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.

Comments

Hmm... Too bad Quicktime isn't open source.

[Bonker]

There are ways to make quicktime videos without purchasing Quicktime pro, but most of them don't work very well, or use older versions of the quicktime mpeg4 based/inspired codec.

Can the darwin streamer be used to stream any other kind of media?

Tarkin support? Tarkin? Tarkin, anyone?

Re:Hmm... Too bad Quicktime isn't open source.

[znu]

Darwin Streaming Server can stream standard MPEG-4. Not much can actually be used to view such a stream, of course. Not even QuickTime; as has been mentioned on Slashdot, Apple is refusing to ship QuickTime 6 (which has full MPEG-4 support) until the MPEG-4 licensing people come to their senses.

Re:Hmm... Too bad Quicktime isn't open source.

[jeffehobbs]

I'm already sick of hearing about "Tarkin" -- Not only does it have a stupider name than Ogg Vorbis (and that's saying something) but it doesn't even *exist* yet.

How could there possibly be Tarkin support when it's completely a made up meme at this point?

~jeff

I'm glad, Real is bad.

[EnVisiCrypt]

Even if it only "edged out" Real in terms of streaming speed/whatever, it certainly blows the doors of Real in terms of quality.

Their "fractal" algorithm or whatever they're calling it has been ready for retirement for the last 3 years. Can you say artifacting? Especially in medium to high motion scenes. At low bandwidth it's about the only way to go, but for broadband applications, it's just ugly.

Not only that, but I'm glad to see another alternative in streaming media. More choices is inevitably better.

Re:I'm glad, Real is bad.

[rbeattie]

Not only THAT, but Real the company is a really slimy organization. (Their proximity to Microsoft seems to be rubbing off.)

I recently signed up for the 14 day trial of "Real One" their new streaming service with supposedly special access to radio and video. Well the special programs are so limited as to be useless. So deciding it wasn't worth 10 bucks a month I went to cancel my account before the trial came up.

Though you can sign up quite easily, you have to call to cancel the service. And of course their 1-800 number 1) Doesn't work from Spain where I'm living now and 2) is constantly busy - or puts you on hold for seemingly forever. Thus it cost me at least $20 in long distance to TRY to cancel my account - I haven't been able to do it yet.

That's a REALLY slimy thing to do. Enticing users to sign up and then making it really difficult to quit the service. AOL pulls the same shit. Assholes.

I'll NEVER ever recommend a Real product to anyone ever again.

-Russ

Go.. everyone?

[sporty]

Go opensource (darwin)! er.. closed source (quicktime)! er.. apple (the underdog)! er.. quicktime (best codec)!

I think this is great.. but what political stance can a mass of angry/happy slashdotter's take on this??

Re:Go.. everyone?

[benwaggoner]

Apple has repeatedly expressed a willingness to port QuickTime to other platforms, if the vendor pays for it. Doing a QuickTime port of a quality of the MacOS or Windows product would require on the order of a hundred engineer-years. Remember, the port of QuickTime 3 to Windodws required reimplementing a huge portion of the MacOS toolbox on Windows, tying it into DirectX.

While it would be nice to have a Linux client, it certainly wouldn't make Apple any money. There are a lot of stuff QuickTime needs that I'd rather have the engineers work on (native B-frame support and multichannel audio are two big examples).

Plus, a Linux/UNIX port is a moving target. Framebuffers? X11? Different window managers? RPM? How many different target processors to optimize.

Remmber, QuickTime is on the order of complexity of the Linux kernel.

Re:Go.. everyone?

[Whelkman]

Then just surrender the damn codec(s) as ELF libraries or something and let the existing players take care of it. As far as I know, only the Sorensen codec is needed, and it's not like releasing a UNIX version of it will decrease their market share (just the opposite) or suck enormous revenue.

With just the codec as a library, it won't matter how much the target moves since the existing media players will do the Xv/SDL/GGI/VESA/etc. stuff on their own.

And because Linux can use it automatically means FreeBSD and others can use it as well through Linux emulation.

Granted this will never happen since Apple will feel it'd be better to have nothing at all than have anything less than a fully "featured" client.

long live darwin

[I Want GNU!]

Darwin sounds really cool. Perhaps it will evolve to become #1? Survival of the fittest streaming servers definitely applies here.

Anyone else surprised?

[RevAaron]

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?

Re:Anyone else surprised?

