find all sorts of links to music, video, interactive STREAMS.

Did you know www.apple.com/quicktime is the most visited site for multi-media?

I'm watching Madonna's video for American Life right now. I'm behind NAT and I've got Quicktime 6.3. Funny it works brilliantly here. I'd recommend knowing before posting in the future - you'll only look a fool.

[ibjoshua]

Originally posted by MorganX
Not really interested in understanding technology no one is using.

well **** me! someone tell me this dickhead is joking?

QT is one of Apples most successful products of all time.

"QuickTime 5 was downloaded over 100 million times by both Windows and Mac customers in its first year. And QuickTime 6 is even more popular, reaching 100 million downloads in less than 10 months. Every day, more than 300,000 people download QuickTime"
www.apple.com/quicktime/whyqt/ (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/whyqt/)

i_b_joshua

[MorganX]

Originally posted by henryblackman
To MorganX:

Did you know www.apple.com/quicktime is the most visited site for multi-media?


I go there at least twice a week myself for previews. None of them stream.

I will check out Rolling Stone. They stream both so I will be able to compare performance.

[MorganX]

>>well **** me! someone tell me this dickhead is joking?<<

I'm so hurt, I'm so offended. A wussy hiding behind the Internet called me a name... boo hoo. Must be a real he-man of a Machead.

>>QT is one of Apples most successful products of all time.<<

Quicktime and Quicktime streaming are two different things, and we were discussing, if you can call it that, streaming.

And yes, I have a very big dick.. head.[/B][/QUOTE]

[j763]

No sites that use QuickTime streaming?

I see it all over the web... RollingStone.com springs to mind.

QuickTime is actually the 2nd most distributed player. Microsoft does care (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,16082,00.html) about QuickTime.

I'd also like to point out that the MPEG-4 standard, first supported by QuickTime (see Apple's MPEG-4 (http://www.apple.com/mpeg4) page), is based on the QuickTime file format. And well, just tell me that MPEG-4 isn't widespread...

I find it pretty amusing that you talk about ignoring a media standard that is the second most popular... Yet, you're obviously interested in a platform that is the 2nd most popular (otherwise you wouldn't be here) and you love to talk about Microsoft's Server technologies... the cornerstone of which, IIS, is #2 (no doubt you realize that http is the most used service on the Internet).

Whether you care or not about QuickTime really doesn't bother me... What does bother me is that you run around spreading untruths and then say essentially "well, I don't care enough to know anways". If you don't care enough to know the correct information, why are you posting?!

[j763]

Originally posted by MorganX
I will check out Rolling Stone. They stream both so I will be able to compare performance.

I was just about to suggest that... Listen to the crispness of the audio on QuickTime when compared with WMP. Also, grab a connection monitor to compare bandwidth usage.

[RHutch]

Originally posted by i_b_joshua
well **** me! someone tell me this dickhead is joking?

i_b_joshua


No, sadly, I don't think he's joking. I really think that he is just plain ignorant. He started all of this by making the FALSE statement that QT doesn't do streaming. Obviously, he made the claim without checking his facts first. I think he's just trying to up his post count by responding to all the anti-MorganX posts that he had to know would follow.

[d00d]

Originally posted by MorganX
On what, why no one uses Quicktime streaming? The Net, or Multimedia in general? You need an education in general. I don't know why the sites you visit don't use Quicktime or Quicktime streaming. It may be cost ineffective for them (I don't know the licensing costs for each package), they might think they reach a broader audience with WMP (which is a fallacy in thinking), they may be riding out an existing license with MS, it may be cost ineffective to switch over, or, most likely, their IT personelle might think it's the best solution because of getting a very broad education, they got a specialized one that gets them some kind of certification with Microsoft. The fact is that it's not flat out because WMP has better streaming and/or features (a subject which in particular you need more education).

I'm not opposed to WMP9 for Mac. I'm in support of it because there are WMP only sites I'd like to use every once in a while. However, trying to proclaim it king and Quicktime substandard is impossible because it's just wrong.

