Slashdot Mirror


Lack of Manpower May Kill VLC For Mac

plasmacutter writes "The Video Lan dev team has recently come forward with a notice that the number of active developers for the project's MacOS X releases has dropped to zero, prompting a halt in the release schedule. There is now a disturbing possibility that support for Mac will be dropped as of 1.1.0. As the most versatile and user-friendly solution for bridging the video compatibility gap between OS X and windows, this will be a terrible loss for the Mac community. There is still hope, however, if the right volunteers come forward."

398 comments

  1. This would be a great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The DVD player that comes with Apple's computers is rather intolerant of scratches, etc., and will report "Skipping damaged area..." then skip ahead a ridiculous amount. VLC will play fine right through the supposedly damaged segment. Losing VLC for the Mac would be terrible. If I knew anything about programming, I'd think about joining this project.

    1. Re:This would be a great loss by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I still don't see enough buffering code and SPECIFICALLY buffering controls for users in any media player.
      I frequently play back files which just happen to be close to the bitrate of my wireless connection, why can't I have the program specifically pre-buffer 100mb of data and then play back from the 100mb? Then when the bitrate is higher, it drops to 80 or 50 but when it's lower, it re-fills.
      This is pretty straightforward stuff and yet, do we have these kind of controls?
      I want this on my PS3 media playbakc, my Xbox 360, Media player classic, GOM, VLC - everything damnit! I'm willing to goddamn wait as long as the end result is a smoother experience!
      I live in Australia, youtube and many flash videos here are frankly, bloody annoying, often we open a youtube video here, click play, let it start playing then quickly hit pause so it fills the full buffer :/ (if you don't quickly hit pause and it plays up to where the buffer end is, that can be a problem too)

      FWIW: I'm not a coder, perhaps this is significantly more complex than it sounds to impliment but damnit it could make many things smoother and simpler.

    2. Re:This would be a great loss by gzipped_tar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Blasphemer! Apple's player is preventing the rogue, faithless DVDs from defiling the sacrosanctity of your Mac which is blessed by Steve personally. But Steve's mercy is great and He shall forgive and bless your family you if you repent and purchase the indulgence^W^W a new Mac..

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    3. Re:This would be a great loss by Techman83 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used this specific feature in Mplayer, as I was doing the same thing. 12Mb cache seemed to be enough for most streams, as bandwidth wasn't a huge issue, more the consistency of the connection (which can't be guaranteed with wireless as it's half duplex, well at least a/b/g are, I think n can do full duplex in certain configurations)

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    4. Re:This would be a great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      parameterized buffering is of course available in VLC since the first versions, when we still called it Videolan. (I'm one of the early Videolan developers)
      Other players also allow you to buffer the stream.

      FYI, this feature took about 5min to implement.

    5. Re:This would be a great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > I still don't see enough buffering code and SPECIFICALLY buffering controls for users in any media player.

      er, VLC -> tools -> input & codecs -> caching.

      mplayer -cache ?

      you haven't looked very hard.

      I use mplayer -cache 16384 for the very reason you describe.

    6. Re:This would be a great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can start here
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming

      good luck

    7. Re:This would be a great loss by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The other great feature avout VLC is that it entirely ignores region encoding on commercially-produced DVDs. I have discs encoded in the US, UK and Canada, and not all of them play nicely with my regionless DVD player. VLC just happily bypasses all that and plays anything.

    8. Re:This would be a great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Install Linux.

    9. Re:This would be a great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      VLC does this. If you switch to advanced configuration mode, you can go to Input->Access Modules->File and increase the buffering length in milliseconds. I do this to get smooth playback over WIFI.

    10. Re:This would be a great loss by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      foobar2000 supports it, though foobar is a music not a video player. file>Preferences>Advanced>Playback>full file buffering() will buffer the whole file or up to x Kb of it

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    11. Re:This would be a great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      mplayer -cache 100mb

      It's not quite that simple, but same idea. :-)

    12. Re:This would be a great loss by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Look up Media Player Classic Home Cinema.

      If you have .net 3.5 installed on XP, something called EVR is available. It's some sort of advanced rendering thingy. Faster than VMR9/null/etc., but with more accurate colour reproduction and GPU shaders.

      You can set the number of frames buffered up to 60. I have tested it on H.264 and recorded FRAPS video. H.264 uses almost 50MB during playback, and fullscreen FRAPS used about 500-600MB. Boatloads of memory, but no dropped frames ever.

      I realize what you actually want is the option to raise the disk buffer. If I could tell MPC to assume a 32MB buffer (raising the mem usage about 30MB for every video) I would, because it'd make those huge multi-gigabyte FRAPS vids start quicker. Unfortunately, I can't - I'm stuck with buffering 60 frames before beginning playback.

    13. Re:This would be a great loss by atrocious+cowpat · · Score: 1

      VLC just happily bypasses [region codes] and plays anything.

      Sadly there are a number of CD/DVD-drives around where the drive itself checks the region code of the inserted disk and acts (or rather: refuses to act) accordingly -- nothing VLC (or any other software DVD-ripper for that matter) can do. The Matshita-drives used in most portable Macs come to mind. The only workaround would be to re-flash the drive with a different firmware, but often the drives/laptops ar obsolete by the time someone comes up with an alternative firmware. Oh, and of course your warranty's shot if anything goes wrong.

      --
      sig? Oh, that sig...
    14. Re:This would be a great loss by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I'd like to apologise about me not knowing about any apps supporting this.
      Last time I checked most apps did not support it and those which did it /simply didn't work properly/ much like the old Nero buffer never really ever worked.

      We've got 4gb standard in machines now yet I can still see underrun stuff kick in way too fast on 4x DVD burns :/
      As long as they support a couple of hundred mb buffer (for local video) apps, that would be good I'd think so I may try some of the suggestions, curse the entire wifi industry "54mbits" indeed, I always thought it was 8 bits to a byte not 21.6 :/

    15. Re:This would be a great loss by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You are totally correct, it is not that hard to implement. It's mostly not done because of DRM worries, I think, which is ignorant at best and generally ineffectual but nonetheless pretty standard. I can't speak for anyone else, but I dropped Xbox Live Gold because netflix doesn't buffer whole movies and I can't watch them at 512kbps (which is all I can get.) My connection's latency isn't good enough for online gaming, so netflix was my only reason to have it. Would have been enough, too, with whole-movie buffering.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:This would be a great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I live in Australia, youtube and many flash videos here are frankly, bloody annoying"

      Youtube is pretty annoying all over the world.

    17. Re:This would be a great loss by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      The old Mac laptop I'm using as a de facto media box until the HDD dies has a Matshita optical drive. I've changed the region encoding a couple of times, most recently in an attempt to make it region-free, but as I mentioned earlier, that doesn't work with all discs. But I have had a 100% success rate playing all my DVDs with VLC. I haven't read the code, and I'm not going to, so I don't know how much VLC plays with those region fields (if at all) but it plays everything the Apple DVD Player rejects, with no objections. The region encoding, for practical purposes, might as well not be there at all.

    18. Re:This would be a great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VLC has a buffer option for opening files/streams of all types.

    19. Re:This would be a great loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are not "buffering controls for users", but "buffering controls for powerusers"

  2. Moot by zokuga · · Score: 3, Funny

    Apple is poised to take over the whole video world in the next year. It'll be windows that needs the fancy VLC to watch Mac-made movies

    1. Re:Moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sniff, sniff.... I'll have what he's smoking!

    2. Re:Moot by spyder-implee · · Score: 1

      Haha, yeah right after GM switches their cars to electric engines.

      --
      Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    3. Re:Moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      care to elaborate? quicktime doesn't even support mpeg2 playback without a pay addon. apple's video playback support is actually fairly shoddy compared with other platforms.

    4. Re:Moot by Selfbain · · Score: 4, Funny

      So... you're saying next year will be the year of Mac?

      That sounds oddly familiar.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    5. Re:Moot by clang_jangle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mac has Perian which is FOSS, so while it would be a shame to lose VLC on OS X it won't be the end of support for codecs Apple doesn't support.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    6. Re:Moot by broken_chaos · · Score: 1

      Perian is also a little low on developers, though obviously not as much so as VLC...

    7. Re:Moot by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      On the desktop!

      It will be the year of Mac on the Desktop. And about time, too!

    8. Re:Moot by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      On the desktop!

      And gaming! I predict 2010 will be the year Apple becomes the gaming platform of choice for trust-fund babies, unpublished writers who hang at Intelligentsia and men who tweeze their eyebrows.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Perian breaks quicktime functionality needed in most of Apple's programs, like iMovie. Try exporting or even saving a movie after you load Perian. It no worky.

    10. Re:Moot by 1155 · · Score: 1

      We need tickets about it being broken to fix things.

    11. Re:Moot by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      And overprice computers!! I predict 2012 will be the year Apple becomes the platform of choice for those who want to spend a lot of money on shinys, want to feel smug about it and hang around starbucks... Did I miss anything?

    12. Re:Moot by node+3 · · Score: 0

      On the desktop!

      It will be the year of Mac on the Desktop. And about time, too!

      Um, it's always been the "year of Mac on the desktop" since 1984 (although with an arguable absence during the mid to late '90s).

      The "year of Linux on the desktop" *doesn't* mean it beats Windows, it just means it's a reasonable choice. As good as Linux is, and as much as there *are* people who quite happily run Linux as their primary desktop OS, it's not something that could really be called a broadly acceptable reasonable choice for the desktop.

      The Mac, on the other hand, has *always* been a reasonable choice even throughout the '90s.

    13. Re:Moot by node+3 · · Score: 0

      On the desktop!

      And gaming! I predict 2010 will be the year Apple becomes the gaming platform of choice for trust-fund babies, unpublished writers who hang at Intelligentsia and men who tweeze their eyebrows.

      Game availability for Mac OS X isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be. While the breadth of games for Windows is vastly greater, in terms of games that make me want to install Boot Camp, or build a gaming PC, the majority have Mac versions already, or in production (Blizzard, ID, EA, BioWare). Even indy games (like World of Goo, Braid, and pending, Torchlight), as well as "niche" games, like EVE and Warhammer Online.

      Anyway, my point is simply that on the Mac, you give up being a hardcore gamer, but you don't give up games nearly so strongly as hardcore gamers tend to imply.

      Additionally, there's Boot Camp and CrossOver (and even VMware which has surprisingly good DirectX support) which makes pretty much any game playable on the Mac itself (although not necessarily Mac OS X).

      That's not to say the Mac gaming realm is nearly as broad and deep as on Windows, but your view is more than a bit askew.

    14. Re:Moot by fangorious · · Score: 1

      worked fine for me with iMovie '09.

    15. Re:Moot by jdbausch · · Score: 1

      Game availability for Mac OS X isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be. While the breadth of games for Windows is vastly greater, in terms of games that make me want to install Boot Camp, or build a gaming PC, the majority have Mac versions already,

      I guess you don't like many games.

      Its OK, I'm in the same boat with my Linux...

    16. Re:Moot by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's funny you should mention that because I recently tried to use iMovie '09 to edit video taken from a newish Sony MPEG2 camera.

      iMovie barfed on it. I might as well have been trying to edit an MKV file.

      Mac + Sony Handicam == fail?

      How lame...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    17. Re:Moot by GrubLord · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does that mean you've captured the video, and are now trying to edit the file in iMovie?

      If so, you should be able to use an app called MPEG Streamclip to do the conversion.

      You may have to purchase Apple's MPEG2 component for Quicktime, however.

    18. Re:Moot by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Its OK, I'm in the same boat with my Linux...

      Yeah, but at least you're not an arrogant pansy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's going to be a million and two volunteers now since this is ./'d

  4. Mplayer OSX Extended by The+J+Kid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sad to see VLC struggling, but there's always Mplayer OSX Extended for the mac. Get the extra codec pack and it can play anything!

    --
    Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
    1. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by Hatta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's a good option for playing videos. But what makes VLC VLC, and not just VC, is the LAN support. VLC can pretty easily be set up as a video server as well as a player. You can't do this with Mplayer.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sad to see VLC struggling, but there's always Mplayer OSX Extended for the mac. Get the extra codec pack and it can play anything!

      Compare 1080p H.264 matroska playback in vlc to mplayer:

      on my macbook pro (exactly a year old at this point) vlc plays it without a stutter, mplayer extended will drop frames like an epileptic. Im sure they both drop frames, but VLC does so much more gracefully, resulting in no noticeable distortion, while mplayer extended makes it obvious (and incredibly annoying) to the viewer. Nothing like watching blade runner final cut and being slowly infuriated by those epic scenes being subjected to massive chop and screen tears.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    3. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by nxtw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Compare 1080p H.264 matroska playback in vlc to mplayer:

      on my macbook pro (exactly a year old at this point) vlc plays it without a stutter, mplayer extended will drop frames like an epileptic. Im sure they both drop frames, but VLC does so much more gracefully, resulting in no noticeable distortion, while mplayer extended makes it obvious (and incredibly annoying) to the viewer. Nothing like watching blade runner final cut and being slowly infuriated by those epic scenes being subjected to massive chop and screen tears.

      The best results I've seen for a sufficiently high bitrate H.264 1080p stream on OS X was by using Media Player Classic Home Cinema running in Windows inside VMware. ~20 fps with tearing and OK audio. Compare to VLC, which was able to play the video at ~24 fps during low motion screens and then just stop updating the picture for a while if decoding couldn't keep up. MPlayer would stop playing altogether if the CPU couldn't keep up. QuickTime + Perian took forever to load the video and then froze when I tried to play it.

      In Windows with H.264 hardware decoding disabled the video plays fine. The video also plays fine in Windows (and with lower CPU usage) with hardware decoding enabled, of course. OS X doesn't support hardware H.264 decoding at all on this GPU (Radeon HD 2600). Even if it did, I don't know of any way to use OS X's H.264 hardware decoding support except on files natively supported by QuickTime X.

    4. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Make sure you have selected multithreaded FFmpeg in preferences. A single core of a modern processor is not able to decode 1080p H264 without dropping frames so you'll need the multithreaded option.

    5. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H.264 decoding by NVidia cards is locked away to only a few companies. There are no docs or specs available to open source developers. Moan to NVidia, they can release API docs tomorrow, and within a few days the active open source video players will add hardware decoding on NV cards that support it when using NV's proprietary drivers.

      If you want 1080p mkv on your nice TV, scrap the computer, buy a dedicated media player for $300. They use Sigma ICs that are used in blu-ray players, they also happen to have mkv support and ethernet built into simple linux devices. Check out Netgear's EVA9000 range and it's competitors. Life is so much simpler when you do.

    6. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by nxtw · · Score: 2, Informative

      H.264 decoding by NVidia cards is locked away to only a few companies. There are no docs or specs available to open source developers. Moan to NVidia, they can release API docs tomorrow, and within a few days the active open source video players will add hardware decoding on NV cards that support it when using NV's proprietary drivers.

      Why are you telling me this? I was specifically describing a problem with OS X, which supports accelerated H.264 decoding only on the nVidia GeForce 9400M IGP (as in my MBP). OS X does not support decoding on older nVidia GeForce (8000 series) or ATI Radeon (2000 series and newer), even though most/all of these cards have HW decoding support and have working acceleration out of the box in Windows 7 (just add a MKV demultiplexer, and if the GPU is too new for Windows to have one built-in, the display driver.)

      Furthermore, if you read my message I stated that a Windows player is able to play the same video without hardware decoding on the same system on which Mac OS X cannot.

      If you want 1080p mkv on your nice TV, scrap the computer, buy a dedicated media player for $300. They use Sigma ICs that are used in blu-ray players, they also happen to have mkv support and ethernet built into simple linux devices. Check out Netgear's EVA9000 range and it's competitors. Life is so much simpler when you do.

      I use a PC with Windows instead.

      $300 is enough to get a PC with hardware decoding and Windows 7, which will do a lot more. The Dell Zino HD with Windows 7 costs $259 retail, and its GPU has H.264, VC-1, and MPEG-2 decoding.

    7. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      What's the quality like? VLC uses a lot less CPU than QuickTime on my Macs, but the quality is a lot lower - it doesn't do the same amount of postprocessing as QuickTime and so things like the BBC logo in the corner are crisp with QT and covered in macroblocking with VLC.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      I experienced similar issues. You can get Mplayer OSX working, but need to change the output to CoreVideo or Quartz/Quicktime. It still doesn't compare to the performance of VLC. I have zero interest in it's Lan capabilities.

      VLC has languished on Mac for a few years now. You still can't get Lanczos (trying to enable it will just get you audio with no video). It's been that way for over a year with no fixes in sight.

      I find it odd that there are so many new Mac users but projects like this one are dying on the vine. I love coding, but I don't know C. Most of my experience is in LotusScript and VB (yeah, don't laugh...).

      It will be a shame if it dies on the Mac. If you're familiar with some coding, how hard is it to make the jump to another language?

    9. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why someone would want to hassle with the server stuff.

    10. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      What's the quality like? VLC uses a lot less CPU than QuickTime on my Macs, but the quality is a lot lower - it doesn't do the same amount of postprocessing as QuickTime and so things like the BBC logo in the corner are crisp with QT and covered in macroblocking with VLC.

      I have a keen eye and often notice visual inconsistencies others miss. I consider VLC to be overall smoother in motion scenes and better in overall image clarity. Though, results will vary from setting to setting.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    11. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easily set up as a video server? I have to call bullshit. I have used VLC since I found out about it many years ago. And the one thing I really have trouble dealing with is the LAN part... and to be honest, since they did the whole interface change, the VC part has been really irritating to deal with, also.

      Fuck VLC, I hope it dies. I don't know why the developers had to bastardize it the way they did, but there isn't anything left of the VLC I once loved.

    12. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a PC with Windows instead.

      $300 is enough to get a PC with hardware decoding and Windows 7, which will do a lot more. The Dell Zino HD with Windows 7 costs $259 retail, and its GPU has H.264, VC-1, and MPEG-2 decoding.

      So how many watt-hours does that suck out of the wall per day?

    13. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by iMacGuy · · Score: 1

      > MPlayer would stop playing altogether if the CPU couldn't keep up.
      This is really a problem with the GUI defaults. Assuming you're using MPlayer OS X Extended, set Preferences -> Video -> Framedrop "Soft" and "Use multithreaded ffmpeg build", and it will play faster than any other OS X player. (excluding CorePlayer of course)

      --
      Why won't slashdot let me change my terrible username :(
    14. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by Weezul · · Score: 1

      So don't to that on a Mac. Mac's are terrible servers anyways.

      VLC works fine on most servers (linux) and most machines period (windows).

      VLC will still run under X windows on Mac.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    15. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by nxtw · · Score: 1

      Very few, I imagine. The Zino is Energy Star compliant. From what I can see, it uses at most 40 W when streaming video over the Internet (probably H.264 being decoded by the CPU, not by the GPU) - that's less than my DVR uses when idle.
      With an Energy Star compliant power supply, suspend to RAM it should consume less than 10 W.

    16. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by Inda · · Score: 1

      Calm down AC. You have a point but not a good one.

      I use VLC as a player, but use it as a server to serve my 360? Doesn't happen, too complicated. Sopcast to VLC to 360, anyone?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    17. Re:Mplayer OSX Extended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the exact opposite results on my year-and-a-half old 2.4gHz iMac 20". VLC drops far more frames.

