Talk:QuickTime

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But what is Quicktime??[edit]

I'm sure the opening paragraph means something to techy people, and even very techy savvie people, but.. I came to the article because whenever Quicktime updates on my computer I wonder what it actually is, and I have come away no clearer.

Can someone break down the opening paragraph into clear English please? I'd suggest moving the current opening paragraph down, as a more detailed explanation, with the simpler one above.

Something like "Quicktime is a piece of free software allowing users to run videos, animations and audio files on their computer. It differs from the pre-installed software in that...."

raining girl (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOV pronounciation[edit]

How do you pronounce the QuickTime (.mov) file format? Like you write it: mov as in motor? --torusturtle (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quicktime SMIL support[edit]

"I know Quicktime's support for SMIL is sparse, but I've gotten it to work reasonably well except when it is played through the web plugin. A smil file that plays file from the Quicktime application stops at 1:12 on any movie I give it. If anyone has had experience with this I would much appreciate any help." Msiverts 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quicktime Pro features available even on Windows?[edit]

"In Mac OS X, the "Pro-only" features are actually available from within the QuickTime framework, and the limitations in the free version apply only to the QuickTime Player application"

Does this apply to windows aswell? If not, what is missing from the API in windows if you don~'t have PRO? --62.84.192.238 08:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does apply to Windows as well. There are some codecs missing from the WIindows version (Pixlet, DVCPRO iirc) but no API Kevin Marks 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And of course it doesn't support codecs installed in windows, making it rubbish, and this after 7 versions - baa. IceHunter 17:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quicktime to frames[edit]

Can anyone recommend software (ideally freeware) that can extract frames from Quicktime MJPEG video? Seabhcán 11:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping AVI in MOV[edit]

"QuickTime is particularly suited for editing, as it is capable of importing and editing in place (without data copying) other formats such as AIFF, DV, MP3, MPEG-1, and AVI." Is this possible? I know formats such as MPEG can be put in an AVI or MOV container, but I don't know if container files are put in other container files. —Tokek 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guarantee that that line was written by someone who doesn't know the difference between a codec and a container and thinks that 'AVI' is a specific format - as the rest of them, erm, kind-of are. Rather obviously, the AVI container can't be wrapped in a MOV file. --Kiand 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - that line is confusing. It's referring to QuickTime's ability to create a mov consisting of references to audio/video data in separate files, which makes for very quick editing. My suggestion would be appending something like "by creating a reference QuickTime file." to the end of the sentence, since it isn't really clear that it's a separate QuickTime file that is being changed instead of the original avi/whatever. Side note: although not usually the case, there are certain cases of container formats containing another container format. From what I can tell, muxed MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 in mov is one example, and one hack to get Vorbis audio in avi is another. --Dicey 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about the Vorbis case but afaik MPEG-1 and 2 it isn't the case. A MPEG-1 or 2 video stream is not really a container as far as I know. It's just a stream. I guess it depends on your definition of a container but many people would not call it a container. Nil Einne 15:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your guarantee is worthless, as I wrote it. You are the one confusing codec and container. QT can create an in-memory reference movie from all of those formats. AVI is a specific container format that can contain multiple codecs, as is AIFF. Both are based (as is QT) on the IFF model. The reference movie need not be a file, that is just it's serialisation. MPEG-1 and 2 are indeed bitstreams, Vorbis is a codec, and Ogg is a rather messy hybrid of a format and a stream. In the old days of 2-fork files, you could have a Movie Resource in the resource fork, pointing to the media in the data fork. Kevin Marks 23:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latecomer to streaming?[edit]

One thing that ought to be mentioned is that although QT was a groundbreaking technology, it was relatively late in adding support for streaming media, the niche that Real Audio exploited in 1995. Although quite a few early websites supported QuickTime, you had to wait for the whole file to download before it would play, a severe handicap in the era of 9600- and 14400-bps modems. ProhibitOnions 12:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly right, and it caused a lot of consternation within the QuickTime team as they saw Real take a lead with their streaming product. One of the side effects of Apple trying to catch up with Real was that the QTi project was postponed in order to complete streaming support for QT 4.0. This in turn ended the attempt to revive HyperCard as a QuickTime authoring environment as it relied on the QTi format. I have alluded to this in the QTi section I added recently, but more details about streaming would be welcome. Gwernol 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you, or someone with a greater knowledge of QT than I have, like to add this to the article? At present it hardly mentions its present or historic competitive situation vis-a-vis Real and other products, or its transformation from novelty for CD-ROMs to useful Internet tool.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 03:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. QuickTime fast-start (placing the movie Table of Contents at the front of the file, so it downloads first) was introduced in QuickTime 2, allowing movies to start playing before they were fully downloaded. This is generally superior to streaming, as it works regardless of bandwidth available. Streaming over 9600 or 14400 is not something I'd advise for video, though audio may work. Kevin Marks 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Streaming has its place, and it's true that QT was late to the game. Just two examples where streaming is better than quick-start: 1. If you want to access just the last 10 seconds of a movie, with quick-start, you must wait till practically the whole movie is downloaded. With streaming, access is near instantaneous. 2. Live webcasts are not possible with quick-start.  Tabanger  21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

I'm a big fan of QT but I think it's important to address the criticisms of the player. By not mentioning them we are shying away from NPOV and actually strengthening the case against it. These should probably be mentioned:

  • Tray icon (Removable in Control Panel>QT settings)
  • No fullscreen (Perfectly legitimate, huge blunder on Apple's part)
  • Prone to crashing in Firefox
  • Non-standard interface in Windows
  • DRM!

