H.264 is inferior to even older mpeg4-variants.
rofl you have a lot of proving to do there, buddy! H.264 is a godsend for those of us who like to compress video to smaller file formats. You should go speak to the people over at doom9 who do nothing but test different video codecs all day and have performed multiple tests that show x.264 and other H.264-based codecs beating seasoned players like xvid and divx pro.
I also live in a market where DirecTV uses H.264 for HDTV feeds. The quality versus cable (or even Dish Network) is astounding. Watching Game 5 of the Stanley Cup Finals was like I was at the Honda Center and just a few feet above the ice. H.264 is an amazing codec. You saying its "inferior" to older MPEG-4 variants just cost you any little bit of credibility you might have had left.
Besides as a player Quicktime sucks
How?
as a container for video quicktime sucks
Again, Quicktime is NOT a container. The .mov format is a container, but .mov is not called "Quicktime". Get your facts straight.
It's a poorly written, bug infested wormhole.
What bugs? And explain how it is poorly written please.
My home pc is more responsive (core 2 duo with 4 gigs of ram) than the top-of-the-line 8-core mac pro with 8 gigs of ram.
Should be very easy for you to provide proof for that statement. On the other hand, there are countless benchmarks available via google search that basically prove you wrong.
but other inconveniences get in the way like really limited system information tools.
Oh? Thats funny because I can click System Profiler and find out such information like... how many cycles my battery has been through, even the current maximum capacity. Activity Monitor tells me more about whats going on in my system than even the new Task Manager in Vista.
When something fails on a mac you're totally screwed compared to the windows installation.
Explain this please. Because, unlike Windows, OS X doesn't spontaneously commit suicide and require a full OS reinstallation
And yes, macs aren't nearly as stable as mac fanatics want to make them seem.
Going on 3.5 months here on OS X and not a single crash or software crash. Yet only 1.5 months with a Vista laptop, with a fresh install, and it has fully crashed 6 times and already required one reinstall.
I'm not light on my Mac either. I'll have a webcam going in Windows Live Messenger running in XP in Parallels, playing a music video in iTunes, browsing the web with Firefox and doing some light photo editing in CS3. All with only a gig of RAM. IF that isn't a testament to system stability, I don't know what is.
Can I assign cores to different apps? I tried, didn't find anything useful.
Why would you do that when the OS supports multi-core by default? OS X actually takes advantage of multiple cores.
And I hate the way programs are installed in macs. Mounting images? What's up with that?
Whats wrong with the way applications are installed? For 90% of software you simply double click the .dmg file and a new window pops up. You drag and drop that icon to the Applications folder. Thats it. In Windows you have to run through an installer that can sometimes take forever and not even erase the temporary files it created (Nero, for example, leaves more than 600MB of temporary files behind). And, quite often, the uninstallers don't even work properly. Registry entries are left behind, files are scattered all over the hard drive. The worst that happens after uninstalling a Mac app (by right clicking and hit "send to trash") is one or two .plist files are left behind. A far cry from having a registry get bloated and become unstable thanks to software not being fully removed.
Quicktime (.mov) is a container the same way .avi is a container. They can contain sorenson video 3, h.264, divx, etc. So a...YES IT IS!
Quicktime is the name of the PLAYER. Not the name of ANY file format. Get your facts straight. How can we take you seriously if you can't even get simple facts like this right?
By shutting them down 5 minutes after idleing? That will more likely decrease the life of your hd because of the constant parking of the heads.
As opposed to constantly spinning and wearing down the bearings, motors, and other moving parts? Also generating heat that will speed up the process of dying?
Anyway, unlike Windows, Macs can properly use sleep mode. So simply uncheck "sleep hard drives when possible" and use sleep mode. Unlike Windows, you don't have to worry about your system crashing upon waking up or not being abl to connect to a network.
You've obviously never done network renderings with a mac? What you're saying is very ******* funny when mac's go completely ape**** when transferring large amounts of image sequences over the network.
If you're being honest at all, which I highly doubt considering your comments, I would attribute your problem to the software you're using. I've moved about 30 gigs of data over a gigabit network and the Macs had no problem running at full speed when the transfer was finished. However, I tried moving 16GB of data between XP Home and XP MCE 2005 systems and, after spending far too much time getting XP Home being able to see MCE on the network because Microsoft, in all of their brilliance, decided that XP home and MCE/Pro would use different methods of networking, it failed half way through each time. Why? Because Either Windows system would lose the ability to communicate with the network. It doesn't just happen to me either. I know more people than I can count who simply can't connect to their DSL or cable (Directly connected to the modem) after leaving their Windows systems on for a few hours. Clean installs, no viruses, no spyware, nothing.
[quote[Oh my god you're stupid... This is like reading some childs explanations.[/quote]
Its still the funniest thing in the world when people resort to flaming because they have no way to back up their own argument.
You don't know that quicktime is container, you don't know how to search in Vista, you don't know anything about mpeg4 codecs, about why indexing is good to disable, yeah you're a real wizard.
I don't know how to search in Vista? rofl. I'm sorry but if I typed in the SPECIFIC file name WITH extension in Spotlight or even XP's search, the file would turn up in the results. However, Vista simply returns NOTHING.
Again, Quicktime is the name of the PLAYER. Quicktime is NOT a file format or name for a container. It is a PIECE OF SOFTWARE.
And considering your little comment earlier about H.264 being "inferior", you're in no place to comment about codecs at all.