  5. user-friendly? by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Whoever takes the job, please remove the stupid "anything I want to play gets added to a stupid playlist" thing. When I open a video with QuickTime, it plays that video. If I open another video at the same time, it opens up another QuickTime window.

    VLC is more like QuickTime (video player) but it currently acts more like iTunes (media library player).

    1. Re:user-friendly? by Tom+Boz · · Score: 1

      Here's a work-around for ya: http://www.mactimes.info/2009/06/how-to-run-multiple-instances-of-vlc_06.html I don't use a Mac so I can't try it myself to make sure it works, but it might help.

    2. Re:user-friendly? by ickleberry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Strange. on Linux it opens up a new instance every time. Of course the correct behaviour would be just to have an 'enqueue' option in the context menu for that file which you can then set as the default option if you desire

    3. Re:user-friendly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd so much rather have QuickTime support playlists than VLC support multiple player instances.

    4. Re:user-friendly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Whoever takes the job, please remove the stupid "anything I want to play gets added to a stupid playlist" thing. When I open a video with QuickTime, it plays that video. If I open another video at the same time, it opens up another QuickTime window.

      VLC is more like QuickTime (video player) but it currently acts more like iTunes (media library player).

      Have you even bothered to open the preferences? It right there in the Interface pane (simple settings view):
      Allow only one instance [x]
      Enqueue files when in one instance mode[x]
      Just uncheck "Allow only one instance".

    5. Re:user-friendly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEAH! I don't need the trail of porns to remain after I am done and asleep.

    6. Re:user-friendly? by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Informative

      VLC has a command line option "--no-playlist-enqueue" that controls that behavior. Under Windows the default action is "Play" which enqueues but there is also an action called "Play with VLC media player" that doesn't. There is another action that enqueues but doesn't play the file passed as the argument. These extra actions are, as usual, accessible through the explorer context menu. I suppose OSX could have a similar behavior.

      Here are the command lines for each action:

      Play: "...\VideoLAN\VLC\vlc.exe" --started-from-file "%1"
      Add to VLC media player's Playlist: "...\VideoLAN\VLC\vlc.exe" --started-from-file --playlist-enqueue "%1"
      Play with VLC media player "...\VideoLAN\VLC\vlc.exe" --started-from-file --no-playlist-enqueue "%1"

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    7. Re:user-friendly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an option somewhere to switch between behaviours. Just check it out.

    8. Re:user-friendly? by Weedhopper · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are looking at either the Linux or Win versions. Your advice does not apply the OS X version.

      VLC OSX does not have checkbox multiple instances.

    9. Re:user-friendly? by straponego · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure that's an option somewhere in VLC; on Windows it does the Mac single-window thing by default, and there was an "advanced option" to change it iirc. But on Linux it opened a new window by default. Lots of people with >1 monitor these days...

      Now if only the flashtards at youtube et al would realize you might want to maximize a video on one screen and touch the keyboard in another window, that the entire world does not grind to a halt just because you're doing your job... and if only they'd let us fix their warped aspect ratios... the state of the art would be nearly mediocre!

    10. Re:user-friendly? by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      It's there, you just have to right-click to. . .oh shit.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    11. Re:user-friendly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He a Mac user, ofcoruse he did not bother to open the preference. He expect everything to Just work(tm)

    12. Re:user-friendly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the VLC preferences window is the only place that rivals the web in ability to surf for hours and still not find what you're looking for.

    13. Re:user-friendly? by paulhar · · Score: 1

      Were you saying that having to right click is difficult, or that any interface that relies on right clicking to bring up a different interface is less than ideal?

      I'd agree with the second but have no trouble right clicking with my trackpad/magic mouse.

    14. Re:user-friendly? by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1

      Whoever takes the job, please remove the stupid "anything I want to play gets added to a stupid playlist" thing.

      This is the kind of feedback all open source developers love.

    15. Re:user-friendly? by ivano · · Score: 1

      What about this: drag a collection of files to the playlist in VLC and it starts playing the list from the last one?!?!? Personally this is why I hate open-source projects; this would never have got through a team with dedicated testers :) But to throw petrol on the fire I still have old PPC Macs and since 0.7.x releases VLC has been very, very picky in playing files without stuttering. Something as simple as iTunes checking for new podcasts will make VLC just stop dead. Mplayer on the other hand, though less sophisticated, won't.

    16. Re:user-friendly? by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      clearly you haven't seen the azureus^Wvuze preference window....

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    17. Re:user-friendly? by vaporland · · Score: 1

      busted viewing porn AVIs again?

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!
  6. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm a mac user and I find no reason to use VLC as quicktime can handle everything (I have Perian installed). The current VLC version for mac is not working fine, so I better not use it anyway.

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by speedingant · · Score: 1

      Does perian work with Quicktime X under snow leopard?

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem to - I just tested an mkv file on Quicktime X and it spat it back at me, but the same file plays fine in Quicktime 7.

    3. Re:Anonymous Coward by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      Be sure to update to 1.2.

  7. OS X is UNIX by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Why do they need a special OS X build? Shouldn't it build the same way it does on any UNIX?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:OS X is UNIX by maxume · · Score: 1

      For some reason, the users expect applications to use the Apple provided video stuff, not X windows or whatever.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:OS X is UNIX by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not exactly... Apple has been slowly squeezing the Carbon (std. C++ lib set) into non-existence, which means you get to do it in Cocoa (that is, Obj-C). IIRC, there's no 64-bit Carbon love in SL, though the 32-bit Carbon libs should still be happily intact.

      There's also (IIRC) Grand Central to contend with when you're dinking around with video, and I doubt that you could find an easy parallel for that when porting in from *nix.

      Been way the hell too long (something like 4 years) since I've had to do any serious OSX stuff though, so take all of this with a block of salt.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:OS X is UNIX by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      I don't know all the reasons, but the fact that OSX uses a unique graphics system is surely one. (OSX includes X, but it is not the native system.)

      -Peter

    4. Re:OS X is UNIX by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      I don't see any reason why use of Grand Central would be necessary. After all, the OSX port of VLC predates GC by years!

      GC doesn't replace any API. It just simplifies access to multiple processing cores.

      -Peter

    5. Re:OS X is UNIX by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      Why do they need a special OS X build? Shouldn't it build the same way it does on any UNIX?

      Because Apple's video and GUI APIs are different then what KDE and Gnome use.

      You really can only do "write once, compile everywhere" for libraries, console apps, and X. Once you're tying into the look and feel of an operating system and its core IO systems, you need to have platform specific code.

    6. Re:OS X is UNIX by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually I think that VLC has moved to QT for the interface so the GUI should port. The video playback code me be more difficult to deal with but I have looked at the code.
      Even if the "Build" is identical and it will never be you still need someone to build and test the software!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:OS X is UNIX by GWBasic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually I think that VLC has moved to QT for the interface so the GUI should port

      I doubt that QT provides the video and audio abstraction needed. VLC does things like directly use the SPDIF, which is pretty low-level.

    8. Re:OS X is UNIX by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      I couldn't resist: http://xkcd.com/676/

    9. Re:OS X is UNIX by joe_bruin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not exactly... Apple has been slowly squeezing the Carbon (std. C++ lib set) into non-existence, which means you get to do it in Cocoa (that is, Obj-C).

      Objective C / C++ is only required for doing the UI. 99% of your project can remain in C or C++ with only a very thin shim in Obj-C for the UI layer. There is no requirement to move your code base to except for the Mac-specific UI layer.

      IIRC, there's no 64-bit Carbon love in SL, though the 32-bit Carbon libs should still be happily intact.

      There is no 64 bit Carbon, because it's a relic. Cocoa easily mixes with C code (Obj-C is just C with extra stuff). Unless you're Adobe and you have a huge amount of UI code in Carbon, there is no reason to keep hanging on to it.

      There's also (IIRC) Grand Central to contend with when you're dinking around with video, and I doubt that you could find an easy parallel for that when porting in from *nix.

      Grand Central Dispatch is not required for video at all. Mac OS X supports the standard POSIX pthreads interface for threading.

    10. Re:OS X is UNIX by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I miss typesd what I meant to write was. The video playback could is probably more difficult to deal with but I have not looked at that code.
      QT does help with that abstraction
      http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/phonon-videowidget.html
      On Linux it uses Gstreamer on Windows DirectShow and on the Mac QuickTime so I doubt that it supports everything that VLC does but it is there.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  8. Handbrake by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let's remember that Handbrake uses VLC for video decoding. No more VLC = no more handbrake.

    1. Re:Handbrake by Torrance · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, Handbrake only uses VLC's version of libdvdcss to decrypt encrypted DVDs. And this was purely for legal reasons. Handbrake does its own decoding.

    2. Re:Handbrake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handbrake uses only the VLC library.
      According to TFA, the currently difficulty faced by the VLC developers is in finding someone to support the OS X-specific code, meaning primarily the user interface and display code.
      Given that VLC development continues for *NIX, it shouldn't be that difficult for someone (possibly from the Handbrake team) to maintain the OS X version of the VLC library as a relatively straightforward recompile.

    3. Re:Handbrake by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Handbrake doesn't have to use VLC. I think it was just an easy way to get access to the FFMPEG libraries, to require that VLC be installed. Anyway, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for them to find another way to deal with it.

      And I may be wrong, but I think using VLC is a relatively new thing. I don't remember exactly, but back when Handbrake was OSX-only, I think it had the option of using Quicktime to encode movies.

    4. Re:Handbrake by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to pay for VLC/Handbrake to be maintained. Dropping support is dumb before pitching to users to pay to keep someone on the job.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    5. Re:Handbrake by devjj · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not quite correct. Handbrake requires VLC to rip video directly from a copyright-protected DVD. FFmpeg is built into the Handbrake distribution itself.

    6. Re:Handbrake by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Handbreak hasn't always relied on VLC. I'm sure they will come up with a solution is VLC dies. I just installed the nightly 64-bit build of VLC and it seems to work fine BTW.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    7. Re:Handbrake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's remember that Handbrake uses VLC for video decoding. No more VLC = no more handbrake.

      Handbrake uses VLC to decypt the copy protection on DVDs not to encode them. The library is free and opensource. It's technically illegal to distribute it so Handbrake let's VLC do it's dirty work. Maybe they will start including it in the builds of Handbrake.

    8. Re:Handbrake by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 1

      latest version is a fail anyway. They removed most of what worked and stucked with h264. Tell that to your chinese media player right behind your tv.

    9. Re:Handbrake by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      It used to. The newer Handbrake versions, including the one that just came out recently, just fail to work with copy-protected DVDs, which sucks (but I can understand why they distribute it that way.)

    10. Re:Handbrake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, on Mac it can optionally use VLC to decss encrypted DVDs, this only removes the encryption, http://trac.handbrake.fr/wiki/SupportFAQ#vlc
      On Linux it can use libdvdcss for this, on Windows it can't read encrypted DVDs (but there's transparent online DeCSS decrypters on Windows).
      Any kind of DVD media is then sent into libdvdnav+libdvdread, I know it uses a built-in version of ffmpeg for all other media files so I assume it's also used for the actual MPEG2 audio/video decoding. So loosing VLC only means you have to DeCSS encrypted DVDs in some other way on Mac (like you always have to do on Windows).
      On Windows it uses QuickTime for the internal encode preview and VLC for the external one, but you can change what program it calls in Preferences. I have no idea if Handbrake/Mac uses VLC for preview but if so it's extremely likely that if it does it can easily be made to call up some other media player instead if needed.

    11. Re:Handbrake by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      It works fine for me. I'm using Handbrake 0.9.4 with VLC 1.0.2, both 64-bit, on OS X 10.6.2.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    12. Re:Handbrake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handbrake use the decss lib from VLC, which is not freely distributable in binary state (I still wonder how VLC could). Handbrake is still able to encoder DRM free stuff. There is other apps like Fairmount who are using VLC decss lib.

    13. Re:Handbrake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, VLC is only required to decode protected DVDs.

    14. Re:Handbrake by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Well, I have both installed and it don't do jack for decoding DVDs. Maybe there's some menu option or something to tell it where the VLC install is located and I haven't set that? I dunno.

      It's not that big a deal, since AnyDVD works fine with it and I have a license for that anyway.

    15. Re:Handbrake by rthille · · Score: 1

      I haven't had any trouble ripping (my admittedly somewhat old DVDs) with VLC.app, FairMount.app and HandBrake.app, all just dropped in my ~/Applications (not the system Applications) directory.

      I did run VLC manually once, and it might have installed the libs that FairMount uses in a well known location... I'm unsure.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  9. Could it be possible that noone cares? by c0d3g33k · · Score: 0, Troll

    Fans of the walled garden may be happy with what they get, while those who are unhappy with that choice may be looking elsewhere for their OS environment, thus VLC for Mac may not be on their radar.

    1. Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is this walled garden that you speak of?

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    2. Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      My guess: The Garden of Eden. The place where Adam and Eve took a bite out of an apple (which is Apple's logo). Note that I don't think their logo is a bite out of an apple for that reason, but that IS the reason why my mac's network name is "The Fall of Man"...

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    3. Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's being a cryptic Mac-hater. Basically, he's trying to say that nobody that wants to work in OSX will actually want to use VLC, for whatever reason. I think he's implying stupidity.

    4. Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Nope. Mac users care. Mac users did open source.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    5. Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? by devjj · · Score: 1

      Silly. Losing VLC would suck, but I can't imagine anyone leaving the platform because VLC wasn't available. Sure, VLC is your go-to for a lot of stuff, but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing a lot of non-Slashdot-reading Mac users have installed. Most Mac users just use QuickTime.

    6. Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? by aitikin · · Score: 1

      Show me the reference in the story of Adam and Eve that states it's an Apple. Why can no one realize that there is no such thing as the forbidden apple from the Garden of Eden.

      I personally took the walled garden merely to translate towards the closed off state of OS X compared to Linux (considering this is /.)

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    7. Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Show me the reference in the story of Adam and Eve that states it's an Apple. Why can no one realize that there is no such thing as the forbidden apple from the Garden of Eden.

      Which story? It's not in the original, but it is in Paradise Lost and it's certainly made its way into popular culture enough that people recognize the reference.

    8. Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? by stilldead · · Score: 1

      I think he speaks of the cult of Mac. It's a religion, Steve Jobs is God and Steve Wozniak used to be their prophet. They no longer need a prophet because he is busy dancing with the stars. No matter though, since God speaks to them from the great stage and tells them what iSoftware to love, how their iComputer should look, and which iPants they should wear today.

      --
      You are lucky, Ed Gruberman. Few novices experience so much of Ti Kwan Leep so soon.
    9. Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about?

    10. Re:Could it be possible that noone cares? by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I know that it wasn't necessarily an apple (though it could have been). It has become popular belief though that that's what it was. I just find it humorous to associate the Apple Corporation with the Fall of Man. And before you Mac Fanboys get your undies in a bundle, read my previous post and you will see that I own (and love) a Mac.

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  10. It's clearly unholy by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    If this were a worthy project, Father Steve would have told us so.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  11. Oh fuck no by ickleberry · · Score: 0, Troll

    I remember when I had a Mac about 2 years ago it was very hard to find something that would burn CD's (yes I know VLC won't do this), play tunes and videos because the developers of all the alternative programs just gave up in the face of the mighty iTunes when that started to gain popularity.

    And I hate, hate, hated iTunes, the interface, the then DRMified music store, the way it tried to force you to use a 'library' to store every single song that I only wanted to play once - it was and still is one of those programs like MPLAB [IDE for writing software for PIC] that just for some reason makes me want to dig my way to China with a teaspoon because that would be less stressful than using it.

    Its like its authors decided the age-old concept of 'files' was not good enough anymore so their software (poorly) tries to portray the real-life concept of a dusty box filled with records while dumping every song into some random folder with a cryptic filename. But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.

    Having VLC go from the Mac would mean there is only one real alternative left - mplayer. Now mplayer is a fine piece of software but it's good to have VLC just in case, they both have their own distinct advantages.

    1. Re:Oh fuck no by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not at all a fan of iTunes, but your post is totally full of false information!

      Hard to find something that would burn CDs--sounds like you're talking about an all-in-one program? because it's built into the operating system. It's built into iTunes. The most famous and longlived 3rd party program is Toast. Can install commandline tools as well.

      The reason iTunes has a library interface is that...that's the entire point of itunes! If you just want to play a media file once, use Quicktime/vlc/mplayer/Audion/etc. Secondly on this note, iTunes by no means compels you to either consolidate your files under its library or rename your existing files. The directory names are hardly cryptic??

      I do, however, agree that losing vlc would be too bad, because I fount it usually worked better than mplayer on the Mac.

    2. Re:Oh fuck no by Duradin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Make a burn folder. Drop files in burn folder. Put in blank [CD|DVD]. Hit Burn.

      I've had my mac since 2006 and it has always had the ability to burn discs built in.

      I'm sorry the world has moved on from storing music in [artist]_[album]-[track#]-[trackname].mp3 but metadata is a wee bit more handy and convenient for sorting music collections and playlists.

    3. Re:Oh fuck no by ickleberry · · Score: 1

      Maybe there is more choice now due to the influx of developers from the iPhone craze but a few years ago there definitely wasn't. Toast is a commercial program so that is out, iTunes is not part of the OS either - you can just delete it when you're sick of it like I did.

      I never found these all-in-one programs any good, perhaps because they are all modeled on iTunes. Quicktime is another piece of absolute rubbish that Apple continues to peddle to the masses for some unknown reason. Before my Mac died an untimely death I played *everything* in VLC, if that didn't work I used mplayer but it almost always did. The thing about the cryptic filenames refers to the way it copies them onto iPods - who ever came up with this hair brained scheme and passed it off as being somehow superior to ordinary mass storage preserving the original filenames could do with a good hard kicking.

    4. Re:Oh fuck no by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.

      Step 1: Tell iTunes not to manage my library.

      Step 2: Drag the 30GB "music" folder from the fileserver onto iTunes and wait for it to index everything.

      Step 3: Have easy access to all my music, with not a file moved or renamed.

      There are plenty of reasons why you might not like iTunes, but if you're 'leet enough not to like the way it handles your files, then you're 'leet enough to tell it not to.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    5. Re:Oh fuck no by Psyborgue · · Score: 3, Informative

      But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.

      The feature you speak of can be turned off. Your music can be in one place or as many places as you like (even on removable storage). Most people, however, like the convenience of having all their music in one place which is managed automatically. "Most people" makes for a reasonable default. I also find it odd you categorize apple's naming scheme as "cryptic" given the scheme is artist/album/track, the filenames of which are not renamed as you claim. While my files are in different folders now, all of them retain the same filenames. Also, iTunes store's music no longer has DRM.

    6. Re:Oh fuck no by thetagger · · Score: 1

      But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.

      Meanwhile, the other 99% of humankind is happy.

    7. Re:Oh fuck no by rlthomps-1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its like its authors decided the age-old concept of 'files' was not good enough anymore so their software (poorly) tries to portray the real-life concept of a dusty box filled with records while dumping every song into some random folder with a cryptic filename. But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.

      I'm sure you're just going to yell "FANBOI FANBOI FANBOI" at me, but seriously, if you want to use 'mv' and 'cp' to manage your files, why did you think a GUI music library program was going to be useful to you at all? Also, if you're so leet, how come you didn't figure out that you can turn off their file management features? Is it because they didn't give you a CLI tool to edit the pref file?