Noclip 01:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noclip. There is some mention of this in the QuickTime Player article, which is where these UI criticisms should be. I agree there are legitimate UI concerns and there is a link to the "UI Hall of Shame" article which has a pretty negative analysis of the QT Player 4.0 UI. I was one of the engineers on the QT Player 4.0 project so I have a lot of familiarity with this particular discussion :-) It would certainly be possible to add a specific section to the QT Player article on this. Best, Gwernol 01:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem, Noclip, is that you have made a couple statements of opinion and labeled them as fact. Optional DRM is a disadvantage? An optional tray icon is a disadvantage? Choices are not bad. If you have a choice between DRMed videos and no videos, not everyone is going to view the DRM option as the worst of the two choices.
I'd also like to see a reference for QuickTime crashing in Firefox (presumably, for Windows); I use this combination frequently and I've never seen it crash. I also don't see much point in complaining about the look of the product on Windows; it may be nonstandard, but it is significantly better than many of the skinned products that exist. --Steven Fisher 02:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional tray icon by itself is not bad since it isn't a problem if you don't use it but the fact that it is on by default is bad IMHO and I expect for the majority of users. I strongly dislike software which thinks it has a right to take over my computer (which sadly is all to common nowadays), even if it is optional. DRM is also a controversial area whether you like it or not. Many people are opposed to it. DRM is not a choice, since it's the content provider that decides whether to use DRM. If DRM is not provided then content providers can't use it. There is also the issue of downloading a file on P2P and or just the web that is not tagged as having DRM but does... Note that criticisms doesn't mean everyone has to agree it's a problem. It just means that enough people feel it's a problem/something they don't like that it needs to be mentioned Nil Einne 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criticisms don't require a consensus, certainly. But I'd argue that they do have to have some validity. Attempting to paint an optional feature as a source of criticism is simply being cranky. Noting that the icon is on by default is probably reasonable, though. Using this article as a platform for an anti-DRM rant isn't, however. That's covered better elsewhere. -- Steven Fisher 07:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an anti-DRM rant is necessary, but I think it would be a good idea to mention that Quicktime files might be using DRM. I often look at Wikipedia articles for various file formats/protocols/codecs to see whether they are proprietary or use DRM. It is an important piece of information. - James Foster 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't there be a criticism for QT's interfering with every flash video under the sun? CTVampSlayer 2:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism the 2nd[edit]

Ok, then how about:

  • Tray icon which reactivates itself after each update.
  • Automated update which tries to install iTunes with each update.

Choice isn't bad - but if I made my choice (NO Tray Icon, NO iTunes) it should be respected once and for all. The software should not try to reverse my choice with every update in order to push there company policy or company products.

Consensus? OK! Should the above tow points be added to a "Criticism" sections:

Criticism the 3rd[edit]

  • Support on windows in spring 2008.

Recent Versions of quicktime have had many bugs on all versions of windows. I work in a shop that uses quicktime for streaming video exclusively and for the past month we've logged at least 20 different bugs for quicktime on windows.

The current version of quicktime (7.4.5) does not play trailers from apples site on a clean install of xp, server 2003, server 2008, or multiple versions of vista. Previous versions have been working intermittently on all versions.

Another criticism:

As it stands now[edit]

I don't know if anyone can see it, but as it stands now, there is no content that can be called 'criticism' under the Criticism heading in the main article. I was expecting commentary or something, but it just describes a bug that affected only one thing (After Effects) and was fixed pretty quickly. - I eat food! 22:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

About the critisism header:
I can live with tray icons, automatic updates and bugs that affects only specific things and are promptly fixed but I am more concerned about other serious limitations that affects the workflow when you have to use Quicktime for Windows:

- Non-existing performance, only utilizing fractions of system resources on a multi GB RAM, multi-core workstation.
- Limited support for modern video acceleration
- Very unstable on XP x64 and in my experience useless on Vista x64.
- No support for AVI files larger than 2 GB
- Amazingly slow export function compared to other software transcoders
- Default resizing of field-based, non-square content without deinterlacing it!

It seems to me that the QT code needs a major upgrade. 213.115.153.164 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Windows Vista x64, Quicktime doesn't show control bar in all web-browsers. It is said so-called "Black Bar". In addition, all embeded MP3 files in web pages are only played through Quicktime in all web-browser in Windows Vista. It has been reported to Apple since 2006, Apple has not fixed it. The only solution is executing Quicktime in XPSP2 compatibility mode, however, it turns off Aero interface in Windows Vista and 7.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongvil (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just browsing[edit]

Wikipedia because I'm bored at work. Laughable that there's not a criticism section, but not unexpected. - ( ノ ´＿ゝ｀）ノ •ﾟ'.☆ 15:39, 08 Jan 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.163.138 (talk)

Let's have criticism[edit]

I support some measure of the reception of Q&T among users be mentioned. Most people have QT forcefed to them through some product that install it or "needs" it by default. Most people do not know any better, so they think such practice is OK, thus there would seem no "need" for criticism. I personally loathe such "default" installs, and even more when some version (which one?) started nagging to "upgrade" to their pay version every time you started it. As it is, owning a Sony camcorder, I am forced to have QT installed, but have disabled all "default" options. I should assume most savvy users do something similar. Thus, as "criticism", I would mention that "default" install feature, and how it tries to take over all sorts of media to be opened by QT. (I use VLC for everything). Now, a published source? (yamaplos 13:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs)

QuickTime 6.5.2 security[edit]

The most recent QuickTime version for Windows 98(SE) seems to be the old 6.5.2.

Since for QuickTime 7 many security updates were released, the question rises how save QuickTime 6.5.2 is. Should one, maybe, refrain from using QuickTime on a Windows 98(SE) computer altogether?

Framerate issues?[edit]

Ever since I went from version 7 to 7.1, I've noticed a 50% drop in framerate on my 720p trailers. Anyone else have this problem?

