Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #116891 > unrolled thread

Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-01 22:57 -0500
    Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 23:59 -0400
      Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-01 21:12 -0700
        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 00:25 -0400
          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:36 -0700
        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-02 17:07 +1200
          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 19:24 -0700
            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-07 14:49 +1200
      Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-01 21:41 -0700
        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-02 17:01 +1200
        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 01:12 -0400
          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-01 23:19 -0700
        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-06-09 09:55 -0400
          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 09:38 -0700
          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-09 17:13 -0400
            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 14:20 -0700
            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-09 17:23 -0400
              Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-09 17:57 -0700
                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-09 21:06 -0400
                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-09 22:15 -0700
                    Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-10 18:33 +1200
                      Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-10 14:08 -0700
                        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-11 09:26 +1200
                          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-10 14:52 -0700
                            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-11 11:49 +1200
                            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-11 03:47 +0000
                        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-10 21:43 +0000
                          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-10 14:53 -0700
                            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-06-11 12:24 +1200
                              Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-10 17:48 -0700
                                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-11 13:20 +1200
                                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-10 18:26 -0700
                                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-06-11 13:36 +1200
                                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 01:07 -0700
                              Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 21:27 -0700
                          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:19 -0700
                        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-10 18:12 -0400
                          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-11 12:03 +1200
                          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? rlhamil@smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) - 2018-06-13 19:43 +0000
                    Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 01:30 -0700
                    Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-10 08:48 -0400
                      Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 07:15 -0700
                      Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-17 17:14 +0000
                        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-17 15:04 -0400
                          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-17 22:22 +0000
                            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-17 18:36 -0400
                              Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-18 00:45 +0000
                                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-17 20:57 -0400
                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-10 13:49 +1200
            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-10 10:35 +1200
      Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-02 01:29 -0500
        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-02 00:02 -0700
          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-03 11:50 +1200
            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 06:14 -0700
        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 09:03 -0400
        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-02 11:40 -0500
          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 13:22 -0400
            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-02 18:43 -0500
              Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Percival John Hackworth <pjh@nanoworks.com> - 2018-06-03 02:11 -0700
                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-03 11:48 -0700
                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Percival John Hackworth <pjh@nanoworks.com> - 2018-06-03 12:58 -0700
                    Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-04 09:01 +1200
                      Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Percival John Hackworth <pjh@nanoworks.com> - 2018-06-03 14:37 -0700
                        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-06-04 12:51 +1200
                          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 21:50 -0700
                        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 10:13 +0000
                          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-05 18:39 -0700
                            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-05 21:44 -0400
                            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-06 15:21 +1200
                              Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 06:46 -0700
                            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-06 06:41 +0000
                              Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-06 10:10 -0700
                                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-07 09:14 +1200
                                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-06 17:20 -0400
                                    Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-07 14:44 +1200
                                      Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2018-06-07 04:29 +0000
                                        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-06 21:36 -0700
                                          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2018-06-07 05:01 +0000
                                            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-06 22:38 -0700
                                        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-07 18:27 +1200
                                          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-07 12:06 -0700
                                            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-08 09:30 +1200
                                              Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-07 16:44 -0700
                                                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-08 00:50 +0000
                                                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 07:58 -0700
                                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-06-07 13:53 +1200
                                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-06 19:10 -0700
                                    Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-17 17:08 +0000
              Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 10:11 +0000
          Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-03 11:48 +1200
            Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-02 19:23 -0500
              Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-03 23:14 -0500
                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-06-04 17:12 +1200
                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-04 19:13 +1200
                    Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 02:33 -0700
                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-04 02:43 -0500
                    Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 08:20 -0700
                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-05 03:40 -0500
                Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-04 19:09 +1200
                  Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-04 02:44 -0500
                    Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-05 08:55 +1200
                      Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-05 02:44 -0500
                        Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-06 09:25 +1200
      Re: Is there no way to rotate recorded videos in Mac OS Sierra v10.12.6's Photos app like with photos? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2018-06-05 10:50 +0200

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#117201

On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
> On 2018-06-10 01:06:49 +0000, nospam said:
>> In article <pfht1g$aau$1@news.albasani.net>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would it be fair to state that the replacement for Quicktime 7 Pro is
>>>>> iMovie ?
>>>> 
>>>> no
>>>> 
>>>> the replacement for quicktime 7 pro is quicktime x.
>>>> 
>>>> unfortunately, it's a downgrade.
>>> 
>>> But using a car with a tricycle isn't really a "replacement", per se.
>>> 
>>> The "replacement" for QT7Pro, at least for me, is folder full of
>>> utiltiies which would include iMovie, Screenflow, Handbrake, mp4tools,
>>> mp4joiner and the like.
>> 
>> those are apps.
>> 
>> quicktime 7 is a part of the operating system, although not for long.
>> its replacement is quicktime x.

Quicktime 7 *was* part of the operating system and there may be some 
legacy parts still left over in High Sierra (10.13), but Quicktime X 
technically replaced it way back in 2009 - nearly 10 years ago. 
(Admittedly the last update to Quicktime 7 was January 2016 though.)



>> any app that uses qt7 will cease to function when qt7 goes away. some
>> might be updated. some (probably most) won't.
> 
> What app uses qt7, I wonder?

Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work 
on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117212

On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:

> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
>> On 2018-06-10 01:06:49 +0000, nospam said:
>>> In article <pfht1g$aau$1@news.albasani.net>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Would it be fair to state that the replacement for Quicktime 7 Pro is
>>>>>> iMovie ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> no
>>>>> 
>>>>> the replacement for quicktime 7 pro is quicktime x.
>>>>> 
>>>>> unfortunately, it's a downgrade.
>>>> 
>>>> But using a car with a tricycle isn't really a "replacement", per se.
>>>> 
>>>> The "replacement" for QT7Pro, at least for me, is folder full of
>>>> utiltiies which would include iMovie, Screenflow, Handbrake, mp4tools,
>>>> mp4joiner and the like.
>>> 
>>> those are apps.
>>> 
>>> quicktime 7 is a part of the operating system, although not for long.
>>> its replacement is quicktime x.
> 
> Quicktime 7 *was* part of the operating system and there may be some 
> legacy parts still left over in High Sierra (10.13), but Quicktime X 
> technically replaced it way back in 2009 - nearly 10 years ago. 
> (Admittedly the last update to Quicktime 7 was January 2016 though.)
> 
> 
> 
>>> any app that uses qt7 will cease to function when qt7 goes away. some
>>> might be updated. some (probably most) won't.
>> 
>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
> 
> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work 
> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.

What would those bee?

If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*, 
not simply a stand-alone app.  As such it was then relaced for 
*systemic use* by QTX, not simply a stand-alone app.  As a systemic 
mechanism, I'm wondering what app(s) make (made?) systemic currently 
use of QTX, and demonstrate its not-just-app utility.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117213

On 2018-06-10 21:08:57 +0000, gtr said:
> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
>>> On 2018-06-10 01:06:49 +0000, nospam said:
>>>> In article <pfht1g$aau$1@news.albasani.net>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Would it be fair to state that the replacement for Quicktime 7 Pro is
>>>>>>> iMovie ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> the replacement for quicktime 7 pro is quicktime x.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> unfortunately, it's a downgrade.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But using a car with a tricycle isn't really a "replacement", per se.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The "replacement" for QT7Pro, at least for me, is folder full of
>>>>> utiltiies which would include iMovie, Screenflow, Handbrake, mp4tools,
>>>>> mp4joiner and the like.
>>>> 
>>>> those are apps.
>>>> 
>>>> quicktime 7 is a part of the operating system, although not for long.
>>>> its replacement is quicktime x.
>> 
>> Quicktime 7 *was* part of the operating system and there may be some 
>> legacy parts still left over in High Sierra (10.13), but Quicktime X 
>> technically replaced it way back in 2009 - nearly 10 years ago. 
>> (Admittedly the last update to Quicktime 7 was January 2016 though.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> any app that uses qt7 will cease to function when qt7 goes away. some
>>>> might be updated. some (probably most) won't.
>>> 
>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
>> 
>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work 
>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
> 
> What would those bee?
> 
> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*, 
> not simply a stand-alone app.  As such it was then relaced for 
> *systemic use* by QTX, not simply a stand-alone app.  As a systemic 
> mechanism, I'm wondering what app(s) make (made?) systemic currently 
> use of QTX, and demonstrate its not-just-app utility.

"Quicktime" is a large set of routines and they are used by various 
apps, and not just for video. Nobody would be able to give you a 
definitive list of which apps use the Quicktime routines, let alone 
which ones still use version 7 instead of version X. Any proerly 
written new app will be using Quicktime X.

The problem for some people is the Quicktime *PLayer* 7 app because 
they still use it for the editing functions which are not available in 
the Quicktime *Player* X app. The Quicktime *Player* 7 app is not 
64-bit, so one of of the many old apps that
may start having problems in macOS 10.14 ('Mojave') and won't work at 
all in 10.15 ... and the same will be true for many, if not all, of the 
old apps that use Quicktime 7 routines.

The reality is that the OS moves on. Old apps stop working and you need 
to upgrade or replace those as well. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, 
at least not until your computer dies and you buy a new one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117215

On 2018-06-10 21:26:02 +0000, Your Name said:

> On 2018-06-10 21:08:57 +0000, gtr said:
>> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
>>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
>>>> On 2018-06-10 01:06:49 +0000, nospam said:
>>>>> In article <pfht1g$aau$1@news.albasani.net>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Would it be fair to state that the replacement for Quicktime 7 Pro is
>>>>>>>> iMovie ?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> the replacement for quicktime 7 pro is quicktime x.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> unfortunately, it's a downgrade.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But using a car with a tricycle isn't really a "replacement", per se.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The "replacement" for QT7Pro, at least for me, is folder full of
>>>>>> utiltiies which would include iMovie, Screenflow, Handbrake, mp4tools,
>>>>>> mp4joiner and the like.
>>>>> 
>>>>> those are apps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> quicktime 7 is a part of the operating system, although not for long.
>>>>> its replacement is quicktime x.
>>> 
>>> Quicktime 7 *was* part of the operating system and there may be some 
>>> legacy parts still left over in High Sierra (10.13), but Quicktime X 
>>> technically replaced it way back in 2009 - nearly 10 years ago. 
>>> (Admittedly the last update to Quicktime 7 was January 2016 though.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> any app that uses qt7 will cease to function when qt7 goes away. some
>>>>> might be updated. some (probably most) won't.
>>>> 
>>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
>>> 
>>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work 
>>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
>> 
>> What would those bee?
>> 
>> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*, 
>> not simply a stand-alone app.  As such it was then relaced for 
>> *systemic use* by QTX, not simply a stand-alone app.  As a systemic 
>> mechanism, I'm wondering what app(s) make (made?) systemic currently 
>> use of QTX, and demonstrate its not-just-app utility.
> 
> "Quicktime" is a large set of routines and they are used by various 
> apps, and not just for video. Nobody would be able to give you a 
> definitive list of which apps use the Quicktime routines, let alone 
> which ones still use version 7 instead of version X. Any proerly 
> written new app will be using Quicktime X.
> 
> The problem for some people is the Quicktime *PLayer* 7 app because 
> they still use it for the editing functions which are not available in 
> the Quicktime *Player* X app. The Quicktime *Player* 7 app is not 
> 64-bit, so one of of the many old apps that
> may start having problems in macOS 10.14 ('Mojave') and won't work at 
> all in 10.15 ... and the same will be true for many, if not all, of the 
> old apps that use Quicktime 7 routines.

Many old apps like... which ones again?

> The reality is that the OS moves on. Old apps stop working and you need 
> to upgrade or replace those as well. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, 
> at least not until your computer dies and you buy a new one.

Who asked for a definitive list? I get it: Too many to name a few. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117219

On 2018-06-10 21:52:10 +0000, gtr said:
> On 2018-06-10 21:26:02 +0000, Your Name said:
>> On 2018-06-10 21:08:57 +0000, gtr said:
>>> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
>>>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
>>>>> On 2018-06-10 01:06:49 +0000, nospam said:
>>>>>> In article <pfht1g$aau$1@news.albasani.net>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Would it be fair to state that the replacement for Quicktime 7 Pro is
>>>>>>>>> iMovie ?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> the replacement for quicktime 7 pro is quicktime x.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> unfortunately, it's a downgrade.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But using a car with a tricycle isn't really a "replacement", per se.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The "replacement" for QT7Pro, at least for me, is folder full of
>>>>>>> utiltiies which would include iMovie, Screenflow, Handbrake, mp4tools,
>>>>>>> mp4joiner and the like.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> those are apps.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> quicktime 7 is a part of the operating system, although not for long.
>>>>>> its replacement is quicktime x.
>>>> 
>>>> Quicktime 7 *was* part of the operating system and there may be some 
>>>> legacy parts still left over in High Sierra (10.13), but Quicktime X 
>>>> technically replaced it way back in 2009 - nearly 10 years ago. 
>>>> (Admittedly the last update to Quicktime 7 was January 2016 though.)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> any app that uses qt7 will cease to function when qt7 goes away. some
>>>>>> might be updated. some (probably most) won't.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
>>>> 
>>>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work 
>>>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
>>> 
>>> What would those bee?
>>> 
>>> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*, 
>>> not simply a stand-alone app.  As such it was then relaced for 
>>> *systemic use* by QTX, not simply a stand-alone app.  As a systemic 
>>> mechanism, I'm wondering what app(s) make (made?) systemic currently 
>>> use of QTX, and demonstrate its not-just-app utility.
>> 
>> "Quicktime" is a large set of routines and they are used by various 
>> apps, and not just for video. Nobody would be able to give you a 
>> definitive list of which apps use the Quicktime routines, let alone 
>> which ones still use version 7 instead of version X. Any proerly 
>> written new app will be using Quicktime X.
>> 
>> The problem for some people is the Quicktime *PLayer* 7 app because 
>> they still use it for the editing functions which are not available in 
>> the Quicktime *Player* X app. The Quicktime *Player* 7 app is not 
>> 64-bit, so one of of the many old apps that
>> may start having problems in macOS 10.14 ('Mojave') and won't work at 
>> all in 10.15 ... and the same will be true for many, if not all, of the 
>> old apps that use Quicktime 7 routines.
> 
> Many old apps like... which ones again?
> 
>> The reality is that the OS moves on. Old apps stop working and you need 
>> to upgrade or replace those as well. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade, 
>> at least not until your computer dies and you buy a new one.
> 
> Who asked for a definitive list? I get it: Too many to name a few.

Only the developers will know for certain, and only for their app(s).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117226

On 2018-06-10, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> On 2018-06-10 21:26:02 +0000, Your Name said:
>> On 2018-06-10 21:08:57 +0000, gtr said:
>>> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
>>>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
>>>>> 
>>>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
>>>> 
>>>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work 
>>>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
>>> 
>>> What would those bee?
>>> 
>>> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*, 
>>> not simply a stand-alone app.  As such it was then relaced for 
>>> *systemic use* by QTX, not simply a stand-alone app.  As a systemic 
>>> mechanism, I'm wondering what app(s) make (made?) systemic currently 
>>> use of QTX, and demonstrate its not-just-app utility.
>> 
>> "Quicktime" is a large set of routines and they are used by various 
>> apps, and not just for video. Nobody would be able to give you a 
>> definitive list of which apps use the Quicktime routines, let alone 
>> which ones still use version 7 instead of version X. Any proerly 
>> written new app will be using Quicktime X.
>> 
>> The problem for some people is the Quicktime *PLayer* 7 app because 
>> they still use it for the editing functions which are not available in 
>> the Quicktime *Player* X app. The Quicktime *Player* 7 app is not 
>> 64-bit, so one of of the many old apps that
>> may start having problems in macOS 10.14 ('Mojave') and won't work at 
>> all in 10.15 ... and the same will be true for many, if not all, of the 
>> old apps that use Quicktime 7 routines.
>
> Many old apps like... which ones again?