    8. Re:Oh fuck no by aitikin · · Score: 1

      Burn has been around for years...YEARS. It still bloody supports PANTHER. The last update to panther was in 2005! It still even has G3 support! You obviously don't know how to hunt for software properly. There's also fink, macports, and gentoo on mac that exist and have databases of burning apps, as well as music apps.

      Sometimes I wonder about the slashdot crowd's ability to think like a user and just search for it or even how to do it...

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    9. Re:Oh fuck no by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

      _snip_ - who ever came up with this hair brained scheme and passed it off as being somehow superior to ordinary mass storage preserving the original filenames could do with a good hard kicking.

      It's obfuscation: there still are mp3's on the ipod, but they cannot be recognised because they are identified by alphabet-strings, like AESDF or DAFVG. There is a decode-table on the same ipod that will translate those codes to proper names, but it difficultifies the unwanted (by the owner of the IP, that is) copying of the mp3's.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    10. Re:Oh fuck no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah just try that with 0.5T or more of mp3s and watch itunes cry.

    11. Re:Oh fuck no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might not like QuickTime Player -- I think it's okay for one-off media files, but it's certainly nothing special (though it does have decent script access to QT routines) -- but the underlying QT media system is a great thing used all around the system by Apple and third-party developers. It gives you the ability to play/record/scale/convert/etc. a whole slew of media types (including static images) without much code, and you get things like color-correction and the like for free to boot, works on MacOS and Windows, and is extensible to support new file formats and codecs. It does have some limitations (like being ancient, or needing to build a whole QT object model before playing) but it's not a bad media platform.

    12. Re:Oh fuck no by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1
      Whenever I do that iTunes spits out something like "We're gonna go ahead and index everything in folders the way we want anyway, since we run this bitch and you better recognize."

      Sarcasm aside, when you're transferring >100GB of music iTunes sucks balls. Also the overhead of iTunes makes it pretty annoying when you just want to pop a file to preview real quick, or watch a DVD without all the fucking waiting and protection bullshit.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    13. Re:Oh fuck no by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Given that it sails through .03TB, what obstacles would keep it from getting 16 times bigger?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    14. Re:Oh fuck no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There actually is a CLI tool to edit the preferences file. It's called "defaults".

    15. Re:Oh fuck no by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      >> The reason iTunes has a library interface is that...that's the entire point of itunes!

      WRONG! THE entire point of itunes is to be able to sync your iphone, download and install apps etc.

      *head explodes*

    16. Re:Oh fuck no by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

      Are you still talking about CD burning? The GP correctly pointed out that OSX can natively burn CDs without the need for a commercial CD-authoring suite like Toast.

      Also, the way the music is organized on an iPod is totally separate from the way it is organized in iTunes. Your rant about the iPod not being a generic external storage volume is totally irrelevant to the merits of iTunes.

      I shouldn't feed the trolls, but isn't it obvious that there is no need to inefficiently organize the files on a device's internal storage that are intended to be managed completely via a software application? Why put in the faster hardware and extra engineering effort required to do that? Clearly they did so in iTunes, which does store the files human-readably, because there is a greater need to interact with them outside of iTunes.

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    17. Re:Oh fuck no by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      What nonsense are you talking? I can't remember what it was like before 10.3, I think it was the same. You can create data CDs from the Finder, music CDs from iTunes, or burn isos from Disk Utility. Burning CDs has been standard functionality for OS X for as long as Apple has been including CD (and DVD) burners as standard, i.e. around 2001.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:Oh fuck no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the overhead of iTunes makes it pretty annoying when you just want to pop a file to preview real quick

      Click the file and hit space bar.

      It's called Quick Look, douchebag.

    19. Re:Oh fuck no by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      The iPod naming scheme was irrelevant - it was never designed to work as a mass storage device as far as your music was concerned (ie, you didn't need to see how the thing was storing the music to use it - you set it up in iTunes and it would handle that for you. The obfuscation was probably all that was needed to placate the music industry at the time (in talks for iTMS for a long time remember), but was trivial to overcome if you needed to). It was never about being "superior", and no one ever claimed it was. You have just decided that was the reason to justify your position.

      You really don't understand just what Quicktime is, but suffice to say it's not just a media player (take a look at the codebase for it sometime), and it can be easily extended with multiple different formats just like VLC or Mplayer - What you use for your front end is up to you of course, but your assertion that Quicktime is absolute rubbish is just not accurate.

      There are many ways to burn CDs on the Mac without using commercial software - for one thing, it is built into the OS, but there are open source projects that also do burning on OS X and have for a long time.

    20. Re:Oh fuck no by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine has well over 1TB of legit mp3 files (made from years of CDs, tapes and LPs) on a server in his garage and iTunes handles them just fine. So does iTunes on his wife's Macbook.

    21. Re:Oh fuck no by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      iTunes doesn't handle DVD playing by default in OS X - what are you talking about?

      Also, who previews files in iTunes? Just pop it open in Quicktime or VLC, surely?

    22. Re:Oh fuck no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      filenames have one nice property though: they work on all systems, unlike proprietary dbs from some specific app.

    23. Re:Oh fuck no by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Whenever I do that iTunes spits out something like "We're gonna go ahead and index everything in folders the way we want anyway, since we run this bitch and you better recognize."

      Sarcasm aside, when you're transferring >100GB of music iTunes sucks balls. Also the overhead of iTunes makes it pretty annoying when you just want to pop a file to preview real quick,

      Step one: select file in finder

      Step two: press space bar to play file in the built in preview. This works with any media quicktime can play, images, pdf files, etc... Over a network or locally. You can also use finder's cover flow view to preview audio/video files by simply clicking the big play button. If you really want to you can still open the file for preview in quicktime but what's the point?

      or watch a DVD without all the fucking waiting and protection bullshit.

      iTunes does not play DVDs. It'll play rips just dandy, though, provided you rip to something quicktime can use, which with Perian is pretty much everything.

    24. Re:Oh fuck no by chthonicdaemon · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that won't update automatically when I add new music to the library or remove music from the library unless I do it all via iTunes. And don't get me started on iTunes happily adding duplicate files whenever you add music (so you have to explictly navigate to the new folder and add that instead of just adding everything and sensibly hoping that the files already in the library won't be added twice). Then there's the big one for me: My wife and I live in the same house with the same internet connection, but there is no easy way for us to subscribe to the same podcasts and only download them once. With an external file-based system I would be able to have the stuff I wanted downloaded and then use "standard" syncing tools that already exist to synchronise our libraries. I like iTunes, but there are plenty of things wrong with the way that it handles interaction with your files.

      --
      Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
    25. Re:Oh fuck no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all fine and dandy, but none of that changes the fact that iTunes still butchers ANY attempt to sort your playlist the way you want. Its general organization lists suck ass. I don't want my music organized by name, year, album, or any other bullshit. I want it organized the way that I spent *HOURS* organizing it with an intricate network of folders and directories. Until iTunes can do that without pissing and moaning, fuck Apple.

    26. Re:Oh fuck no by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'll give you that one. For some reason, I can drag said network folder into iTunes on my Mac and it will add new files without adding duplicate entries. The same doesn't work on my wife's Mac. One of these days I'll be interested enough to diff the configs, but until then I mainly listen with Amarok, which doesn't have any of those problems.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  12. dumb questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why cant they just have their current linux developers switch to mac? surely there are more people running that?

    i thought vlc was open source? isnt part of the power of open source that when crap like this happens the source code is available for ANYONE to continue it?
    wont there be like half a dozen different forks of the mac version in a month?

    1. Re:dumb questions by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

      i thought vlc was open source? isnt part of the power of open source that when crap like this happens the source code is available for ANYONE to continue it?

      Yep, but if ANYONE don't want to develop for mac, then it wont get made.

      If it happened on the windows version someone would step up because there are a lot of coders in their midst (few people are coders, but there are a lot of people).

      If it happened on the Linux version someone would step up because there are a lot of coders in their midst (there are few people, but quite a few of them are coders).

      If it happens on the Mac-version noone steps up because they're all graphic designers, artists or students (turtlenecks all the way down).

      --
      If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
    2. Re:dumb questions by Yrrebnarg · · Score: 1
      Am I feeding a troll?

      They didn't capriciously shitcan the OS X port, there isn't anyone in their community that wants to wrestle with the Mac port. That kind of thing isn't what causes a software project to fork. Forks happen when someone says "macs are for weenies" and removes support for a platform while there are still people working on that code. When nobody wants to work on it, nobody wants to work on it.

      And if you were willing to buy a couple developers a Mac, they might switch. It doesn't really matter what OS the users are running, they're not being supported financially by the project and have no incentive to scratch an itch that isn't theirs. My guess is that it will languish for a while and then someone will decide to come along and update it in a while. But it won't be a forking event.

    3. Re:dumb questions by Jeremy+Visser · · Score: 1

      why cant they just have their current linux developers switch to mac? surely there are more people running that?

      Yep, anybody can switch to any platform in an instant. It's not like you have to build up years of familiarity with the intrinsic ways of a particular environment, or learn any platform-specific APIs or anything like that.

    4. Re:dumb questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the more simple one. Will you pay to buy those linux developers a mac each?

  13. Not disturbing by iamacat · · Score: 1

    If enough people are missing a feature in 1.1.0 release, someone will take the source and add it. As for any product and platform, development is a matter of supply and demand. It could be that physical media like DVDs is simply on the way out and most Mac users are happy with Quicktime player to watch H.264 torrents.

    1. Re:Not disturbing by ktappe · · Score: 1

      ....except that nearly everything I want to watch is still .avi. If .mp4 takes over, great, but until then I need VLC.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    2. Re:Not disturbing by mrxak · · Score: 1

      And you'll still be able to use VLC, there just won't be any new versions for a while. Chances are, as grandparent said, somebody else will come along soon enough. I'm glad this article is here because it might generate some interest, and maybe next week we'll get an article saying "VLC for Mac Saved!"

    3. Re:Not disturbing by devjj · · Score: 1

      That's sort of your choice, isn't it? Everything I watch is MKV-encapsulated h.264, and I have no problems playing any of it on my Macs or PCs. Better video quality and an open container format? Sold.

    4. Re:Not disturbing by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      What i want to know is, how to get MKV encapsulated h.264 to use the hardware decode capability of modern macs? I have a current gen macbook pro which should be able to handle this, only it doesn't unless i rip the mkv file apart and put the h.264 stream into a different container format.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:Not disturbing by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You can't do it - it's not possible in OS X at this time, even though it should be.

      Have to wait for Apple (or Nvidia/ATI + Apple) to enable that.

    6. Re:Not disturbing by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Ding ding. You just answered your question. By putting it in a mov container you trick quicktime into using it's own optimized h264 decoder. I have a MBP Santa Rosa 2.6 and it plays back 1080p mkv/h264 just fine without, though. Unless you're concerned about CPU usage or battery life, you should have more than enough ability to play back your videos.

    7. Re:Not disturbing by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Quicktime has no problem playing AVI files. Just install DivX/Theora/whatever plugins to handle the video format.

  14. sad so sad by el_jake · · Score: 1

    VLC is by far the best versatile cross platform VIDEO player available to mankind. Very sad if MAC OSX VLC development is discontinued.

    --
    In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
    1. Re:sad so sad by nomadic · · Score: 1

      VLC is by far the best versatile cross platform VIDEO player available to mankind. Very sad if MAC OSX VLC development is discontinued.

      I will go further and say that in terms of speed, ease of use, reliability, and elegance VLC may be the best piece of open source software of any kind around.

    2. Re:sad so sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently discovered VLC was the only app I have that can play archived video streams from an esteemed CS dept. It's buggy, and my attempts to have it save the streams to file went through various permutations of achieving failure, but even so it's still quite valuable to me and it's vaguely related to my fields of interest in software. I'm going to look in to volunteering, and I appreciate /. posting this story.

  15. Does VLC really have any advantages over Perian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, with Perian you can pretty much play any video that plays in VLC in QuickTime, which also means that you can integrate it into all the other OS X apps(such as iTunes, iDVD etc). With VLC you are pretty much stuck using the VLC video player, which has a horrendous interface....

  16. Mark parent "troll" by ktappe · · Score: 1

    VLC plays anything and everything. (Well, OK, not Windows 7 Media Center files...but nothing plays those.) I have no idea if you're really having issues with it but nobody I know does. It would suck serious rocks if VLC were abandoned on the Mac.

    --
    "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    1. Re:Mark parent "troll" by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with the parent. I stopped using VLC in preference for MPlayer. I am always amazed when VLC can't play something but MPlayer can, even though they both use FFMPEG for playback.

    2. Re:Mark parent "troll" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not a troll I have issues too. Just because *your* computer doesn't have issues with it doesn't mean others don't.

    3. Re:Mark parent "troll" by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      MPlayer uses the freshest version of ffmpeg at any given time, since the MPlayer developers develop ffmpeg. VLC lags a bit. But VLC has a significantly better UI, so I stick to that as much as possible (which is pretty much for every video I open, at this point)

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    4. Re:Mark parent "troll" by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 1

      could you tell us more about it? I've used dozens of macs and hackintoshes and NEVER had an issue with vlc.

    5. Re:Mark parent "troll" by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

      I had problems a few years back with VLC repeatedly and randomly crashing. I didn't look into the issue much at all, since I found that MPlayer worked fine, and I have been using that ever since. Don't know if it was a system config issue or hardware or something else, but that has definitely turned me off of using VLC afterwards.

      Take that as you will, definitely not anything but an anecdotal experience, but VLC (at least a few years back) was definitely not perfect.

      Cheers

    6. Re:Mark parent "troll" by letsief · · Score: 1

      I've had problems with VLC too. Specifically, with mpeg2 video/ AC3 audio in a TS container. Mplayer worked, as did many decoders on Windows, but not VLC.

      Generally speaking, though, VLC is very very good at playing back whatever is thrown at it. I really wish it could implement hardware acceleration though.

    7. Re:Mark parent "troll" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since the MPlayer developers develop ffmpeg.

      I've never heard this, and it surprises me. Mplayer ships with mencoder - and although both FFmpeg and mencoder use libvacodec (and I'd bet that FFmpeg and mencoder developers also contribute to libvacodec), it seems odd that a development team would work on two competing projects. Do you have any links for this?

      But VLC has a significantly better UI

      Obviously it's subjective - but, have you tried SMPlayer (Linux/BSD/Windows), or if you use OSX, MPlayer OSX Extended? I have nothing against VLC (it beats everything at streaming, hands-down), but Mplayer seems to give nicer playback quality, has more options, and the UIs I linked are closer to their respective platforms' look-n-feel (the most obvious example is that VLC UI is MDI and Windows/OSX/Linux don't particularly embrace MDI). HTH, HAND.

  17. Perhaps because of Perian? by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

    Why use VLC as a player when Perian installs codecs that allow quicktime player (or any quicktime based app) to play back anything VLC will. It's basically ffdshow for mac. I rarely use VLC anymore for that reason. Quicktime player just feels more lightweight as it starts up faster.

    1. Re:Perhaps because of Perian? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      I like the Matroska container. It's easy, extensible, and frankly it handles just about anything you can throw into it.

      Quicktime+Perian handles Matroska poorly. VLC handles it splendidly. That's why I prefer VLC.

    2. Re:Perhaps because of Perian? by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      I had the same issues in the past but it seems to work perfectly with the most recent update. Chapter markers even work properly.

    3. Re:Perhaps because of Perian? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      I'll check it out. The problem really doesn't present itself until you're using low-speed storage--either something off of a USB drive or on a slow network. In the past, you effectively had to read the entire file before playing it, so large files would take forever to start playing from e.g. an NFS share (though once they started, you could index into them just fine.)

    4. Re:Perhaps because of Perian? by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      The reading before playing thing? Yeah. That is still there, but I've never tried playing mkv off low speed storage... I suppose it's something the Perian developers should look into.

    5. Re:Perhaps because of Perian? by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      i need to correct myself. You don't have to read the entire file before playing. You do, however, have to wait for the part of the file you want to play to load sequentially before you attempt to play it. Playing from the beginning has always worked fine for me.

    6. Re:Perhaps because of Perian? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Because I don't like QuickTime, and I don't want to use FrontRow to view a video in the corner of my enormous peni--screen while I do some work or reading. VLC's user interface is significantly better than QuickTime's. And I have four gigabytes of ram. I can afford to keep VLC running at all times.

      Perian is a good product, and I was using it with FrontRow until I switched to Boxee.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    7. Re:Perhaps because of Perian? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.

      I've assumed that the problem I had was related to this:
      http://perian.org/#support

      Why does it take so long for MKV to load?

                  QuickTime expects to know about the entire movie when playing it, but that's not possible with many formats, including MKV and MPEG. Ask Apple to support seeking without an index if you'd like this to go away!

      I had hopes that Quicktime X might have removed that restriction, but I think that Perian would have to be recoded to take advantage of it.

    8. Re:Perhaps because of Perian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually ran in to the inverse situation with VLC. An mkv with chapter markers would reset the stream to the first chapter every time it hit the next chapter marker. So I got to play guess the spot in VLC every 5-10 minutes. VLC didn't even tell me there were chapters for the video file. Gave up and tossed in to QuickTime just to see if it would work. Low and behold it worked like a charm.

  18. Eu Contraire by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    My experience with VLC is that it has handled everything i've thrown at it admirably, with the few exceptions being horribly corrupted beyond recognition.

    Mplayer will open and play more, but suffers horrible A/V desynch which, despite months of soliciting and applying arcane fix ideas, has remained persistent.

    VLC is currently the only playback solution which can handle HD H.264 matroska without a major malfunction, and additionally has the highest quality video rendering, with more detail, smoother pans, and finer grained video controls than competitors.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:Eu Contraire by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, VLC isn't perfect, but I much prefer it to MPlayer. Still, I'm not terribly worried. It's not like they're going to come to your house and uninstall whatever version you have now. And their big announcement is surely a way of getting some new developers to stand up and help out. Some new eyes on the code could be a good thing, at any rate. Presumably whoever does take over will have plenty of enthusiasm and a lot will get done.

    2. Re:Eu Contraire by xwizbt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      'Au'. And it's 'voila', whilst we're on; I'm guessing you're mostly responsible for that, too.

    3. Re:Eu Contraire by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      Case in point: today I ripped a DVD I made a few months ago. I opened one of the VOB files from the HDD in VLC to do a frame grab.

      While skipping through the file by clicking in the timeline/playhead indicator, the picture froze several times, tore several times, and audio got out of sync with the video. Finally, it just froze the video frame and the playhead skipped ahead by increments to the end, without any audio or video playback. I had to quit the player to regain any playback.

      Like I said, utter crap.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  19. Really? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 5, Informative

    I thought Handbrake uses FFMPEG. Anyway, if Handbrake uses some VLC code then the Handbrake developers will probably continue to maintain that code without necessarily having to maintain VLC as a whole.

    1. Re:Really? by StonyUK · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think they rely on VLC to supply the dvd decryption library, presumably so they don't have to include anti-DRM goodness in their own package.

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I thought Handbrake uses FFMPEG. Anyway, if Handbrake uses some VLC code then the Handbrake developers will probably continue to maintain that code without necessarily having to maintain VLC as a whole.

