Here it is at last QuicktTime 4. Help files.

davidchristmass
16 MB
Posts: 29
Joined: January 18th, 2011, 6:32 pm

Here it is at last QuicktTime 4. Help files.

Postby davidchristmass » January 18th, 2011, 7:30 pm

Goodday all,

As the Apple Host site is so spammed up with javascripting, and All things X ish, and PCish, I am posting up an archive of Quicktime 4 help as an attachment, Apple might post the file up on their site, but there again they might not under the proviso about being busy doing X stuff, to cut to the chase, and cull the nonsense:

Here's the low down.

Quicktime 4. help as it installs with Mac OS 9, check.

Installs the route archive folders and index, minus the pages as folders of the book.

The result is the top level indexs, minus the substance.

Thousands of postings appear on boards asking where Quicktime help actually is, these could have been quickly addressed, its where the software application looks for it. But since X, it ain't. Apple have attempted to provide a compendium of a help pdf, but this does not inteface with Quicktime 4.


Further with the persistant rearrangements and updates of the Apple host site, most people are lucky to find anything pertaining mildly to their needs on legacy stuff, unless it predates 1998, let alone what they require, even if they can get past the stoic idiots that still attest that compatible OS rule the roost. We on Mac OS 9 are simply not interested in downgrading to a Mac X AKA PC OS, but that is not my point here, the point is just because some idiots do want that, why should the Mac OS 9 community be forced not to have the support parts they bought.

The bottom line to all the X changes are the Apple removed the Online help from the Application address, and recommend Quicktime 7 which probably requires some kind of X rated OS also.

As many people left their Mac OS 9 auto updates on, until finding themselves getting into a mess, and being advised by Apple to switch that feature off, many people out their after a reinstall don't possess now Quicktime Help 4 which should have come with their original install. So the mails go too and fro, and everyone thinks the other person ain't looking hard enough.

Well I did, this archive posting is not simple a hex up of the folder from a system install. It is the painstaking recovery of the original Mac OS 9 Quicktime 4. help files of yester year, from all over the place, some from my system, some from online which for some reason, aren't to be found on the Apple main site, and some I had to create.

More info about this Quicktime Help 4 folder is in the disk image, archive.

DO NOT CORRUPT THIS ARCHIVE POSTING

DO NOT REMOVE THIS ATTACHMENT POSTING.

DO PLEASE ARCHIVE THIS ATTACHMENT in the directory at

ftp://archive.info-mac.org/_Information/

for all our tommorrows woes to be gone!

Thank you

Dr David Christmass
Attachments
Quicktime 4 help arch.img.hqx
(377.12 KiB) Downloaded 129 times
User avatar
Turboladdade
1024 MB
Posts: 1407
Joined: October 31st, 2007, 10:44 pm

Re: Here it is at last QuicktTime 4. Help files.

Postby Turboladdade » January 18th, 2011, 7:45 pm

I was not aware Software Update or whatever was breaking QuickTime Help in Mac OS 9. If that's the case, then thanks I guess for sharing this resource.

That being said...

How much help does one actually need with QuickTime? I don't think I've ever once referenced any section of QuickTime help, and I work extensively with QuickTime, both as an end-user and a developer. In fact, much of my livelihood right now revolves around QuickTime.

Mac OS 9 was really great, ten years ago. The last time I used Mac OS 9 in an actual production environment was probably 2004 or so. I have several machines that still run it, but I rarely boot them anymore, and even when I do, it's for good old nostalgic fun, not real work.

I think you should migrate to Mac OS X. It's really great too, I promise.
I am now telling the computer exactly what it can do.
davidchristmass
16 MB
Posts: 29
Joined: January 18th, 2011, 6:32 pm

Re: Here it is at last QuicktTime 4. Help files.

Postby davidchristmass » January 19th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Hi Mau,

I grew up with PC's I bought a Mac because I like the operating system, and how if peforms. I like the cool temperature of a processor, about 25 degrees on peak load. I think intel runs about 55 degrees, a minimum. That affects mean time to fail, and shelf life. I am trying to get away from PC's, altogether: its hard!


