Loc: United States
Well, not like Windows is delivering this sort of technology either (yes, the OS finally went 64-bit but still no applications to go with it), so I don't know where and on what machine you expected to accomplish this space-program type work of yours...<br><br>[color:red]5.19.05 - The 'Jedi Slaughter' tour begins!</font color=red>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>My contention is that with QuickTime 7 Pro as a 64-bit program, the encoding would be faster and it would take longer for my memory to evaporate so to speak.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>No it wouldn't. It would still need to use the memory. It will be used up just as quickly, actually a little bit quicker because all pointers and object references in the software will be twice as large.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>But that same statement also tells that QuickTime can be a data-intensive application and therefore should be a prime-time candidate for 64-bits.<br><br>If being able to add more memory to a 64-bit computer than to a 32-bit computer was the raison d'etre for a 64-bit computer and operating system then what would be need for 64-bit applications? <br><p><hr></blockquote><p>Applications that need more than 4GB themselves need to be 64-bit. Also, in some calc-heavy calculations on huge amounts of data will benefit, but I'm saying that QT Pro is probably not the big bottleneck here. FCPro, and the codec probably is.<br><br><br>
Are you trying to equate "Mail" with QuickTime 7 Pro?<br>No, I do not expect email, word processing applications, web browsers etc to be 64-bit.<br>Yes, I do expect Video Encoding applications like QuickTime 7 Pro to be 64-bit. <br>Are you trying to tell me that QuickTime 7 Pro is too much of a consumer product to be 64-bit?<br>Have you ever tried QuickTime 7 Pro with Blackmagic DV10? That is data-intensive.<br><br>In aswer to your question, yes...<br>64-bit computing refers to a processor with registers that store 64-bit numbers.<br>64-bit computing can address up to 4 TB of memory and 16 exabytes of address space.<br>64-bit applications are compiled such that memory addresses are 64-bits in size and can use more than four gigabytes of virtual memory without restriction.<br><br>The question becomes does QuickTime 7 Pro need a memory boost of 64-bit?<br>I believe it does. <br>It becomes a data-intensive application when you encode with lossless codecs.<br><br>
I'm not going to pretend to know anything more than I do about all this, but I have to ask simply, if you used 32-bit all this time with no complaint, why is it suddenly an earth-shattering problem that it QTPro isn't 64-bit?<br><br><br><br>CreativeGuy: For your "fix" of design software tips, tricks & commentary.
_________________________ The Graphic Mac- Tips, reviews & more on all things OSX & graphic design.
My understanding is that any application that processes large amounts of data -- such as Final Cut Pro , Photoshop , mathematical apps, DVD authoring , especially if its individual files exceed 4 GB, stand to gain from the 64-bit computing.<br>Some of my QT files go over 15 GB. That's one file, that sounds data-intensive to me and therefore should gain significantly as a 64-bit application.<br>Let's say that you are correct on what you are saying, it would still be nice to have QuickTime 7 Pro be able to access more than 4 GB of memory since as you say the memory will be used up quicker in 64-bits.<br>The codec is certainly the bottleneck in way that it slows things down.<br>But the best codecs are 10-bit so I would think the applications have to be 64-bit not the codec.<br><br>
Loc: Bay Area, California, USA
Well i stopped using QT as a consumer product a long time ago - it just doesn't do what I need it to do and other free products do, so I can't comment on the high end uses of it, but I CAN see your point and i think you're justified in making it. The apolo...erm...argument that you should have known what you were getting or that you should wait 'til it is ready just doesn't wash for me and misses the point of your complaint. If Apple wants to use a dog and pony show to play up the sexy new features for consumers that's one thing, but ignoring the needs of their professional users is another, and charging a fee for yet another half-assed "pro" upgrade to one of their fundamental apps and then not even making it exploit the full power of their OS is beyond laughable and just plain sad and a little disgusting.<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.