On the two Macs I've upgraded, one a G4 and the other an Intel, the playback of 720p trailers has improved (from stuttering on my G4 to smooth (VLC and MPlayer can't play them as smoothly as QuickTime can now), and about 10% less CPU on the Intel.) I've only heard of one other person with your problem, from a post on macrumors.com. Was that you? --Dicey 01:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't me, but I know of someone else referring to it on support.mac.com. I'm using XP on a 3200+ Athlon, so maybe it's a Windows and/or Athlon quirk.

NPOV[edit]

What's with all the talk of Quicktime's "versatility"? I think it steps over the line into a non-NPOV. At a quick glance there are several borderline-opinions that need citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.144.194 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the nature of your non-NPOV concern? QuickTime is certainly "versatile" in the sense of being able to play multiple different formats -- simple audio files; MP3s; images of various kinds from GIFs to TIFFs; MPEG, QuickTime, and AVI movies; 3D panoramas, and so on. That it doesn't play specific, proprietary, formats like RealAudio and Windows Media Video is not really surprising and doesn't really diminish the idea of the QuickTime being versatile in any meaningful sense. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overlays?[edit]

"QuickTime 7 was released on April 29, 2005 with Mac OS X v10.4 featuring... full-screen overlay..." Is this true? Though my video card supports them, I cannot find an option for overlays in QuickTime's preferences. Is this feature Pro only? jdbartlett 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably refering to the on-screen interface QT player 7 presents in full screen mode when moving the mouse. The interface allows most regular playback controls even while in fullscreen mode. And since fullscreen is Pro only, these "overlays" are too. Peter S. 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threading[edit]

Prior to Mac OS X, QuickTime provided the OS with the threading library. Does anyone know when that feature was introduced? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is from memory, I'd have to check my notes to be sure, but I think it was around QT 2.5. Someone with a better memory will correct me, I'm sure. Gwernol 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the Thread Manager extension? I don't believe that was a part of QuickTime, per se. I believe it was introduced with System 7 Pro.  Tabanger  19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current quality of MPEG-4 encoder?[edit]

I've read a lot of bad things about the QuickTime MPEG-4 encoder, but most bad press dates back to times of QT-6.x. For my own part, I had some terrible results encoding some digitised old VHS-material until I realised that it really makes a difference if you choose .MP4 or .MOV for MPEG-4 export. For some reason, only .MOV has a 'Deinterlace' button hidden in die 'Size' dialog, and since I switched that on, I haven't had much reason to complain.

I usually export with the 'current' frame-rate, quality set to Max., keyframes to 75, and a bitrate limit of 1920kb/s. This allows for 45 minutes of PAL-video on a CD.

I tried DivX and QuickTime's Sorenson3 too, but I'd soon reached a point where I felt I would only trade in one type of compression artifact for another unless I was willing to spend a good deal more processing time:

  • Apple's MPEG-4 sometimes produces dust or grain in 'busy' areas
  • DivX sometimes produces small horizontal lines there instead
  • Sorenson 3 doesn't treat colour gradients like blue sky too well.

I found the grain to be the least obtrusive, and thus stuck with Apples MPEG-4. Am I missing something quality-wise?

  • Apple's* MPEG-4 codec has been found over and over to be the worst looking MPEG-4 codec by several websites and digital video magazines (DV monthly, et al). Support was rudimentary while Apple preped the far superior h.264 (which I would always recommend using over MPEG-4). If you *have* to have MPEG-4, try other encoders, like VLC. --24.249.108.133 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP4 is limited to stereo?[edit]

Why does this article mention that mp4 is limited to stereo, when the AAC (mp4 audio) codec is documented to support up to 48 channels? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding for more info.

62.134.80.81 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article mentions, within a QuickTime .mov container, you are able to fully exploit the multi-channel capabilities of AAC. In fact, many HD trailers on Apple's Movie Trailer site have 5.1 channel AAC tracks. However, when using an MP4 container, you can only use a stereo AAC tracks. I believe this is a limitation in Apple's MP4 implementation, and not a limitation of MP4 in general.  Tabanger  19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alternatives[edit]

what are the alternative programs that can play mov files?

See Comparison of media players. Also, I think IrfanView is supposed to have a plugin for .mov. 69.87.193.221 11:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QuickTime 5.x and 6.x sections[edit]

I feel this is way, way too much technical esoterica on these sections, especially for obsolete software. I've reverted it to a briefer summary, hitting the technical highlights, and I think that's better suited to the scope of this article.  Tabanger  08:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree that my article for QT 5 was too long, so I've shortened it.  :) However, the previous reversion was not as well-documented as the QT 5 article that I prepared. For example, the reversion doesn't even mention MPEG-1, Flash 4, and realtime DV. Wikipedia has flagged this article as needing credible source documentation since December 2005, so I spent a few hours going through the QT 5 developer notes at Apple to update that section. Now the QT5 article's length matches that of QT 3. --Gerritdewitt 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, kudos for the extensive rewrite, research, and notations. Second, I had a couple issues on the 5.x section. First QTVR fast-start was definitely around before 5.x. I remember doing fast-start cylindricals in late 1997, with QTVR 2.0. Secondly, can you check the release info for 5.0? I see what that page says, but I know there was no public release of 5.0. It was released on like some CD, and on some machines or something, but the first public release for download was 5.0.1.  Tabanger  10:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QT 4 & QT 6 sections[edit]

As per Tabanger's suggestions, I've shortened the version history for QT 6 and locked down sources for claims in the QT 4 and QT 6 sections. --Gerritdewitt 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QT 7 section, Overview, Players[edit]