      Very doubtful. Handbrake relies on the DeCSS code from VLC for DVD ripping. The entire reason for relying on a separate program is so the Handbrake devs can have "clean hands" when it comes to any DMCA-breaking activity.

    3. Re:Really? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      In that case, they deserve whatever happens. But realistically CSS isn't changing so that code may not need any maintenance.

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handbrake uses VLC to decode/decrypt DVDs on the Mac. For ENcoding Handbrake uses x264 and ffmpeg.

    5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that FFMPEG libraries are built into VLC. For most users, it's an easier installation than building FFMPEG from source.

  20. alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have they considered using horsepower?

  21. OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1, Informative

    I think seeing VLC die on the Mac would do much more harm than the death of the Windows version. There is plenty of wonderful video programs that allow you to easily tweak what filters and codecs you use, and pretty much can support any codecs you want. MPC-HC comes to mind as the most versatile. VLC is still useful for formats that you don't use very much - like *.flv, or videos that may not work for whatever reason in another video program.

    However, on the Mac, there are far fewer options. A few days ago, I attempted to setup a Windows share on OS X 10.6. Besides the fact that you can't easily add a shortcut to a share (you need to mount it which doesn't work if the machine isn't on) the default player for pretty much all videos files is Quicktime.

    I'm pretty sure that everyone can agree that Quicktime is utter crap. It's similar to VLC in that it's pretty much monolithic in that it's supposed to include support for many formats, and it's not easy to add support for new formats. WMP, however, can use any Directshow filter. So can MPC-HC. Why is this a problem? Because Quicktime doesn't support ANYTHING and yet is the default for pretty much EVERYTHING.

    - Can't play H.264 above Baseline. That means you can't play H.264 from a Blu-Ray/HD DVD or any (decent) x264 encodes. Pretty much limits you to iTunes downloads
    - Can't play Xvid/Divx by default. I was shocked by this. It opens AVI's by default, but it just shows a black screen and won't play
    - Doesn't support Matroska (MKV) file format which is now used on all HD videos and and higher-quality SD videos that either use x264, AAC, or AC3/DTS. Most AVI's are plain xvid/mp3.
    - No easy way to add Xvid/Divx support. No Xvid codec for OS X that I could find. Installed 3vix (sp?) but it didn't work.

    -----

    As an aside, I tried setting up OS X to play MKV and AVI files over a Windows share a few days ago. This was my experience:

    I couldn't get OS X to use VLC by default. Selecting "open with" VLC ALWAYS only works for that single file, not the file type, despite it saying so. Changing the settings in Quicktime to not play AVI's also did nothing. In the end, I just told my roommate to use the open with VLC option, as I gave up trying to get the Quicktime or the OS to do what I wanted. Couldn't get Quicktime to play XviD AVI's after installing the appropriate codec, and couldn't get OS X to play AVI's with VLC by default.

    1. Re:OS X needs VLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://perian.org/#detail

    2. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'm not a Mac user. I did do some google searching for codecs but didn't come across that. I'll try it.

    3. Re:OS X needs VLC by nneonneo · · Score: 1

      Have you tried the "apply to all files of this type" in the Get Info window? AFAIK this is how you re-associate a file extension to a new program.

      As for Quicktime's formats, try Perian: it is a codec pack for QuickTime (a la Directshow) which integrates ffmpeg, MKV, and a few other formats.

    4. Re:OS X needs VLC by stevelup · · Score: 3, Informative

      I couldn't get OS X to use VLC by default. Selecting "open with" VLC ALWAYS only works for that single file, not the file type, despite it saying so.

      To set a default application for a file type in OS X, you do the following:-

      Right click on any MKV file and choose 'Get Info'
      In the 'Open With' section, choose VLC
      Click the 'Change All...' button underneath.

      All MKV files will now open by default in VLC

    5. Re:OS X needs VLC by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, basically, you're mad that it won't play your pirated movies out of the box? I've got karma to burn, so time to feed the trolls.

      Yeah, I'm going to assume that you really have no idea how the encoder/decoder market works or video production in general. Basically, there are companies that create codecs like DivX and then require payment to encode and distribute videos using their codec because of patents. In order for Apple to ship DivX, they would have to license DivX from DivX. Why should apple pay the licensing fee when they can direct users here: http://www.divx.com/en/mac and the user can download and install for free? I mean the last time I dealt with Windows I remember having to go and fetch the DivX Codec. And the last time I set up a new Mac, QuickTime popped up when it could find the Codec, knew what kind of file it was, and provided a link to the Divx site to go download it. All of this has to do with Licensing. It's really more of a legal issue than a technical one. So how is software licensing and patents preventing them from shipping every codec known to man Apple's fault again? Because unlike a lot of F/OSS projects, Apple can't be 100% based out of Hungry or France to circumvent these licensing restrictions. The do business in the United States and other countries that do recognize and enforce these copyright treaties. Technically, downloading and using VLC and FFMPEG in the United States constitutes infringement on various Codec patents, but that's a topic for another thread and another day. Also I would check on Windows. If it shipped with DivX, chances are that was added by the PC vender in a 3rd party deal, not by Microsoft. (Actually I don't pay attention to who is licensing what these days).

      MKV isn't a format, it's a container. Just like .MOV is a container as is .AVI. The quality inside a .MKV, .AVI, or .MOV is all dependent upon the compression and codecs used not the container format. And the last time I tried playing MKV files, the program took up WAY too many system resources. The only place that I've seen MKV as a popular format is with Azurus/Vuze. In fact, I've never seen it used outside of Vuze. Occasionally you'll see it in a torrent, but they are mostly DivX/Avi.

      The fact that macs can't play Blu-Ray or HD-DVD has to do with the fact that Apple doesn't ship any models with said player. MAC LACKS THE HARDWARE NEEDED IN ORDER TO READ EITHER FORMAT That has nothing to do with Quicktime and Codecs. When I worked in video production, nobody was adopting either optical format. It was clear to many of us that Optical Media was going the way of the floppy disk and this was in 2003. By the time HD-DVD or Blu-Ray won the format wars, it would be too late, we'd see everything delivered via a digital stream. The only question was, is it going to be an iTunes like store where you buy the item to a set top box/hard drive or whether it was going to be via streaming like Hulu or Netflix. So far it looks like there is a market for both. But time will tell.

      And I see a lot of people electing to skip the Blu-Ray player in favor of a media PC/Mac hooked up to their TV and streaming Netflix or Hulu to their TV. I've been using a Mac MIni for this purpose since 2005. I know I have. To me, the extra quality for twice the price of a DVD plus the cost of the player isn't worth it to me. I'll put up with watching my TV shows from Hulu when I have extra time at my connivence, even if the quality isn't the same as on HD. It' good enough for me and plenty of other people too.

      Now, I have to say that I'm generally happy with Quicktime X. Quicktime had been languishing for years and this was a much needed up date. It runs faster and smoother than the previous versions.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    6. Re:OS X needs VLC by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Perian adds all of those codecs that you claim is "not easy" to add support for. A few clicks and it's installed. Log out and back in again at the installer's suggestion (not essential) and the job is done.

      Not sure what your issue is with HD h.264 content - works just fine for me (HD files created from XDCAM HD source material, YMMV).

      Divx support is easily added via perian, or using the standalone DivX installer from their main website - not sure how you didn't find that.

      To force a change to stick regarding the "open with" command, that's one of those Finder quirks. I always set this by using Get Info (command+i) on a file and then changing the default there, and selecting "apply to all files of this type". If the Finder crashes for any reason before this preference is saved it may not stick - logging out and back in will save it.

      Quicktime itself is far from crap. It has problems, like any media player, but it has been improved gradually over time. The newest incarnation (Quicktime X) has been totally rewritten, and I'm not 100% sold on it yet, but fortunately QT Player 7 stays around if you prefer to use the more familiar version (or you have plugins that depend on it).

    7. Re:OS X needs VLC by Sancho · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perian+Quicktime is awful for Matroska. Really, I wouldn't bother. See the first FAQ under http://perian.org/#support

    8. Re:OS X needs VLC by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      For some links:

      http://www.divx.com/en/software/mac/divx

      http://www.perian.org/

      googling "mac video codecs" has perian at number 2, xvid at number 3, 3vix at number 8 and WMV at number 9.

    9. Re:OS X needs VLC by joost · · Score: 1

      No easy way to add Xvid/Divx support. No Xvid codec for OS X that I could find.

      Perian.

    10. Re:OS X needs VLC by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      Command+I Open with (choose VLC) Change all Done. There are several other ways as well, but that's the one I use.

    11. Re:OS X needs VLC by Cormophyte · · Score: 1

      To always open a particular file type with a particular program you...

      For example:

      1) Select any .avi file in the Finder
      2) Get info
      3) Change the "Open with:" program and hit the "Change All..." button

      Same thing with any other file type.

    12. Re:OS X needs VLC by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't "die" on Windows, since Microsoft actually gives a crap about backwards compatibility.

      I think it says a lot about OS X that a program with no active developers "dies." If only Apple gave half-a-crap about old apps running, that wouldn't be an issue!

    13. Re:OS X needs VLC by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry what?

      You are making no sense. I'd link the Darth Vader filling a kettle in the sea picture, but this isn't 4Chan.

    14. Re:OS X needs VLC by letsief · · Score: 1

      I can't play back mpeg2 files. Well, I think Perian plays back the mpeg2 codec fine, but it doesn't support the mpeg file format. Not to mention it doesn't support hardware acceleration. Not that VLC does either... That alone is enough to keep me away from Macs. I have a Mac for work and I've tried playing videos back on it, but nothing reliably plays back 1080i material, enough though its a 2.4GHz Core2 Duo based Macbook Pro.

    15. Re:OS X needs VLC by letsief · · Score: 1

      I use the MKV format for my Handbrake encodes. I rip all my DVDs on to my media server. Generally I'll rip the whole movie and keep it in its native format, but I compress my TV episodes into H.264 encoded MKV files. No, MKV is a popular file format for purchased videos, but it is moderately popular for user-created/encoded videos.

      Since MKV is basically just a file format, there's no reason it would be resource intensive. MKV files that you find online are often H.264 files though, and those are moderately resource intensive to play back (compared to Divx/xvid/mpeg2 files). Maybe that's why you had problems.

      Windows 7 actually has very good codec support out of the box. I think every version of Windows 7, except possibly basic, includes mpeg2 and mpeg4 decoders. And they're very good. They produce high-quality output, and they make use of hardware acceleration. Really, Windows is a much, much, much better platform for video playback. I just found out yesterday that there isn't any blu-ray support on the Mac. Considering the Mac used to be the multimedia platform, this seems crazy.

    16. Re:OS X needs VLC by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know it doesn't do hardware acceleration (not supported at all in OS X yet) but I used to shoot and edit 1080i material (circa 2007/8) in XDCAM HD and it works just fine, and that's the XDCAM HD raw, AIC, H.264 and HDV formats.

      The mpeg2 codec for quicktime costs extra from Apple (license issue, even though the DVD player app that ships with OS X plays mpeg2 already, crazy) - Windows does not come with native mpeg2 playback either for the same license reason.

      Hardware accelerated video is a relatively new phenomenon outside of niche applications (like the old school Media 100 system I used to work on - 300Mhz of mayhem with hardware acceleration), and if it's not addressed soon I'm sure there will be problems, but right now it's not the be all and end all unless you're trying to make a media box with a beefy card and weak CPU - I expect the issue will be sorted when the Apple TV finally gets updated.

    17. Re:OS X needs VLC by djrogers · · Score: 1

      Perian solves all of the quicktime problems you list above, and as for the default media player, that's just a user education issue - not an OS fault.

      --
      Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
    18. Re:OS X needs VLC by letsief · · Score: 1

      If you check the Perian page you'll see that they don't support the mpeg container. So yes, you can play back mpeg2 encoded files, but not if they are *.mpg files. At least, not without buying the Apple MPEG component. Your files probably used a different container.

      Really, I'm not a big fan of VLC when it comes to dealing with HD video either. Even on a 2.4Ghz Core2 Duo, I couldn't play back 1080i material smoothly after turning on deinterlacing in VLC.

      Windows absolutely comes with an Mpeg2 decoder. In fact, Windows 7 ships with Mpeg2 and Mpeg4/H.264 decoders. They're very good too, and implement hardware acceleration. Windows XP didn't include decoders, but Vista Home Premium had the mpeg2 decoder.

      And hardware acceleration is by no means a relatively new phenomenon. Mpeg2 hardware acceleration has been commonplace on Windows for many, many years. Mpeg4 hardware acceleration is relatively new, but has been supported on Vista and Windows 7. There are several options for hardware accelerated Mpeg4 decoders on Windows (including the one bundled with Win7).

      Hardware acceleration isn't a trivial thing either. Decoding 1080i material is tough work. Even beefy processors often can't play back 1080i material smoothly. This is getting to be less and less of a problem, I realize, because of increases in processing power, but there's no good reason not to implement it. HTPC people have a lot of experience with this, and pretty much all of them will tell you its important to get a video card with good hardware acceleration capabilities (and decoders to go with them). My Macbook gets very, very hot playing HD video, but my Windows laptops stay nice and cool because of hardware acceleration (not to mention the impact on battery life).
       

    19. Re:OS X needs VLC by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      All the noise here is that if VLC loses its active developers, that it's "dead." It's only "dead" because Apple doesn't do backwards compatibility, that's all I'm saying... otherwise, Mac users could just keep running the current version until the end of time. (Which is what would happen on Windows.)

    20. Re:OS X needs VLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only place that I've seen MKV as a popular format is with Azurus/Vuze. In fact, I've never seen it used outside of Vuze. Occasionally you'll see it in a torrent, but they are mostly DivX/Avi.

      It should probably be noted that almost all HD rips of movies/TV shows online are in x264 format, wrapped in MKV. Just go onto any Usenet search engine and search for "720p". I generally don't see them as being especially popular on public torrent sites, but then considering a lot of the crap on them, I get the feeling most users of such sites don't care for quality so much.

    21. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I did try the "apply to all files of this type". I just couldn't remember the exact language used. I tried it several times with different files, and it seemed to only apply to the individual file selected despite the option's language that suggested a universal application.

      I will have to look at the computer again. We had just gotten new cable internet service to replace the shit ADSL connection from AT&T and I was setting up my roommate's computers to connect to the network (WPA2 w/ 64 char randomly generated HEX key) as well as setting up file sharing across the network so they could access HDTV and Blu-Ray movies streamed from my desktop connected to a gigabit switch.

      After setting up network connectivity, and figuring out how to mount a Windows share at bootup in OS X, and then fighting with Quicktime to get AVI playback to work right, I pretty much gave up since my roommate was going to bed and needed her laptop back. I don't normally use OS X and can't play around with it in a VM, so my only experience is when I troubleshoot OS X user's issues (usually network-related).

      I am therefore admittedly lacking in OS X knowledge. Thanks for the info again. I'll have a look at it.

    22. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      I actually went to the Xvid site. There is no Xvid binary for the Mac. Rather, they direct you to the Divx codec.

      " The XviD codec isn't yet available for the Mac, so to play XviD videos on your Mac you first need to install QuickTime and the DivX codec. Then you need to download and install the delegate component available for your Mac OS version:

      Mac OS X
              XviD codec for Mac OS X (5KB)
      Mac
              XviD codec for Mac OS 8/9 (3KB)"

      http://www.xvidmovies.com/mac/

    23. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      I did that for MKV files and it worked fine. Notice how I didn't complain about MKV?

      I did the same exact procedure for AVI's and Quicktime just won't give up control. I also tried doing it through the Quicktime settings. MKV's are fine - they open automatically in VLC. My experience with Windows and Linux allowed me to do that without issue. It seems the problem is that it's simply not respecting the setting.

    24. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood a lot of what I said.

      I know perfectly well that Matroska is a container, not a format. If my language was ambiguous, I apologize. I mentioned that pretty much all HD videos and the higher-quality SD videos use the MKV container because it supports audio formats easily such as AC3, DTS, and FLAC which AVI and MP4 can't easily do. In addition, is it even possible to embed soft subtitles in an AVI file? I've only seen separate SRT files. I know the Matroska format supports the inclusion of SRT subs.

      As for the part about Quicktime not supporting H.264 encoded from a Blu-Ray, you again misunderstood me. Here is what I said:

      "- Can't play H.264 above Baseline. That means you can't play H.264 from a Blu-Ray/HD DVD or any (decent) x264 encodes. Pretty much limits you to iTunes downloads"

      I said that Quicktime can't play H.264 video from a Blu-Ray/HD DVD - not that it can't play the disk itself. Blu-Ray supports 3 formats - MPEG-2, VC-1 and H.264 (AVC). H.264 video in both the Blu-Ray and HD DVD format is encoded at "High Profile" - to be more technical Level 4.1. Quicktime only supports videos encoded at Baseline - or more techically, Level 3.1. You can strip out the H.264 video, convert it from the m2ts to a a Quicktime-complaint MP4 container file and it still will not work in Quicktime because of the lack of High Profile support. So, pretty much everything you said about my comments was irrelevant.

      And to be technical, Blu-Ray is just an optical disk format. It can be used for movies, audio, or just to store data files.

    25. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      "So, basically, you're mad that it won't play your pirated movies out of the box? I've got karma to burn, so time to feed the trolls."

      No, I'm mad that it chooses to use Quicktime as the default program when it is incapable of playing something as simple as an AVI file with Xvid/MP3 content. Windows 7 and Ubuntu 8.10/9.10 do so out of the box, so I don't think I"m asking too much. If Quicktime doesn't work out of the box, don't make it DEFAULT.

      In fact, I rarely every use the default. I always tinker. On Windows 7 x64, I use MPC-HC with the latest ffdshow build for H.264 as well as lanczos to upscale DVDs and 720p video. I also use MPC-HC's hardware acceleration on my Intel GMA chip on my laptop. So, it's not like I even care about things working out of the box.

      BUT I do expect to easily be able to set the default application used to open a given filetype. I changed the file assocation for MKV with no issue; but it just wouldn't work with AVI.

      And why does it matter whether I was playing pirated or legal video content? Is it OK for Quicktime not to play my plain vanilla AVIs because of their source?

      Anyway, how do you know the source? For all you know, I encode my own high definition videos from Blu-Ray and DVD sources. In fact, I have done so. Maybe you assumed I didn't because you misunderstood pretty much all of my comments and thought I was an ignorant dumbass that.

      Look, I don't use OS X. I was just helping setup a roommate's computer. I said it was an aside. My only point was that in Windows, what I wanted to accomplish would have been easy. Same deal with Ubuntu.

    26. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      I admitted I didn't know much about the OS. I don't use OS X. I was just helping my roommate. I should have done more research but I didn't have the time. I had to give her back her laptop.

      However, changing a file association should not be that much of a fight. I did the same exact thing for MKV and it worked perfectly, but for some reason, AVI doesn't want to change its association.

    27. Re:OS X needs VLC by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Most of the hardware acceleration you speak of in the early windows days is just simple deinterlacing and scaling (flash does "hardware acceleration" by that standard, and they call it such, even though there is no hardware decoding). Actually decoding all or part of the video on the card is something newer (though there have always been exceptions such as creative's dxr series mpeg2 cards). I'm also fairly sure, but not positive, that VLC uses software deinterlacing. I'm not surprised you're getting playback issues interlacing video of that size.