Our production house uses a strictly pc-based approach to rendering. You don't even have Fusion for macs.
And what exactly has your "production house" produced? Lets see some results.
LOTR used macs? For what? Not for anything big and the proprietary visual effects software was really not written for any mac.
Go watch the interviews on the extended edition DVDs
But since you're a big bad effects producer, you should already know!
Yeah, especially when the programs DON'T RUN
on macs. That's why we boot it to vista.
The only reason I have Windows in Parallels is... well, for my friends who aren't capable of setting up Skype to use a webcam and use MSN. Other than that, there is no reason to run Windows at all.
Yeah, They use Fusion. Tell me again how Fusion is not for macs? And they don't use macs for anything but photoshop work or fcp editing. That's it.
Oh?
http://www.ballergoods.com/home/2007...l-effects.html
The main visual effects team that worked on 300 said that they used 15 G5's for creating all of the visual effects, and ended up using 16 terabytes of disc space for the entire project.
So who is more reliable here? The production team behind one of the most successful movies of the year with some of the best CG we've ever seen..
or a person on a forum who can't grasp the concept of Quicktime being a piece of software and NOT the name for a file format? Oh and that same person has proven to be nothing more than an anti-Apple fanboy.
I couldn't even read your message to the end. It was just so full of trendy mac bs. But you know, there are fanatics in religion and computers, nothing to do about it.
More mindless flaming because you can't backup your own argument.
Just admit you're wrong and that you don't use Mac and everything will be fine.
You can get back all of the dignity you lost.
In gaming, dual core systems make little to no difference. Some newer games are dual core optimized
What? Are you crazy? Any game worth even half of its price tag released in the last several years has been optimized for dual core processors or taken advantage of them.
. For high resolutions, you need all the memory bandwidth you can get, so while the two cards perform about the same generally, the 8600 is bottlenecked.
You're discounting the CPU's affect on gaming far too much. You're acting as if the CPU makes no difference at all.
CPU's still have to basically set up the entire world, calculate the physics, the AI, the way the AI interacts, process the sound, tell the GPUs what goes where and how it will look, control and respond to the user input, manage things like network resources, etc. etc. etc. etc. The CPU basically does EVERYTHING. The GPU just makes it look pretty.
So I GUARANTEE you that your Pentium M is FAR more of a bottleneck than the 128-bit bus on the 8600M.
You have a desktop, correct? Go into the BIOS or use jumpers on the motherboard to throttle the CPU speed down and try to keep your gaming going at high resolutions. It won't happen.
I mean, even on my HP system with an ATI Xpress 200M, I was able to push the FSB of the Turion64 up to 400MHz (DDR) and get a performance increase.
Your Pentium 3-based CPU will hamper your gaming performance a lot more than the 128-bit bus in the 8600M. I remember having a GeForce2 MX with 128-bit bus in a Coppermine Pentium 3 based system at 1GHz and putting it in a system with an Athlon T-bird 1.4GHz. The performance nearly DOUBLED.
The Core 2 Duo, again, is also based on the pentium m, and by extension the pentium 3.
*sigh*
The Core 2 Duo is basically a combination of the best of the Pentium M and Pentium 4 with the "netburst" technology thrown out. It is NOT a Pentium 3 with P4 FSB speeds like the Pentium M. It's a mostly NEW architecture based on what Intel learned with both the P4 and P3/M/Core
The Pentium M has technology with roots as far back as the Pentium Pro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C...roarchitecture
I installed OSX yesterday on my dell laptop.
So you're admitting to pirating software on a public forum? Good job there.
On the other hand, OS X runs like **** on platforms it was NOT designed for. OS X does require SSE3 for many applications and basic functions. So you're not even getting 50% functionality out of it.
Installing OS on a Dell and expecting it to run good is no different than taking a Cobra engine out of a 2007 Cobra and putting it in a big truck and expecting the truck to be able to go fast.
I can say though that already I think Safari and iChat both suck.
Explain how.
Safari is faster than Firefox, has a more streamlined UI, and uses MUCH less system resources and RAM. It's also a lot more stable. Keeping in mind that Camino is basically an old version of Firefox designed to look better in OS X.
Whats wrong with iChat? It has all of the features of AIM without the spyware and in a MUCH smaller package.
But again, you're not even getting 50% functionality out of the system.
I installed Onyx but it doesn't really seem to be too useful.
Onyx is for system maintenance. Keep in mind that OS X doesn't require even 1/4 as much maintenance as Windows or Linux does.
How can I get it to "Zoom" my windows when I double click on the title bar instead of minimizing them?
Theres no use telling you how to take advantage of all of OS X's tools to make the UI easier to use and more intuitive, like Expose, considering your installation of OS X is not even 50% functional. Oh and its illegal.
The hardware support is fantastic though(no thanks to apple, most of the drivers for it are reverse engineered or ported from linux ones)
However, if you legitimately use OS X (by getting a Mac), you do get driver support from Apple nd the manufacturer.
Any tips for cool apps to play with?
Yeah, go get a Mac if you want to see what OS X is truly capable of. Again, running an illegal and generally hacked up copy of OS X on a platform it was not designed for on a processor that doesn't support all of the required instruction sets OS X needs is like taking an engine from a sports car and putting it in a truck and expecting it to be fast.
And better on consoles, dead on PCs and Macs.
but I like options and to tinker around
Which is funny, because I linked you to a site that PROVES that OS X has much more to "tinker around" with than any version of Windows.. maybe even all of them combined.
