"Tiger"...I am angry as hell!

Posted by: Topper

"Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 04:05 PM

I just found out that QuickTime 7 Pro is not a 64-bit application.<br>What is the value of having a 64-bit operating system and a 64-bit computer if Apple isn't going to make their applications 64-bit?<br>I was looking forward to doing some video editing with QuickTime 7 Pro.<br>But no, I am stuck with a yesterday's 32-bit application. <br><br>On Apple's web site they have 16 pages dedicated to "Tiger's" support of 64-bit applications.<br>16 pages explaining to developers the benefits of creating 64-bit applications.<br>Why should anyone else create 64-bit applications if Apple won't?<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: hayesk

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 04:15 PM

Why do you feel QT Pro should be 64-bit?<br><br>64-bit will not make it faster, so what exactly do you expect being 64-bit to give you? What are you doing in QT Pro that would needs to be 64-bit?<br><br>
Posted by: Topper

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 04:28 PM

Data-intensive tasks such as video encoding, gaming, CAD will have speed increases with 64-bit computing.<br><br>I use QuickTime Pro for DVD editing. I sometimes use lossless DV codecs<br>I use Final Cut Pro HD and Combustion as well. <br>Some of my QT movies are over 15 GB in size.<br><br>
Posted by: hayesk

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 04:58 PM

Yes, but QT in this case, is only used for the encoding, which shouldn't matter that much. Operations in Combustion and FC, would call MacOS X's built-in math libraries which are 64 bit. And actually, your lossless DV codec may be able to do that too.<br><br>
Posted by: Topper

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 05:09 PM

Encoding is exactly what 64-bit computing is supposed to be good for.<br>There are many times that I am getting pageouts while encoding.<br>I have a dp G5 with 2.5 GB of memory and I am getting pageouts?<br>I have to believe that a 64-bit QuickTime application would be a vast improvement.<br><br>
Posted by: hayesk

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 05:38 PM

You have 2.5GB of RAM. 2.5GB of RAM can be addressed well within 32 bits of address space. 32-bit address space can address up to 4GB.<br><br>You are getting pageouts because your application needs more than 2.5GB of RAM. You mentioned you have 15GB video files. That's the reason for the pageouts - it has nothing to do with not being 64-bit.<br><br><br>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 07:00 PM

I'm no programmer, but here's my perception of the whole 64-bit thing. <br><br>I think the marketing has gotten ahead of the actual, real-world expectations of what 64-bit computing can accomplish. <br><br>It reminds me of when we were all toiling away in OS 8 and 9, and the hype for X was incredible....it was going to unlock the heretofore hidden performance of the PowerPC! Didn't happen. <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Topper

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 07:28 PM

Yes, one of the biggest benefits of 64-bit computing is the potential to add tons of memory.<br>I also agree that for what I am doing I need more memory.<br>But I still think and will continue to do so until I see something to the contrary that QuickTime 7 Pro would be faster as a 64-bit application with the computer set-up that I have now.<br>At this time it takes around 3 minutes for DV editing to eat up my memory and slow down my computer.<br>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>Your contention is and correctly so that my application (Quicktime) needs more than 2.5 GB of RAM. <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><br>Here is a quote from Tom Huntington, corporate communications manage at DivX, "Video encoding will also improve in a 64-bit world, the company's DivX codec compresses DVD-quality video up to ten times more than the MPEG2 standard, making it easier to transmit over the Internet.<br>A 64-bit processor will improve both the encoding and decoding of video. Better still, when you view a video file on a 64-bit desktop, you'll see "a noticeable difference in speed resulting in more frames per second and a more film-like playback."<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: watcher

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 07:46 PM

would need HD and RAM, twice the size anyway.<br><br>
Posted by: Topper

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 08:33 PM

Here is an interesting article regarding 32-bit vs 64-bit computing.<br>LINKY<br>Note that the computer is only using 1.24 GB of memory for the benchmarks.<br>I realize this is a PC system but it illustrates 64-bit vs 32-bit applications with a 64-bit processor and a 64-bit operating system.<br>Interesting quote, "A decent, almost 20% boost here for the 64-bit version of the Div-X encoder. Another mathematically intensive operation that benefits from the extra registers and headroom of 64-bit mode. DivX compresses video and audio data and is based on the MPEG-4 compression standard."<br><br>If Div-X encoder can benefit from a 64-bit computing system with only 1.24 GB or memory, why not QuickTime 7 Pro?<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: watcher

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 04/30/05 08:46 PM

because it isn't the be-all and end-all of code.<br><br>
Posted by: nutty

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 07:40 AM

you arent serious are you?<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 09:43 AM