      Not sure I agree either that windows 1080 playback is superior. I have both windows 7 and OSX 10.5 on my macbook pro core 2 duo 2.6 with GeForce 8600m. In both Mac OS and windows, playing a h264 BDrip in a mkv format uses about 40% cpu usage with no frame drop. (Quicktime using Perian codecs in Mac OS and Media Player Classic Home Cinema using ffdshow in windows.) I wouldn't be surprised if windows native h264 decoder was more efficient, but then again, the same applies to Mac OS where their native h264 decoder is pretty optimized as well.

    28. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      I did that. It didn't have the intended affect. I did the same with MKV files and it worked as intended. Any explanation?

    29. Re:OS X needs VLC by Taevin · · Score: 1
      Yeah... I'm gonna have to repeat jo_ham: "I'm sorry, what? You're making no sense."

      Apple doesn't do backwards compatibility? I'm pretty sure that they do provide backwards compatibility for a reasonable length of time and provide transition guides. Take the article on Preference Panes, for example (the developer docs are filled with this stuff):

      Snow Leopard introduces several system-wide features that preference panes should support. Preference panes should be 64-bit, utilize garbage collection, and support sudden termination. For transition purposes, Snow Leopard will support 32-bit preference panes from developers outside of Apple. For 32-bit preference panes, garbage collection is not required, and support for sudden termination is “opt-in.” For 64-bit preference panes, garbage collection is a required feature and sudden termination is enabled by default. It is strongly recommended that all new preference panes be 64-bit, as support for 32-bit preference panes is not guaranteed in the future.

      In other words, you are strongly encouraged to upgrade to 64-bit code as 32-bit support will eventually be dropped. In the meantime though, there is still backwards compatibility with 32-bit code and you can even take advantage of the newer features in old code.

      In light of that I'm assuming you mean "there's no assumption that the code you wrote back in the 90's for 16-bit operating systems will still work in 2009." I for one am glad OS X's APIs are not fetid with ancient cruft like can be found in the Win32 API.

      Of course, all this has nothing to do with the current situation. Did you even read the forum post? Or even the summary?

      If it goes on like this, MacOS support may be discontinued as of VLC 1.1.0. There is nobody to make the necessary updates to the MacOS support code, for instance to support the new VLC video output architecture.

      If there are zero Mac developers working on VLC, just who is going to make the necessary tweaks and create the builds for new versions? That's all that's being talked about. Feature freeze. Bug-fix freeze. No releases. No developers. The current VLC 1.0.3 that I have running will continue running "until the end of time."

      What you're saying just doesn't make sense on any level. It doesn't have anything to do with any operating system, even; it's a project-based observation. If no one is working on the project, it's "dead." If tomorrow all the Windows VLC devs switch to work on the Mac version, people would be talking about the Windows port "dying."

    30. Re:OS X needs VLC by letsief · · Score: 1

      Video hardware acceleration has been a fairly gradual progression. On the Windows side of things, what really got it going in a useful sense was the standardization of DirectX Video Acceleration in Windows 2000. Over the years video card manufacturers have implemented more and more of the video decoding pipeline. We're now at a point where basically all of the mpeg2 decoding pipeline can be done in hardware, but CPU-intensive pieces have been done for quite a while. Pre-2000 video cards like the TNT2 did mpeg2 motion compensation in hardware, and the ATI Rage Fury even did iDCT operations.

      I don't know exactly what year it became really commonplace on the Windows side of things, but I can give one data point. There was significant use of hardware accelerated playback by the time I started playing around with Home Theater PCs in 2003.

      Even H.264 and VC-1 acceleration isn't terribly new. The GeForce 6600 had limited H.264 and VC-1 acceleration (that was in 2004). The GeForce 8000 series and the ATI HD 2000 series both added significant hardware acceleration of H.264 and VC-1 video (that was in ~2006-2007). It's adoption was mainly hampered by the lack of support for DXVA 2.0 in Windows XP, though you still do get some benefit with DVXA 1.0 in XP too.

      So I guess my point is I don't think hardware acceleration- particularly mpeg2 hardware acceleration- is a new thing. Apple has just been slow to join the party. But maybe we have different interpretations for what "new" is.

      There are a lot more options for video playback on Windows. A lot more. There are extremely limited options for hardware accelerated playback on Macs. My experience over the last nearly 7 years of playing with this stuff is that software playback is not terribly reliable. Even if CPU usage is relatively low, and even if the renderer doesn't report any dropped frames, my experience has been playback is not always perfect. Sometimes it shows itself with jerky playback, sometimes with little glitches. Sometimes it only happens with interlaced video. Sometimes it only happens if you're working on the computer at the same time. A lot of little things can go wrong, and maybe a lot of people wouldn't notice. Hardware accelerated playback isn't always perfect either, but in my experience it has been noticeably more reliable. There's a reason why basically every video chipset, discrete or integrated, offloads nearly all mpeg2, H.264 and VC-1 decoding, and its not because the hardware developers got bored.

      In addition, there are some things that simply aren't supported on the Mac at all. I didn't realize this until yesterday, but apparently there aren't any blu-ray players on Macs.

      So that's basically why I said I think Windows is way ahead of Macs in terms of video playback.

      By the way, I don't know how efficient the Windows H.264 decoder is. I have a ATI HD3850 video card that basically offloads the work from the CPU. For all I know it could be a resource hog if it needs to fall back on software decoding. What I do know is that the hardware acceleration works, and the playback quality is good.

    31. Re:OS X needs VLC by Cormophyte · · Score: 1

      I believe you're running into a "feature" that's causing some confusion. If you manually change a document's open with application it segregates itself from the pool of documents that change when you hit "change all" on other documents. In case it's 12:30 and I'm not making sense I'll give an example...

      You have a.tif, b.tif, and c.tif. The default program for opening .tif files is Preview and all three files in question are opening with the default. You change a.tif to open with Photoshop. You then change b.tif to open with Firefox and hit the "change all" button. You'd then be left with b and c.tif opening in Firefox, and a.tif opening in Photoshop because you changed it manually from the default. At some point in the future hitting change all on a.tif will both return it to the default pool along with b and c and change the default .tif program to whatever a.tif is set to at that moment.

      I think for one reason or another these avi files think they're all out of the pool. You can change the files already on your drive to use the default quickly by using the Find command to find all files ending in .avi on the computer, then hitting select all and then command-option-i to bring up the inspector. Then change them to open with the program of your choice and hit change all.

      Hope this helps, works, makes sense, and wasn't too wordy (I don't know how well you know your way around the MacOS so I explained a bit more than usual).

    32. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That actually makes a lot of sense. I'll try it on her laptop tomorrow.

    33. Re:OS X needs VLC by Cormophyte · · Score: 1

      Glad to help.

    34. Re:OS X needs VLC by stevelup · · Score: 1

      It wasn't particularly clear that you were only having problems with AVI's.

      Given that you did not mention anywhere in your original post the correct way for setting a default application in OS X, I assumed that was the root of your problem.

      So when you do it the way I suggest above, does the icon on your AVI files change to that of VLC or is it still showing the QuickTime icon?

      File associations as the responsibility of Finder and have nothing to do with QuickTime or any other system settings. You could tell Finder to open AVI files in TextEdit if you really wanted to and it would blindly obey you - therefore, I don't really understand why you are having the problem you say you are.

      Just to be absolutely clear, you are doing 'Right Click, Get Info, Open With, Change All'?

    35. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      "Just to be absolutely clear, you are doing 'Right Click, Get Info, Open With, Change All'?"

      Yes, that's precisely what I did.

      And, yes - I expected it to open with whatever program I specified - just as Explorer will do in Windows or Nautilus in Ubuntu. My comments resulted from my surprise that I was unable to set AVIs to open with VLC despite my numerous attempts.

      And I apologize that I wasn't very clear. I was pretty limited time-wise and didn't remember the exact wording or process. However, I know I did "right click, get info, open with, change all" since that's pretty much the same way it works in Windows - and the same way I set MKVs to play in VLC earlier - on the same machine.

      But I think another Slashdot reader has posted the solution:

      "I believe you're running into a "feature" that's causing some confusion. If you manually change a document's open with application it segregates itself from the pool of documents that change when you hit "change all" on other documents. In case it's 12:30 and I'm not making sense I'll give an example...

      You have a.tif, b.tif, and c.tif. The default program for opening .tif files is Preview and all three files in question are opening with the default. You change a.tif to open with Photoshop. You then change b.tif to open with Firefox and hit the "change all" button. You'd then be left with b and c.tif opening in Firefox, and a.tif opening in Photoshop because you changed it manually from the default. At some point in the future hitting change all on a.tif will both return it to the default pool along with b and c and change the default .tif program to whatever a.tif is set to at that moment.

      I think for one reason or another these avi files think they're all out of the pool. You can change the files already on your drive to use the default quickly by using the Find command to find all files ending in .avi on the computer, then hitting select all and then command-option-i to bring up the inspector. Then change them to open with the program of your choice and hit change all.

      Hope this helps, works, makes sense, and wasn't too wordy (I don't know how well you know your way around the MacOS so I explained a bit more than usual)."

    36. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      When I "Right Click, Get Info, Open With, Change All" it changes the icon of the individual file to a VLC icon, and will in fact play with VLC. However, it doesn't change the default program or icon for any other AVIs.

      That's why I believe the problem is the one I posted above.

    37. Re:OS X needs VLC by stevelup · · Score: 1

      Very odd indeed. I wonder if it is something to do with the fact that the files are on a Windows network share - can't see why that would matter but it's a possibility.

      I know this is no help but it works fine here...

    38. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was weird.

      But there is also the issue that you must actually mount a Windows share. This requires manually mounting the share each time you want to use it, or doing so when the machine turns on. The problem with the latter solution is that it wont' work if the shares aren't available 24/7 as it will lead to numerous errors about being unable to mount the shares.

      I don't really understand why OS X and Linux treat shares this way. In Windows, you can access shares simply through a desktop shortcut, or by "\\hostname\share" or "\\IP address\share\". In addition, all computers which have enabled file & print sharing automatically show up on the network.

      Homegroup makes the process even easier as it automatically displays any member of the homegroup, allows sharing of libraries rather than simply folders, and allows remote searching of the host's index - allowing for instant searches including full-text search of documents.

      Is there any way to access a Windows share without mounting the share? Alternatively, can a shortcut be added to the desktop to mount the share, rather than the "Go > Connect to Server --> Mount share" method. I honestly can't see my roommate doing this manually.

    39. Re:OS X needs VLC by stevelup · · Score: 1

      That I can help with hopefully! Two ways:-

      Geeky way - which has the advantage that the share is mounted at startup and available to all users:-

      Get a command prompt up and do: sudo nano /etc/fstab

      Add a line like this:-

      hostname:/movies x url net,automounted,url==cifs://guest:@hostname/movies 0 0

      Where 'hostname' is the name of your Windows box and 'movies' is the name of the share. You'll then find the shares in /Network/Servers

      Easy way - which is almost certainly adequate:-

      Mount your shares the usual way.

      Go to System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items and drag your shares into the Login Items.

    40. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      I did the latter:

      Mount your shares the usual way.

      Go to System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items and drag your shares into the Login Items.

      The problem with this solution is that the Windows system is not on 24/7. It's on perhaps 12 hours a day. So, when the OS X machine logs on, and can't connect, it spits out numerous error messages annoying said Mac user. This resulted in me quickly disabling that option.

      Would the result be different using the /etc/fstab method?

    41. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      Let me describe how it works in Windows 7 as my request may not be clear. From my reading on the topic, I simply don't think it's possible from the GUI.

      Windows Explorer has a "Homegroup" and a "Network" tab which is automatically populated with available networked machines. When I resume my laptop from standby, within about 5 seconds I see "Jason (Jason-Laptop) pop up in the Homegroup and Network section.

      See an example below:

      http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/322/homegroup.png

      In addition, I can aggregate folders with the same type of data into a single "Library". For example I have a Television and a Movie library on my desktop. The former contains 3 folders spanning 3 hard drives while the latter contains 2 folders spanning 2 hard drives. Rather than showing as Television1, Television2, Television3, Windows 7 merely shows the single library. If you drag a file to the library, it copies to the default directory (specified when you create the library). I doubt this is supported in any OS other than Win 7.

    42. Re:OS X needs VLC by stevelup · · Score: 1

      Yes, the autofs (fstab) method would work as you require it to.

      Each time you attempt to enter the mount point, it will try and connect to the Windows share if it is not already connected, and will fail silently if it can't.

      You'll just see an empty folder if the Windows box is not available.

    43. Re:OS X needs VLC by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      Great, I'll try that then!

    44. Re:OS X needs VLC by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      MKV is the default container format for Handbrake, one of the most popular DVD-ripping programs around. It's very common practice to rip DVD:s to MKV with unscaled H.264 video, all audio tracks and all subtitles and put them in a HTPC or other external media player (Popcorn Hour, etc). You'll even get to keep the chapter markings. Yes, MKV is also the container format of choice for the HD pirate "scene" but that doesn't mean it doesn't also have legitimate uses.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    45. Re:OS X needs VLC by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I worked in the professional video field for 5 years - when I say quicktime played back mpeg2 and mpeg files, that's what I mean - files the end with the extension mpg and mp2, as generated by Compressor right out of FCP exports.

      Quicktime supports the mpeg container.

      If Windows 7 ships with mpeg2 playback that is finally good news - like you said, XP and earlier did not, so if you added an OEM DVD drive you could not play DVDs unless you purchased a DVD playing app (or one came bundled with the drive). If you bought a machine with a drive already in it then it usually shipped with PowerDVD or some other third party software that provided the mp2 playback.

    46. Re:OS X needs VLC by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      So what's the problem? Extra hoops? It does work when you do that.

      (Or you could just use Perian for Xvid)

    47. Re:OS X needs VLC by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      So to summarize your post:

      1) OS X is good at backwards compatibility
      2) But your glad OS X has no backwards compatibility
      3) Even if the program still runs in Windows for the next 20 years, if there are no active developers it's dead anyway
      4) The word "dead" as used in this thread means something different than the word dead

      Point 4 is the only one that's making any sort of sense to me. But thanks for the long-winded, self-contradictory response. I hope you receive your Steve Job Happy Fun Bux soon.

    48. Re:OS X needs VLC by letsief · · Score: 1

      Perian's own page, my own experience, and numerous posts scattered over the internet say Perian only adds the ability to play the mpeg2 codec, not MPEG-PS or MPEG-TS. To play those containers, you need Apple's MPEG component, which costs extra. You're the only person that has ever claimed to me that Quicktime+Perian can play MPEG files without additional software. Maybe some of your video software came with Apple's MPEG component.

      And yes, Windows 7 does indeed ship with MPEG2 and MPEG4 decoders. A very simple google search will confirm that if you don't believe me.

    49. Re:OS X needs VLC by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      No, I'm claiming that Quicktime on its own can play mpeg files, which has been the case for any Mac I have ever owned (even ones without FCP installed).

      It won't play mpeg2 files without the extra codec from apple, that is installed either via FCP, or buy buying it standalone (or getting it from perian).

      And I believe you on the Windows 7 codecs - I just haven't personally used it. My experiences with Windows stop at XP with a little bit of Vista Home basic.

    50. Re:OS X needs VLC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked in the professional video field for 5 years - when I say quicktime played back mpeg2 and mpeg files, that's what I mean - files the end with the extension mpg and mp2, as generated by Compressor right out of FCP exports.

      QuickTime player never played back MPEG-2 unless you bought the playback component. If you had FCP installed, you got the MPEG-2 support included.

      http://www.apple.com/quicktime/mpeg2/

    51. Re:OS X needs VLC by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is what I have said in every post I have made in this thread.

    52. Re:OS X needs VLC by letsief · · Score: 1

      I think I might know why we're disagreeing. MPEG can mean lots and lots of things. As we already know, its often used to describe a codec and a container. But really, there are multiple containers that sometimes go by MPEG for short, since they all come out of the MPEG standard.

      There's the MPEG version 1 container, which Quicktime does support out-of-the-box. Then there's the MPEG-Program Stream container, which I thought was the same thing until today (it might just be a that these are different versions of a similar type, basically MPEG-1-PS and MPEG-2-PS, but I'm not sure). However, Quicktime cannot read MPEG-PS files. There's also the MPEG-Transport Stream, although that usually doesn't get confused with the other two as much, since it usually doesn't have a .mpg extension.

      Its my understanding that Perian doesn't add support for any of these containers. Quicktime includes support for MPEG-1-PS. Apple's Quicktime MPEG Component adds support for both the MPEG2 decoder and the MPEG-2-PS container. But, as far as I know, there's no way to get support for MPEG-Transport Streams. Apple explicitly says they don't support it.

      In addition, Final Cut Pro includes the Apple Quicktime MPEG Component. So, if you're able to play back mpg files, its probably because either they're not MPEG-PS files, or it's because you already have the MPEG component installed.

      I came to this conclusion by trying to play back different .mpg files, and using MediaInfo to figure out what the format/container was used for each file. Then I did some searching online to make sure what I found was consistent with the MPEG page on Wikipedia, Apple's MPEG Component page, and Perian's page.

      Does that sound right to you?

    53. Re:OS X needs VLC by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I believe it does, since I've never heard anyone specifically distinguish between mpeg and mpeg-ps, and I've never met an mpeg (1) file I couldn't play, although I don't come across them often. We did have one client who specifically wanted a series of clips to be in mpeg1 format for backwards compatibility with their current systems and we had no issues with it in Quicktime, so whatever codecs Apple ships with the player by default worked just fine.

    54. Re:OS X needs VLC by Kuruk · · Score: 1

      So, basically, you're mad that it won't play your pirated movies out of the box?

      Yes is that to much to ask for :)

  22. GC or the GPU acceleration, both have issues by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Mysterious (and ignored) thing is, Adobe won't implement GPU acceleration on Flash beta 10.1 on OS X citing "not stable interface" or "not enough documentation"... Whatever, the reality is, a Mac Mini with NV9400M can play 1080p Flash video with 3% CPU load under Windows Vista/XP/7 but it will choke the CPU (no matter how powerful) on OS X. As far as I understand, GPU accelerated version is either available or soon to be available under x86/Linux too.

    Game developers, once interested in GC figured "once you write for GC, it will be OS X only" and they stay away too.

    Apple made a big mistake acting like Microsoft. They should have released GC simultaneously on both OS X and Windows, with decent developer support and they could become de-facto standard for multi core/GPU acceleration which game developers are dying for. Of course, it would be really hard but not impossible.

    1. Re:GC or the GPU acceleration, both have issues by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the video acceleration API on OSX is called.

      GCD has nothing to do with accelerated video. Preemptively, neither does OpenCL.

      The limited GCD documentation I've read looks like it would be amenable to simple approaches for conditional compiling. (I.e. #IFDEFs around the GCD stuff). I can't imagine an API more friendly to sharing code with another multi-processing API. Similarly, I can't imagine how this is more difficult than porting a game from XBox 360 to PS3, or vice-versa.

      Again, this is way out of my realm of expertise, but I think that GCD is fundamentally kernel-based. I don't see how Apple can schedule cores on Windows.