[henryblackman]

Originally posted by MorganX
I go there at least twice a week myself for previews. None of them stream.

I will check out Rolling Stone. They stream both so I will be able to compare performance.

OK, you're clearly not convinced... www.apple.com/quicktime is basically a portal (like windowsmedia.com) BUT, if you look on that page and click on the Madonna link (middle column right now) you'll get to Rollingstone.com which is STREAMING the file (amongst others).

[mislabeledstar]

It amazes me that when M$ cancelled IE everyone was in an uproar and badmouthing them for the cancellation. Now M$ says they're releasing new software and everyone's badmouthing them once again. I'm not a pc user, but you all have to drop this lame I hate M$ and everything they do. It's good to see them releasing more software on the mac.

[CrackedButter]

I personally don't need to use WMP, i have mplayer, vlc and QT, so i don't need it, infact i don't use any MS software anymore and i despise MS alot.
But i got to agree that the mac needs their contribution when it comes to the different types of files.

Newcomers to the platform will have windows files and want to use them, they won't switch if they cannot play their porn or downloaded copy of Futurama or whatever.

However, seasoned users don't need to use WMP anyway so where's the beef, at least its not being preinstalled on every mac and forcing you to use it like on windows.

More games from microsoft would be nice as well, this may encourage others to do more for the mac.

[MorganX]

>>I see it all over the web... RollingStone.com springs to mind.<<

All over the web and you mention one site, that someone else has already mentioned. All over...

>>QuickTime is actually the 2nd most distributed player. Microsoft does care (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,16082,00.html) about QuickTime.<<

1998, prior to Windows Media establishing itself. Again, I doublt MS cares much about Quicktime, today.

>>I'd also like to point out that the MPEG-4 standard, first supported by QuickTime (see Apple's MPEG-4 (http://www.apple.com/mpeg4) page), is based on the QuickTime file format.<<

There have been MPEG 4 plug-ins for WMP for a while, so I can't say it was first or not. Not that it means much.

>>And well, just tell me that MPEG-4 isn't widespread...<<

Before I can do that you have to define widespread.

>>I find it pretty amusing that you talk about ignoring a media standard that is the second most popular... <<

2nd doesn't mean much when #1 is over 85%. Not that that means much either.

>>Yet, you're obviously interested in a platform that is the 2nd most popular (otherwise you wouldn't be here)<<

I'm not sure if this means anything, should it mean if I use a Mac I must love all that is mac, including some of it's dufus fanatics? And not enjoy non-Apple technology?

>>you love to talk about Microsoft's Server technologies... <<

I do? At what point to my Microsoft Server Technologies comments go from a comment or two to love?

>>What does bother me is that you run around spreading untruths<<

You used untruths, plural, just so I understand what bothers you, other than incorrectly stating that QT doesn't do streaming, what other untruths am I running around spreading... and are you referring to spreading them within this thread, or does it go beyond that?

>>say essentially "well, I don't care enough to know anways".<<

Please quote me. Interpretation is highly subjective.

>>If you don't care enough to know the correct information, why are you posting?!<<

I'm not sure I follow you. After someone corrected me regarding QT streaming, I don't recall saying, you're wrong, it doesn't. So I'm not sure what purpose this comment servers.

[MorganX]

Originally posted by henryblackman
OK, you're clearly not convinced

You don't need to convince me hb. I realize that links to rollingstone use streaming and I will check it out.

I was just noting that, though I may not have known the popularity of apple.com/quicktime, I do go there myself twice a week to check out movie previews. None of the previews stream. If they did, I'm pretty sure this thread would not be what it has become.

[awinn233]

Originally posted by djcobb44
Like it or not, we need this. Also, I'll be able to watch videos on Launch.com again, on Mac OS X.

score, I've forgotten about Launch. I'm really looking forward to this player. :)

[MorganX]

>>I don't know why the sites you visit don't use Quicktime or Quicktime streaming. ....... The fact is that it's not flat out because ....<<

Hmmm....