I think he is. In fact, if you look out your office window tomorrow, you might see Topper out there with a torch and a pitchfork!<br><br>
Posted by: MacGizmo

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 09:53 AM

As a side note Topper, while it was cute for a while, the word "Linky" was ONLY cute when Lori used it, and even that got old real quick - like, a LONG time ago. In the future, grow some balls and come up with a term of your own if you don't want to call it a link. <br><br><br><br>CreativeGuy: For your "fix" of design software tips, tricks & commentary.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 10:11 AM

Reading the documentation on Apple, looks like the GUI is still 32bit. Only command line utilities can run 64 bit. So maybe that's why Quicktime 7 is only 32 bit<br><br>
Posted by: Topper

Absolutely - 05/01/05 10:25 AM

1. Why isn't QuickTime 7 Pro a 64-bit application?<br>2. I sometimes use Blackmagic DV10 codec (and other lossless codecs) which can exhaust ram in a hurry. <br>Why then is it irrational to expect QuickTime 7 Pro to be a 64-bit application?<br>3. Would QuickTime 7 Pro be faster as a 64-bit program with less than 4 GB of memory?<br>4. For an application to take advantage of 64-bit computing, do you have to have more than 4 GB of memory?<br><br>I did not spend thousands of dollars on a 64-bit computer and a 64-bit operating system for bells and whistles. I am looking for speed, pure, unadulterated speed.<br><br><br>
Posted by: Topper

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 10:39 AM

I am not a happy camper.<br>I spent big money hoping to get a speedier computer but I keep getting disappointed.<br>DP 2.0 Ghz PowerMac<br>AtI X800 Xt video card which works well with games but very disappointing when it comes to video encoding.<br>Final Cut Pro HD and Combustion.<br>2.5 GB of RAM.<br>Tiger<br><br>You would think the above would be enough but no, of course not.<br>I guess I am expected to spend a few thousand dollars more on more ram and video editing program updates.<br>Many people don't have cars that cost that much.<br><br>
Posted by: Topper

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 10:47 AM

I knew I would hear from you but I didn't expect it to be about "LINKY."<br>If it will make you feel better I will start using the word LINK from now on.<br><br>
Posted by: Dissenter

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 10:52 AM

Why didn't you wait and spend the money on the equipment until you could actually see that it delivered what you wanted? I think there's an old saying that you never buy the 1st generation of any computer. Let them work the bugs out first. Don't be the guinea pig. In your case, you bought a computer that supports 64 bit applications, but you didn't wait for the 64 bit applications to appear. I feel sorry for you, but I'd have a hard time complaining if I was in your shoes given the choices you made.<br><br>
Posted by: nutty

Re: Absolutely - 05/01/05 11:21 AM

do you really know what 64 bit does?<br><br><br>are you sad that the email app doesnt support more than 4 gigs of memory access?<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Pete

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 11:29 AM

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>
Posted by: hayesk

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 12:16 PM

<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>
Posted by: Topper

Re: Absolutely - 05/01/05 12:47 PM

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>
Posted by: steveg

I hate to see you so upset... - 05/01/05 01:00 PM

Does this help?<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by:

Re: I hate to see you so upset... - 05/01/05 01:04 PM

You know how many shaves and haircuts that is??? <br><br>
Posted by: MacGizmo

Re: Absolutely - 05/01/05 01:05 PM

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.
Posted by: steveg

Re: I hate to see you so upset... - 05/01/05 01:13 PM

What's hair? <br><br>
Posted by: Topper

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 01:20 PM

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>
Posted by: Topper

Re: I hate to see you so upset... - 05/01/05 01:22 PM

Thank you.<br>I've got to get away from this post. I beginning to feel like Ted Kaczynski. <br><br>
Posted by: snag

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 01:32 PM

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>
Posted by: Topper

Re: Absolutely - 05/01/05 01:34 PM

I'm not trying to be a know it all...I'm not close.<br><br>What bothers me is my video encoding can take up to an hour to complete.<br>I bought a fast computer with a fast video card and lots of ram.<br>My computer is 64-bit so I was really looking forward to the day when my operating system and applications were 64-bit to make my video editing faster.<br>I mistakenly thought Apple would at least make QuickTIme Pro 64-bit. <br>Tiger is a nice operating system but I would be happier if I had never heard that it is 64-bit since the 64-bit computing seems to have very little value at this time.<br><br>
Posted by: Topper

Re: "Tiger"...I am angry as hell! - 05/01/05 01:36 PM

Thank you.<br><br>