Windows OS X.. I mean Vista...

jtyler

Bergamot: The flash elements are all individual widgets set in html.

lech

Kosmo, It must be the different between 6 and 7 under 2k and XP then. Because under 6 in 2k, I had only maybe 2 crashes over the year I ran it under FF 1.x and 1.5. Under XP with qt7, qt crashes in FF whenever I allow it the chance. If you check out the interfaces between 6 and 7 and compare, there are several dozen changes not just to the UI of the app, but also all it's prefs have been reshuffeled and moved around. Same goes with the plugin.

skyfex

Kosmo: From the thing way back.. now I'm being picky.. but it just sounded strange to say that Mac OS X "copied" NeXT, because it essentially is NeXT, and since Apple and NeXT merged (or rather, Apple bought NeXT, but NeXT was more Apple than Apple was )

Kosmo

Skyfex: hate to quote my own post but like I said:

"Neat, but I was commenting on the fact that when Apple bought Jobs' NeXT they pretty much took the NeXTSTEP OS and ran with it to create the Mac OS X (hence the Intel compatibility btw)."

I'm aware that the first generation of Mac OS X was actually NeXTSTEP just renamed, I have read some history too

lech

/me puts on his helmet. here we go again...

skyfex

Since we're both saying the same thing I guess it's nothing to discuss I read your first comment like you were reading my comment as if I was saying Finder copied the NeXT filebrowser, which of course is kinda true since Finder is not that much NeXT but which is not the point because.. now nothing makes sense!

Yeah.. erm.. If you could just put the new coversheet on the TPS reports.. that would be greeeaat

I'm just going to change the topic at random.. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!

ithcy

the quicktime 7 plugin is very crash-prone. i dumped it and just use the vlc plugin and quicktime alternative now.

Kosmo

I thought that I should have not said that Mac OS X has copied features from NeXTSTEP, but, you know... Bitey made me do it. I really think that starting something from scratch is only a good thing, like Mac OS 9, that train was going to hell and fast. Apple did the right thing when they dumped that and went for something completely new. And Safari is coming up nicely too, just to prove my point. The fast pace of technology and programming styles changing and new ones coming up all the time, I would suggest that Microsoft dump the old Winnie and IE completely, and do a complete redesign of both of their programs, and maybe downsize the influence IE is having on the whole OS. And I think many would agree with me when I say that Apple should do the exact same thing for their QT :P What I was dreaming couple of months back, was an OS, that was built as a modern platform, not to be that much of an OS, but a base for different components to interact, but completely capable of operating without some component. My long lasting love for modular systems is to thank of this. I know that Linux is actually something like this, Kernel, and the different components of it, and actually Microsoft has done something like it, but not in that scale. DirectX, a plethora of components, so basic that even a baby can use and program for them and from them. Windows would become a mere windowing system for some platform, with my own whim on desiding, what kind of components I put in there, and what components I don't. But there just has to be a better way to control all that, than the way we control Linux based systems. I have learned several 3d modelling and animation softwares, learned different scripting languages, and still, Linux is way too hard for me to use that I do not care for it. IF I was a programmer, mastered C and C++, then I would without a doubt, use Linux, since then I could program the things I wanted for it, or make the existing programs operate the way I wanted them to. But since I'm not... And, the one thing that I would just love to see in this OS of dreams, is that it acts kinda like a framework, using some sort of scripting language (preferably LUA since it is easier than a motherfucker) to make interfaces and the different programs to act with eachother. And preferably, all the smaller programs would be built with it, only that they use some set of libraries (so that if I don't like how the program is working, I could add a library, and script the function for it.) But as long as MS and their open source hate game is running wild on me like Hulkamania, this dream of utopian computer system is just a dream. And the funny part is, that it doesn't even need to be open Source, the libraries could be compiled so that I can't mess with them, or see how they work within, but the documentation coming with them would give me the functions it does when proper commands were introduced. But yeah, one can dream, eh?

giginger

Wasn't Vista initially meant to be a complete rewrite of the Windows code?

Then it got so far behind they decided to just use the old stuff again.

Something like that.

Kosmo

If memory serves right, Vista was supposed to be just a small step in between the XP and "blackcomb" but then the Vista added alot of features from "blackcomb" and they for some reason, scrapped both "blackcomb" and "longhorn" and went back to the Windows Server 2003 and usef it's codebase. Strange things from strage developer.

Bergamot

Not exactly.

Most of the major new features in Vista (as well as the ones that were cut) were planned to be in the version of windows following 2000.

They then decided that getting home users off 98/Me was urgent, and released XP as a minor update, pushing the big new features back to the next version.

There have been big changes to things that most users will never see, and some planned changes were pushed even further back.

skyfex

I thought Vista was going to be a step up from Windows XP, but that the code had gotten so unmaintainable that they're now rewriting a lot of it, which is why it got so delayed.

A lot of Quicktime 7 was rewritten btw, which is why a lot of plugins (DivX, Ogg, etc.) broke.

lech

Addmitingly, I think QT7 compared to QT6 is total crap, regardless of rewrites, it's crashfest if I load up anything in the browser.

Kosmo

For a company like Apple, it strikes me as odd when they have a movie player that is nowhere near on par with their other products, and it has a "pro" version of it that can import and export movies and allows you to do something that every free open source movie player does right away, like watch a movie in full screen. Apple ships with their Macs a software called iMovie already, why would anyone need QT Pro, and winnie people have their own junk. So what I want to know is, is QT some software project they let their interns work on before they hire them to the Apple software development department? QT is nowhere near the Apple quality their other products are, and why there even is QT, there is iTunes. If I would have to say one bad mistake Apple made, it would have to be QT.

skyfex

Yeah.. QT is kinda evil. What's funny is that anyone can make a QT player that has the QT Pro features. The QT library doesn't put a restriction on these things, so it's really odd that it's shareware.

AmbitiousLemon

Take a look at the online Apple store. QT Pro for windows is the 4th highest seller and QT Pro for Mac is the 6th highest seller.

Kosmo

Take a look at the online Apple store. QT Pro for windows is the 4th highest seller and QT Pro for Mac is the 6th highest seller.

It still leaves the "why would anyone need it" unanswered.

FLC

I used a *ahem* serial to unlock it as it was useful to convert videos for iPod useage, but now iTunes does that so I have no idea why some people would but QT Pro, plus there are a few apps out there that convert video significantly faster than QT Pro, but that said, they dont do the H.264 video

lech

The pro features are slightly laughable, mainly the one where you can't save the file via the plugin when viewing the movie. Yet firefox allows you to view the page content, and pluck it directly from the cache.

epohs

I never really hated QT until 7, then I switched to QT Alternative.