Don't buy TV's offering archive.org streams

I particularly enjoy the massive library of software I can use, and the low cost of PC hardware. The OS may be horrid, but it's the software and hardware I care the most about. Because of Apple's monopolistic hardware practices, their prices are considerably higher than they should be. Not to mention the fact that I'd have to repurchase all of my software if I ever did switch.

Of course, OS X is sexy in the extreme and, when I'm not a poor wage-slave attending university, I should like to own a Mac.

(If your jibe about Windows was actually coming from the Linux/OSS camp, my only response is that the last distro I installed was not polished enough for general consumption, though it did have a few redeeming features.)

QuickTime isn't a format (MPEG-4, say, is a format). QuickTime was also the very first consumer-accessible desktop video framework, first shipping in 1991. So it's not exactly immature.

That the Windows client isn't perfect, well, okay. But Windows Media Player is pretty bloated too. Look at that dreadful OS you have to install to use it.

It's a shame about the Windows Media Player. 10 is a total PoS. Stick with 9.

The Windows Media Format is also actually a joy to work with. It's really open, you can modify it and insert data directly into a live stream as it is streaming (the Windows Media Developer Tools have a pretty nice little interface for it). I've used this in live shows to, say, if a speaker mentions a website, to either a) immediatley open that website in the users clientside IE or b) to publish the link, which was in no way predetermined, in a text area under the movie (which is actually part of the Windows Media Player few people know about).

The ActiveX control btw allows multiple instances, whereas the WMP doesn't.

Yeah whatever happened to Real, it sorta turned out to be the lowest end of 'em all. For overall quality, it seems QT is the way to go (Flash devs typically recommend coverting to FLV from .mov). But for overall flexibility, in my experience, I'd have to say Windows Media (though again, the commercial player sucks). The only thing that seems to keep Real going anymore is there server-side management and conversion tools (which are actually decent, or were anyway).

However...the fact that such data can be inserted into a stream has led me to wonder what the security ramifications are. The capability is great and greatly enhances the viewing experience (we used this stuff in fact to design the private Christie's Auction House online mechanism), but of course the malicious will undoubtedly take advantage

My apologies. I suppose we should refer to .mov as the "QuickTime Movie" format.

Sorry, bit of a troll wasn't it?
But I could not resist.

Windows Media player format is good and works on both platforms but has way to much porno and advertisements for me.

Why a video stream should have the inherent capability to redirect your browser, install widgets and generally screw your computer up I do not understand. I would argue that most just want to watch a video.

IMO, this is what is wrong with Windows in general. What if I dont want to open up every aplication and directory on my computer to the Internet or any spammer and spyware artist that comes along? What if Idon't want the internet built into my OS?

I would like to see MS's list of people they asked before hand who thought this was something they wanted. I dont know anyone that did.

While I respect your right toyour opinion I completely disagree with your assessment of it. I work with WMP10 everyday, all day. I have absolutely zero problems with it.

Windows is domiant desktop OS, to be that it has to be extremely easy to use for the beginer right out of the box. In order to do that it has to turn on almost all of its features, services, and GUI enhancements.

Savy window users will go thru and tweak their system to their own personal needs and level of tech knowhow. There are many reasons why windows works like it does and all of them have legitimate reasons.

Just users that like more then 2 application choices, 3 game choices, the ability to mod their computer to their delight, tweak their system, be the universal standard that all companies build to and then PORT to other enviroments.... I can go on The list is as long as Apple is expensive.

As far as performance, I will put my rigs against any apple out there. Including performance and stability.

Apple is not bad mind you, I own an older one and been thinking of getting the new mini mac because it is so portable.. and well cheap lol.

I get 1000GB (1 TB) of monthly bandwidth... and I use almost all of it lol

This thread has spiraled utterly off-topic and as such is being closed.