why a so huge difference for quicktime ??

[cd090580]

Hi,

Just a simple question:

why does exist a so huge difference in requirements for quicktime for mac and windows ???



The intel cpu for mac is the same for pc so why the difference is so huge for cpu for QT ??

Does the windows version is coded like crap ???

[Baldrick]

Does the windows version is coded like crap ???

Yes. Thats why I use CoreAVC for quicktime h264/avc.

[prof_unto]

Does the windows version is coded like crap ???

What do you mean here? The software or the h.264 codec?

[JohnnyMalaria]

Does the windows version is coded like crap ???

Yup. QT has always been shite on the PC.

But - look closely at the CPU requirements. On the Intel Macs, you need a minimum Core Duo processor. On Windows, it's Pentium 4. So, actually, the Intel Mac has more demanding needs. I believe (i.e., I do not know for definite) that it has to do with the Mac version needing SSE3 instruction support, which the original versions of the P4 do not have.

Likewise 2.0GHz Core Duo vs. 3.0GHz Pentium D. The latter is less powerful even though the clock speed is higher. Also, the video card memory requirements are less for Windows and QT can run on 7-year old Windows 2000.

Plus, naturally Apple will make it appear a first glance that their platform is better - i.e., apparently less power needed to achieve the same results.

[Krispy Kritter]

There is also a difference in OS overhead.

[Soopafresh]

Oh, they could optimize h264 for the PC. If you have CoreAVC installed, you can see the difference by playing a quicktime HD with both decoders. The difference is amazing.

[celtic_druid]

Well Apple wouldn't want you running OSX on a P4 since they never sold such systems, so the minimum requirements for Intel will be a little skewed (basically minimum Mac, not the real minimum using a cracked OS).

QT on win32 is indeed a piece of crap. Basically due to the way it is written/ported there is much more overhead than the native build.

[BJ_M]

read this for an excellent explanation of why the issues of QT on windows

Microsoft's Plot to Kill QuickTime

[InXess]

Now, this was a nice written, compact Microsoft story. Really enjoyed it!

[JohnnyMalaria]

read this for an excellent explanation of why the issues of QT on windows

Microsoft's Plot to Kill QuickTime

Sadly, this statement in that article:

In early 1997, Microsoft bought WebTV. Meanwhile, Microsoft had renamed its tainted Video for Windows to ActiveMovie, to fit the Active branding associated with its various Internet efforts:

shows that the author knows crap about Video for Windows vs. ActiveMovie (which is actually DirectShow). I agree Video for Windows is clunky. Microsoft dearly wish developers would stop using it and switch to DirectShow.

From a developer's perspective, DirectShow is a much more flexible architecture than Quicktime (yes - I've developed for both. Hated the QT API).

[InXess]

Sadly, this statement in that article:

In early 1997, Microsoft bought WebTV. Meanwhile, Microsoft had renamed its tainted Video for Windows to ActiveMovie, to fit the Active branding associated with its various Internet efforts:

shows that the author knows crap about Video for Windows vs. ActiveMovie (which is actually DirectShow). I agree Video for Windows is clunky. Microsoft dearly wish developers would stop using it and switch to DirectShow.

Actually, the author clearly says that:

ActiveMovie itself was being renamed again to DirectShow, to shake the performance problems associated with it, and also give it the Direct brand used in Windows 98 for components that dealt directly with hardware:

•Direct3D, Microsoft's proprietary alternative to OpenGL for 3D graphics, particularly in games
•DirectX, the remainder of video game related development tools bound to Windows

I don't see any inconsistency here. I'm not a developer but the story seems to be well researched. You present your personal opinion vs documented facts. If you have better knowledge you could shed more light on how VFW and ActiveMovie evolved. Facts, not personal feelings.