      -Peter

    2. Re:GC or the GPU acceleration, both have issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or maybe they wanted to try and get more game developers to start developing games for mac only... and provided great tools to developers to entice them away from a pc development environment

    3. Re:GC or the GPU acceleration, both have issues by straponego · · Score: 1

      Last I saw Adobe was denying that there are any standards for video acceleration (VDPAU) on Linux as well. And they seem to be pretty confident that 64 bit is just a fad. But hey, you gotta wait at least a decade to see how these things shake out.

    4. Re:GC or the GPU acceleration, both have issues by Cormophyte · · Score: 1

      I don't want to be trollish or a dick or anything...but that doesn't make any sense. Grand Central Dispatch's purpose is to provide a unified and efficient way to write multithreaded programs for OSX. I'm not sure why they would develop that for Windows. That's more of Microsoft's core OS division's job, not Apple's.

    5. Re:GC or the GPU acceleration, both have issues by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what a silly statement. Does any other OS ship with built in support for the only open standard for GPGPU computing (OpenCL)? There's also OpenGL and CoreVideo, if Adobe prefers, which have been part of OS X for years.

  23. Job Market... by ghostis · · Score: 1

    I suspect they will find more development help when the job market improves (hopefully soon)... :-/

    --


    Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
  24. VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you really joking? VLC is the most successful open source project on Mac, forever. It even beats Firefox.

    Here is a top sw downloads listing from absolutely general user focused download site: http://www.macupdate.com/popular/

    VLC has also become de-facto remote controlled Apple OS X software for iPhone/iPod users. Those are the true "walled garden" lovers/ignorers.

    VLC should look at their community, IRC channel, developer public comments for why on earth their developer level dropped to zero with such amazing success. Imagine you are a multimedia developer, is there anything more visible and easy to contribute than VLC? Get a CVS pwd, start showing off with your coding capabilities... Really interesting... I suspect some bad treatment to Mac users/Developers going on. BTW, they should look at pure numbers, not some troll/idiot comments from some download sites or blogs. They are currently de facto standard multimedia player on OS X. They should figure this fact if not already.

    PS: Not a big VLC fan really while it saves us all the time at TV. I personally use Coreplayer OS X which is really really unpopular and commercial application which does amazing things like playing 720P HD/H264 on G4 1.42 Ghz.

    1. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by ubersoldat2k7 · · Score: 1

      Then have Apple invest in this thing. Oh wait, I'll seat here until the laugh at this proposition. It's Apple, best thing they would do is hack the shit out of VLC and make iVLC only for Mac. Apple, so much hate at you people.

    2. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by ivoras · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you really joking? VLC is the most successful open source project on Mac, forever. It even beats Firefox.

      Here is a top sw downloads listing from absolutely general user focused download site: http://www.macupdate.com/popular/

      VLC has also become de-facto remote controlled Apple OS X software for iPhone/iPod users. Those are the true "walled garden" lovers/ignorers.

      VLC should look at their community, IRC channel, developer public comments for why on earth their developer level dropped to zero with such amazing success.

      Because "true Apple lovers" are mostly either multimedia designers, artists, writers or just ordinary users with more money than sense, and not down-in-the-trenches C/C++ developers? It will really be interesting to see how this story with VLC develops. I bet VLC would be even more successful on Mac if they charged $39.99 for it.

      Actually, I think this would be a good point to make with the developers: create a "VLC Gold" edition for Mac, which will be basically the same with some fancy Apple-like UI tweak or just a logo change, and charge for it. This way development gets funded and people get the warm fuzzy feeling of actually buying something good.

      --
      -- Sig down
    3. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by EXrider · · Score: 1

      Coreplayer OS X ... which does amazing things like playing 720P HD/H264 on G4 1.42 Ghz.

      Why am I only seeing an x86 version available for Mac OS X then?

      --
      grep -iw skynet /etc/services
    4. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience, most Linux users aren't down-in-the-trenches C/C++ (or any language) developers either.

    5. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I bet VLC would be even more successful on Mac if they charged $39.99 for it.

      Hm. If I were a freelance Mac developer, and thought you were right, I'd consider supporting a commercial version. Of course, anybody could take my source code and compile it without paying me, but I'll bet a lot of people would pay either because they think I deserve the money or they just don't know any better.

    6. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Oh you mean like they did with the iPod and iTunes, making it Mac only and stopping anyone else from... oh wait no.

      Or Quicktime, which is Mac only and no one else can... oh wait.

      Err, surely Safari, based on KHTML, taken like candy from a baby from OSS and then made Mac only!!! mwuhahahahahaha! oh wait.....

      Sorry, any more? The evil empire building isn't going so well.

    7. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you didn't mean to be offensive but trust me, this "mac users like expensive software with apple logo" like things doesn't help anyone.

      "Mac users" you see have chosen a Mach/BSD/NeXTStep schizophrenically hybrid OS over an OS used by 90% of population. If you remove "Apple" friendly logo and UI, OS X is exactly that. So, if something is good, they use it. In fact, they keep using it. Macs without VLC is a rare thing...

      The article doesn't speak about lack of funding or users not already donating. The article and the signs lately shows a mysterious lack of Mac developers/packagers for some reason. It is really mysterious if you ask me and no, Mac users doesn't give 40 dollars to a media player no matter how great it can be. Some German company learned it hard way and they still keep ignoring that lesson.

    8. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's a user community. and if the community is nothing but a bunch of whining users, they need to pay their suppliers.

      meanwhile, vlc, mplayer, gstreamer (totem), and xine all work fine on any linux you choose

    9. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      Does anyone actually use Quicktime for video playback in Windows? The first thing I do after installing iTunes is to disable the Quicktime plugin in Firefox. The WMP plugin is far superior in functionality and is less annoying, to boot.

    10. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by Narcogen · · Score: 1

      Are you really joking? VLC is the most successful open source project on Mac, forever. It even beats Firefox.

      Here is a top sw downloads listing from absolutely general user focused download site: http://www.macupdate.com/popular/

      VLC has also become de-facto remote controlled Apple OS X software for iPhone/iPod users. Those are the true "walled garden" lovers/ignorers.

      VLC should look at their community, IRC channel, developer public comments for why on earth their developer level dropped to zero with such amazing success.

      There's no need to because it's not a question. The answer is because there is, within the framework of any Open Source community, no essential relation between any measurement of a project's success and any measurement of its participation.

      In commercial development, this relationship is simple-- it is provided by cash. More users means more income, more income means more resources to pay more programmers to continue to develop and support the project.

      When the project is free for any and all to use (free as in beer) and participation in the project is based on "scratch your own itch" there is no relationship at all between the two.

      Developers scratching their own itch on a project they need for their own use can continue working for years on a project that may have little or no application outside of a small community of like-minded developers with similar needs. Likewise, a fantastically popular application like VLC can eventually hit a brick wall when it finds there are no developers with itches that require scratching on a particular platform.

    11. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      Really interesting... I suspect some bad treatment to Mac users/Developers going on.

      It's also possible that Mac developers are self centred faggots too busy developing the next piece of shitty shareware or iPhone based fart generator to even consider contributing to an open source project. Also most Mac users dislike open source software because it doesn't look right and they'd be embarrassed to be seen using it in Starbucks.

      Hopefully VLC for the Mac dies out and you'll all be forced to use iTunes/Quicktime. That would be pretty sweet IMO, because then you'd have to pretend that they are great pieces of software even though you know they are not. Will hopefully lead to some psychotic breakdowns and maybe even someone going postal in an Apple store.

    12. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Probably some people. The point is that it is available for Windows users if they want it (or forced on them if they want to use an iPod or iPhone, depending on who you ask), thus it is being actively developed for platforms other than Mac by Apple, which is a far cry from "slapping an i in front of the name and making it Mac only" as the GP asserts Apple would do "in the best case scenario".

    13. Re:VLC is an amazing, gigantic success on OS X by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      Hey, why not? We all paid $34 for QuickTime Pro, some of us multiple freeking times.

      Mac users don't expect to get everything for free. You can call that "having more money than sense" or you can call it "not being a programmer, so willing to pay programmers." Either way, plenty of people would pay for VLC.

      But I'm afraid that if they start taking money for it, they will also have to start obeying the dmca and patent laws, and then it will be just as shitty as QuickTime player, but without the ability to edit video.

      Maybe Google could throw some interns at it?

  25. Re:Let it die by nine-times · · Score: 1

    I seriously don't know what you're talking about. I use VLC all the time, and find it impressive how wide a variety of formats it will play without any problems. It plays damned near everything and never crashes. The UI might not be completely Mac-like, but it's not as horrible as some ports.

    Overall, I'll be unhappy if VLC development for OSX stops.

  26. You miss my point by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For plugins like Flash and high end commercial games, engine conversion, FreeBSD is irrelevant. What I talk about is something which will run under MS Visual Studio based development environment, whatever game developers/plugin developers use.

    Of course, FreeBSD will have GC just like they have launchd but it won't really matter to some game developer or a plugin developer like Adobe.

    1. Re:You miss my point by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Apple has open sourced GCD. If you can't use it on your platform of choice, you should talk to whoever writes/sells that platform. GCD in particular really needs to be implemented as part of the OS.

      I mean seriously, Windows doesn't implement an open source system API and so you're blaming Apple?

      Oh, and PS, Flash 10.1 (a beta of which is available) includes GPU acceleration.

    2. Re:You miss my point by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I suspect that it would be trivial to reimplement Grand Central APIs on top of MS Parallel Patterns Library, for example. The core concepts seem to be the same. It probably won't be quite as efficient, because PPL doesn't have a system-wide thread scheduler, but that is, technically, a quality-of-implementation issue, and wouldn't restrict the ability to port code written to use GCD.

      Also, since GCD is open source, it may be just ported to Windows in its entirety.

    3. Re:You miss my point by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      Grand Central seems to be closer to Windows I/O Completion Ports (PostQueuedCompletionStatus, etc.)

    4. Re:You miss my point by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So far as I can tell, dispatch sources specifically are analogous to completion ports. But GCD tasks seem to directly correspond to PPL tasks, and GCD dispatch groups are PPL task groups.

    5. Re:You miss my point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These same game developers think the XBox & 360 present a wildly divergent development platform that's so completely different from what they're used to that they marvel that anyone can ever produce any games, ever.

      Basically these people are so green to game development that they make the rest of us sick. The idea that someone would code games in assembler probably gives them nightmares, yet that's how it was done for decades before they took one too many tokes off a bong and decided to go into game development.

      My point is that just because some jackass has opinions like the one you've expressed doesn't mean they're not a jackass. Not everything can come pre-chewed into the pablum form they demand, so the sooner these retards scamper off and stop fucking up the game industry, the more healthy that industry will become.

  27. Re:Does VLC really have any advantages over Perian by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    Seriously, with Perian you can pretty much play any video that plays in VLC in QuickTime, which also means that you can integrate it into all the other OS X apps(such as iTunes, iDVD etc). With VLC you are pretty much stuck using the VLC video player, which has a horrendous interface....

    try opening any large matroska file in quicktime, call me in a few days when it loads under perian. Until the perian team can hack their way around that little problem their plugin will not measure up unfortunately.

    It's a great idea, but it's not quite there yet, even though it performs admirably for smaller files and I do have it installed : )

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  28. I'll help! by MrCrassic · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wanted to respond directly to the person who put this post up, but I don't want to register for yet another forum.

    I'll gladly help develop for the project. My knowledge in video and audio processing is very weak (I took a class on it, but I didn't really put too much work into it), but my skills in C and C++ are pretty good (but not expert). I'm also pretty well-versed in Java, though it's been a while since I needed to whip it out. Finally, I'm slowly, but surely, learning Objective-C.

    Please e-mail me at the address listed here. I don't want to see this die! I just migrated over to OS X and find this app extremely helpful, especially from my use of it in Windows.

    1. Re:I'll help! by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

      Sorry to respond to my own post, but if you feel compelled to help too, reply to this! It'd be pretty cool to get a team going. -mrc

    2. Re:I'll help! by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      I submitted the story. I'm not a member of the dev team, but give the popularity of VLC on this platform it absolutely astounded me this issue had not appeared on a major news site yet.

      The forum thread linked from the article suggests you present yourself to the developer mailing list.

      here is a list of all the videolan project's mailing lists - I believe the one they want you to contact them through is vlc-devel

      Thank you for offering, i'd do so myself if i were not utterly sub-novice.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    3. Re:I'll help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Check out

      http://www.videolan.org/developers/

      I have dealt with the "previous" Mac developers, and they are nice, pleasant people. As far as I understand, the Mac "port" of VLC is basically a Cocoa/Mac-goodness wrapper around libvlc, the library all the VL clients are based on. libvlc is developed by a different team of volunteers, under the auspices of the VideoLan Project (like the VideoLan Clients are). So you probably won't see too much video or audio processing as a VLC Mac developer unless you go out of your way to find some (or volunteer for the libvlc team too).

    4. Re:I'll help! by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I'd totally help test and debug. I've not done any professional work in C/C++ and I've never done any video/audio work. I dont' want to see VLC die. It's one of my favorite applications.

    5. Re:I'll help! by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I might be able to help more then I thought then...

    6. Re:I'll help! by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Even if you can't help directly on the Mac side, contributing to the core code base still helps.

      A few things general things outside the core include improving the VLC plugin and possibly VLCKit. The latter is a solution intended at allowing VLC to be integrated into other Cocoa based applications. Think of this as a component that you could use in Interface Builder, as then eventually lay the path for revamping the VLC UI on the Mac. There are plenty of ideas for a better Mac UI, but unfortunately the people who are good at designing UIs aren't necessarily the same people who are good at the lower level code.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    7. Re:I'll help! by swamp+boy · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy to help with the Cocoa work, though I don't have any specific knowledge or experience with audio/video processing.

      paul at swampbits dot com

    8. Re:I'll help! by rsidd · · Score: 1

      Rather than hope the VLC developers will read this, you could, you know, e-mail vlc-devel@videolan.org? You don't need to register to do that, and it is what the story asks you to do.

  29. A different view from a developer by rbrito · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (This message may be seen as inflammatory, but I assure you that it is just my opinion and not particularly anybody else---I don't speak for the projects on which I participate).

    Hi.

    I am not a developer of VLC, but I am part of the LAME team (that MP3 encoder that a good amount of people use). I see similar problems regarding LAME as those described by the VLC team: lack of continuous power and resources.

    Some users just magically think that "oh, this program won't exist anymore, so let's use this other one". The sad thing here is that they are shortsighted in the fact that they, by doing nothing (just receiving the programs), are not giving the incentive for the projects.

    What about if the proposed alternative dies a few days from now? The amount of alternatives is finite.

    Not only that, but the major players out there all share the same codebase: there are "incestuous" (in a good sene of the word) relations with VLC, xine, and mplayer: the all use, to some extent or another (well, in some cases, to the full extent) some common libraries: ffmpeg, libmp3lame, theora, vorbis, dirac, x264 and so on.

    Usually, also, the players also send some feedback to the people writing the libraries and, without them, the libraries would not be as good as they are. And the feedback that developers provide is, not infrequently, in form of patches, or constructive suggestions. Some users, like the one above, just cares less and, honestly, where would you just "grab the extra codec" if they all, come, essentially, from the first place?

    If you didn't know, perhaps it is a good reminder to put here that people from the VLC project developed the nice libdvdcss library, which benefited xine and mplayer, while people in the other projects have directly or indirectly benefited the others.

    I would not like to have the "Linux desktop" mainstream with a "community" with a person that doesn't want a community. For people that are more altruistic (and that show it, instead of just playing in slashdot all day), I am open to a more open talk.

    [Gee, from what I wrote the above, it seems like if I only saw Linux---I actually value the other Unix-like operating systems as much].

    I guess that what I meant to say here is: "Talk is cheap. Show me the code. Don't wish the death of what you may proudly use and not even know".

    Regards, Rogério Brito.

    1. Re:A different view from a developer by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Macs are so expensive.

      I get really tired of this cliche. Are Macs more expensive? Yes. Are they hugely more expensive? Generally not, assuming you compare components and form factor. I've done the comparison many times, and I'm not going to spoon feed it to you, but it you configure a Lenovo or a Dell with the same specs and options, and the right version of Windows, then the Mac is 15% to 25% more.

      Your assertion that

      Mac users are so willing to spend that they will just go buy the proprietary solution

      is demonstrably false, and can be easily verified via Google. If that were the case how do you explain solutions like handbreak, cyberduck, and many other shareware/open source solutions?

      the only thing that might make sense in your post are things like Photoshop, Logic Pro and apps like that. There are no open source apps that come close to Photoshop, for example, and don't lay the Gimp on me. I've used it, and for what it is it's nice, but doesn't come close to matching Photoshop

      mod parent -1 troll

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    2. Re:A different view from a developer by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, customers are not nice people. If you're doing open source for your personal satisfaction or as a way to increase your experience as a developer, then you'll most likely be happy. If you're bothered by a user base that expects things free, good, and delivered yesterday, then you should probably think about revising your business model.

      There will always be something to replace VLC, or even LAME. It may not always be free, and you may not always be completely satisfied with it, but whoever develops the code, no matter how noble or altruistic their effort may be, will most likely go unappreciated by 90% of the community. That's the price you pay for wanting to make such software, be it LAME, Linux, or whatever, the de facto standard. You just have to learn how to tune out the noise.

      That being said, if VLC doesn't lack for users, it falls on the developers to step up or walk away. If it can't attract developers, then perhaps there simply isn't a mainstream need for VLC's specific feature set; perhaps it has outlived its usefulness, or its most useful features aren't really that useful after all. If it falls by the wayside, another free or commercial solution will crop up to replace it, with varying degrees of quality. Old code bases will most likely be recycled or built upon. A few people may remember the original programmers and express their appreciation for all their hard work in the past, but more likely they'll complain that their predecessors were hacks who wouldn't know elegant code from a hole in the ground. That's the reality of software development on any platform.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    3. Re:A different view from a developer by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I would be glad to help, but sadly I have no experience developing multimedia applications and jumping into would likely result in a big waste of time for all involved. If they just need someone to compile in xcode and bug test, I'm all over it.

    4. Re:A different view from a developer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 Troll In particular, open source is quite alive and well on Mac. Mac is great for development with a unix base and a polished interface, it's the best of both commercial and free. You posted AC because you know you're full of poop. (Personally I just don't want to be associated with feeding trolls.)

    5. Re:A different view from a developer by Altus · · Score: 1

      every little bit helps right? If nothing else there has to be a lot of non multimedia code that probably includes a lot of mac specific interfaces. Sure its only part of it, but with enough people doing enough different parts before you know it you have a dev team.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    6. Re:A different view from a developer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine the issue is largely cultural. Windows and Mac OS X don't particularly inspire open source developers since they are not themselves open source. Windows still gets considerable open source love for various reasons, mostly stemming from market share, but also Microsoft only releases commercial software, never crippleware. Apple otoh has always inspired crippleware developers by releasing crippleware themselves, ala Quicktime, and recently created their iPhone App Store. Is it any wonder open source developers are rare under Mac OS X?

      I cannot RtFA since videolan.org is toast now, but I'd imagine the X11 version will still largely support Mac OS X. I've not use mplayer recently but VLC supports vastly more formats than competing native Mac OS X products.

    7. Re:A different view from a developer by The+J+Kid · · Score: 1

      Well, Rogério Brito,

      Hi.