Documented and made these sections more informative and focused. --Gerritdewitt 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is QT 7 completely MPEG4 compliant? Its h.264 decoder covers only baseline and main profile, not to mention other MPEG4 standards are incomplete (no HE-AAC) or entirely missing (TTXT). - ee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.149.190.81 (talk • contribs) 08:33, April 24, 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? AlistairMcMillan 09:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself states that h.264 decoding only covers baseline and main profiles. Complete support would have to include high profile as well. Lack of HE-AAC support is stated in wikipedia articles about HE-AAC and iTunes. Though unsourced this can be easily verified by encoding an HE-AAC file and playing back in Quicktime. TTXT is supported in Quicktime, though playback seemingly only in 3gp (see point 7). In any case no full compliance with MPEG4, which covers a lot more than what i just pointed to. The article should clarify what "full MPEG4 compliance" actually is, as it is clearly not full support of all MPEG4 standards. - ee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.149.190.81 (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I agree completely that it's disingenuous to call QT's MPEG-4 implementation complete. It doesn't support pixel aspect ratio, 8x8 macroblocks or multiple B-frames. In fact, I would consider it conspicuously incomplete. Source, as if one is really needed: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/menc-feat-quicktime-7.html

should mov redirect here?[edit]

I think that just .mov, not mov, since MOV is a very important x86 architecture instruction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Windymager (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removal of rant[edit]

Removed the 7.1.3 rant about IE 7 and Vista compatibility with QT 7 and iTunes 7. We'd like to keep this article fact-based. Please direct your complaints to Apple; we agree that they are legitimate, but should not be part of the QuickTime article. Thank you. --Gerritdewitt 08:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article, this is the talk page. And deletions are logged, it seems redundant to repeat it.IceHunter 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a re-write?[edit]

While there's good stuff here, my feeling is this article has become too rambling and very difficult to read. There's rather too much focus on the player and how it compares with other freebie players. I suppose this is because a lot of the editors don't have QT Pro and are basing their comments on the free QuickTime version instead.

As things stand, there's endless lists of codecs and things, and these are very, very difficult to read. There must be a better way to organise these to make them less obtrusive. Perhaps a table or something? With one column listing the different codecs (in alphabetical order!) and another column with the version where it appeared in QuickTime (if at all).

On the other hand, there's very little about the interface (which has been much commented on over the years) and nothing that I can see about its success (or otherwise) as a cross-platform tool. QuickTime is integral to the Mac OS as the article says, but the article doesn't seem to say how or why.

Mentioning stuff like how QuickTime videos can be played by VLC Media Player is irrelevant to the article. By all means, let the VLC Media Player article say that this program plays .mov files, but the other way around is silly. That would rather like the page on Coca Cola listing all the other colas on sale.

The problem is that this article has become a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand there's a lot of technical info about the software, but then there's also a lot of geeky criticisms of the software in favour of Windows Media, open source alternatives, or just generally being cross with Apple for charging $30 for the "real" software instead of the insipid freebie version they give you with OS X.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it's probably fair to focus on the underlying technologies, perhaps as a list (since this is a platform, after all, which supports all kinds of applications and file types), and that this is maybe best achieved in a chronological fashion since that's the way technologies evolve; they are usually most relevant at the time they got added, and rarely do they get removed later on (even if they drop in relevance). Whophd (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive hardware requirements?[edit]

It looks like Apple's QuickTime Player consumes much more CPU power and amount of memory to play back smoothly a file, compared to VLC or Media Player classic. I have yet to see an Pentium III computer, not even a damn expensive PIIIS-1400MHz workstation with ATI9800Pro and one GB of RAM that could fluently play back this 108MB official trailer using Quicktime 7.16.200. In contrast MPC will do it on an 1100MHz Tualatin Celeron with 384MB and an ATI9200SE, both running Win XP SP2!

http://www.hardwired.hu/bigdl/2/9/trailer_order_of_the_phoenix_hd_720p.mov

IMHO, that means Apple is bad, it is unusable with anything less than full Pentium4 2GHz+. 82.131.210.162 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried out your movie. On my 1.8 GHz MacBook Pro (with 1.5 GB RAM) QuickTime worked perfectly well. Smooth, no stuttering at all. Like watching a DVD. As for CPU usage, according to top, this varied from 28% to 54% while the movie was running. I tried the same movie out in VLC, and CPU usage was practically identical (24-56%). So I don't see any validity to your assertion that one is better than the other, at least not on a Macintosh. Just to be clear -- I downloaded the movie to my hard drive, and then played it. If it stutters when you view the movie online through a browser, then the problem is more likely network speed than anything else. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neale, did you try it in Windows or in Mac OS X? Clearly, the original poster was using a Windows machine.
FWIW, using QuickTime on my Windows XP SP2 laptop (Pentium M 1.40 GHz, purchased new in November 2004) results in 100% CPU usage. --anon. 70.23.158.215 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" link to Windows Media[edit]

This is not Fox News, this is an encyclopedic article. There is no journalistic mandate to give fair "screen time" to the competition. There should be an encyclopedic focus as to why that material is in the article. The "See also" section should contain links to articles with information "relevant to the whole page." Windows Media does not specifically relate to QuickTime. If you want to make mention of the "competition" it should be included in a section of the article, not the See also list at the bottom of the page. Though to be honest, that kind of section doesn't really belong in the article either, unless there is some kind of notable commentary for including such information. Otherwise that information belongs in the individual topics' articles or articles like the already-linked Comparison of media players.  Tabanger  09:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific history of Quicktime[edit]

Somehow this article: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/25/road_to_mac_os_x_leopard_quicktime_itunes_and_media_features.html

Needs to get woven into this entry. (Far more interesting to read, ihmo) --24.249.108.133 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

msconfig[edit]