>> However, trying to proclaim it king and Quicktime substandard is impossible because it's just wrong. <<

Due to the uncontrolled emotion most mac fans... exhibit, please quote me. Don't interpret.

We are talking about streaming. I could not proclaim QTS substandard, because I believed it didn't do streaming at all. So educate me and tell me where I extrapolated that QTS was substandard. (Rhetorical, you don't have to answer. If you do, realize I may respond and it will increment my post count +1 for each response.)

And where I proclaimed WMP 9 King. Though if I asked what streaming format was king, I would probably crown WMP 9. I assume you would select QTS.

[d00d]

Originally posted by MorganX
You don't need to convince me hb. I realize that links to rollingstone use streaming and I will check it out.

I was just noting that, though I may not have known the popularity of apple.com/quicktime, I do go there myself twice a week to check out movie previews. None of the previews stream. If they did, I'm pretty sure this thread would not be what it has become. Trailers don't stream because quality is probably the most important part of a trailer. If you see a trailer and because of bad streaming conditions, the video draws with atrifacts and the sound cuts out, you're not going to be impressed with the movie. In particular, movies that emphasize special effects as a selling point would be hurt by this. Again, if you knew anything about net multimedia, you would have realized this. Streaming is neither desirable or necessary for things such as trailers. Further, you drew the conclusion that Quicktime doesn't stream because one site in particular chose to use a downloadable Quicktime movie format instead of a Quicktime stream? Do you always make such snap decisions?

[MorganX]

Originally posted by RHutch
I think he's just trying to up his post count by responding to all the anti-MorganX posts that he had to know would follow.

Actually, I assume Mac users are responsible adults, just like I am, and able to control themselves. Because I am now a Mac user, again, I don't make, or resist as best I can making broad derogatory generalizations about people who use Macs.

I will take a break from spreading untruths to tell this truth:

I responded to this post for the sole purpose of upping my post count by +1.

[MorganX]

>>Trailers don't stream because quality is probably the most important part of a trailer. If you see a trailer and because of bad streaming conditions, the video draws with atrifacts and the sound cuts out, you're not going to be impressed with the movie. In particular, movies that emphasize special effects as a selling point would be hurt by this. Again, if you knew anything about net multimedia, you would have realized this.<<

I didn't ask why they don't stream. I stated that they didn't. If you understood the context of the comment, you already know why I made that statement. Your assumption that I needed or wanted to know why they don't stream, speaks toward, or against your general education.

>>Further, you drew the conclusion that Quicktime doesn't stream because one site in particular chose to use a downloadable Quicktime movie format instead of a Quicktime stream? Do you always make such snap decisions?<<

Might seem that way to someone whose offerings are based solely on assumptions. If you read the posts, you should understand the context in which I mentioned I do visit the preview site twice a week.

You would properly understand the reason that I stated that the previews do not stream. That reason was not, nor was it inferred, that I concluded Quicktime doesn't stream because of one site.

Here's a little general education for you, the only way to effectively communicate with an assumer is to ask them to quote you when they respond.

[nickmcghie]

Originally posted by MorganX
>>What does bother me is that you run around spreading untruths<<

You used untruths, plural, just so I understand what bothers you, other than incorrectly stating that QT doesn't do streaming, what other untruths am I running around spreading... and are you referring to spreading them within this thread, or does it go beyond that?

"Spreading untruths" is a figure of speech my friend. I can't believe you would pick on something as insignificant as the use of a plural on the end of one word that somebody else used in a sentence. That's really quite pathetic.

From reading all the posts in the forum, it's quite obvious that you're not well-like around here. If you don't like QuickTime or think that hardly anybody uses it, you're prefectly entitled to your own opinion. I'm not going to try convincing you one way or another, but please take your b*tching elsewhere, because from what you've already posted so far, nobody is going to take you seriously anymore.