      I am not a developer, but I do care. I do know about the "incestuous" relationships of the media playing libraries in the OSS world. I do know that having one alternative less is a bad thing, especially in the long run. I'm also very grateful for LAME and don't "wish the death of" any one of the projects you mentioned.

      I do provide feedback to OSS developers, hopefully in the form of constructive suggestions. Maybe not media related ones, as that isn't my forté, but others. I've petitioned daringfireball to bring some attention to the matter. He reaches a lot of Mac devs. I think I'll try that Delicious Monster guy next.

      My post above was not about dancing on the grave of the traffic cone, but to provide a service to the community: to share with other people an alternative way of playing media well that they may not know about, as I have only recently (re-)discovered Mplayer OSX Extended.

      I guess that what I meant to say to you is: "Don't shit all over people you don't know and have only read one sentence of."

      Signed, "user like the one above"

      --
      Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
  30. Volume Amp is a VLC-only feature by rsborg · · Score: 1
    Quicktime + Perian can't solve my "source videos are unusually low in volume, or my laptop speakers suck"... which happens a lot. VLC is nice in that the volume slider goes to 4x.

    I also have never had issues with playback in VLC where QT+Perian did any better.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Volume Amp is a VLC-only feature by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      I also have never had issues with playback in VLC where QT+Perian did any better.

      I've had some instances of that. On the other hand i've had instances where VLC won't play something properly that Perian will. Good points about the volume, though, and I think it's great that VLC is around. When it's needed, it is nice to have around and I hope they find at least one developer.

    2. Re:Volume Amp is a VLC-only feature by tenton · · Score: 1

      You can boost QT's volume playback by a little over 100%, though. Just hold Shift + Command + up arrow and QT will just let you set the volume louder than 100%. If you change the volume slider, it'll jump back down. I think it's either 150% or 200%; I forget how high it goes.

    3. Re:Volume Amp is a VLC-only feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QT = Cross platform library from Trolltech.
      QuickTime = Video Player from Apple.

      QT does not have a volume slider unless you make one.

    4. Re:Volume Amp is a VLC-only feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be "Qt", actually.

  31. VLC is the linsux of media players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    He's 100% right though. Apple already owns the online music distribution and playing industry and the high end professional computing industry (programming, design, scientific computing, high performance computing, etc.. basically anyone who needs a computer for serious work), so taking over the video industry is the next natural step. Open Source toys like VLC really cannot compete at a professional level with stuff like Quicktime because it has an order of magnitude superior design, usability, security and testing behind it. You freetards really should get a clue.

    1. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple already owns the online music distribution and playing industry and the high end professional computing industry (programming, design, scientific computing, high performance computing, etc.. basically anyone who needs a computer for serious work)

      Wow, what are you smoking?

      Open Source toys like VLC really cannot compete at a professional level with stuff like Quicktime

      Wait, Quicktime is your example of a successful "professional" Apple tool?

      You're being sarcastic, right? C'mon, stop playing...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by node+3 · · Score: 2

      Apple already owns the online music distribution and playing industry and the high end professional computing industry (programming, design, scientific computing, high performance computing, etc.. basically anyone who needs a computer for serious work)

      Wow, what are you smoking?

      Depends on what he means by "owns", and ignoring the hyperbole (the "serious work" part is especially egregious, just like when "business" or gamers make the same claim in reverse), he's got a point. The programming one is a bit confusing, but the others are pretty accurate.

      Open Source toys like VLC really cannot compete at a professional level with stuff like Quicktime

      Wait, Quicktime is your example of a successful "professional" Apple tool?

      You're being sarcastic, right? C'mon, stop playing...

      If he means QuickTime, then he's correct. Odds are any movie you see and song you hear made its way through QuickTime.

      If instead he means the QuickTime Player, then his point really depends on the point of view. From the point of a view of a video player that has a "swiss army knife" utility to it, VLC tramples QuickTime Player, but in terms of both UI, and quality of the codecs it does support, QuickTime Player handily beats VLC. This is on the Mac, of course. On Windows, I suspect the UI aspect isn't as starkly contrasted, and while QuickTime Player may be more polished than VLC, VLC is more Windows-ish.

    3. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by Delkster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Depends on what he means by "owns", and ignoring the hyperbole (the "serious work" part is especially egregious, just like when "business" or gamers make the same claim in reverse), he's got a point. The programming one is a bit confusing, but the others are pretty accurate.

      No, they aren't. High-performance computing most certainly isn't a strong area for Apple, with Linux being probably the most used platform and other Unix systems and Windows coming somewhere behind. While Macs are certainly used for some scientific modeling and visualisation tasks, I'm not aware of a particularly market share, definitely not to the point of "owning" the market.

      In the end, the only item on his list that stands is "design", with a lot of programmers also using Macs nowadays but I wouldn't say they dominate at that either.

    4. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by crbowman · · Score: 1

      As much as I wish it weren't the case, Apple owns virtually none of the EDA (Electronic Design Automation) industry. Which is basically the industry that builds software to help engineers design PCB circuit boards and chips or FPGAs.

    5. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by atmurray · · Score: 1

      Moreover, most of the EDA industry doesn't port their software to MacOS. Even linux get's more attention from the EDA industry than MacOS (although this isn't surprising, considering the strong Unix roots of much of the software). Even Mathwork's Matlab for MacOS is a poor hack job of an X port of the linux version of their software.

    6. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try spice modeling for free on a Mac for a while. Either it's $10,000, a kludge, or both. I hope linear ports LTSpice someday!

    7. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Basically my rule of thumb is that any industry that does not use Mac's exclusively for their computing infrastructure is not a serious industry."

      There must not be very many "serious" industries out there given the Mac's market share. It's OK though, those "non-serious" industries still make some "serious" dough.

    8. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Open Source toys like VLC really cannot compete at a professional level with stuff
      > like Quicktime because it has an order of magnitude superior design, usability,
      > security and testing behind it.

      Is that why people install VLC on MacOS so that they can deal with the formats and
      codecs that Apple has chosen to ignore for one bullsh*t reason or another?

      Without VLC and ffmpeg, it would be Mac users that are "left out in the cold".

      The idea that Quicktime is something that the users of other platforms should covet
      is a big fat joke.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Wow, what are you smoking?

      Lint from The Turtleneck.

    10. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      IHBT, but not even Apple uses Macs exclusively for their computing infrastructure.

    11. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I have installed quicktime to any XP install it has cause BSOD.

      Anon to avoid apple fan boy moderators.

    12. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Apple already owns the online music distribution and playing industry and the high end professional computing industry (programming, design, scientific computing, high performance computing, etc.. basically anyone who needs a computer for serious work)

      Wow, what are you smoking?

      Whatever it is, its a scary example of "your brain on Mac".

      They do dominate paid online music distribution. I am sure the volume of pirated plus legitimate free stuff is far greater - especially if you include podcasts and radio.

      I love the bit about Quicktime (and by implication all Apple stuff) being more secure than free software.

    13. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      I presume then that like me you have found yourself in the situation where too many "Ok" clicks when installing itunes against your will has led to Quicktime stealing all your media types?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    14. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you sure you aren't demented?

    15. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo mama so fat, she watch videos in Quicktime.

    16. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Odds are any movie you see and song you hear made its way through QuickTime.

      I'm not sure what you mean by "made its way through quicktime" but if you're trying to imply that quicktime is used at any level in professional film, video or music production you are wrong.

      Since about 2001, hardly any professional media producers are still using quicktime in production. There are just a ton of better tools available out there now.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by Divebus · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean by "made its way through quicktime" but if you're trying to imply that quicktime is used at any level in professional film, video or music production you are wrong.

      I'd dare say you know nothing about professional film, video or music. You'll need to account for the fact that nearly half of the media you see every day is run through Final Cut Pro, a nice front end for editing XML files which manipulate QuickTime movies... on a Mac. There is no Windows version, there is no Linux version. Less than a quarter of professional media is done on Avids. That's not to say Avid doesn't have a strong presence in the market, it means the market has gotten gigantic in the last decade (mostly due to Final Cut) and the Avid share has been dwarfed in place. There are a few other systems of course, like Quantel, but they're insignificant when compared to the power of The Force.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    18. Re:VLC is the linsux of media players by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      The idea that Quicktime is something that the users of other platforms should covet
      is a big fat joke.

      Final Cut Pro (one of, if not the most popular video editing packages on both the professional and amateur levels) is little more than a wrapper for the QuickTime libraries. It also works quite well on rather old hardware.

      Wrap your head around that, and rethink your statement. Whatever opinion you have about Quicktime that is based around the QT Player is irrelevant.

      I won't argue that Apple were dumb not to include certain codecs in some of the recent releases, although there are codecs such as Perian to solve this issue. However, as a professional video-editing library, Quicktime has no peers.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  32. AbiWord faces the same issue by msevior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are very few Open Source developers for OSX. Unfortunately we, AbiWord, have exactly the same issue. We *almost* had version 2.8 ready for OSX but we lost our lead OSX developer and there is no one to replace him. Rather than delay 2.8, we simply went ahead with 2.8 for Linux and Windows.

    1. Re:AbiWord faces the same issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah seems like all the good developers are very very commercial. Strange ecosystem on OS X

    2. Re:AbiWord faces the same issue by Salsaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have the same problem with the LiVES project. Over 3 years ago, I managed to compile the sourcecode for OSX/Darwin, it took a lot of fiddling around, but it worked. I excitedly posted the news on the website and mailing lists, but no OSX users seemed interested. Since then, the code has changed a lot, fixes were made for it to compile on IRIX and Solaris.
       
      Recently somebody posted a forum message noting how easy it now is to compile under OSX. I again posted this news, and asked if somebody could kindly compile it and send me a link to the resulting binary. Since then...nothing. Hence I have come to a conclusion about OSX users...well, I will let you guess what it is.

    3. Re:AbiWord faces the same issue by daybot · · Score: 1

      We have to pay for our shiny devices somehow :P

    4. Re:AbiWord faces the same issue by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      A crying shame too. AbiWord has always been a great resource. Thanks for all the years of hard work.

    5. Re:AbiWord faces the same issue by Graff · · Score: 1

      Recently somebody posted a forum message noting how easy it now is to compile under OSX [sourceforge.net]. I again posted this news, and asked if somebody could kindly compile it and send me a link to the resulting binary. Since then...nothing. Hence I have come to a conclusion about OSX users...well, I will let you guess what it is.

      That most Mac OS X users already have the free iMovie that comes with their computer and never heard of your program because they don't have a need for it?

      You probably have such an amazingly low amount of interested Mac OS X users that the magic combination of people with the proper knowledge, hardware, time, and caring doesn't add up to a single person. Dunno what happened to the guy who posted, maybe some day he'll come back.

    6. Re:AbiWord faces the same issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Well I have a Mac & I'm intrigued enough to try compiling this tomorrow....

    7. Re:AbiWord faces the same issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess would be lazy fat gay hippies with too much money. Am I close or were you thinking of something else?

    8. Re:AbiWord faces the same issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I again posted this news, and asked if somebody could kindly compile it and send me a link to the resulting binary. Since then...nothing. Hence I have come to a conclusion about OSX users...well, I will let you guess what it is.

      Is it that the only OS X users who know about and are interested in the project feel comfortable compiling it themselves?

      I, for one, had never heard of LiVES until your post -- and while it looks interesting, probably doesn't do anything I'd want to do that I can't already do with the software bundled with my computer. This is probably why you aren't getting much feedback from OS X.

      This is also probably why VLC isn't getting as much dev support -- most devs that use OS X use it because they want a piece of technology that "just works" without having to maintain yet more code on their own time.

      As far as VLC for OS X goes, it's my guess that they need someone to do the GUI work, as the back end should be just as easy to compile as LiVES appears to be now. This means that all the satellite projects can still use the VLC libraries/code even if the Cocoa binary stops being maintained by the core team.

    9. Re:AbiWord faces the same issue by Graff · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a good thing that he posted to Slashdot. It definitely informs a larger base and increases the chance that someone will fit the criteria. I considered giving it a try too but I'm busy with work, school, and several projects right now.

      Honestly though, the implied insult to Mac OS X users didn't go far in convincing me to spend my time trying to get a build done for him. Maybe I read into his statement the wrong way but it certainly seemed like he didn't have a high opinion of Mac OS X users. I think that opinion is misplaced, the lack of interest in compiling a build probably lies less in the quality of Mac OS X users and more in the lack of a dire need for his software in the Mac OS X community.

    10. Re:AbiWord faces the same issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recently somebody posted a forum message noting how easy it now is to compile under OSX. I again posted this news, and asked if somebody could kindly compile it and send me a link to the resulting binary. Since then...nothing. Hence I have come to a conclusion about OSX users...well, I will let you guess what it is.

      ...That they've never heard of your little project, let alone read your postings on its forum?

      Ever heard of promotion??

  33. almost everything you've posted is wrong by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    With Perian installed (have you been living in a cave?) Quicktime handles every AVI, MPG, FLV, and MKV file I've thrown at it in years. Quicktime Player in Snow Leopard doesn't think it can open MKV files, but that's why you don't remove Quicktime Player 7 (there's an option for this in the upgrade, because QP7 does things the new QP can't.)

  34. mplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mplayer builds just fine on osx and is in macports. renders natively and is excellent, always been my favorite player over VLC.... http://mplayerosx.sttz.ch/ is kept up to date and has a nice gui for osx, I installed it for my girlfriend and was so impressed with it that I even occasionally use it!

  35. you are wrong by bussdriver · · Score: 4, Informative

    FYI:
    Quicktime is more than a player. It is a massive video library (with a larger code base than windows 95) used to power video editing etc. Its OLD and used to be the basis of nearly all video editing software. It has gotten stale and others have replaced it but it was the foundation for digital video for many years and its still around being used for this.

    The quicktime file format is the basis of the mp4 file format as well.
    It is a solid library with a lot of extendability for its size, age, and complexity - its in C and I've coded for it a little bit... like 10 years ago.

    What I see now is alternatives usually built around a single format library with an import/export system added on. This makes those easier to implement while quicktime has been open ended and not tied to any 1 format (other than its own container format) the timecode in quicktime is confusing because its not a video time code but an abstraction.

    Basically apple dropped the ball when they didn't open source the library years ago (and they did ask for public input for a short period without much attention given to it) now we have MKV containers and the zombee avi containers and many specialized libraries.

    Not much out there as far as I've seen that competes with the power of quicktime. It could have been the framework but it looks like mkv will be the open container and somebody will tie together enough libraries and codecs into a generalized framework--- or we'll just have to jam it all together ourselves. (which may not be any more difficult than trying to understand the old quicktime C API...)

    1. Re:you are wrong by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      Parian lets QuckTime [7] play MKV files just fine. I keep finding myself turning off subtitles though...

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    2. Re:you are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do I begin....

      FYI:
      Quicktime is more than a player. It is a massive video library (with a larger code base than windows 95) used to power video editing etc. Its OLD and used to be the basis of nearly all video editing software. It has gotten stale and others have replaced it but it was the foundation for digital video for many years and its still around being used for this.

      The quicktime file format is the basis of the mp4 file format as well.

      Quicktime is a multimedia framework designed to push output for the Apple sound hardware of the '80's and '90's and Apple's QuickDraw video output library. Quicktime Player is Apple's front end that hooks into this framework. The framework is extensible, and includes hooks for scripting languages, codec packs, and other libraries, some of which Apple bundled with the default install. It is neither a player nor a library, nor even a set of codecs.

      In the '90's, Apple realized that for Quicktime to gain any traction, they needed it to work on Windows as well as the MacOS... so instead of rewriting it to be platform agnostic, they bundled in all the libraries required for Quicktime to operate that were part of the Mac OS, added Apple Audio and QuickDraw abstraction layers, and released this behemoth as the Windows version of Quicktime. At the time, this included a major chunk of the code included inside the MacOS itself, which is why its size compares to Windows 95. This meant that every time the Quicktime browser plugin was activated, it actually booted a mini OS and loaded Quicktime inside that... which is why the memory footprint was so large, and why it took the same amount of time to load Quicktime in your browser as it took Windows 95 to boot.

      The "Quicktime file format" (by which I assume you mean the Quicktime MOV container format) is NOT the basis of the mpeg-4 file format; this was a container format and codec API designed by a consortium (including Apple) that borrowed a number of things from the previous MPEG group formats, took a bit from the MOV container format, and also "innovated" some new features, similar to what was being developed for MS's WM format and a number of other public formats. It also borrowed from a number of codecs, the main one being Sorenson's IIRC.

      It is a solid library with a lot of extendability for its size, age, and complexity - its in C and I've coded for it a little bit... like 10 years ago.

      It was a set of libraries and an API, as well as a framework for codecs and multimedia integration libraries. The concept was great, and I like to think of it as the better sibling to OpenDoc. Even though the libraries could be called from C, a lot of the internals still used the Pascal strings that reflected the MacOS's heritage as a Pascal-based OS.

      What I see now is alternatives usually built around a single format library with an import/export system added on. This makes those easier to implement while quicktime has been open ended and not tied to any 1 format (other than its own container format) the timecode in quicktime is confusing because its not a video time code but an abstraction.

      Basically apple dropped the ball when they didn't open source the library years ago (and they did ask for public input for a short period without much attention given to it) now we have MKV containers and the zombee avi containers and many specialized libraries.

      Not much out there as far as I've seen that competes with the power of quicktime. It could have been the framework but it looks like mkv will be the open container and somebody will tie together enough libraries and codecs into a generalized framework--- or we'll just have to jam it all together ourselves. (which may not be any more difficult than trying to understand the old quicktime C API...)

      Mostly correct and agreed with. Part of the problem was that Apple failed to provide well documented interfaces to a lot of the Quicktime API, and

    3. Re:you are wrong by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      No, the Sound Manager was designed to output sound on the mac. In the 80s there wasn't much of a library so many apps accessed hardware - I know because I had the 1st mac without compatible sound hardware that crashed everything that didn't use the weak sound api or more robust sound manager. Sound Manager didn't start to take over until the early 90s. Quickdraw was there from the start and has LITTLE to do with quicktime; other than the naming convention and the support of PICT files, QuickDraw was the blitter.

      -

      Quicktime is a massive library as far as I'm concerned; you call it what you wish. When you get a library this flexible this large with so many features you could call it a framework. It is bundled with quicktime player (and used to include the picture viewer, a control panel, and samples; later browser plugs.) Its "shipped" out as a distribution even today; so if you want to be picky...

      Quicktime for windows was NOT that massive and it didn't redo a whole OS either. You ARE talking about a time when windows programs used sound hardware to get sound (Sound Blaster compatible...) I suggest you look into the lawsuit that MS lost when they STOLE the code (with comments) and only a tiny change in code was necessary for windows support which is why they so soundly lost the lawsuit. MS abused "discovery" to avoid any actions until 97 when they did a deal with MS to end it. This was the time when MS bought non-vote shares in apple etc. Video for windows wasn't much faster or much smaller it was in large part copied.

      The codebase claim I made was heard from an actual quicktime engineer I met in the 90s and he was talking about lines of code not disk or memory. Later I met another QT engineer who said QT's codebase was larger than that of Mac OS 9.

      Next, mp4 files:
      Quicktime files were the basis for mp4 files, which DO LESS but also added some atoms. This one is more debatable so I'll just give you this link: http://developer.apple.com/standards/classicquicktime.html
      Its not literally the same; duh.

