Slashdot Mirror
Darwin Streaming Server Beats Real, Windows Media
pinqkandi writes "Network Computing recently ran an extensive shootout of video streaming servers, in areas from setup to quality to buffering times. The free, open source Darwin Streaming Server, which streams QuickTime content, edged out costly and closed source Windows Media & RealVideo streaming systems." Well, it edged out Real. It blew Microsoft away.
I admittedly have almost nil experience with streaming servers (or clients, for that matter) except for mp3 streams. I must say that I'm surprised that Apple's Darwin QTSS beat out Real and MS! Not bad for something open source and free. Didn't expect it, given my percieved relative unpopularity of it. Is it behind more sites that I seem to be noticing, or is it really a well-kept secret?
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
I think in the end the player will determine which platform will be more succesful, and Microsoft is better placed there.
Not that I love Media Player, but it sure beats that crappy Real Player or that irritating nagware that is Quicktime. Plus it comes bundled with windows...
I know that whenever I'm presented with a choice of streaming media, I usually pick the one for mediaplayer.
It probably has to do with the fact that Sarwin is an Apple product, the QTSS is an Apple Product, and (surprise!) Quicktime is an Apple product. Detect a theme?
Hmm. I haven't used On2 in a while, but Sorenson 3 really is the good stuff, the best I've seen so far. I've been really amazed at what it's capable of; 600x400-ish video at 200 k/s, that does NOT look compressed, at all. This is with the free encoder without using Media Cleaner.
Sorenson 2 isn't much competition for anything anymore.
I'd think in the future, Sorenson 3 will be more like the high-quality versions of the Qdesign codec- kicks the crap out of the MPEG solution, but more proprietary (and no free high-quality encoders). You'll probably see movie trailers available in higher-quality, lower-bitrate versions next to MPEG-4 versions.
Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
The survey of folks deploying streaming servers said that the #1 most important thing when choosing a format was quality. But, the #1 most-deployed format was Windows Media, which was judged to be, by far, the worst format for quality. What does this tell us?
I have seen it first hand in the product our company produces. I am in QA, and even though I have raised several issues about the usability of our product, the end result is - it doesn't matter. The end user will use whatever they are told to use. We sell to hospitals, and cater to the administration needs, not the end user needs (nurses, stock people, etc). As long as we can sell it, and it does what the "higher-ups in the hospital want", the end user isn't a factor.
I think that is what would happen with a company setting up streaming media - the end user will use whatever they decide they will use.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
... It opens with a scene from Buckaroo Banzai: Across the 8th Dimension . Yay.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The popularity of Windows Media with content providers is a direct result of the ubiquity of the Windows Media client. It is another example of how Microsoft has used (abused?) their monopoly of the OS.
Windows Media Player is available on every Windows machine. The Quicktime Player isn't. Quality loses out to quantity.
I downgraded my cable service from 128kbps/128k to 64k/64k. Why?
/.).
Besides the former company's lousy job (speed& latency), I learned that 56kbps streams abound, and you find a smaller percentage of 256kps or 80kpbs.
More importantly, people say 384kpbs is the minimum to attain a good TV experience, VHS-like. This is not common. And out of my reach, right now. We can only get 512k here -- ant it *is* expensive!
Also, new techniques and codecs may eventually bring down the requirements (recent news stories about this here on
Now, in the light of the above, I thank Real very much. Weren't for them what would be the viable options under 56k?
Yes, they charge for production. You can use that MS-alternative which is free. Except they got your money much before, when you acquired their OS.
What? You got it free? Ah, yeah, right... A dog's collar is free, too. Me, I'm like the wolf...
You are correct this stuff is just transport and control software for broadcasting.
I wrote this comment earlier but i repeat the post here because an 'apple lover' marked this informative post as a troll -1.
Much as Quicktime is merely an elaborate file structure that can contain all types of data (or almost no data)... this Open Source is just a large pile of swill that has no source code to the more common video CODECs used in quicktime.
Its just a file handler.
MS and Real Networks offer a total solution even though apples is cheaper and faster.
But you cannot compare a benchmark without keeping apples stinginess in mind.
Its a classic Bait and Switch. Apple will always charge money for video compression deliverred stock in their normal Quicktime, and will never offer source to the compressors.
Bait and Switch was tried with Apples dead Quickdraw GX (it was assumed to be free for delivery on media for macs and Wintel, but apple changed it from free to 99 dollars PER DELIVERRED CD OF YOUR PROGRAM if your program ran on PCs and not just macs. 99 dollars of licensing after hyping QuickDraw GX for 5 years getting developers duped.
Luckily almost NO (yes almost none at all) developers adapted Quickdraw GX because they thought Apple might try that kind of tactic.
Apple charged at one time 5 thousand dollars for the file format needd to launch a PowerPC program (required if you want to write a shareware assembler). The PEFF file was even patented with 7 patents to control what programs run on macs and who controls the compilers.
Then Apple charged so much money per year for their version of a software installer that 3rd party companies sprang up making installing software less coherent than needed. I think it was 2 thousand per comany or something.
Then Apple charged money for BallonWriter to add help into programs and get "system 7" certification for advertising System 7 compatibility. But Apple charged 20 dollars for copies of BalloonWriter EVEN TO DEVELOPERS with normal subscriptions to software information.
BallonHelp died from developer revolt, the same way Quickdraw GX died.
Then Apple wanted to charge liscensing per deliverred copy of programs linked with "Bedrock". A fee per program!! Similar to the 3% gross tax on all Newton Apps. Bedrock was ignored by developers and died, just as Newton died.
3% of Gross (not Net) is exploitation.
Apple once charged programmers 895 dollars for a copy of the Newton Programing documents for over a year. 895 dollars! They dropped the price in half after a few years when all programmers ignored it due to exploitation.
Apple charges (GOUGES) its dwindling developer base.
Guess what Apple... No matter how much money I make per year writing Apple software I will NEVER EVER pay more for programming documentation per page than I would for a book in the store. EVER, I would rather ignore the technology and let it die.
You have heard of DLLs on MS Windows? Well Apple had an early type of DLL that was actually bettwer than MS type but charged an ANNUAL FEE with no fixed price cap to use it! Charging money to use the Apple dynamic load library technology in your products!!! I think it was 1500 dollars per year.
HAHAHAHAHAH! That crap was ignored by every company practically.
Apple has been trying to tax their developers for years.
Apple wanted more than 3% gross for Pippin and a "code of moral Decency" adherence to allow Pippin software delivery. Pippin died... (It was like the 3d0 game PowerPC game console but much better)
Apple has spent hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars on ambitious buggy high tech system software technologies that developers REFUSED to touch. All of it is dead.
This includes things like Taligent Pink OS, Bedrock, OpenDoc, CyberDog, SOM, Kalieda, Copland, QuickDraw GX, Powertalk, QuickDraw 3D, Dylan, Hypercard, Newton, etc etc etc..... DEAD AND PATHETIC all because of bugs, greed, and lies.
Developers have priciples... and the number one priciple is that they HATE being exploited.
They expect Apple to PAY THEM to read new manuals, not the other way around.
They expect Apple to PAY THEM to adapt and ebrace new proprietary system technologies, not the other way around.
But developers will settle for free cost. Some will settle for nominal fees.
Apple understands nothing.
They always give long marketing-speak excuses why they wanted 895 dollars for newton programming manuals
They use excuses such as : default IBM OS/2 programming manuals from IBM cost 5000 dollars in March 1987.
Sigh.......
OS/2 is dead, Apple.
Now do you get it Apple?
Offer some video compression source code (pay your consulting suppliers if you need to) or shut the hell up. I hope Darwin crap dies as well as slow buggy MAc OS X. (Mac-O-Sux)
...of the article was the software ratings compared with the user survey:
What is the most important aspect of a video stream?
Low Bandwidth 27%
Quality 73%
Video Quality Report Card:
QuickTime 4.1
Real 3.7
WMP 2.5
In what format do you provide content to your users?
QuickTime 22%
Real 31%
WMP 42%
In other words, with quality being the most important factor, WMP wins - despite being the lowest quality of all. (Both QuickTime and Windows Media solutions are free) Hmmm... sounds like other familiar Microsoftian stories.
Thanks for the positive comments. It makes all the long hours I and my co-workers put in on this worthwhile.