 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Networking / July 2005RealPlayer 10 -- what's your experience?
I've had horrible experiences installing and using all versions of Real Player in the past. I'm willing to try again, with version 10, but I'd like to know others' experiences first. I'm using OS X 10.3.9 Thanks,  SignaturePlease, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't ask a question here if I hadn't done that already. DaveC me@privacy.net This is an invalid return address Please reply in the news group DaveC: > I've had horrible experiences installing and using all versions of Real > Player in the past. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm using OS X 10.3.9 RealPlayer 10 worked perfectly for me under 10.3.9. It also works perfectly for me under 10.4.2. YMMV. Davoud Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com > I've had horrible experiences installing and using all versions of Real > Player in the past. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks, Though it is likely no consolation to you, Real Player 10 installed and works without incident for me as did several previous versions. It's much faster with fewer interruptions in the feed than previous versions. I am still running OS 10.3.8. Madeleine > I've had horrible experiences installing and using all versions of Real > Player in the past. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm using OS X 10.3.9 Real Player is THE worst video format on the plaent, even worse than Windoze Muddier Format. If at all possible you should probably avoid bothering with that format at all. Thus spake Anybody: > Real Player is THE worst video format on the plaent, even worse than > Windoze Muddier Format. If at all possible you should probably avoid > bothering with that format at all. That's my feeling, also. But they've cornered the marked on streaming content. I visit NASA's web site, and for video content, there is no other choice. I've resisted using Real for decades, but unless the lesser-evil (Microsoft) content player is given fair share, there's frequently no choice other than not viewing the videos at all. Unless I can find a converter or alternative .ram player for these files, I'm going to install RealPlayer 10 )))c : SignaturePlease, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't ask a question here if I hadn't done that already. DaveC me@privacy.net This is an invalid return address Please reply in the news group In comp.sys.mac.misc DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote: > Unless I can find a converter or alternative .ram player for these files, I'm > going to install RealPlayer 10 )))c : The playlist aka ram file is a really usable feature, also for rtsp://bla/bla.3gps etc. Real Player is usable for "standard" media as well ;-) H. > Real Player is THE worst video format on the plaent, even worse than >> Windoze Muddier Format. If at all possible you should probably avoid [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I am not starting a debate here but it would be fine if you wanted > quicktime instead of wmedia. That program (wmp 9) looks like its coded just because server customers will have an answer to "mac compatibility". Real did everything possible to be "more open" and believe they are going well. You wouldn't want it go down like everything microsoft killed. Funny is, if they didn't ignore customer/user flaming about being added to startup etc , they would die. Some "interesting" bugs exists on windows and some UI tricks pushing people to wmedia. ;) Before iTunes/iPod miracle , while I was using windows on PC, something strange happened and Quicktime started to get excellent reviews from windows users etc. After that, they deliberately broke quicktime on windows. If you meet with a guy saying "quicktime sux! its slow!" etc , he tried it in these times. Its not a big surprise for us, ex PC users since we know how evil Microsoft could be. Especially DR DOS story. check https://www.helixcommunity.org for what I mean by "more open". Of course you can't expect them to open their own codecs performing better than rivals on low bandwidth. Also real uses sort of mpeg 4 variant in version 10 format with aac. If wmedia served my needs and didn't treat me like an a.shole because I don't use their OS, I wouldn't be real radiopass user for 2-3 years. You wouldn'T want wmedia with the current quality and policies to "win". Of course as I am not a realnetworks shareholder or something, I wish Microsoft fixes their player and we have both programs running fine. I secretly wish the real excellent thing, quicktime goes cheaper for professional broadcasting and we have "listen/watch in quicktime" in every serious site. Ilgaz In comp.sys.mac.misc Ilgaz Ocal <Ilgaz@spamcop.net> wrote: > Also real uses sort of mpeg 4 variant in version 10 format with aac. Thats where it gets interesting ;-) IMHO they just use the QT libraries (and dont have to pay any licences)... On Linux all it can do is rtsp://bla/bla.3gp streaming, but it displays AMR audio as well. There are rumors of some sort of mpeg-4 for Linux, but I havent seen any code. But I saw they are developping a new superduperplaylist, that will be probably as vendor and platform independent as Apples "One Click Streaming" solutions. H. > In comp.sys.mac.misc Ilgaz Ocal <Ilgaz@spamcop.net> wrote: >> Also real uses sort of mpeg 4 variant in version 10 format with aac. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > H. Hi, I have to correct, mpeg 4 is a huge format and realplayer 10's mpeg is its own. They just want to be more "standard friendly" packing it into mpeg 4 package which is indeed based on quicktime format. Wonder why Apple is called Mecca of multimedia? :) AMR is also part of standards and widely used on low bandwidth (extreme!) h263 type stuff. E.g., if you have Nokia Symbian based phone, it will create .3gpp files in h263 video+multiple rate AMR. As I said Quicktime is huge, Real is huge on compression standards or they wouldn't even live to this day. It would be good for us if they didn't hack the iPod and started a new war with Apple; of course. "Us" as users. If you want to get info about the real program/codecs, don't use real.com url, you will go mad, use http://www.realnetworks.com and https://www.helixcommunity.org for pure info. Not their stupid e mail asking, popup loving etc consumer sites :) I feel sad for real coders :) Ilgaz In comp.sys.mac.misc Ilgaz Ocal <Ilgaz@spamcop.net> wrote: >> There are rumors of some sort of mpeg-4 for Linux, but I havent seen any code. > I have to correct, mpeg 4 is a huge format and realplayer 10's mpeg is > its own. They just want to be more "standard friendly" packing it into Really? ;-) There once was some Envivio plugin on Windows, last time I checked it it was QT. And there is no MPEG 4 in the Linux player. > mpeg 4 package which is indeed based on quicktime format. This is what the Linux player can play: > AMR is also part of standards and widely used on low bandwidth > (extreme!) h263 type stuff. E.g., if you have Nokia Symbian based > phone, it will create .3gpp files in h263 video+multiple rate AMR. rtsp://bla/bla.3gp > It would be good for us if they didn't hack the iPod and started a new > war with Apple; of course. "Us" as users. Why should we care? Two a.sholes ;-) Ipods are UGLY! It is a VERY ugly gesture to say "we are different" and to be so usual. "We are beautifull" is ugly as well. Those white cables etc, headphones make me upset. Everybody who wears such things shows that he is a little bit idiotic. There are better mp3 players anyway. I dont own one, those that are usable as recorder are still to expensiv and I like to have my ears free. I have a laptop. Best, H. > I've had horrible experiences installing and using all versions of Real > Player in the past. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > content (internet radio). It does its job just fine. I sue > Quicktime and Windows Media plae ror most visual content. Real Player 10 works just fine on all my OS X Macs. 10.3.9 - 10.4.2. Yes, the pre-OS X versions were scary bad, but I've had no issues with RP and, at least on broadband, the video & audio quality can be quite good. Typically much better than WMP. Sure, in a perfect world all sites would stream QT, but reality intrudes. Signature-John Steinberg email: not@thistime.invalid > Real Player 10 works just fine on all my OS X Macs. 10.3.9 - 10.4.2. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sure, in a perfect world all sites would stream QT, but reality > intrudes. "Reality"?! Probably more like cost-cutting. RealPlayer might charge less than Apple or Microsoft for their server technology. > "Reality"?! Probably more like cost-cutting. RealPlayer might charge > less than Apple or Microsoft for their server technology. I was under the impression that Quicktime Streaming Server was not only $0.00, but was open source. <http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/streaming/> It is possible, but not likely, that Real's is negative dollars. SignatureDavid Phillip Oster In article <oster-9B3EF6.20411720072005@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>, David Phillip Oster <oster@ieee.org> wrote: > > "Reality"?! Probably more like cost-cutting. RealPlayer might charge > > less than Apple or Microsoft for their server technology. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > <http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/streaming/> It is possible, > but not likely, that Real's is negative dollars. Well, you know these "big" corporations. They do ANYTHING to hook you on theirv products. ;-) I don't know the pricing on any of the streaming / server software. That was just a guess on why anyone would such a cheap-looking and nasty product. >>"Reality"?! Probably more like cost-cutting. RealPlayer might charge >>less than Apple or Microsoft for their server technology. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > <http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/streaming/> It is possible, > but not likely, that Real's is negative dollars. I've wondered why many sites offer WMP and Real compatible streams instead of WMP & QT. Seems like that'd make much more sense. Are there technical reasons for this, or is it just Apple being outmaneuvered by Real. I do share the dislike for WMP and RP. If I wanted to run M$ stuff, I'd be running XP. Real left a bad taste in my mouth when there Jukebox app got caught snooping on people. That and the fact that installing Real on a PC used to mean a lot of intrusive hook-ins occurred. Seems they have gotten better and so I am tempted to try RP10. I keep hearing good things about it. SignatureClem "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." - Fudd's first law of opposition > Real left a bad taste in my mouth when there Jukebox app got caught > snooping on people. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > accident; the server immediately discarded the information. As soon as > the mistake was discovered, the code in Jukebox was removed. Of course, people saw the connection open between RealJukebox and the server and cried out that the software was spying on them, but that was false; it was a minor mistake that was interpreted as something insidious. In comp.sys.mac.misc Mr. Uh Clem <uhclem@dutchelmst.invalid> wrote: > I've wondered why many sites offer WMP and Real compatible streams > instead of WMP & QT. Seems like that'd make much more sense. Are Real was the first to offer real world internet radio and internet video streaming. Their concept of playlists and http streaming has been copied by everybody since then, see mp3s and m3u etc.., well, not by everybody;-) "Apple is different".. WMP is too vendor and platform dependent. > there technical reasons for this, or is it just Apple being > outmaneuvered by Real. Apple has allways been more into high bandwidth, corporate streaming etc. > I do share the dislike for WMP and RP. If I wanted to run IMHO you have to distingish the Real Player, which is a fine piece of software, from the Real Networks Real Media format. Real Player plays MPEG as well. They avoid paying MPEG 4 licences and use the QT libraries for this, is this unfair competition? A border case. But they play rtsp://bla/bla.3gps with their own libraries fine!!! Maybe thats most important in the days of mobile phone cameras etc. > M$ stuff, I'd be running XP. Real left a bad taste in my mouth > when there Jukebox app got caught snooping on people. That > and the fact that installing Real on a PC used to mean a lot > of intrusive hook-ins occurred. Seems they have gotten better > and so I am tempted to try RP10. I keep hearing good things > about it. RP10 is a must, check out its bla.3gp capabilities And read this primer on MPEG Video Playlists;-) H. mpegurl.blog.de -- Vendor and platform independent MPEG Video Playlists are possible, if we simplify things, but we should not simplify them more. > I've had horrible experiences installing and using all versions of Real > Player in the past. > > I'm willing to try again, with version 10, but I'd like to know others' > experiences first. I won't allow RealPlayer on any computer I own. >> I've had horrible experiences installing and using all versions of >> Real Player in the past. I'm willing to try again, with version 10, >> but I'd like to know others' experiences first. > > I won't allow RealPlayer on any computer I own. Care to explain why? Do you have valid reasons or are you just a nut case? How will the readers know if your advice is any good? I delete Real from all computers I encounter. Far too many times in the past 5 years have I had to address a CPU consumed problem where there was virtually no resources left for the user to be able to do anything at all. In all cases, the problem turned out to be a runaway Real Player Scheduler or the Payer itself. Delete and no more problems. I also strongly detested the pop-up notices that used tom come out of it to buy an upgrade. I believe that if a company produces a software product that becomes a universal standard, then they should issue a free, reduced feature set package that is not encumbered by bugs nor pop-ups, nor little reminders or startup tests, like click here to agree. If I truly need the functionality, I'll buy it. Other than that, the author of whatever that used their software to encode their media has already bought their development or programming package and that's just fine by me. they got their money. > >> I've had horrible experiences installing and using all versions of > >> Real Player in the past. I'm willing to try again, with version 10, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Care to explain why? Do you have valid reasons or are you just a nut > case? How will the readers know if your advice is any good? Richard Tomkins: > I delete Real from all computers I encounter. I've taken your name off the list of people who may be invited to my home. I need RealPlayer on my Macs to view certain on-line content that cannot be viewed with any other software. I'm not about to cut off my nose to spite my face. Davoud Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com > Far too many times in the past 5 years have I had to address a CPU consumed > problem where there was virtually no resources left for the user to be able [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I also strongly detested the pop-up notices that used tom come out of it to > buy an upgrade. None of this has ever applied to RealPlayer for Mac OS X. It has no separate scheduler and no advertising features. It's a drag-install, native Mac OS X application. You can download it from <http://www.real.com/freeplayer/?rppr=rnwk> if you care to try it. Thus spake Randall Ainsworth: > I won't allow RealPlayer on any computer I own. I was also. Do you not watch *any* .rm or .ram streaming content or files? I have reached a point where I can no longer do this. SignaturePlease, no "Go Google this" replies. I wouldn't ask a question here if I hadn't done that already. DaveC me@privacy.net This is an invalid return address Please reply in the news group In comp.sys.mac.misc Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote: > I won't allow RealPlayer on any computer I own. But as a matter of fact, I never saw a Mac where application/sdp or application/smil was associated was associated with QT. QT is more usefull for that. H. > I've had horrible experiences installing and using all versions of Real > Player in the past. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hi, Replying to "real thing", I think you should install it and see your own. I am very fine with it here. If there is a single program not to ask user feedback , it is realplayer. It carries OS X standards, UI guidelines and easily uninstallable. It has also an option to clean reinstall 'reset realplayer' Ilgaz |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.