I like the full access to the desktop, of Mac OS 9.

I like the ease with which things can be updated or altered on Mac OS 9.

I like the composite way in which files and applications are one item, not spread about like old macdonalds farm. I like things together, and organised, not all over the place.

I don't like Mac X files structure, and layout of items.

Mac X has become too much like what I don't like about Windows, too affected and influenced by PC enthusiasts.

I like the speed, of having low res icons. I like a small operating system, not tiers of layers of system, before my commands reach the processor.

I like the system that was designed by computer scientists, not artists.

I am ten years into 9, and to be honest, too set in my ways to get my head around a complete new learning curve of operative procedures.

I grant you though X does look pretty, (on the shelf) and if it is the first thing Mac you ever found, from a PC switch, I am not surprised you like it.

If I ever get stuffed, for doing anthing with Mac OS 9, and require a new OS, if it can't be the standard Apple Mac OS it will be a RISC OS from Acorn.

Yup, afraid so, Mac OS 9 don't install the full quicktime help info. Everyone is taking it as a given the thing exists in updates, and it does not. Now it is online, it won't be lost to the community.

There are loads of tricky sneaky things about quicktime, heres one trick for 4.1.2 if you own the pro edition. If you open a midi file, you can change the musical instruments, and add all sorts of special effects to the exiting portfolio of instruments by direct access to the atom level of QT maybe ever create your own musical instruments. Apple tend to keep this tucked up away from sight as custom instruments will affect how your player functions.

Must get on there are things to be done.
User avatar
Turboladdade
1024 MB
Posts: 1407
Joined: October 31st, 2007, 10:44 pm

Re: Here it is at last QuicktTime 4. Help files.

Postby Turboladdade » January 20th, 2011, 12:42 pm

Not trying to be rude, but basically everything you said is either misguided or just plain false. It's shocking (even horrifying) that every now and then we still have someone come around here and post about how "bad" Mac OS X supposedly is and how wonderful Mac OS 9 was/is. This is all based on misunderstanding of Mac OS X and, perhaps some form of psychosis. Allow me to break apart your argument line-by-line:

davidchristmass wrote:I grew up with PC's I bought a Mac because I like the operating system, and how if peforms. I like the cool temperature of a processor, about 25 degrees on peak load. I think intel runs about 55 degrees, a minimum. That affects mean time to fail, and shelf life. I am trying to get away from PC's, altogether: its hard!


PowerPC chips were infamously hot. In fact, that was one of the primary reasons (besides slowness) cited by Apple for switching to Intel. We who are not new to Macs, waited year after year for a G5 notebook. It was impossible. Motorola and IBM failed to deliver, and in hindsight, it's really not too difficult to understand why. Outside of Apple, PowerPC's only real use is in embedded systems and servers, for which die size and heat are not really issues. IBM really had no compelling reason to improve their PowerPC products in a way solely designed to please Apple. PowerPC is just not cut out to be a desktop processor.

The coolest running PowerPCs were G3s and *some* later G4s. 601s, 604s and G5s were crazy energy hogs that could never be tamed, finally climaxing in complex Rrube Goldberg-esque liquid-cooling mechanisms that were prone to failure and make the purchase of used G5 towers quite ill-advised.

Today's Macs are often just as loud when turned on as they are when unplugged - deathly quiet. Even the most intense Mac Pro 12-core workstations barely approach a low whisper in normal use - a testament to the energy efficiency of modern Intel chips.

davidchristmass wrote:I like the full access to the desktop, of Mac OS 9.


Not sure what that means. I have "full access" to not only all the standard Mac OS GUI features, but also hundreds of others using the command line. Mac OS X is much, much more feature rich than Mac OS 9 could ever have been. It was literally a technological impossibility for Mac OS 9 to be improved any further.

davidchristmass wrote:I like the ease with which things can be updated or altered on Mac OS 9.


