“The advancements were reportedly detailed alongside a new beta of Mac OS X 10.6.3 released to a subset of the Mac maker’s developer community on Friday, carrying build number 10D538,” Jade reports. “It includes an update to QuickTime X that, when finalized, will improve security and compatibility while simultaneously enhancing overall reliability. The release will also include tweaks that aim to enhance the performance of Apple’s 64-bit Logic pro audio suite.”
Jade reports, “Other planned improvements include better compatibility with third-party printers and OpenGL-grounded applications.”
Read more in the full article here.
It would be nice if some of these ‘enhancements’ included returning the functionality of QT7 Pro… but I’m not holding my breath…
Willie, what isn’t working for you? I’m still using QT 7pro every day with the latest version of OSX…
Why use Quicktime when VLC is available?
I was under the impression that when I installed Snow Leopard that Quicktime 7 Pro would be moved to a new folder labelled “Old Quicktime Version”, or words to that effect. It wasn’t, and now it refuses to let me install it because I have a ‘newer’ version.
I really hope they do reinstate the previous functionality. It’s becoming a pain having to import things into iMovie just, for example, to export them. I can live in hope.
Alex,
It sounds like you are trying to use an older QT7 installer.
Use the one on your Snow Leo DVD:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3678
or download this one:
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL923
Alex
I just updated from Tiger to Snow Leopard. I checked and I now have QT 10.0 (90.3.1).
Jeeve Stobs: Why use Quicktime when VLC is available?
Because QuickTime X with Perian and Flip4Mac can open more files and is less problematic than VLC by now (which I’ve had repeatedly hanging at maxed-out CPU load and remaining stuck).
It had been the other way around for a long time, but no more.
Check your utilities folder, SL moves QT pro there
Does this update include more than what was included in the Logic Pro 9.1 release? Or can anybody say yet?
@ Jeeve Stobs,
VLC is OK for viewing content… For creating content, not so much. For creating, QT Pro is far superior to VLC.
I am still using 10.2 driver for my Konica BizHub C253 mfp.
How long before professional video users will not have to keep installing the old QT7 and our apps start using QTX? Seriously.
How about because VLC bites? Every version I’ve installed, Tiger through Snow Leopard, gives stuttering playback on mp3s, flacs, etc. I’ve done every supposed “fix” for these problems to no avail. I’ve moved onto Songbird for music and QT for movies.
@ Jim – TIV
Nothing is wrong with QT 7 Pro, and I do use it almost daily in my workflow.. the issue is one of the annoyance of having to hold onto a now legacy piece of software that may or may not continue to be supported by future versions of the OS.
What I would like for Apple to do, is take all of the functionality of the previous iteration that they removed for the current one, and restore it.
@Willie G
Apple is working in consolidating all the legacy functionality that was originally built in to QuickTime over to 64 bit. QuickTime is a very complex technology and it took years for Apple to develop it, it is going to take some time for them to port all of it to 64 bit. I bet that you will see a lot of functionality if not all restored in 10.7. But in the mean time, nothing is stopping you from using the old legacy 32 bit version.
You don’t get it, Apple did not remove functionality, they migrated the code to 64 bit, and they are not finished yet.
Mac-nugget: You don’t get it, Apple did not remove functionality, they migrated the code to 64 bit, and they are not finished yet.
As far as I’m aware it’s got very little to do with 64 bit (although among much larger changes, it will also be available in both 32 and 64 bit versions).
QuickTime X is basically a major rewrite with very different internals from the older version which had been developed over many years and which has become a bit of an antique by now, which is ever more badly fitting into the modern versions of OS X.
It just takes time to re-develop all the functionality we’ve grown accustomed to for the new, upgraded framework.
On the surface it will probably look pretty similar to the older version, but the internals will be significantly different.
@Mac-nugget
First of all, I don’t appreciate the ‘You don’t get it’ comment – unnecessary, as I do most certainly ‘get-it’.
You have a version of a software with features x,y,and z. You release a new version of said software, but only include feature x. Therefore, it is quite safe and accurate to say that features y and z were removed. Honestly is does not matter what the reason behind this was, regardless of whatever semantic spin you attempt to apply.
If in fact these features are restored in a future iteration, then that will be fabulous. However, I don’t appreciate Apple deploying an unfinished software that creates the necessity for such an annoying work-around as the one currently in place.