(First of all, I'd like to mention that I'm no quicktime expert and non wikipedia expert - which is why I'm putting this in the discussion. My apologies if it is in the wrong place, and someone will have to remove it). I looked for the wiki entry of quicktime, because I see quicktime as one of the automatic programs (I'm using VISTA) when I run msconfig. I see no way to tell QT not to run automatically from within, and must do that from msconfig. I wanted to see if there's any comment/criticism on this, but only found some hints of this in the discussion. If you think something should be added to the main page please do so. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.218.115 (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do this is not easily detected since recent versions. You have to disable all auto-update features and playing movies automatically in browsers. I don't think this is a special error of QuickTime, many other popular programmes like RealPlayer, Adobe Reader etc. “hide” options to disable their startups since many people would disable auto-update features quickly without thinking about consequences. --85.176.240.12 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QuickTime Release Versions[edit]

I have maintained a list of most of the QuickTime and iTunes versions, Mac flavor, their dates, sizes and official Apple changes.

I would like to add that as a simple list or simple table to each of the sections for which I have data - QT 5, 6, 7. It would be similar in concept to the ITunes_version_history, but not as detailed (and without any color coding)

Any objections to this? Beginnersview 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cpu 100%[edit]

Running the latest stable Safari 3.1 (525.13) QuickTime 7.4.1 bundle under WinXPpro, with plenty of RAM and fast modern PCs, the cpu jumps to around 100% usage, just opening the QuickTime app while online! This is nuts -- is this a bug or a feature? Seems like it would be Notable, and a reason to mention whether alternative players might not load the cpu so much? -69.87.204.26 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of screenshot at top of article.[edit]

It seems to me that the screenshot we've chosen to use at the top of the article is unnecessarily copyright-laden. The use of a screenshot of Quicktime in action is justifiable under fair use - but to have it playing copyrighted content at the time is not. There is absolutely no reason why we couldn't have shown a quicktime window displaying a copyright-free movie instead - which means that we have no valid fair-use claim on the present image because we do not discuss the movie 'Ratatoille' in the context in which the image is used. This needs to get fixed ASAP and the present image put up for speedy-deletion. SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone kindly uploaded a replacement image. Problem solved. SteveBaker (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

x rated porn movie filename in screenshot[edit]

Not a big deal, but one of the export screen shots specifies an output filename "x-rated pornos.mp4"? I'd replace it myself, but I'm on a PC and my mac is at work, so if someone (preferably a mature adult) wants to capture a more appropriate screen shot for this step, go right ahead.

Davebenham (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Merge from QuickTime version history[edit]

Proposing a merging of content from QuickTime version history. Instead of listing random releases, the notable ones would be included... most of them appear to already be in here.Cander0000 (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quicktime 8?[edit]

I got prompted to install Quicktime 8 and Itunes. I declined and went to check here. But there is no mention of version 8 of Quicktime.

Is there a hoax? Am I virus-infected? Why is there no QT8 mention on the page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.28.168 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no QuickTime 8 - it went straight from 7.x to X (and X is only available on Snow Leopard). Of course, it is best to check you didn't mistake iTunes 8 for QuickTime 8 (or vice versa) - iTunes 8 was the current version at the time of your post according to iTunes Version History123.208.106.50 (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File extension ".qt"?[edit]

The infobox says that ".qt" is a valid file extension for QuickTime files. To my understanding, that is not correct, and ".mov" is the only valid extension. Could someone clarify? That addition was made back on 03:58, 4 October 2006 , but I don't see any relevant citations. --Preppy (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox is correct. .qt is a valid QuickTime Movie file type and is supported by QuickTime 7. Just tested. Fleet Command (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Updating for Snow Leopard[edit]

Parts of the article need to be updated drastically now, due to the release of Snow Leopard, and Quicktime X has actually been released.Xcoderules (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception[edit]

Hi, everyone

Perhaps, by this time everyone has noticed that this article lacks a critical reception about QuickTime whether amongst developers or end-users. It is time this information is added to the article.

For example, we know that Adobe Photoshop and several Adobe applications use QuickTime. But how about other developers. Also, what is the QuickTime's rating amongst end-users? Do they love it? Or do they use alternative packages like QuickTime Alternative? Fleet Command (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up history section[edit]

The history is a visual mess. How about a nice table? Check out the After Effects and Adobe_Photoshop_release_history entries. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Can we move QuickTime to QuickTime Player? There is a QuickTime Streaming Server and QuickTime Broadcaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.119.210 (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a long-dead topic and by now you could have assumed Silence and consensus. But anyway, if you haven't, I disagree. Maybe it is a good idea to do the reverse: merge them here. Fleet Command (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from PictureViewer[edit]

Resolved
 – Merged

Why don't we merge PictureViewer into this article? PictureViewer is a closely-related stub that does not seem to have a future. Fleet Command (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft attempt to kill Quicktime in 90's not mentioned[edit]

There should be some sort of mentioned of Microsoft's attempt back in the 90's to kill Quicktime. See: http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/108648/ms_doj_ms_demanded_quicktime_death_--_knife_baby_/ --Cab88 (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure if it is a good idea. In fact, I think it is a bad idea. The headline reads as if Microsoft had orchestrated something serious back then, like demanding immediate discontinuation of QuickTime development after threatening Apple with a B2 Bomber! But according to article body, both companies tried to bluff each other into dropping their multimedia development efforts and adopt the other's; none succeed. And here we have PC World trying to fan the flame by mentioning Internet Explorer to make an evil out of Microsoft! I don't buy this thing. Fleet Command (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat Apple-centric, eh?[edit]