Not sure what that means either. I hope you're not harkening back to Appearance Themes as a basis for sticking with Mac OS 9. The reasons for its removal were well discussed and documented ten years ago when it happened. It was a pure headache for Apple to maintain and for developers to ensure the quality of their software. With its removal, a big source of bugs and ensuing resource expenditure on bug-fixing was removed overnight.

davidchristmass wrote:I like the composite way in which files and applications are one item, not spread about like old macdonalds farm. I like things together, and organised, not all over the place.


That's the whole point of a package in Mac OS X, something that never existed under Mac OS 9. An application bundle is an example of a Mac OS X package. Most Mac OS X applications are in fact self-contained packages that simply reside in the Applications folder. They won't even have their own folders (as all Mac OS 9 applications did). In fact, being a self-contained application is an unbreakable requirement for acceptance into the Mac App Store.

The closest equivalent on Mac OS 9 was resource forks, which were much harder for developers to work with and which caused great difficulty for end-users, especially when transferring online.

davidchristmass wrote:I don't like Mac X files structure, and layout of items.


Such as? Mac OS X's file system is very well organized and easy to understand.

davidchristmass wrote:I like the speed, of having low res icons. I like a small operating system, not tiers of layers of system, before my commands reach the processor.


Your concerns here are all really vague and sound more like conjecture of what you *think* might be an appealing characteristic - like low-res icons. I promise icons render much faster on modern Macs than on 1990s Macs. We don't sit around waiting for icons to draw when memory is being heavily used, something I can recall quite clearly when using something like Photoshop on Mac OS 9.

davidchristmass wrote:I like the system that was designed by computer scientists, not artists.


That just doesn't make any sense. Apple employes the best of the best in software and hardware engineers.

davidchristmass wrote:I am ten years into 9, and to be honest, too set in my ways to get my head around a complete new learning curve of operative procedures.


Well that's your problem, not the computer's. Mac OS X is very similar in behavior to Mac OS 9. It won't be much of a learning curve for anyone familiar with Mac OS 9 to use Mac OS X. Behaviorally, Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X are much closer related than say Mac OS X and Windows 7.

davidchristmass wrote:I grant you though X does look pretty, (on the shelf) and if it is the first thing Mac you ever found, from a PC switch, I am not surprised you like it.


It's not. I've had (and still have) many computers that still run everything from System 6 all the way up to today's Snow Leopard. I keep them around for nostalgic reasons - but I don't delude myself into believing they're superior in any way, and I definitely don't use anything but Mac OS X on Intel Macs for real work.

davidchristmass wrote:If I ever get stuffed, for doing anthing with Mac OS 9, and require a new OS, if it can't be the standard Apple Mac OS it will be a RISC OS from Acorn.


That's even more sad than sticking with Mac OS 9. Religious evangelism of RISC was justified in the 1990s when it actually made sense. While the fundamentals of reduced instruction sets may still be true, in reality there is no consumer PowerPC processor that comes anywhere close to the Intels. Even the earliest Intels obliterated the fastest PowerPC systems, and we're now in the fifth year of Intel-based Macs.

davidchristmass wrote:Yup, afraid so, Mac OS 9 don't install the full quicktime help info. Everyone is taking it as a given the thing exists in updates, and it does not. Now it is online, it won't be lost to the community.


OK but I just don't understand why that is such a big issue for you? I use QuickTime as part of my job, every single day. I've never referenced any version of QuickTime help even once.

davidchristmass wrote:There are loads of tricky sneaky things about quicktime, heres one trick for 4.1.2 if you own the pro edition. If you open a midi file, you can change the musical instruments, and add all sorts of special effects to the exiting portfolio of instruments by direct access to the atom level of QT maybe ever create your own musical instruments. Apple tend to keep this tucked up away from sight as custom instruments will affect how your player functions.


You can do all of this in Mac OS X with a much fancier program that comes with every Mac called GarageBand.
I am now telling the computer exactly what it can do.
leonAzul
32 MB
Posts: 48
Joined: November 18th, 2010, 6:11 am

Re: Here it is at last QuicktTime 4. Help files.