As a video professional, a streamlined and efficient workflow is paramount… every additional step I have to take to complete a task – while individually only taking seconds – add up at the end of a 65 hour, deadline battling week.
In fact, Mr.’Nugget’ it is YOU that fail to ‘get it’…
Willie G: If in fact these features are restored in a future iteration, then that will be fabulous. However, I don’t appreciate Apple deploying an unfinished software that creates the necessity for such an annoying work-around as the one currently in place.
Apple simply needed to start this major overhaul at some point, and the only alternative would have been not to let you use the new version at all before it might have been complete.
Which would also mean that third-party developers would not have had a decent chance to adapt their software to the changed APIs, making for a rather rough transition there.
Ping –
Nonsense.. 3rd party developers could easily have been allowed to work with QT X API’s via developer releases. Besides, It’s not rocket science guys… we are talking about basic editing and transcoding capabilities here… you lot make it sound as though releasing QT X with those functions in place poses some sort of monumental task – that’s BS… sorry, not buying it…
Willie G: Nonsense.. 3rd party developers could easily have been allowed to work with QT X API’s via developer releases.
That would make a rather tiny sample for testing a complex technology like QuickTime compared to the general roll-out we’ve got.
Willie G: Besides, It’s not rocket science guys… we are talking about basic editing and transcoding capabilities here… you lot make it sound as though releasing QT X with those functions in place poses some sort of monumental task – that’s BS… sorry, not buying it…
You are massively underestimating the complexity of the task.
QuickTime is not just a modest playback application with rudimentary editing capabilities, it is the most complex and arguably most powerful media framework on any platform, with a tiny player application on top.
But many additional professional authoring and other media tools directly rely on QuickTime APIs as well to actually realize their functions, and they use QuickTime much more extensively than the mere player applications does.
This is a highly mission-critical component for Apple’s further development and it is being overhauled rather substantially for QuickTime X, so a phased deployment is the right approach from my point of view as a developer.
Besides: I just don’t see what the big deal is. I’ve got both players in my Dock, each using its own infrastructure, and I choose the one that’s best for each task. How is that supposed to be a big problem?
I really don’t think I am underestimating the complexity of anything. Are you really suggesting that adding export functionality (the real issue I have with QT-X, I’ll leave the other stuff alone for now) is some sort of monumental undertaking?
I am fully aware of the nuance and depth of the QT platform. And Perhaps a phased deployment is necessary here. My real qualms come at the direction said deployment has undergone… essentially back-burnering all of the features that made QT Pro so handy so that they could instead focus on direct to YouTube sharing, and Screen Capture (which – btw outputs to a codec that Final Cut Pro cannot read making a roundtrip through the mind-numbing mess that is iMovie necessary). It’s irritating to say the least.
As for your assertion that it is not a ‘big problem’, that only goes to show that you have never had to deploy a large number of videos in a short amount of time. I really have no reason to justify the nature of a video production workflow to you, but as I said.. every single extra mouse click or movement I have to do makes my process less efficient, the fact that it is a source of frustration for myself and others in my field makes it a big enough problem.
Willie G: Are you really suggesting that adding export functionality (the real issue I have with QT-X, I’ll leave the other stuff alone for now) is some sort of monumental undertaking?
Export usually involves transcoding, so if these APIs are not finished yet (possibly just the user interface for the setup), that is a likely reason for the feature not being presend.
Willie G: I am fully aware of the nuance and depth of the QT platform. And Perhaps a phased deployment is necessary here. My real qualms come at the direction said deployment has undergone… essentially back-burnering all of the features that made QT Pro so handy so that they could instead focus on direct to YouTube sharing, and Screen Capture (which – btw outputs to a codec that Final Cut Pro cannot read making a roundtrip through the mind-numbing mess that is iMovie necessary). It’s irritating to say the least.
Depends on how easily one is to irritate.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> As long as I’ve got the QT7 interface working properly side by side, I see comparatively little to complain.
Willie G: As for your assertion that it is not a ‘big problem’, that only goes to show that you have never had to deploy a large number of videos in a short amount of time. I really have no reason to justify the nature of a video production workflow to you, but as I said.. every single extra mouse click or movement I have to do makes my process less efficient, the fact that it is a source of frustration for myself and others in my field makes it a big enough problem.
Does QT7 still work or doesn’t it? Just set it as the default for your files and you’re on your way.