Linux folk who happen upon this page find only Apple and Microsoft content. VideoLan, Mplay, Xine, and other xorg applications that can play .mov content appear to be missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.205.211 (talk)

Are you joking? This article is about QuickTime, not VideoLan, Mplay, etc. QuickTime is released only for Windows and Mac, that's why there is only mention of Windows and Mac. Fleet Command (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing QuickTime with QuickTime File Format (that's the file type you are referring to as ".mov content"). Naturally, this article is and must be Apple-centric, because QuickTime is a software product made by Apple. (Generally, confusion between formats and software products is the number one confusion in the history of technology.)—J. M. (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased[edit]

You can easily get 320x256 out of a 7Mhz 68000. Lower res on a processor so much faster is hardly a "previously unheard-of feat" I'd call it downright shameful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.35.60 (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Although I can't know whether you are right or the article statement, it is a fact that this text is not sourced and seems to violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Hence, I am deleting potentially-POV parts. Fleet Command (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look up Commodore CDXL. 82.42.35.60 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Commodore... I though you were talking about another Mac software. But that doesn't make any difference, now that the POV parts are gone. Fleet Command (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OS order[edit]

For some unknown reason FleetCommand insists on putting Windows first. Citing WP:NPOV comes right back at you FleetCommand, is there any logical reason why Windows should be listed before Mac OS X? If you go alphabetical which is no doubt the most neutral option possible, Mac OS X comes first. Other options might be first system released on, which would be Mac as well, primary supported system, also Mac. I'm not seeing any logical situation were Windows would be listed first. Looking through the page history, Mac OS X has been first for years until, FleetCommand, yes you read that correctly, swapped them for no apparent reason. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find, Xeworlebi. :) Also, I added sourced material for the Snow Leopard inclusion of QT7. Apple does release QT7 for Snow Leopard, and I removed Lion references as it has not yet been released. Adding it is speculation at this point, as I do believe Lion is still under NDA. Kiranerys-talk 19:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, please Avoid personal remarks. Focus on the problem not person. Doing otherwise is against Wikipedia:Civility. That applies to your edit summaries as well.
Second, as I mentioned in the message that I sent Xeworlebi, there are two problems with this so-called alphabetical order.
  1. Alphabetical order must not threaten to violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight (WP:UNDUE); that is, each operating system must receive coverage based on its significance. Microsoft Windows is the most significant operating system in the world; almost 90% of all desktop computers are running Microsoft Windows. Therefore, it must be covered first in the infobox. In addition, QuickTime classic is discontinued on Mac, so I saw it fit to prioritize live platforms.
  2. If you INSIST on alphabetical order, descending order is also a valid alphabetical order. Therefore, W-S-M (Windows XP, System 7, Mac OS), as I put it in April 2010 is already alphabetically sorted. Also, WX-WV-W7-M (Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Mac OS X) is also alphabetically sorted (descending) while M-WX-WV-W7 is not sorted at all. (At best, it should be M-W7-WV-WX). But I insist on WP:UNDUE, which is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia.
Additionally, the issue of moving Mac first is what I see occasionally in Wikipedia. Zealous Mac fans turn "Windows, Mac, Linux" (alphabetically ordered) into "Mac, Windows, Linux" which is alphabetically unordered; then they asserted they "alphabetically sorted" it. Correct me if I am wrong but such edit summaries are invalid.
Fleet Command (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Point #1)--If I may, could you supply diffs as to the personal remarks; if you're referring to me, is it perhaps the sarcastic emoticon I posted, or my edit here with the infobox OS section making no sense. If the latter, may I say that I was not aware of you making that original edit here, nor was I aware of who you were. I meant that the infobox made no sense in that you mention Windows XP or later, System 7 or later, or Mac OS Leopard or earlier. The fact that Windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT4, ME, and 2000 were ignored on the Windows side (released ~1992-2000), however on the Mac side, System 7 (~1991) was included. Furthermore, Snow Leopard is supported by the QuickTime 7.6.6 here, so I do not understand why that was removed (however, for your benefit, I had not cited that remark the first time). I do, however apologize for being a bit rash (if you were indeed referring to me.
(Point #2)-On Alpha order-I read Undue and I'm inclined to back off on that point, but let me just also remark that I do not consider myself a zealous Mac fan (in fact, I do not own a Macintosh computer), but I do agree that it is obviously wrong when people do that.
For argument's sake though, we could perhaps hash out some possible options on the order, and others are of course welcome to add to discussion. Kiranerys-talk 06:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point #1 -- I am sorry. I didn't know about that source. I just checked apple.com/quicktime/download/, found no mention and so took it for having failed verification. But I write it down to my own experience: Bad Humor + No Source = Trouble
Your point #2 and #3 (unnumbered) -- You? Surely not. I intentionally included "Linux" in the example to clarify that I am taking about other cases, not this case. I was just preparing the ground for your point #3. You see, I have long discovered that when it comes to versions of the same OS, people prefer chronological order than alphabetical order. They prefer "XP, Server 2003, Vista and 7" (ascending chronological) or reverse more than "7, 2003, Vista and XP" (natural numeric + ascending alphabetic). They also prefer to insert desktop OS before mobile OS. Overall, alphabetic sort is a ... well, it's not popular. Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any indication that any one here made any personal remarks please do so, you seem to have just skipped that question from Kiranerys. If you are referring to my link to were I showed that you were the one who switched them from the years-long consensus, then I will make such remark again. It shows that while you cite that everyone is violating WP:NPOV, that your preference is to put Windows first over what it has always been and usually is.
Backwards alphabetical order makes little sense, the alphabet starts at A and ends with Z. But even if you don't want to use the normal alphabet then putting Mac first makes still the most sense in almost all cases. Although you say that it is not popular it seems like it is, take a look at the other Windows available Apple applications; iTunes and Safari, or just some non-Apple cross platform applications like Google Chrome, Adobe Photoshop.
When talking consecutive OS's chronological indeed makes the most sense, and putting desktop before mobile makes sense when that's the primary platform, if the mobile version is the primary platform that wouldn't make that much sense.
You keep saying WP:UNDUE, but you can say what you will but Apple's primary platform is still Mac OS X, not Windows. It seems to me that you come up with all kinds of tricks to justify putting Windows first, like using a backwards alphabet, etc. Xeworlebi (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of overzealous people who put Mac first... 80.191.138.163 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
80.191.138.163, may I ask you to kindly refrain from commenting on people and focus on the problem only?
And as for you, Xeworlebi, I made it perfectly clear that what I did in that edit was out of obedience with WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE demands Windows to be covered first, regardless of what letter the alphabet starts or ends at. And the fact that other articles violate WP:UNDUE does not mean this article must repeat the violation. Fleet Command (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? WP:UNDUE does not demand Windows first at all. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De-hyphenization of dates[edit]