Postby leonAzul » January 23rd, 2011, 2:43 pm

davidchristmass wrote:Thousands of postings appear on boards asking where Quicktime help actually is, these could have been quickly addressed, its where the software application looks for it. But since X, it ain't. Apple have attempted to provide a compendium of a help pdf, but this does not inteface with Quicktime 4.


With all due respect, IMHO, you have mis-diagnosed the problem. It is not that the help system is broken, it is that QT 4 is not designed to run under OS 9. The appropriate version for OS 9.0.4 and later is QT 6, with version 6.0.3 being the latest and optimal.

Getting a QT Pro license at this late date is, of course, a problem. One solution is to run a third party app that has the Pro license bundled with its own. IIRC, one can also access the advanced editing features (but not the third party codecs) by installing QT 6 and then launching QuickTime Player 2.5. It's a bit squirrelly but feasible up to OS 9.0.4, IIRC. Obviously YMMV.
davidchristmass
16 MB
Posts: 29
Joined: January 18th, 2011, 6:32 pm

Re: Here it is at last QuicktTime 4. Help files.

Postby davidchristmass » February 5th, 2011, 8:00 am

Goodday,

I have time enough to correct two points posted.

The first relates to QT 4 not being correct for OS 9. Mac OS 9 installs QT 4.03 standard: there is no question of it being designed for anything less. Mac 8.5 installs with Quicktime 3, and 8.6 just updates some of its components.

Therefore Quicktime 4 is very appropriate to Mac OS 9, and the correct update for Mac OS 9, is QT 4.1.2.

Quicktime 6 came much later, and allows for greater capacity to work with Mac X on a dual OS system like panther. As I am not going near Mac OS X, that QT 6 exists is rather academic to me.

The second point relates to the remarks about X, vs Mac OS and PPC chipsets vs intel.

I measured my chip with a thermometer on a DVM, it stands at 25 degrees on a G3, like the software testbench states. Intel Chips run hot, in fact, having had much experience with electronic components, I would seriously have to think hard before making any criticism about Motorola components whatsoever. So the Mean time to fail on PPC chips is lower, in point of fact they are remarkably robust.

Back in the days when I had do deal with complex command chip sets like intel and pentiums, I seem to recall the operating tempreture being between 50 to 80 degrees depending upon load. As most low grade kit, carries components with a temperature limit of 85 degrees, I consider that unacceptable to my requirement, on the grounds of reliability. I won't argue the point, hardware will prove me right.

Now we come to the X situation. X stems from Unix and Unix was designed in the early sixties. In contrast, pascal was equally old, but favoured by sciencists for a variety of reasons. C is a structured language which complements pascal in many ways complements the structured way I think, so for 21 years these man machine and interface, ran together without one hint of problems, on Apple Motorola 68000's but the introduction of and craze about object orientated languages saw C evolve to C++, and these complement each other in many ways mostly in an unstrtuctured pattern. But all this came from 1984, from Steve and Woz, and slightly before, 1977 at the earliest. My first encounter with Apple was at an IT81 exhibition at Kent University. I saw all the origins, GEM, precursor to windows, CBM, IBM: microsoft were not there. In those days I was forced to use a RM 480 and 380 Z: I bought a ZM spectrum in defiance, having used a PC system, I hated it! I remember having to code on IBM using put 8 and put 15 commands just to get sound, the graphics were awful, and the Sinclair spectrum
shook the RM standard, right off its stage: those machines were and embarrasment to technology compared to what Apple presented, and Clive Sinclair showed everyone, just how awlful it was to be forced to use black and white graphics.