On a side note, to say that QuickTime doesn't support streaming is a huge mistake. It's almost as bad as saying something like Toyotas don't run on gasoline (now you're probably going to correct me saying that "blah, blah, blah.. well, not ALL toyotas run on gasoline"). Anyway, my point is that with such a huge blunder as even just that one, you show that you are incredibly uninformed and unknowledgeable about the topic.

[d00d]

Originally posted by MorganX
>>I don't know why the sites you visit don't use Quicktime or Quicktime streaming. ....... The fact is that it's not flat out because ....<<

Hmmm....Hmmm? That's it? You have nothing to say about why WMP is frequently chosen? I guess you just take WMP being used more for granted.

>> However, trying to proclaim it king and Quicktime substandard is impossible because it's just wrong. <<

Due to the uncontrolled emotion most mac fans... exhibit, please quote me. Don't interpret.You said MS needs to use propriety codecs because standardized ones (such as MP4?) take up too much storage space and bandwidth. That's wrong. There are plenty of standards-based codecs that do just as well if not better. We are talking about streaming. I could not proclaim QTS substandard, because I believed it didn't do streaming at all. So educate me and tell me where I extrapolated that QTS was substandard. (Rhetorical, you don't have to answer. If you do, realize I may respond and it will increment my post count +1 for each response.)I don't care if you increment your post count. Caring about post counts is for young teens.And where I proclaimed WMP 9 King. Though if I asked what streaming format was king, I would probably crown WMP 9. I assume you would select QTS. You said WMP was superior on all acounts. A logical conlusion is that you think WMP is the best, and therefore king of net multimedia. You would crown WMP 9 king because of widespread support. I would crown Quicktime because of better quality, bandwidth utilization, being standards based, and cross-platform support. I personally think those things are a little bit more important when choosing a streaming package.

I don't appreciate your attempts to reduce me to a simplistic Machead or some other derogatory term that PC fans like to label anyone that happens to think Apple offers a superior product in any market. I'm not reducing you to a PC troll or some other name. I was just saying that you're very ignorant and misinformed on the subject.

[Aqua OS X]

Jesus H Christ....

Come on Microsoft. Support us or don't. Pick one.

This half-ass support is retarded.

[Trekkie]

Originally posted by MacGizmo
The only sites I ever see this nasty, ugly, buggy media player use are porn sites! Why does MS even bother with a Mac version???

Evidently you must only surf porn sites then. The rest of the major news organizations, and other sites support WMV only with a smattering of an inferior Real Audio one.

[d00d]

Originally posted by MorganX
>>Trailers don't stream because quality is probably the most important part of a trailer. If you see a trailer and because of bad streaming conditions, the video draws with atrifacts and the sound cuts out, you're not going to be impressed with the movie. In particular, movies that emphasize special effects as a selling point would be hurt by this. Again, if you knew anything about net multimedia, you would have realized this.<<

I didn't ask why they don't stream. I stated that they didn't. If you understood the context of the comment, you already know why I made that statement. Your assumption that I needed or wanted to know why they don't stream, speaks toward, or against your general education.

>>Further, you drew the conclusion that Quicktime doesn't stream because one site in particular chose to use a downloadable Quicktime movie format instead of a Quicktime stream? Do you always make such snap decisions?<<

Might seem that way to someone whose offerings are based solely on assumptions. If you read the posts, you should understand the context in which I mentioned I do visit the preview site twice a week.

You would properly understand the reason that I stated that the previews do not stream. That reason was not, nor was it inferred, that I concluded Quicktime doesn't stream because of one site.

