I think everyone here will agree that win media player for X is terrible.... M$ hasn't even tried to compete with QT in the Mac market.. I run into wmv and asf files all the time, and I do admit, mPlayer does a great job of showing these, but I would like to see a actual quality product from M$ to support their proprietary formats!!! C'mon guys, you can do it - make a decent win media player for Mac - integrate all the codecs... We'll see what happens, but hopefully this is good news...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows Media Player 9 for Mac OS X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Regarding codecs and OS 9, anyone notice that QT in 9 supports many more codecs than X??? I mean, it's obviously had a lot more time to develop - but I'd like to see a lot more codecs added into the X version of QT... I notice movies that won't play in X will likely play in 9..... OT I know - forgive me...
Almost all codecs avaliable in 9 are avaliable in X. The only ones that are not avaliable in X are some very old ones. You may not be able to download them from the quicktime update, but if you search the net you should be able to find a QT6 Mac OS X codec for the media you want to play.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good for this reason, too...
And it can keep playing them...Without me. I refuse on moral and economic principles to PAY for a media player of any sort. Pretty much across the software industry, applications that only read files and cannot write to them tend to be free.
Real's player is pay-only, right? Am I correct in my belief that if one tries to update his free player, it will stick you with a demo of the pay-one and then die after x number of days.
Real always had an inferior product. It is the scourge of the industry and if its product is now better, that's just fine. But it SHOULD BE FREE.
Even Microsoft understands this, which is scary.
And it can keep playing them...Without me. I refuse on moral and economic principles to PAY for a media player of any sort. Pretty much across the software industry, applications that only read files and cannot write to them tend to be free.
Real's player is pay-only, right? Am I correct in my belief that if one tries to update his free player, it will stick you with a demo of the pay-one and then die after x number of days.
Real always had an inferior product. It is the scourge of the industry and if its product is now better, that's just fine. But it SHOULD BE FREE.
Even Microsoft understands this, which is scary.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good for this reason, too...
Real Player is free, it is just some of the content costs money to view. However Quicktime is not free, there is a free version, but it can't run movies in full screen. Like Quicktime, Real does a free and Pro version of its player. M$ does the only 'real' free player.
Real Player is free, it is just some of the content costs money to view. However Quicktime is not free, there is a free version, but it can't run movies in full screen. Like Quicktime, Real does a free and Pro version of its player. M$ does the only 'real' free player.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good for this reason, too...
The comparison of Real One to QuickTime is a little off. By paying for Real you subscribe to content. By paying for QuickTime you get additional export options (audio and video codecs) and a couple of extra minor viewing options (present movies full screen). Buying QT Pro actually gives you an app you can create, edit and export digital video files with - hence the "Pro". Real player is for entertainment only.
The comparison of Real One to QuickTime is a little off. By paying for Real you subscribe to content. By paying for QuickTime you get additional export options (audio and video codecs) and a couple of extra minor viewing options (present movies full screen). Buying QT Pro actually gives you an app you can create, edit and export digital video files with - hence the "Pro". Real player is for entertainment only.
I wonder if I could ask the experts here a question (it's strictly hypothetical). If I had a website, and I decided that I should include some multimedia content - edited videos of new products showing major features etc (with audio) for instance - what would be more cost effective:
1) Making a WMP 9 video, or
2) Making a Quicktime video?
Include everything I might need: decent camera/lights/mics/mixer etc (but I assume these would be identical). Software (editors, utilities, etc.). Whatever my server would need to stream my video content. Any fees payable to whomever.
In other words, does it make business sense to choose one over the other?
Over and above business sense, which format will be the easiest to use through the production process (I hope I know the answer to this one
.
Mike
1) Making a WMP 9 video, or
2) Making a Quicktime video?
Include everything I might need: decent camera/lights/mics/mixer etc (but I assume these would be identical). Software (editors, utilities, etc.). Whatever my server would need to stream my video content. Any fees payable to whomever.
In other words, does it make business sense to choose one over the other?
Over and above business sense, which format will be the easiest to use through the production process (I hope I know the answer to this one
.Mike
I'd say QuickTime hands down. You could edit on your current Mac, your Mac already has firewire, etc etc. Darwin Streaming Server is free on any OS (contrary to having to buy Windows Server for WM streaming).
Most likely better business sense to do both if and only if possible. Otherwise, I'd stick with QuickTime.
Again, most likely QuickTime. You don't have to spend that much money to do DV editing on the Mac since it's mostly already there.Over and above business sense, which format will be the easiest to use through the production process (I hope I know the answer to this one
I used to run a major roller coaster website (since then resigned) that rendered 3D animations of popular roller coasters for people's recreation. We did it in QT and Windows Media. Guess what format most people downloaded? The QuickTime version and most of our visitors were Windows users. It really depends on the demographics, how you present it (we had buttons to direct people to download QuickTime, had some exclusive content in QT) etc.
But on the other hand, if you already have a PC, a Windows 2000/2003 Server, etc. It might be cheaper the other way. You really have to look at your demographics. For example, if your site is for hardcore Mac programmers, it's most likely better to use QuickTime.
Originally posted by MTMacPhee
I wonder if I could ask the experts here a question (it's strictly hypothetical). If I had a website, and I decided that I should include some multimedia content - edited videos of new products showing major features etc (with audio) for instance - what would be more cost effective:
1) Making a WMP 9 video, or
2) Making a Quicktime video?
Include everything I might need: decent camera/lights/mics/mixer etc (but I assume these would be identical). Software (editors, utilities, etc.). Whatever my server would need to stream my video content. Any fees payable to whomever.
In other words, does it make business sense to choose one over the other?
Over and above business sense, which format will be the easiest to use through the production process (I hope I know the answer to this one
Mike
Firstly Quicktime is the best format to use it you want it to work on Linux/PC/Mac (people have ported Quicktime to Linux). Although if you include Real, I think it is the best in terms of quality.
The cheapest option depends on which platform you use. If it is Mac then Quicktime is the best, Apple gives away everything that is needed for streaming for free. If you use a PC then Real is the best. You do not have to pay any fees if you are streaming to no more than 50 people at a time. Real on the PC also offers the needed software for free.
In terms of equipement, for the PC you need:
-DV Camera $500+
-Adobe Premier about $700
All other needed software can be got from real for free
For Mac You need:
-DV Camera $500+
-Apple FCP or Express $300 - $1000
Apple offers other needed software for free.