      Your sorenson claim I'm wary of but don't know the specifics. I know they worked from draft information in the mpeg group, as did MS with their rip off codecs.

      -

      OpenDoc was an idea without a business model or understandable marketing or documentation. Apple didn't seem to want it themselves. Never tried OpenDoc - I'd be shocked if it had pascal strings given when it came out. QT however was started during the pascal years. Nothing difficult about pascal; I liked being able to instantly know string lengths...(until I went over length.)

      -

      The biggest advantage of Flash was their marketing budget was put into bundling the plug-in on everything to increase the userbase. This was BEFORE macromedia bought them out.

      Next was they used a BAD director knock off app to generate the files-- Quicktime HAD NO multimedia app to make its files (until it was too late and it was buggy 3rd party app worse to use than flash ever was.) There was an API but no app to show much of what it could do let alone an authoring environment; which is what flash was-- flash was a vector format turned into a director knock off before shockwave got off the ground. Macromedia bought them to avoid losing.

      Oh, Quicktime 3 didn't have flash abilities either-- that wasn't until around QT 5 when it could do just about anything flash does. Oh, the 3D Quicktime unlike the rest was actually built around Quickdraw 3D which unfortunately I learned.. I should have learned OpenGL. This then required a larger lib to be bundled with it-- it was even an optional install.

      Quicktime was WAY WAY ahead of everybody and apple never treated it with respect. Also, I think part of the reason it had poor developer support was lack of strategic planning, not engineering.

  36. Lacking Apple Developer Outreach? by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 1

    It seems like better developer outreach from Apple would help here, but I think the lack of such cooperation is somewhat symptomatic of Apple's movement away from the Mac as its central business to consumer electronics (iPhone and iPod). Apple just does not care as much about the Mac in the iPhone era, which is an unfortunate market reality. They really need to take a page from the Microsoft monkey - Developers, developers, developers!!!

    As a previous poster noted, it will be interesting to see if Apple can drag major developers on to the Cocoa bandwagon as the sole solution for 64-bit API support. It really seems like Apple pulled the rug out from under developers when it suddenly cancelled Carbon 64-bit. The Carbon APIs were originally produced because the major developers weren't willing to move to Cocoa. Apple may feel that it's in such a strong position that it can now force the Cocoa switch, but I don't think that in terms of developer appeal of Cocoa much has changed between OS X's launch and now. Sure OS X is established, and making Cocoa the only game in town for 64-bitness may help its adoption to some degree, but other developers clearly won't see it worth the cost.

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
  37. Who cares by moniker127 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    VLC Will just become another reason for you to dual boot windows. You already need to if you play games, why not if you watch movies? I just run windows on desktops through. I'm neither a beret wearing graphic designer nor a homosexual.

    1. Re:Who cares by Cormophyte · · Score: 1

      No, you're a 12 year old homophobe playing Gears of War and watching Harry Potter movies.

      That's much better.

    2. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously?

    3. Re:Who cares by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Don't you have homework to do?

  38. Re:single instance by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    iirc, the python guys have found a way around osx's single-instance restriction...

  39. Niceplayer isn't a bad alternative by atmurray · · Score: 1

    For what it's worth, Niceplayer is a fairly decent alternative to Quicktime and VLC http://code.google.com/p/niceplayer/

    1. Re:Niceplayer isn't a bad alternative by atmurray · · Score: 1

      Oh and forgot to mention, it's FOSS too!

    2. Re:Niceplayer isn't a bad alternative by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      Except that it hasn't had a single update, even in the source repository, for well over a year. Seems pretty dead to me.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  40. Not from what I've seen - iPhone more likely by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because "true Apple lovers" are mostly either multimedia designers, artists, writers or just ordinary users with more money than sense, and not down-in-the-trenches C/C++ developers?

    I guess you must not be a "down-in-the-trenches" developer either. Or else your head is so far down in the "trenches" you have not been to any kind of technical conference, where a large number of people have mac laptops (including many Windows technical conferences).

    So where have all of the Mac developers gone? I wonder what massive upswing in calls for Mac capable developers might have happened in the last few years that might have drawn people off the project?

    Basically, to my mind you need look no further than the iPhone to figure out what has taken the wind out of many small projects in regards to Mac development.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  41. Because you are not looking by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    From the sound of things, he's probably using the API, which given the number of platforms supported most likely also supports the G4.

    Or an older version of the product they simply no longer sell so they don't have to maintain it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  42. And you missed *the* point by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    For plugins like Flash and high end commercial games, engine conversion, FreeBSD is irrelevant.

    What is relevant, is that GCD is open source. You can use it on any platform you like, though it still requires some porting work for other platforms.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  43. Re:Honestly, Mac sucks for open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow... just because you can't wrap you head around it doesn't mean other people can't master it. It sounds like you are just displaying your own inadequacies.

    Besides... the original open source WorldWideWeb.app was coded in Objective-C on NeXTSTEP - a direct ancestor to today's Mac OS X. That is arguably the most influential open source project to have been created so far.

    Further, you mention Sun? As in the the company being sold to Oracle because it can't seem to make a profit lately, partially because they paid so much for open source projects and don't make enough money off of them?

  44. Fuck YES !! Apple do rename long filenames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the filename or directory is longer than 40 charactes, it's truncated. Then and there with malice. That sounds like a naming scheme to me.

    1. Re:Fuck YES !! Apple do rename long filenames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Because my library begs to differ. Here's a folder that's managed by iTunes: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/87843/40.png

  45. Re:Honestly, Mac sucks for open source by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but they're not dropping OS X support, they just have no one in the current project to handle that side of it, hence asking for more manpower.

    If Microsoft puts an advert in the paper asking for more developers for Windows do you assume that they are dropping support for Windows?

    Also, if you really are a "longtime programmer of many languages" then Obj-C really shouldn't be much of a stretch for you. It's not like it's written in Latin.

    Your thinly veiled Apple bash post has been exposed I'm afraid.

  46. You're doing the wrong comparison by Rix · · Score: 1

    A spec for spec comparison is only relevant if the Dell or Lenova you would buy happens to be exactly the same as available Macs. The vast majority of the time, they will not.

    Most of the "Mac Tax" comes from having to buy more powerful than necessary components. Apple does get a large part of that, as those parts have a higher profit margin. To figure out the difference in price, spec out the Dell you would buy, and compare it to the Mac you'd have to buy.

    For example, most people have their mets more than met by a $700 notebook. The bottom end MacBook may have better specs, but if you don't need it that's irrelevant; it serves only to pad Apple's bottom line.

  47. Re: I Don't think it's the wrong comparison by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

    The point is that Macs are what they are, and for what they are they are not (that) much more expensive.

    Your argument holds true to almost any consumer item. I think when discussing the relative expense of systems the only really meaningful method is to compare like configured systems.

    Using your argument I could point out that $700 notebook is too expensive because I can get a lower speced one for $399, or an Eee PC for $249.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  48. Irony: Mac is good for security, media is just OK by eriktderek · · Score: 1

    I am not a programmer but pretty handy with PC's. I recently got a computer virus that annihilated my PC so I switched to Mac for security purposes. Overall I like it on many levels, except its not so hot with Media. I got TONS of media from all over the place. My PC played it all and I created my own directory structure that worked for me. Here in macville I often find myself unable to play things or manage them or edit them. Mac seems to have high end editing functionality but for average power users like me with tons of pics, mp3, videos it sucks! iTunes wants to organize and bring everything into libraries, quicktime is sorta lame. Irony

  49. Re:Let it die by mfnickster · · Score: 1

    Since when is stating an honest negative opinion "flamebait"? Fucking asshole mods on crack! I'm going back to posting AC until you put the pipe down... P.S. I know people will say you shouldn't complain about VLC because it's free...I've given it several tries over the last few years, and every time I conclude that it's worth every penny I paid for it!

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  50. I thought the same thing for months by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    It is really amazing design glitch on their part. Their 1.x binary is an universal and something Altivec designers/coders should really see.

    These guys (they are also creators of MKV) seems to code old school with hand written assembly all over the place. There is no other explanation especially on G4.

    I got the 1.3.2 (6909) here. The version 2.x could be Intel only, I really don't know for sure too since it isn't even released.

    What it shows is the amount of optimization one can really do for a CPU having 133Mhz FSB so I really wished it was open source. Well, reality is sad sometimes.

  51. It takes months to download an HD movie by tepples · · Score: 1

    By the time HD-DVD or Blu-Ray won the format wars, it would be too late, we'd see everything delivered via a digital stream.

    Blu-ray Disc has defeated HD DVD, but plenty of places still have either broadband capped at 5 GB/mo or (gasp) dial-up.

    1. Re:It takes months to download an HD movie by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      And in other places - like areas around D.C. and NY - have FTTH in which you can get a 25/15 or 35/20 connection for $65/mo with no bandwidth limit. At that rate, I can download a DVD in 25 minutes and an average sized Blu-Ray encode in under an hour. Then again, I only download at private trackers, where it easy to download at over 100 Mbit/sec due to all the seed boxes. Obviously, it'll take a lot longer on a public tracker.

      On my pedestrian 12/2 (24/5 with Speedboost) Comcast connection, I can download an HD TV show in 12.5 minutes, and a 720p movie in under an hour. I don't consider that so bad - easier than going to Blockbuster.

    2. Re:It takes months to download an HD movie by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, I'm referring to two different connections in two different locations. I have 25/15 in D.C. and 12/2 in New Haven.

  52. Re:Manpower? by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1
    Check the dictionary and/or learn english:
    man
    NOUN:
    pl. men
    1. An adult male human.
    2. A human regardless of sex or age; a person.
    3. The human race; mankind: man's quest for peace.

    For crying out loud ...

  53. Movist by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    If we are naming alternatives then Movist is a good alternative. On the other hand VLC still beats it when it comes to streaming protocols.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  54. Get a different ISP by anti-NAT · · Score: 1

    Google have a youtube cache in Pipe Networks NSWs Point of Presence, so if you have an ISP who's connected to that, and makes sure they have enough bandwidth to it, there'll usually be not buffering (on rare occasions there can be, however that is youtube itself)

    --
    The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
    1. Re:Get a different ISP by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      This is a completely terrible answer, 'get a new ISP' doesn't cut it when I'm one of the fastest and most reliable in the country.
      This isn't going to change any of the facts in my post about poor buffering code in the vast majority of media player packages - this is not just applicable to youtube, it's across the web in general and for LOCAL media playback, the simple facts are they are not coded robustly for sub optimal conditions.

    2. Re:Get a different ISP by anti-NAT · · Score: 1

      "This is a completely terrible answer, 'get a new ISP' doesn't cut it when I'm one of the fastest and most reliable in the country." Up until 3 weeks ago I worked at Adam Internet in Adelaide, one of the top 10 ISPs in Australia (and Adam are *only* in South Australia). I had some involvement in the installation of a >0.5 Gbps link from Adelaide to NSW, which was carrying all of their Youtube traffic. IMNSO, based on my experience of Adam Internet's youtube performance from the NSW Pipe Networks PoP, if you're getting quite a lot of buffering on Youtube videos, then you aren't on one of the fastest and most reliable ISPs in the country.

      --
      The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
    3. Re:Get a different ISP by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      This isn't about youtube, this is about the shit implimentation of video in flash as it is, period - it doesn't matter if it's youtube or any site, flash videos buffering code is frankly, fucking terrible - it's designed for US 30mbit internet connections with 50ms latency, not the 300ms we have.
      Yes some videos are fine, infact many are - but I'm still having to work around shitty buffering code due to lack of foresight from developers.
      I'm with iinet btw and I have the same problem at work on a government link.

  55. Reporting and crash logs? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Did you report any of the crashes you had and share the crash logs?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Reporting and crash logs? by letsief · · Score: 1

      Yep. I did. I found forum posts with very similar crash logs too.

      In my case, the file in question was an HD TV show recorded over firewire. I'm not sure, but it's certainly possible that the file had errors in it. A fair number of firewire recordings do. If the problems were caused by some sort of error in video stream, should I expect VLC to play it back? I don't know. I certainly wouldn't expect them to make it a very high priority. But since I do play back firewire recordings frequently I had to look for more robust playback options- at least for the firewire recordings.

      In the end I pretty much gave up on video playback on the Mac. Since nothing really supports hardware acceleration on the Mac I just bring my PC laptop along when I go on travel. The Mac just went through the battery too quickly and would get way too hot when playing back HD video.

  56. Unfortunately Quicktime X is a joke by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Quicktime X, which we all hoped as a good client for the Quicktime Framework turned out to be a joke really.

    It lacks 3rd party component support... It has no clue what a qtl file is (try nasa.gov/ntv) , lacks 3rd party export support... IMHO if you are a bit serious about media, no need to be professional, you gotta select "quicktime" while installing. That is in case you have not upgraded yet.

    What bothers me is that great, visionary framework/arch they are giving bad name with that client. Imagine it was designed/implemented in Apple's darkest days...

  57. What if... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    What if the people at Apple shameless enough to ask money for full screen video playback (for years!) thinks they can't sell upgraded hardware if they enable GPU acceleration features?

    I mean a company sized as Adobe does not joke. They say there is no way to enable GPU decoding for Flash 10.1 beta. That is amazingly big deal especially with the rise of h264 encoded flash video.

    VLC's issues, I can guess just by release notes.. They lived a massive problem with gcc 4.2 /PPC compatibility, had to drop Tiger (10.4) support getting the flame from users (instead of Apple who didn't do it for 10.4), some idiotic trolls keep on "Not Mac like" whining and their good intentions of taking them serious...

    As result, millions of people not having issues and enjoying their software gets the problem. This is the exact reason why I started hating loud mouth "maccie" community.

  58. VLC is CPU intensive by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    There are no secrets that VLC makes use of the CPU for all its work. If any work can be made to offloading work to other processing units, then this would be a great new feature. Whether this is done directly with FFMPEG of with VLC doesn't matter, since VLC would benefit in both cases, but other projects would benefit from the latter.

    I am thinking of at least starting with blocks and making use of llvm.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  59. Re: I Don't think it's the wrong comparison by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    It means SQUAT to me if a MacPro is a "better buy" if I don't require it's features.

    I am far better off having a PC built for the same price as mini that has vastly
    superior performance. It doesn't matter that it isn't as good as a Mac Pro. It
    doesn't need to be.

    The same is true for an ION that costs half or one third the price of a mini.

    I would really rather run MacOS in a VM on my Quad Core Linux box than an actual mini.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  60. This is a big loss for the mac community! by cypherdtraitor · · Score: 0

    I'll be honest, I use linux and windows, but I still think VLC is a valuable counterpart to ANY proprietary tool. Sure, your mac may play everything you have thrown at it, but VLC is willing to support file types that Apple won't purely on grounds of copyright. Mac needs VLC, because, frankly, VLC isn't worried about getting sued. This would be a terrible loss for the mac community.

  61. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love VLC on the Mac. Why? Because I have a need to play back movies created on a TOPFIELD TF5000PVRt
    I suck off the movie through a USB bit of software. Stow it on my Mac and Can watch it on my laptop
    If I can get a job soon I'd be buying the 7000 HD version of the TOPFIELD.
    I have not used Hulu nor NetFlix.

  62. Re:am i right here...? by nrozema · · Score: 1

    who would want to develop something like a media swiss-army knife for the mac;

    These folks?

    Perian - The swiss-army knife for Quicktime

  63. Which Apple won't sell you by Rix · · Score: 1

    If a netbook fits a PC users needs, they can go out and buy one and run all their usual software on it. A Mac user would either have to do without, or straddle ecosystems.

  64. An alternate view by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I want to use programs which will be developed even if no one spends money. I will not write code, because I am not a programmer, and that is not a good way for me to contribute.

    If the only part of vlc that deserves to live is libdvdcss, so be it. Lately VLC plays less than half of the files that I want to play, the same stuff gstreamer chokes on, AND it has been choking on DVD menus (drawing them incorrectly) so it's not actually worth anything to me. But then, I'm a Linux user. It seems like everything I want to run is developed for Windows or Linux, and none of it for the mac.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  65. "the mac community" ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha! There's no such thing.

    Apple is a big and stinking company producing proprietary software and partly owned by fucking Micro$oft. I hope all mac faggots get the clap.

    1. Re:"the mac community" ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will always be types like this one who apparently live in a hole and have the intelligence and knowledge of an amoeba.

  66. XBMC For Mac by greed · · Score: 1

    While definitely a heavyweight compared to VLC, I've been using XBMC for Mac instead of VLC for fiddling with stuff before it goes to transcoding. VLC has better direct navigation of DVDs, but XBMC seems to be a bit more robust at playing them. And anyway, it's going to wind up played on XBMC for Linux connected to the big screen.

    Frankly, if Apple's DVD player would just ignore prohibited user operations, I'd use that. I rarely watch a DVD from even a full rip these days, they get unwrapped, ripped, transcoded, and the physical disc put in storage before ever making it to the home theatre screen.

    But XBMC can also handle Blu-Ray transport streams which have LPCM and DTS audio tracks, VLC choked on those. (Though it seemed happy with ones which had AC3 audio; though it could be some other issue about those discs which XBMC can deal with and VLC can't. Obviously, these are ripped to HDD, 'cause there's no BD+ or AACS support for Mac. That also means no waiting around for 47 different copyright warnings and previews.)

    On the other hand, I'd hate to lose VLC, and I've been learning Objective C... if only I had more spare time.

  67. So? by remmelt · · Score: 1

    What's the problem? You can buy a netbook from any number of manufacturers. If a "Mac user" really wants a netbook, he can get one as well. He could even put OSX on it, although not legally. If these Mac users really really want an Apple Mac, they've probably weighed the pros and the cons and found that the Mac has more benefits for them that make it worth lugging around a larger piece of hardware.

    So, what's the exact problem? There are so many people whining about what Apple is and is not selling them, I just don't get it. Apple is doing terrific even though the economy is in a major slump. I think they're on to something.

  68. We're not talking about fanboys by Rix · · Score: 1

    We're talking about regular people, comparing the cost of Mac and PCs. The vendor lock in is certainly a part of that cost.

  69. VLC for Mac death is "greatly exagerated" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quoting http://forum.videolan.org/
    "Mac situation

    VLC for Mac death is "greatly exagerated"

    We have a kind of lack of manpower on the current Mac interface of VLC.

    The VLC core (in C) and most other plugins work pretty fine, but the OS X GUI (1% of the code of VLC) is not really maintained. It is in Objective-C.

    That explains the issues you have seen in latest version of VLC 1.0.x on mac, and the drop of 64bits version in 1.0.3

    Lunettes

    However the old Cocoa graphical interface of VLC, is not being maintained at this time. The reason is that we are in the process of rewriting a new interface for VLC, using a different paradigm. Its codename is Lunettes. Why a rewrite? This is something really easy to see. VLC for Mac is just not "Mac" enough.

    For now, Lunettes is being hosted at: http://wiki.github.com/pdherbemont/Glasses.

    That said, Lunettes is still under heavy development. And we hope to be able to release a test version in January."

  70. Re:4got2mention... by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    i use the web interface extensively (had to add some fields to access the % skip for those pbs .m2t firewire recordings that just won't skip by seconds/minutes, but will skip a %...wtf?-)

    i've never brought up 2 instances, but which 1 would the web interface control?