Now, the introduction of PPC to Apple, brought about something nobody extant in the media wanted, an affordable HPC high performance computer for the masses. Having trained at Sony, and at a variety of other places like the IBA training college in Devon, and the BBC training school in London, and worked at the leading (most technically advanced in the world outside Hollywood) Post production company in London for much of the eighties, and nineties, I well know that people outside of the media don't like much having that kind of computer power, out there in the public domain, and on the secretaries desktop: consequently, X exists for the consumer and Mac OS exists for those involved in imaging. I knew Macs all over the place, mostly in medicine, where they are used for imagining, during non invasive surgery. I see roles for ipads all over the place in medicine. That Mac OS PPC is openly criticised, and debased and obstructed, snubbed ignored and debased, has much to do with Apple demonstrating that they are a HPC computer platform development player, and having reached this level of compliance to HPC systems, I see no reason to compromise and go back to make a successful Operating System, more compliant to the greater market of Microsoft compliant systems.

The Apple decision to support and offer Intel has much to do with supply: they were denied supply of development in PPC and IBM were given favoured preference: basically the way I see it, was that the HPC boys like SGI and Symbolics and Cray, closed ranks for fear of losing their customer base to an Apple system which offer Quicktime technology upon HPC PPC RISC based lines. All that stuff is very essential to people that render and model in real time, but not to people that just need to type letters and surf the web, and do itunes stuff.

X is consumer for the home market, Mac OS PPC is not: it is industry standard open technology.

In addressing the dissection of my remarks, about X, I just don't have time to discuss the matter. But I will be proved right in that WILL NOT BE AN APPLE X OPERATING SYSTEM: on the one hand it is a fallacy to state it, on the other Apple pride themselves in being there, and will be there in the future. Large OS systems, like X, and Windows, and Java won't. As the world gets larger, Apple are not constrained in ability, but the world is, we are confined to communicate using network routing technology which was developed in the 1950 cold war period and later in the 1960's. This network is massive, but old, and how and when it can be updated, is a matter of political social and economic debate rather than something Apple or any other company can redefine: it is massive, and designed to work with written words and graphics, not multimedia streaming and remote programming scripting. That those facilities work currently is a privilage which won't always be available, certainly not to everyone: no matter how fast your chip works or how much you pay for broadband, there are physical and biological constraints to the development and implementation of high speed transmission networking.

But the principal I would like to leave you to consider, is that of standard in the PC domain: these don't exist. The base of technology of windows stems from bug fix after bug fix of a put you up DOS system that was designed in the 1960's not the 1980's like Apple Mac OS. This DOS UNIX LINEX standard has many structural interpetations of directory indicators like * . / - _ # !to name a few. When these get exchanged from one OS of DOS to the Next, the systems alter the character names such that each version of DOS is only compliant with the DOS code of its maker: in joining in with X Apple have invented their own standard of encoding based on Unix, and not completely compliant with anything else in the PC realm. I leave you with a question, in programming, especially object orientated programming, how do you address a command to call a file routine, when its name, could be interpreted as a multiplicy of different references: without error, with efficent coding, and with the certainty, their will be no errors of reference? How do you guarentee that archives will not alter file structures, on exchange?

I knew DOS and Windows before Apple: I won't be leaving the Mac OS domain in the future, I won't be compromising my hardware standards. Basically, now I have Apple Mac OS, I so greatful to Jobs and Woz, and Amelio for getting the Apple to 9. I am so pleased that Apple offer PC lovers a chance at joining the leading World Standards in computing, and I am sure anyone that subscribes to the Apple X platform will realise the experience of dealing with Apple infinately better than any other company in the computer market: someone said to me once, if you are not into a market, you cannot influence its people, I see the future of X influencing people towards the Mac OS standards, which were right, and not the Mac OS standards being influenced towards X Apple OS's. From an electronics perspective, computer companies are a bunch of Sharks, thank heavens Apple exist, if they did n't I would have been lunch many years ago!

You see there are definate technical reasons which underpin my sticking with Mac OS 9, and these cannot be altered. Mac OS 9 is structually right. And I will support the Apple founders on this point for the rest of my life, and suffer the consequences of data losses at my peril should I ever wane of falter from the straight and structured path of the genius of their innovations in 1980's.

I really must get on.

TQ

David

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Community Announcements”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest