3 ms·

I did not use OSX back then so I can't comment on that. But on Windows QT was probably the worst piece of software ever created: 1. it took ages to start 2. t

by pawadu 10y ago

I did not use OSX back then so I can't comment on that. But on Windows QT was probably the worst piece of software ever created: 1. it took ages to start 2. the UI was very unresponsive 3. it used a LOT of resources, bringing the system to a crawl 4. it installed a lot of crap along side QT itself 5. it tried to trick users into installing Safari 6. it had a lot of security issues 7. it did not follow any of the Windows UI guidelines 8. just google "quicktime sucks" for many many more issues...

charlesism 10y ago
> probably the worst piece of software ever created Worse than Adobe Acrobat? Ouch. There are problems with Apple's Windows software: - many are "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problems - some are just ubiquitous Windows problems (there are very few things on a Windows box that antivirus software can't break) - some crept in, as the software bloated (QTP, like iTunes wasn't born bad, but became bad). That's Apple's fault It doesn't make much sense to me to judge Apple by their Windows software, since half of the problems there are unavoidable given the requirements. Eg: - you have Airport,iTunes,Safari,and Quicktime software. What happens if you don't "trick users" into installing it all at once? Well, then you have a new, equally bad, set of support issues. - you need hardware support for iPhones, you need network support for mDNS. Okay, now you have to install drivers, and your software is open to all the problems that any other Windows driver has (antivirus software + drivers == pain) - You can follow Microsoft's UI guidelines, or use Apple's HIG. If you don't use Apple's, you once again have support problems, on top of criticism from some users that the design is uglier on Windows, and also added difficulties maintaining two very different versions of the software The only really great cross-platform software anybody writes is written from the start to be that way, and there are trade-offs. If you instead choose a single platform, and want to make your software as good as it can be, then your ports to other platforms will suffer. Since Apple chose to optimize for the Mac, it's a given the Windows version would have problems. Apple handled cross-platform software as well as can be expected.
- pawadu 10y ago
  I don't really understand your comments about anti virus and antivirus+drivers (for that matter, why should QT need special hardware drivers?) Also, doesn't the existence of this project make all your points moot? http://www.videolan.org/ http://www.videolan.org/
  - charlesism 10y ago
    I mentioned antivirus software, because often performance issues, and quirkiness when installing/uninstalling Apple software, is due to antivirus software getting in the way. To be fair, it is also true that emulating large swaths of MacOS frameworks under Windows slows things down (especially where iTunes is concerned). See my previous comment for the trade-off there. I mentioned drivers in relation to Apple software for Window in general (ie: iTunes and Airport Utility). I have little idea if Quicktime Player required drivers, I suspect not. Unlike VLC, it did need to install some system software though (such as codecs to allow Windows users to interpret Apple MOV and CAF files) It doesn't make much sense to compare Quicktime Player 7 with VLC. Quicktime Player is very much a product of 1991. VLC was created in 2001. Also, they were created for different reasons. Part of the reason a Windows version of QTP7 exists was to extend Apple's state-of-the-art (for its time) codecs to other programs on Windows, so it would make no sense for it to be self-contained. Also, one can't complain about Quicktime's GUI and then use VLC as a counter-example! I've seen pro video editors reduced to helplessness while trying to figure out how to transcode video on VLC. Just open the preferences - does anyone aside from the VLC dev team understand what the dozens upon dozens of options actually do?

by pawadu 10y ago

charlesism 10y ago

> probably the worst piece of software ever created Worse than Adobe Acrobat? Ouch. There are problems with Apple's Windows software: - many are "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problems - some are just ubiquitous Windows problems (there are very few things on a Windows box that antivirus software can't break) - some crept in, as the software bloated (QTP, like iTunes wasn't born bad, but became bad). That's Apple's fault It doesn't make much sense to me to judge Apple by their Windows software, since half of the problems there are unavoidable given the requirements. Eg: - you have Airport,iTunes,Safari,and Quicktime software. What happens if you don't "trick users" into installing it all at once? Well, then you have a new, equally bad, set of support issues. - you need hardware support for iPhones, you need network support for mDNS. Okay, now you have to install drivers, and your software is open to all the problems that any other Windows driver has (antivirus software + drivers == pain) - You can follow Microsoft's UI guidelines, or use Apple's HIG. If you don't use Apple's, you once again have support problems, on top of criticism from some users that the design is uglier on Windows, and also added difficulties maintaining two very different versions of the software The only really great cross-platform software anybody writes is written from the start to be that way, and there are trade-offs. If you instead choose a single platform, and want to make your software as good as it can be, then your ports to other platforms will suffer. Since Apple chose to optimize for the Mac, it's a given the Windows version would have problems. Apple handled cross-platform software as well as can be expected.

pawadu 10y ago
I don't really understand your comments about anti virus and antivirus+drivers (for that matter, why should QT need special hardware drivers?) Also, doesn't the existence of this project make all your points moot? http://www.videolan.org/ http://www.videolan.org/
- charlesism 10y ago
  I mentioned antivirus software, because often performance issues, and quirkiness when installing/uninstalling Apple software, is due to antivirus software getting in the way. To be fair, it is also true that emulating large swaths of MacOS frameworks under Windows slows things down (especially where iTunes is concerned). See my previous comment for the trade-off there. I mentioned drivers in relation to Apple software for Window in general (ie: iTunes and Airport Utility). I have little idea if Quicktime Player required drivers, I suspect not. Unlike VLC, it did need to install some system software though (such as codecs to allow Windows users to interpret Apple MOV and CAF files) It doesn't make much sense to compare Quicktime Player 7 with VLC. Quicktime Player is very much a product of 1991. VLC was created in 2001. Also, they were created for different reasons. Part of the reason a Windows version of QTP7 exists was to extend Apple's state-of-the-art (for its time) codecs to other programs on Windows, so it would make no sense for it to be self-contained. Also, one can't complain about Quicktime's GUI and then use VLC as a counter-example! I've seen pro video editors reduced to helplessness while trying to figure out how to transcode video on VLC. Just open the preferences - does anyone aside from the VLC dev team understand what the dozens upon dozens of options actually do?