See User talk:Nnemo#Your recent edits in QuickTime.

Human-friendly format, instead of computer-friendly format.

Evolution predominant format. WP:DATESRET states: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it […]."

--Nnemo (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm looking at your changes to the page in this diff, and your quote, "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it […]." effectively sabotages your reasoning, as the changes you did recorded, you completely changed the reference date format. The format was predominantly in 2007-04-04 format. Kiranerys-talk 00:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. The evolution predominant format in the article was "16 July 2002", happily for reading pleasantness. Besides the references, the article body counts — actually, it even counts much more.
I wonder why it is so difficult to make such minorissime changes. Who am I harming? I don't care much for: you and I and FleetCommand and everyone else as *editors*. I care much for: you and I and FleetCommand and everyone else as *readers* — that is why I made all the dates consistent to make sure that even on problematic system no Chinese character appear. Readers are much more numerous than editors, and Wikipedia is made primarily for readers. Content has to be correct and nice to read. Easy to edit too, but this is less important than that.
--Nnemo (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just confused then, you said the predominant format was the "12 July 2003", yet you only changed all of the citations in the article from 2002-04-04 to the aforementioned style, and I'm not necessarily disputing that, it's just that you did not change any date format in the actual page content (not referring to citations here), I found many dates in the QuickTime article that were "July 13, 2002". Kiranerys-talk 02:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, article should use one unified date style for body and one for citations. (These two section can have different styles.) Now, looking back at when he came and started causing havoc, the citation section of the article was (and currently is) predominantly using ISO 8601 date style. Therefore, per WP:DATESRET it must be kept. Fleet Command (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given its a product by a US company US dates are probably the best to go for, but going for one format over the whole article seems reasonable enough. This is certainly not an issue that's worth edit warring over... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it has a strong national ties; everyone in the world can download and use it. But I am ready to forfeit the whole date issue. The whole dispute could have been averted if it was not because of another WP:RETAIN issue. In fact I was ready to forfeit that too, if I was politely asked "please let my edit stay" instead of "let's do this by the book". I guess it is not late now. Fleet Command (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name (Snow Leopard) or version number (10.6)?[edit]

I am curious: Do Mac users prefer OS name (e.g. Mac OS X Leopard or Mac OS X Snow Leopard) or OS version number (Mac OS X 10.5 or Mac OS X 10.6)?

I myself am a Windows user: We have "Windows 5.0", "Windows 5.1", "Windows 6.0" and "Windows 6.1" but I prefer calling them "Windows 2000", "Windows XP", "Windows Vista" and "Windows 7" respectively.

Fleet Command (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rpza lossless?[edit]

anybody know if road pizza is lossless or not? Rogerdpack (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Version ambiguity - QT version 7.7.3 or 7.73.80.64?[edit]

There seems to be some confusion between the publicly published version number (as of 2012-11) of 7.7.3 and the version number displayed during installation of 7.73.80.64 (released 2011-11-08). Actually, the installation program downloaded from the Apple website as represented as v7.7.3 yields an installation file called "QuickTimeInstaller.exe" with properties that indicate that the version number is actually 7.73.80.64 (and as displayed during the installation process). Does anyone have an explanation for this obvious discrepancy. Enquire (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got OS X 10.10's QuickTime screenshot?[edit]

Please can you replace the picture of File:Quicktime Player X.png into the OS X QuickTime version and include the other play button thingies too. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by play button thingies? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the large bar with the play button, the stop button, etc.? Include that lower bar. That bar includes the volume, the "share" button and the timing button. Now find a free video (doesn't have to be the same as mine) and have the screenshot in pause stage. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bumblebritches57? You listening? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought you meant, but the wording was strange. Here's the screenshot of QuickTime X in Yosemite, it's from a Retina MacBook so they resolution is probably to high, but I'm gonna let you guys deal with all that. dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52358991/Quicktime%20X%20Yosemite.png
Bumblebritches57 (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bumblebritches57, what description shall I write? Is this also Big Buck Bunny? Or is this just a random segment of a family-made animation? Describe in all details. Thanks, Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It's Big Buck Bunny, the 2160p 60fps release to be exact. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just posted a url to a screenshot I just took for you... Qwertyxp2000 Bumblebritches57 (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Which screenshot? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to upload... Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I can't wait to see how much better the article looks with the new screenshot. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, guys. Thanks, Qwertyxp2000 and Bumblebritches57 for the good work. But there seems to be a bit of a problem here: The title bar shows a computer icon of VLC media player. Because the app window doesn't have any other form of identifying features, this is a bit of a show crasher.

In the meantime, I'll ask around to see if we can include the full resolution image.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because VLC is my default player, I'll fix it in a minute. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a lot of trouble fixing the problem, I've used AppCleaner to remove VLC, and reset the locate database, the Launch Services database, and it's still not fixing the VLC icon issue. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the VLC Icon thing, I just took the screenshot. i'm optimizing and uploading it right now. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made two versions, the first is the original and it's direct screenshot, the second I removed the dropshadow from the screenshot and cropped off the blank pixels, the content is the exact same otherwise.

Untouched: dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52358991/QuickTime%20X%20Yosemite.png

No Drop Shadow: dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52358991/QuickTime%20X%20Yosemite%20No%20Shadow.png

Bumblebritches57 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Qwertyxp2000 and Codename Lisa, I fixed the screenshot. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on QuickTime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on QuickTime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on QuickTime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on QuickTime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on QuickTime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reinclusion: QuickTime 7 not 64-bit (Also include Safari 12 NPAPI info)[edit]

Addendum:

In the description of QuickTime X where it says that it "is a combination of QTKit & QuickTime X Player" & that it "Uses QuickTime 7.x via QTKit to run older codecs that have not made the transition to 64-bit" When in reality QuickTime 7 is not 64-bit & that QTKit has been deprecated. Could we also re-inclusion the previously rejected statement that QuickTime 7 is not 64-bit? It may also be helpful to also include information about Safari 12 dropping NPAPI support for internet plugins (except Adobe Flash) announced in June of 2018 and released on September 24, 2018.

This would be more helpful for actual internet news sources.

The following news sources have pointed QuickTime 7's lack of 64-bit support as far as I'm aware:

https://www.macworld.com/article/3268969/os-x/quicktime-player-7-goodbye-to-apples-brushed-metal-dinosaur.html

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/05/mojave-is-apples-last-version-of-macos-to-support-32-bit-apps

https://www.macworld.com/article/3268605/os-x/apple-to-stop-support-of-32-bit-apps.html

https://www.macworld.com/article/3275932/os-x/macos-1014-improvements.html

https://www.maclife.de/news/apple-schiesst-quicktime-7-selbst-ins-100101987.html

https://www.macwelt.de/a/aus-fuer-quicktime-player-7-warum-der-abschied-schmerzt,3438873

https://www.heise.de/mac-and-i/meldung/64-Bit-Uebergang-von-macOS-QuickTime-7-vor-dem-Aus-4023752.html

https://www.applesfera.com/aplicaciones-os-x-1/el-veterano-quicktime-7-sera-quizas-la-despedida-mas-dolorosa-del-fin-de-los-32-bits-en-macos

https://www.macg.co/logiciels/2018/04/quicktime-player-7-ne-passera-pas-au-64-bits-101999

http://idgnow.com.br/ti-pessoal/2018/04/19/e-hora-de-dizer-adeus-ao-bom-e-velho-quicktime-player-7/

https://www.mactechnews.de/news/article/Wechsel-auf-64-Bit-QuickTime-endgueltig-vor-dem-Aus-169361.html

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-will-warn-you-if-your-old-32-bit-mac-apps-wont-work-well-as-it-moves-to-64-bit-with-macos-high-sierra/

https://9to5mac.com/2018/04/11/mac-32-bit-app-warning/

https://tidbits.com/2018/04/13/macos-10-13-4-warns-users-about-32-bit-apps/

https://ppc.land/new-safari-12-prevents-tracking-from-social-media-and-is-supressing-retargeting/

https://www.cultofmac.com/577003/grab-safari-12-today-for-safer-better-browsing/

https://appleosophy.com/2018/09/17/ahead-of-macos-mojave-apple-releases-safari-12-0-for-macos-high-sierra-macos-sierra/v

https://macmagazine.com.br/2018/09/17/updates-da-apple-safari-12-xcode-10-macos-server-suporte-apple-tv-remote-garageband-e-testflight/

https://www.macerkopf.de/2018/09/17/apple-safari12-macos-sierra-high/

https://www.iphonote.com/actu/137020/safari-12-est-de-sortie-sur-le-mac-app-store

https://9to5mac.com/2018/06/09/safari-12-extensions-more/

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/06/06/apple-releases-safari-technology-preview-58/

https://www.howtogeek.com/355767/everything-new-in-macos-10.14-mojave-available-fall-2018/

https://mecambioamac.com/safari-12-disponible-para-macos-e-itunes-12-9-para-windows/

https://www.lemagit.fr/actualites/252442491/macOS-1014-iOS-12-des-nouveautes-cachees-en-coulisses

https://macmagazine.com.br/2018/06/06/nova-versao-technology-preview-do-safari-ja-inclui-novidades-como-favicons-inclusive-para-quem-esta-no-macos-high-sierra/

Those are the most sources I can find that are related to either 32-bit apps or QuickTime 7. Please let me know if any of those sources are relevant to QuickTime 7. You may also be welcome to use the other sources for Safari 12 NPAPI support being dropped. Also, Apple has recently updated some related QuickTime 7 support pages from their support website stating that "QuickTime 7 and QuickTime Player 7 are no longer supported by Apple and will not be compatible with future macOS releases." Which can be seen on the Apple QuickTime 7 Support Page: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201175 DeveloperPudú (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Computer History Museum interview[edit]

The Computer History Museum did an interview about "The Origins of QuickTime", with some of its creators. Useful as both a primary source and a starting point for finding related sources. DFlhb (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discontinued?[edit]

I use a modern, up to date macOS and I do not believe that Quicktime is outdated. Unless, if Quicktime and Quicktime Player are two different subjects. Although on Apple's official website there are no modern versions of Quicktime available for download, only versions for older machines. I think this article is confusing and misunderstanding.

Myrealnamm (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:QuickTime&oldid=1209344861"