Many Mac apps that displayed animation/video prior to 2009 used
QuickTime APIs, and many of them continued past 2010. You can no doubt
run many of those older versions still today (QuickTime Player 7 being
one example). But most any app in that category that has been updated in
recent years now uses AV Foundation APIs instead. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117214

On 2018-06-10, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
>>> 
>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
>> 
>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work 
>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
>
> What would those bee?
>
> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*, 
> not simply a stand-alone app.

No, it was an old app that used old APIs. It's not complicated: 

* "QuickTime Player 7" is an app that uses the older QuickTime APIs. 
* Third-party apps can also use those older QuickTime APIs. 
* Those older QuickTime APIs have been deprecated for a long time.
* Apple has replaced them with newer APIs - namely "AV Foundation". 
* Up-to-date apps use AV Foundation these days, including the newer
"QuickTime Player" app in more recent versions of macOS. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117216

On 2018-06-10 21:43:50 +0000, Jolly Roger said:

> On 2018-06-10, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
>>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
>>>> 
>>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
>>> 
>>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work
>>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
>> 
>> What would those bee?
>> 
>> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*,
>> not simply a stand-alone app.
> 
> No, it was an old app that used old APIs. It's not complicated:
> 
> * "QuickTime Player 7" is an app that uses the older QuickTime APIs.
> * Third-party apps can also use those older QuickTime APIs.
> * Those older QuickTime APIs have been deprecated for a long time.
> * Apple has replaced them with newer APIs - namely "AV Foundation".
> * Up-to-date apps use AV Foundation these days, including the newer
> "QuickTime Player" app in more recent versions of macOS.

I think I get the entire concept now.  I'm just wondering what 
programs, discontinued, deprecated, unsupported--I just wonder for 
example what they might be, other than of course QuickTime Players of 
any variety.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117221

gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2018-06-10 21:43:50 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
> 
> > On 2018-06-10, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> >> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
> >>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
> >>>> 
> >>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
> >>> 
> >>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work
> >>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
> >> 
> >> What would those bee?
> >> 
> >> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*,
> >> not simply a stand-alone app.
> > 
> > No, it was an old app that used old APIs. It's not complicated:
> > 
> > * "QuickTime Player 7" is an app that uses the older QuickTime APIs.
> > * Third-party apps can also use those older QuickTime APIs.
> > * Those older QuickTime APIs have been deprecated for a long time.
> > * Apple has replaced them with newer APIs - namely "AV Foundation".
> > * Up-to-date apps use AV Foundation these days, including the newer
> > "QuickTime Player" app in more recent versions of macOS.
> 
> I think I get the entire concept now.  I'm just wondering what 
> programs, discontinued, deprecated, unsupported--I just wonder for 
> example what they might be, other than of course QuickTime Players of
> any variety.

Apart from QuickTime Player 7, some I mentioned recently:

- Final Cut Pro 7 (and probably other parts of Final Cut Studio, most of
which is already broken on recent macOS versions for other reasons). The
modern Final Cut Pro does not use the old QuickTime frameworks.

- MPEG StreamClip. Not updated for many years, probably abandoned.

Less certain but at least references the QuickTime framework:

- EyeTV. Elgato sold it to Geniatech last year, and a major new version
is apparently in the works. (I've had version 3 since 2008, and it has
been regularly updated since then.)

All 32-bit frameworks will be gone in macOS 10.15 (late 2019), so any
developers who still have "supported" 32-bit applications have about a
year left to update the application to use modern frameworks (which in
some cases will involve a significant rewrite of the application).
QuickTime is just one of the 32-bit frameworks that will be going away.

Older major versions of applications are more likely to be using older
frameworks, so end users sticking to an old version are more likely to
find it is broken by macOS 10.15.

Applications abandoned by the developer are in a similar situation.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117222

On 2018-06-11 00:24:55 +0000, David Empson said:

> gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-06-10 21:43:50 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>> 
>>> On 2018-06-10, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
>>>>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work
>>>>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
>>>> 
>>>> What would those bee?
>>>> 
>>>> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*,
>>>> not simply a stand-alone app.
>>> 
>>> No, it was an old app that used old APIs. It's not complicated:
>>> 
>>> * "QuickTime Player 7" is an app that uses the older QuickTime APIs.
>>> * Third-party apps can also use those older QuickTime APIs.
>>> * Those older QuickTime APIs have been deprecated for a long time.
>>> * Apple has replaced them with newer APIs - namely "AV Foundation".
>>> * Up-to-date apps use AV Foundation these days, including the newer
>>> "QuickTime Player" app in more recent versions of macOS.
>> 
>> I think I get the entire concept now.  I'm just wondering what
>> programs, discontinued, deprecated, unsupported--I just wonder for
>> example what they might be, other than of course QuickTime Players of
>> any variety.
> 
> Apart from QuickTime Player 7, some I mentioned recently:
> 
> - Final Cut Pro 7 (and probably other parts of Final Cut Studio, most of
> which is already broken on recent macOS versions for other reasons). The
> modern Final Cut Pro does not use the old QuickTime frameworks.
> 
> - MPEG StreamClip. Not updated for many years, probably abandoned.
> 
> Less certain but at least references the QuickTime framework:
> 
> - EyeTV. Elgato sold it to Geniatech last year, and a major new version
> is apparently in the works. (I've had version 3 since 2008, and it has
> been regularly updated since then.)
> 
> All 32-bit frameworks will be gone in macOS 10.15 (late 2019), so any
> developers who still have "supported" 32-bit applications have about a
> year left to update the application to use modern frameworks (which in
> some cases will involve a significant rewrite of the application).
> QuickTime is just one of the 32-bit frameworks that will be going away.
> 
> Older major versions of applications are more likely to be using older
> frameworks, so end users sticking to an old version are more likely to
> find it is broken by macOS 10.15.
> 
> Applications abandoned by the developer are in a similar situation.

Thanks so much.  That was damned educatiional, particularly in the 
respect that I can throw a few mentioned apps away.  Only stored for 
throwing at inscrutable problems, I can assume they will further no 
cause.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117223

On 2018-06-11 00:48:48 +0000, gtr said:
> On 2018-06-11 00:24:55 +0000, David Empson said:
>> gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>> On 2018-06-10 21:43:50 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>>>> On 2018-06-10, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
>>>>>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work
>>>>>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What would those bee?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*,
>>>>> not simply a stand-alone app.
>>>> 
>>>> No, it was an old app that used old APIs. It's not complicated:
>>>> 
>>>> * "QuickTime Player 7" is an app that uses the older QuickTime APIs.
>>>> * Third-party apps can also use those older QuickTime APIs.
>>>> * Those older QuickTime APIs have been deprecated for a long time.
>>>> * Apple has replaced them with newer APIs - namely "AV Foundation".
>>>> * Up-to-date apps use AV Foundation these days, including the newer
>>>> "QuickTime Player" app in more recent versions of macOS.
>>> 
>>> I think I get the entire concept now.  I'm just wondering what
>>> programs, discontinued, deprecated, unsupported--I just wonder for
>>> example what they might be, other than of course QuickTime Players of
>>> any variety.
>> 
>> Apart from QuickTime Player 7, some I mentioned recently:
>> 
>> - Final Cut Pro 7 (and probably other parts of Final Cut Studio, most of
>> which is already broken on recent macOS versions for other reasons). The
>> modern Final Cut Pro does not use the old QuickTime frameworks.
>> 
>> - MPEG StreamClip. Not updated for many years, probably abandoned.
>> 
>> Less certain but at least references the QuickTime framework:
>> 
>> - EyeTV. Elgato sold it to Geniatech last year, and a major new version
>> is apparently in the works. (I've had version 3 since 2008, and it has
>> been regularly updated since then.)
>> 
>> All 32-bit frameworks will be gone in macOS 10.15 (late 2019), so any
>> developers who still have "supported" 32-bit applications have about a
>> year left to update the application to use modern frameworks (which in
>> some cases will involve a significant rewrite of the application).
>> QuickTime is just one of the 32-bit frameworks that will be going away.
>> 
>> Older major versions of applications are more likely to be using older
>> frameworks, so end users sticking to an old version are more likely to
>> find it is broken by macOS 10.15.
>> 
>> Applications abandoned by the developer are in a similar situation.
> 
> Thanks so much.  That was damned educatiional, particularly in the 
> respect that I can throw a few mentioned apps away.  Only stored for 
> throwing at inscrutable problems, I can assume they will further no 
> cause.

You can still run them under the old OS if you set-up your Mac to 
dual-boot, or under virtualisation when you buy a brand new Mac 
incapable of running the old OS itself, or emulation if Apple does 
eventually change Macs over to it's own ARM chips.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117224

On 2018-06-11 01:20:05 +0000, Your Name said:

> On 2018-06-11 00:48:48 +0000, gtr said:
>> On 2018-06-11 00:24:55 +0000, David Empson said:
>>> gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-06-10 21:43:50 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>>>>> On 2018-06-10, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
>>>>>>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work
>>>>>>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What would those bee?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*,
>>>>>> not simply a stand-alone app.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, it was an old app that used old APIs. It's not complicated:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * "QuickTime Player 7" is an app that uses the older QuickTime APIs.
>>>>> * Third-party apps can also use those older QuickTime APIs.
>>>>> * Those older QuickTime APIs have been deprecated for a long time.
>>>>> * Apple has replaced them with newer APIs - namely "AV Foundation".
>>>>> * Up-to-date apps use AV Foundation these days, including the newer
>>>>> "QuickTime Player" app in more recent versions of macOS.
>>>> 
>>>> I think I get the entire concept now.  I'm just wondering what
>>>> programs, discontinued, deprecated, unsupported--I just wonder for
>>>> example what they might be, other than of course QuickTime Players of
>>>> any variety.
>>> 
>>> Apart from QuickTime Player 7, some I mentioned recently:
>>> 
>>> - Final Cut Pro 7 (and probably other parts of Final Cut Studio, most of
>>> which is already broken on recent macOS versions for other reasons). The
>>> modern Final Cut Pro does not use the old QuickTime frameworks.
>>> 
>>> - MPEG StreamClip. Not updated for many years, probably abandoned.
>>> 
>>> Less certain but at least references the QuickTime framework:
>>> 
>>> - EyeTV. Elgato sold it to Geniatech last year, and a major new version
>>> is apparently in the works. (I've had version 3 since 2008, and it has
>>> been regularly updated since then.)
>>> 
>>> All 32-bit frameworks will be gone in macOS 10.15 (late 2019), so any
>>> developers who still have "supported" 32-bit applications have about a
>>> year left to update the application to use modern frameworks (which in
>>> some cases will involve a significant rewrite of the application).
>>> QuickTime is just one of the 32-bit frameworks that will be going away.
>>> 
>>> Older major versions of applications are more likely to be using older
>>> frameworks, so end users sticking to an old version are more likely to
>>> find it is broken by macOS 10.15.
>>> 
>>> Applications abandoned by the developer are in a similar situation.
>> 
>> Thanks so much.  That was damned educatiional, particularly in the 
>> respect that I can throw a few mentioned apps away.  Only stored for 
>> throwing at inscrutable problems, I can assume they will further no 
>> cause.
> 
> You can still run them under the old OS if you set-up your Mac to 
> dual-boot, or under virtualisation when you buy a brand new Mac 
> incapable of running the old OS itself, or emulation if Apple does 
> eventually change Macs over to it's own ARM chips.

They've never been of any use, I would not shift my chair a few degrees 
off axis to use them.  They are in my digital shoebox only for what 
they *might have provided*, which know appears to be nothing.  Now they 
can be discarded.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117225

gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> On 2018-06-11 00:24:55 +0000, David Empson said:
> 
> > All 32-bit frameworks will be gone in macOS 10.15 (late 2019), so any
> > developers who still have "supported" 32-bit applications have about a
> > year left to update the application to use modern frameworks (which in
> > some cases will involve a significant rewrite of the application).
> > QuickTime is just one of the 32-bit frameworks that will be going away.
> > 
> > Older major versions of applications are more likely to be using older
> > frameworks, so end users sticking to an old version are more likely to
> > find it is broken by macOS 10.15.
> > 
> > Applications abandoned by the developer are in a similar situation.
> 
> Thanks so much.  That was damned educatiional, particularly in the 
> respect that I can throw a few mentioned apps away.  Only stored for 
> throwing at inscrutable problems, I can assume they will further no 
> cause.

It is worth noting that if you have some occasionally useful older
applications that can operate well enough in a somewhat constrained
environment (no heavy use of GPU, moderate amount of memory), a
practical option may be to run virtual machine software with an older
version of macOS as a guest.

For example, I use this method to occasionally run old applications like
AppleWorks 6 (PowerPC only) and FileMaker Pro 11 for converting even
older file formats for other people, where the applications in question
already don't run on the current macOS version, and have either been
abandoned or later versions don't support older file formats.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117228

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 6:36:17 PM UTC-7, David Empson wrote:
> gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
> > On 2018-06-11 00:24:55 +0000, David Empson said:
> > 
> > > All 32-bit frameworks will be gone in macOS 10.15 (late 2019), so any
> > > developers who still have "supported" 32-bit applications have about a
> > > year left to update the application to use modern frameworks (which in
> > > some cases will involve a significant rewrite of the application).
> > > QuickTime is just one of the 32-bit frameworks that will be going away.
> > > 
> > > Older major versions of applications are more likely to be using older
> > > frameworks, so end users sticking to an old version are more likely to
> > > find it is broken by macOS 10.15.
> > > 
> > > Applications abandoned by the developer are in a similar situation.
> > 
> > Thanks so much.  That was damned educatiional, particularly in the 
> > respect that I can throw a few mentioned apps away.  Only stored for 
> > throwing at inscrutable problems, I can assume they will further no 
> > cause.
> 
> It is worth noting that if you have some occasionally useful older
> applications that can operate well enough in a somewhat constrained
> environment (no heavy use of GPU, moderate amount of memory), a
> practical option may be to run virtual machine software with an older
> version of macOS as a guest.
> 
> For example, I use this method to occasionally run old applications like
> AppleWorks 6 (PowerPC only) and FileMaker Pro 11 for converting even
> older file formats for other people, where the applications in question
> already don't run on the current macOS version, and have either been
> abandoned or later versions don't support older file formats.
> 
> -- 
> David Empson
> dempson@actrix.gen.nz



Sadly there are too many "let's attack owl for no reason" people in this group and not enough users with the patience to help the people with Android. 

Just 'The Fool' Wondering and owl both lie nonstop and flagrantly and continue to do so. So no motivation in showing any further respect or control. Just 'The Fool' Wondering is far too stupid to write a complex script. The only scripting he's capable of doing is click, click, drool, drool. 

I am working on code which will show off how weak OS X is. 