Here's a little general education for you, the only way to effectively communicate with an assumer is to ask them to quote you when they respond. I didn't assume anything; you did. Your capitalization of the first three letters of that word is childish. Animals lash out in desparate ways when backed into a corner.I was just noting that, though I may not have known the popularity of apple.com/quicktime, I do go there myself twice a week to check out movie previews. None of the previews stream. If they did, I'm pretty sure this thread would not be what it has become.I quoted this for you again because you apparently can't remember what you write. You said that you wouldn't have concluded that Quicktime doesn't stream if the previews (trailers) were streaming. I explained that it doesn't matter what multimedia package a preview site were using. They'd all choose to use the downloadable version because there is no quality loss. Had you known that, you wouldn't have concluded that because the preview site doesn't feature streams that Quicktime doesn't support streaming media. The fact is that you made several large assumptions incorrectly. I can quote you all you want, it's all there.

[centauratlas]

I would suggest you check out:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss/

A product introduced ***FOUR YEARS AGO*** called "QuickTime Streaming Server.

I have a copy installed on one of our servers here.

You can even get the open-source version.

Sheesh.

[ibjoshua]

Originally posted by MorganX
You would properly understand the reason that I stated that the previews do not stream. That reason was not, nor was it inferred (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inferred), that I concluded Quicktime doesn't stream because of one site.

Here's a little general education for you, the only way to effectively communicate with an ASSumer is to ask them to quote you when they respond.

And here's some advice for you: before you go using fancy words to flame other posters, learn the meaning of those words.
Did you mean implied (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=implied) or are you just as ignorant as the rest of us "Macheads"?

i_b_joshua

[Sedulous]

I've never seeen a more litigious thread.

It makes sense that you see Quicktime used frequently in the entertainment industry. News sites and general interest sites seem to frequently use WMP or RealPlayer. You have to wonder if it has more to do with who has "ties" in these these respective areas.

Either way, more goodies for us "Macheads" the better.

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by MorganX
Too much storage space, too much bandwidth. That is why you have proprietary codecs.

That is not the reason. Get 2000 advanced server and it comes with audio/video streaming on the CD. That is why they exist. Also, how could MS charge for a format that was open source? They spent half a billion on DRM; they want the record companies to buy into it so they can reap the profit from it. Once they lock the market down, they can raise prices if they want or give away a cheap player and charge for an upgrade, like RealPlayer does. The best way to get rid of proprietary formats is not to download the player. Contact the sites operators and convey that they limit who has access to listen to them. It is not up to site operators to dictate what the customer needs to have.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by CrackedButter
More games from microsoft would be nice as well, this may encourage others to do more for the mac.

Or at least, if they don't do that, perhaps they could avoid stealing games from the Mac. Remember Halo, anyone?

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by GetSome681
some of you people are the biggest babies i've ever seen. a company is producing a new version of an app to function with os x that will enable use of different video formats on the mac, and people are getting pissy?

this shouldn't be a war over what format is best, it's a war over compatiblility and with MS releasing this, it helps the mac win that war.


What about the new license agreement? In the Windows version of WMP9, you have the option of DRM, when 10 is released, there is no option. Basically support WMP now and you screw yourself later. This is how the RIAA likes it. Buy a song on the Internet and you can only play it on one machine; want it on a second, buy it again. How long do you think Windows users will remain Windows users?

[plastree]

Originally posted by i_b_joshua
And here's some advice for you: before you go using fancy words to flame other posters, learn the meaning of those words.
Did you mean implied (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=implied) or are you just as ignorant as the rest of us "Macheads"?

i_b_joshua

Umm, so sorry to point this out, but did you happen to read the 4th definition in the link you posted?

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by doc_mac
Long live standards. A lot of the debate here between Morgan and others would be moot if common standards were adhered to. Proprietary codecs are more to do with market share than standards. MP4 has been accepted as a scalable media standard for audio and video, why can m$ not conform? Oh1 they never conform, they create new standards!!!! These then only fully function with their product, why!! Market share!!

MS doesn't create standards; they create specifications like the rest of the peecee industry does. You are right about the market share and the money they make because of it. They will lose when DRM is forced upon its users though.

[arn]

alright

this thread is closed.

Please play nice.

arn