[jon_c]

I've played with Darwin a bit, the thing to understand is there are a lot of peices to a 'media server'. There's a video encoder card (the oone they used was $2,000) and there's a encoder, like WMA, Real, or Sorenson. Once you put the video source and the encoder together you have a 'video source', which is what these media servers will 'serve' to the clients.

You could think of Darwin as a amplifier, as it only does the TCP/IP server end, Real and Windows Media do the whole thing. It's also interesting that the auther credits Apple with having a such a wonderfull FREE product, but then lists the $250 Sorenson Media's Broadcaster and the $500 Sorenson 3 encoder ($499), not exactly free. While Real charges around 5k for the whole package and Microsoft charges nothing as it comes with Win2k.

-Jon

Re:Anyone else surprised?

[znu]

You only need all the extra stuff if you're doing live broadcasting. You don't need a $2000 video digitizing card; if you have a Firewire camcorder, you just need a $15 Firewire card (assuming you don't already have Firewire; a lot of hardware does these days, including everything from Apple). As for the rest, Apple has its own broadcasting program ready to ship as soon as the MPEG-4 licensing people come to their senses, so soon you won't need Sorenson Broadcaster or the Sorenson 3 Pro encoder. Apple's program will be free, but probably Mac-only. Still, it's going to be cheaper to buy a G4 to do your live digitizing than to pay the Real server tax.

Re:Anyone else surprised?

[Phroggy]

Not bad for something open source and free.

Note that QTSS is NOT a project started by random open-source developers who wanted to play around; it's a project built and funded entirely by Apple, which chose to release it as open source after it was already running (it was previously called Darwin Streaming Server and was released before Mac OS X 1.0 shipped).

Great, but...

[flwombat]

This would be a lot cooler if *everything* about Quicktime were open (including codecs). It's pretty silly that I can run the streaming server on Linux but I have to go to Windows or Mac to view the content.

Re:Great, but...

[LoudMusic]

I think that's the way it's going to be with most things for a while. Linux still doesn't have a standard for the desktop, but makes a powerful server solution. Windows, Mac OS, and OS X are the leaders in the home and the office at the desktop where this kind of application is presented.

I think more software vendors will support Linux, or even have open source projects, when there is standardization on the Linux desktop.

~LoudMusic

Re:Great, but...

[Havokmon]

It's pretty silly that I can run the streaming server on Linux but I have to go to Windows or Mac to view the content.

Ahh not entirely correct. Go grab Codeweavers Crossover Plugin 1.1. I currently run Opera 6 beta, on Mandrake 8.2 beta (and oh yeah, KDE3 beta :) and I'm able to view streaming Quicktime INDSIDE Opera.

I was just expecting Netscape family support. So Opera really impressed me.

I'll be sending out my $25/$30 for Crossover this weekend..

Re:Great, but...

[melatonin]

It's pretty silly that I can run the streaming server on Linux but I have to go to Windows or Mac to view the content.

If that's what you want, get the MPEG-LA to lighten up on MPEG-4 licensing.

Then you won't have a problem. It's Apple's goal, after all, to have the most open, standards-based platform. It's not quite their choice to hold Sorenson codecs from Linux.

Re:Great, but...

[melatonin]

nowadays there are other CODECs like On2's VP5 which kick the snot out of Sorenson

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.

It's the player stupid

[Spacelord]

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.

Re:It's the player stupid

[4im]

If I had moderator points right now, you'd get a +1 insightful from me.

I've been working with streaming media for a while - windows media (yeah, I know, that's one of the reasons why I quit). Guess why this corp would go for WM - because "everyone" has WMP, and they get the server "for free" with Win2k server. Real is extremely expensive (they'd have needed the unlimited license), and they don't even consider QuickTime an alternative - they don't want clients to have to download a player, anyway.

Lessons: 1. corps don't want their clients to have to download a player. 2. They don't want to pay horrid licences (MPEG-LA - hear that? You're losing one hell of a business with that licensing scheme!).

Re:It's the player stupid

[larkost]

You are saying that one of the reasons you are using WMP is privacy concerns? Then have I got news for you; WMP keeps a log of all the video's that you have played, and teh liscence agreement that you agreed to could be interpreted to say that Microsoft has the right to use this information in any way they choose.

Pick another reason for using WMP, please.

streaming is good but downloading is better

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather download something than stream it. Streams are often much lower quality and it prevents you from time-shifting it, which you should be able to do. For this reason I use Streambox VCR, which you can download here, for downloading .RM files and ASFRecorder, downloadable here, which lets you download streaming Windows Media files, so that you can time shift those as well.

QuickTime video quality sucks at low bitrates

[x1l]

and if you have to use 1.5 Mbps, why not just use MPEG. I would say WM and Real both do well at low and mid-range bitrates, but the sorenson codec sucks at anything but high bitrates.

The review didn't mention anyting about frame rate or video size. quality was mesured from screen captures, so I guess video framerate and audio are not part of the streaming media experience.

They also should have used S-video for all captures. The osprey 500 DV applies a filter when you use the IEEE 1394 port. This is not an apples to apples comparison. Why not just use the winnov card for all captures?

They also didn't mention how many streams a single server could handle. Real requires a heavy duty server, QT doesn't realy have specs, and I would bet Windows Media server does the best job.

And WTF is with the apple networking icon? Is there realy a need for that?

Re:It doesn't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's unfair to the poster."

Where the hell am I that the people care about fairness to posters? I thought this was slashdot.

Exactly as I thought

[oranjdisc]

I have wondered for the longest time why a number of news outlets use Windows Media on their web sites, when the quality / stability totally blows. Maybe they're Microsoft trained gnomes who only use FrontPage, write ASP, and use IE. I don't know. But QuickTime blows the $hit out of everything else. I just wish more people recognized that.

Re:Exactly as I thought

[jonwiley]

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.

Re:Exactly as I thought

[scrytch]

Windows Media Player is available on every Windows machine. The Quicktime Player isn't. Quality loses out to quantity.

Let's see, first they release a player that runs as a klunky MDI app, installs to the windows system directory as hidden files, takes over your file associations for everything it can possibly view, without asking, then goes and sues microsoft when their media player goes and takes the associations back.

Their current player on windows is nagware, popping up ads for quicktime pro every few invocations. The marketplace uses what gives them the least hassle, and by and large it is repudiating Apple for that reason.

I really don't give a damn whether Microsoft signed in blood on a contract written by Mephistopheles himself, their player works with a minimum of hassle or nags.

Re:No surprises then

[Hiro Antagonist]

Actually, there is one Microsoft product that beat an Open Source product, hands down. What is it?

Microsoft Product: WindowsNT
Open Source Product: crashme

Getting rid of Quicktime nag

[BinxBolling]

that irritating nagware that is Quicktime

Here's a tip to get rid of the nag screen: Set your system clock ahead, say, 20 years. Run the quicktime player. When it asks you to buy the full version, click the "later" option. Exit the player. Restore your clock to the correct time. You won't get the nag screen again for 20 years.

Re:Getting rid of Quicktime nag

[LadyLucky]

Just dont be running outlook at the time..

You are late for a whole tank load of appointments....

Test looks like bollocks

[purplemonkeydan]

"We created screen shots of the same scene from each player at different encoding rates: 56, 128, 256, 384 and 512 Kbps."

So they're not even testing motion or sound quality?

Re:Test looks like bollocks

[dwoods-nwc]

Actually we did test motion and sound quality, just not in our blind testing. We based overall quality on the results of the blind testing and found that the results of our blind testers looking at the screen shots mirrored what we found while performing the tests.

Real scored very well at the low bitrates - which is what they've always been good at. Apple scored well for the midrange of our test bandwidths and scored second on everything else. Microsoft actually had the best quality at the highest bitrate that we tested according to our judges.

Re:It's the player stupid (NOT in corps)

[gosand]

Not in corporations. In corporations and businesses, it is whatever they tell you it is. It doesn't matter if it is less efficient, or more expensive, it is whatever is mandated. If it is easier for them to set up the server, then the end users be damned. Sometimes it is ease over cost, sometimes the other way around - depends on the size and intelligenge of your business people.

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.

Not just for video...

[jvj24601]

My company is using the Darwin Streaming Server for a client project to stream MP3's. You can create SMIL files that auto-detect the right bandwidth-specific version for your connection.

<smil>
<body>
<switch>
<ref title="Title of Song" src="rtsp://streaming.my.localhost/mp3/Title_ of_Song/128.mp3" system-bitrate="220000"/>
<ref title="Title of Song" src="rtsp://streaming.my.localhost/mp3/Title_ of_Song/40.mp3" system-bitrate="45000"/>
<ref title="Title of Song" src="rtsp://streaming.my.localhost/mp3/Title_ of_Song/20.mp3" system-bitrate="20000"/>
</switch>
</body>
</smil>


I don't know much about Linux/BSD software, but RealPlayer and QuickTime plugins can play these streams.

No one at our company had ever done any sort of music streaming before, but I was able to convince the client to go with our solution. It (Darwin Streaming Server - free) is running under Linux (free) as a Apache/Tomcat JSP application (free).

It was the right decision financially (as far as keeping development costs down). It's also nice to see that our decision, in this instance, was the right one performance-wise as well.

Best thing about the article....

[gilroy]

... It opens with a scene from Buckaroo Banzai: Across the 8th Dimension . Yay.

Re:OS X

[scrod]

UFS is cool, thougt no softupdates. HFS just plainsucks

Where on earth do you get that from? The only thing that UFS has going for it over HFS+ is that it has a case-sensitive file system, and even that is still debatable as a good thing to have. HFS+ does SO, SO, SO MUCH more than UFS. Multiple data streams per file? File ids that can track a file no matter where it was moved? A way to store a virtually unlimited amount of metadata about a file? Not to mention the fact that OS X itself currently performs a lot better with HFS+. What are you smoking anyway?

Re:Quicktime for Linux? - NO, NOT REALLY!!!

[praedor]

I've got it and it is...OK. It is slow as molasses, however. To run the quicktime plugin (or windoze media) you have to wait for the wineserver to start and then for the app to start. Lots of swapping going on there.

It IS nice that for now we can have quicktime working on linux but it is not THE answeer. THE answer is for frickin' Apple to release the goddamn specs for the codec. If Apple wants to compete for providing internet media (this goes for M$ or anyone else too) then you have to use widely available standards so that no one is locked out because they use this or that OS. The frickin' OS shouldn't matter one bit.

If you want to provide a media service on the OPEN and NONPROPRIATORY internet, then use open standards or fully publish your codecs so developers can produce apps to VIEW your media.

Re:No Compression source! Its APPLE being CHEAP LI

[Melantha_Bacchae]

An AC wrote:

> 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.

Apple doesn't have the rights or the ability to give you the source to the compressors of others that they license to use in QuickTime. Good Grief! The whole reason they are not releasing QT6 is because the MPEG-4 people are demanding that content creators pay them a tax to use it, over and above the $2 million Apple will be paying them to license it. Apple is going to bat for its users here, and you have the gall to blame them for not giving you someone else's source code!

> Apple charges (GOUGES) its dwindling developer base.

Oh yeah, right! A whole twenty bucks to get a CD of their developers tools FedExed to your doorstep. Wow, that's highway robbery!

The old Apple was greedy and stupid, sure. Their greed nearly killed them. The new Apple, born in December 1996, is on the whole, wiser and more compassionate. This is the Apple that:

- Based the core of their new OS on open source (and gave back the source, which was not required by the license).

- Slashed the price of their Web Objects from $50,000 to $699.

- Gave away their OS X developer's tools for free download ($20 for CD).

- Went to bat for their users to avoid extra end user charges (for MPEG-4 content creation) for Quick Time Pro users.

- Opened the source of their Darwin Streaming server.

- and a lot more.

> Developers have priciples... and the number one priciple is that they
> HATE being exploited.

No, you just hate having to pay to get anything in life. ;) Microsoft's developers don't seem to mind the sky high cost of Visual Studio.Net. Lets see Microsoft give that away for free!

> 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.

Actually, that is what your *employer* pays you for, and expects you to do if you want your salary to continue going up. If you are programming as a hobby, it is its own reward.

> 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.

So's Newton, so why are you expecting to be able to get programming manuals for it, at any price? Anyway, IBM OS/2 didn't die due to the price of the programming manuals (actually, last I heard, another company was still developing versions of OS/2).

> Offer some video compression source code (pay your consulting
> suppliers if you need to) or shut the hell up.

It's two million dollars (plus content creating costs) just to put MPEG-4 in QuickTime. Do you really want Apple to go broke to give you free source code?

If you want the source that badly, go gripe at the MPEG-4 people.

> I hope Darwin crap dies as well as slow buggy MAc OS X.
> (Mac-O-Sux)

Oh, go argue point with Aqua Mothra! Grrr...

On December 14, 1996, Mothra resurrected an apple tree.
On December 14, 2001, she returned to see its fruit:
OS X, the Apple of Mothra's Aqua eye.

The interesting part...

[ablair]

...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.