--
"You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention"
Steve Carroll, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117227

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 5:24:57 PM UTC-7, David Empson wrote:
> gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
> > On 2018-06-10 21:43:50 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
> > 
> > > On 2018-06-10, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > >> On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
> > >>> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
> > >>> 
> > >>> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work
> > >>> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
> > >> 
> > >> What would those bee?
> > >> 
> > >> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*,
> > >> not simply a stand-alone app.
> > > 
> > > No, it was an old app that used old APIs. It's not complicated:
> > > 
> > > * "QuickTime Player 7" is an app that uses the older QuickTime APIs.
> > > * Third-party apps can also use those older QuickTime APIs.
> > > * Those older QuickTime APIs have been deprecated for a long time.
> > > * Apple has replaced them with newer APIs - namely "AV Foundation".
> > > * Up-to-date apps use AV Foundation these days, including the newer
> > > "QuickTime Player" app in more recent versions of macOS.
> > 
> > I think I get the entire concept now.  I'm just wondering what 
> > programs, discontinued, deprecated, unsupported--I just wonder for 
> > example what they might be, other than of course QuickTime Players of
> > any variety.
> 
> Apart from QuickTime Player 7, some I mentioned recently:
> 
> - Final Cut Pro 7 (and probably other parts of Final Cut Studio, most of
> which is already broken on recent macOS versions for other reasons). The
> modern Final Cut Pro does not use the old QuickTime frameworks.
> 
> - MPEG StreamClip. Not updated for many years, probably abandoned.
> 
> Less certain but at least references the QuickTime framework:
> 
> - EyeTV. Elgato sold it to Geniatech last year, and a major new version
> is apparently in the works. (I've had version 3 since 2008, and it has
> been regularly updated since then.)
> 
> All 32-bit frameworks will be gone in macOS 10.15 (late 2019), so any
> developers who still have "supported" 32-bit applications have about a
> year left to update the application to use modern frameworks (which in
> some cases will involve a significant rewrite of the application).
> QuickTime is just one of the 32-bit frameworks that will be going away.
> 
> Older major versions of applications are more likely to be using older
> frameworks, so end users sticking to an old version are more likely to
> find it is broken by macOS 10.15.
> 
> Applications abandoned by the developer are in a similar situation.
> 
> -- 
> David Empson
> dempson@actrix.gen.nz



At one point, Snit said an online denizen was "obsessing" over him, which was nothing more than mentioning any of his socks. Ending support for Mac Classic is long overdue. Was that meant to be to me? Are you being transparent on purpose? 

Now that Jonas Eklundh realized how effective Snit is at playing 'scapegoat' he sees this is not quite as bizarre as it appeared. Who are you even speaking to? 

So, yeah, I buy into my own fancy, fully knowing it is not real, because it makes me reconsider my code, improving it. 



- 
One Smart Penny
http://www.5z8.info/stalin-will-rise-again_j3h5uj_nakedgrandmas.jpg
http://www.macadvocacy.pw/2005/Nov/09/236626.html
Jonas Eklundh Communication

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117218

On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 2:43:52 PM UTC-7, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2018-06-10, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > On 2018-06-10 06:33:17 +0000, Your Name said:
> >> On 2018-06-10 05:15:35 +0000, gtr said:
> >>> 
> >>> What app uses qt7, I wonder?
> >> 
> >> Nothing relatively new and a lot of it probably doesn't even still work 
> >> on the newer macOS versions for various reasons.
> >
> > What would those bee?
> >
> > If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*, 
> > not simply a stand-alone app.
> 
> No, it was an old app that used old APIs. It's not complicated: 
> 
> * "QuickTime Player 7" is an app that uses the older QuickTime APIs. 
> * Third-party apps can also use those older QuickTime APIs. 
> * Those older QuickTime APIs have been deprecated for a long time.
> * Apple has replaced them with newer APIs - namely "AV Foundation". 
> * Up-to-date apps use AV Foundation these days, including the newer
> "QuickTime Player" app in more recent versions of macOS. 
> 
> -- 
> E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
> I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
> 
> JR



Peter 'The Moron' Köhlmann is mere seconds away from being in my kill filter. 

It was Peter 'The Moron' Köhlmann who stated that he and his hired winos used to break windows all the time and it was arousing, not even worth losing sleep over. Now Owl on the other end of the crap doesn't matter. All that matters is Peter 'The Moron' Köhlmann gets to deliver the punchline. So how to deal with this? Don't do anything but ignore the post. Honest discussion isn't part of contrivance and never will be. Peter 'The Moron' Köhlmann is again seen declaring "NOT THERE" when it comes to text on a site where it is written with other words... but Peter 'The Moron' Köhlmann is just too soft in the head or too in over your head to interpret any info he finds. He is as incompetent as Peter 'The Moron' Köhlmann. 



- 
My Snoring Solution!
http://www.5z8.info/dont-just-drizzle_y8q4ut_5waystokillwithamelon
Jonas Eklundh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117217

On 2018-06-10 17:08, gtr wrote:

> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*, 
> not simply a stand-alone app.

Quicktime as an application comes with the system as a "viewer". And
older version of Quicktime (version 7) had the optional purchased of a
licence which enabled certain basic editing functions.

This functionality was removed in later versions, but instead of
replacing the Quicktime app files during upgrades, it moved it to
"Utilities", while providing the newer version in "Applications".

So those who had purchased the extra license for Quicktime 7 got to
preserve this when the app was moved to Utilities and left alone.


The older versions of Quicktime application made use of the quicktime
APIs. (this includes Quicktime 7). Those APIs are going away next year,
and because Quicktime 7 is old and 32 bits, so will it.

The current version of the Quicktime viewer app is 64 bits and uses the
new 64bit APIs so will not be affected when the older apis are
widthdrawn next year.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117220

On 2018-06-10 22:12:34 +0000, JF Mezei said:
> On 2018-06-10 17:08, gtr wrote:
>> 
>> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*,
>> not simply a stand-alone app.
> 
> Quicktime as an application comes with the system as a "viewer".
<snip>

*NO*, that's why people are getting confused.

"Quicktime" is the video and audio component of macOS - it's part of 
the system software and has been since before OS X.

"Quicktime Player" is Apple's viewer app, but many other apps also use 
the Quicktime system functions, and not only video / audio ones either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117243

In article <mnhTC.420307$PE5.364418@fx37.iad>,
	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> On 2018-06-10 17:08, gtr wrote:
> 
>> If I understand correctly, the point above is that QT7 was *systemic*, 
>> not simply a stand-alone app.
> 
> Quicktime as an application comes with the system as a "viewer". And
> older version of Quicktime (version 7) had the optional purchased of a
> licence which enabled certain basic editing functions.
> 
> This functionality was removed in later versions, but instead of
> replacing the Quicktime app files during upgrades, it moved it to
> "Utilities", while providing the newer version in "Applications".
> 
> So those who had purchased the extra license for Quicktime 7 got to
> preserve this when the app was moved to Utilities and left alone.
> 
> 
> The older versions of Quicktime application made use of the quicktime
> APIs. (this includes Quicktime 7). Those APIs are going away next year,
> and because Quicktime 7 is old and 32 bits, so will it.
> 
> The current version of the Quicktime viewer app is 64 bits and uses the
> new 64bit APIs so will not be affected when the older apis are
> widthdrawn next year.


In other words...anything that links with the QuickTime framework will
go away, right?

sh-3.2$ otool -L '/Applications/Utilities/QuickTime Player 7.app/Contents/MacOS/QuickTime Player 7'|grep -i quicktime.framework
	/System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework/Versions/A/QuickTime (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1729.0.0)
sh-3.2$ file /System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework/Versions/A/QuickTime
/System/Library/Frameworks/QuickTime.framework/Versions/A/QuickTime: Mach-O dynamically linked shared library i386

(i.e. QuickTime framework is strictly 32-bit)

Now...if you want to script a check of all *.app/Contents/MacOS/* for
whether they link to that framework, be my guest.  Expect running it
to be really slow, even on a fast system.  And actually, you'd need to
check if any other executable or dylib within the app bundle was
linked to the QuickTime framework too.  There's really no easy way to
answer the question, in other words.  But since all those will be 32-bit
apps, and it IS easy to get a list of those (About This Mac ->
System Report -> Software -> Applications; stretch the window wider as needed
to see the 64-bit Yes/No column), whatever uses the old
QuickTime framework will be among those.

Looks like the old iDVD and iWeb apps (long gone) used it; also Remote Buddy,
Rezilla, the old free version of Senuti before it went commercial, etc;
some surprises in other words, not just stuff that obviously does video.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117202

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 10:15:38 PM UTC-7, gtr wrote:
> On 2018-06-10 01:06:49 +0000, nospam said:
> 
> > In article <pfht1g$aau$1@news.albasani.net>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> Would it be fair to state that the replacement for Quicktime 7 Pro is
> >>>> iMovie ?
> >>> 
> >>> no
> >>> 
> >>> the replacement for quicktime 7 pro is quicktime x.
> >>> 
> >>> unfortunately, it's a downgrade.
> >> 
> >> But using a car with a tricycle isn't really a "replacement", per se.
> >> 
> >> The "replacement" for QT7Pro, at least for me, is folder full of
> >> utiltiies which would include iMovie, Screenflow, Handbrake, mp4tools,
> >> mp4joiner and the like.
> > 
> > those are apps.
> > 
> > quicktime 7 is a part of the operating system, although not for long.
> > its replacement is quicktime x.
> > 
> > any app that uses qt7 will cease to function when qt7 goes away. some
> > might be updated. some (probably most) won't.
> 
> What app uses qt7, I wonder?



The only way that I could disregard SC's constant demand for fixing because of dependency dilemmas or buggy incompatibilities is if I enjoyed the constant number of pipe dreams its developers have been feeding benj since 1986.What !Jones does is certainly better. 

Gee, imagine benj trying to pin his gobbledegook on !Jones and me, no one has ever seen that before 8|. 

I will reverse engineer beetles with my brain. Habits change. Perhaps the concept of a newspaper is getting to be old fashion. 

Open source is only less expensive if your time has no value. LOL! How did benj get so conceited he thinks everything is about him?? 

--
Top Six Ways benj Trolls!
http://www.5z8.info/killallimmigrants_t8w8io_asian-brides
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
http://www.5z8.info/gruesome-gunshot-wounds_t5z0au_cockdock.gif
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web