Wednesday August 24, 2016
Jump to content
This new item on the front page of the email edition raises questions for me. Can you tell us anything about it? I would like to know if it is for viewing another video format? I may already have an application which will work, for instance, if it is a shockwave flash viewer. Before downloading the plug-in, I would like to know how large it is? With my dial-up connection I can d/l as much as one megabyte, but over that and I drop off. Most video items are over one megabyte, so I can't view them even if I do download them. I remember the trouble I had the last time we had videos on the front page. So, if you can advise, I will appreciate it.
Sorry, Fred. Can't help you. I would have no idea how the plug-in runs. My Mac comes with QuickTime and iMovie built in, as do all Macs, so I have no reason to download any other player.
What the heck, download it. What can you lose?
I had a hunch it was something to do with Apple. I'll try it. All it can do is crash me!!!
Just keep saying no. It works without it. I recently deleted QickTime from my windows system and my system cleared up. I have hit the no box and had no trouble responding to this blog.
Thanks for the advice, I'll try it that way. The Apple downloader gave me an estimated 11 hours to complete the d/l. I canceled it. I don't need videos anyway...this is not a TV set!
Tom, I should have bought an Apple!
If you have dial-up connection to the web there is no point in trying to download videos. They keep making these things more enhanced and they are huge files. Dial-up just can't handle it and even if you did try to download it would, as you said, take a day and in addition, take another day to view the video.
Your advice to yourself is correct, you don't need it.
As an aside, getting an Apple wouldn't help.
Your comment about "it" having "something to do with Apple" confuses me. I haven't seen the plug-in you are talking about, and I did not mean to imply that it had anything to do with Apple. I only mentioned QuickTime because that's the video player that comes with a Mac. It is Apple proprietary software, as is all the software that runs my four Macs.
John is right, of course. It would do you no good to buy an Apple unless you upgraded your connection. A dial-up connection just does not have the bandwidth to handle video. I have a DSL connection from Qwest. Works great. I'd go nuts without it and it's not at all expensive. I understand the cable company also has a high speed connection, so if you have cable you might want to go that way.
My advice? At first, a high speed connection seems like something you don't need because you have been getting along with a dial-up for a long time and have worked around a lot of problems that have to do with the internet getting faster and faster. So if you have a fairly fast machine you'd no doubt enjoy a faster connection.
On the other hand, if you have an older PC it might make sense to stay with what you have because even if you upgraded your connection the speed of your machine might still be a bottleneck. But if you have a relatively fast machine then you'd be surprised how much a faster connection will enhance your online experience.
This little laptop Mac I am typing on right now is my slowest machine. It runs on Mac OS X Version 10.4.4 and has a 1.42 GHz Power Processor and 42 GB drive, so it not as screaming fast as my main machine, but it runs videos like a champ and is sometimes so fast I have to check to see if it really did something because there was no visible pause between the time I tapped a key and the time the action completed. So you don't really need a super-fast machine for video, and if you have one that runs at modern speeds it sure makes life a lot simpler if you have a fast connection to match it.
Check with Qwest or the cable company. My last bill included something about a DSL line for nineteen dollars or something.
And look around on the net for a good used, but fast, machine if you need one. I happened onto a site the other day and saw a used, guaranteed machine identical to the one I am using right now. It was $439 instead of the fourteen hundred or so I paid for it. That means that you could probably comes up with used PC (instead of a used Mac) for beans.
Thank you for your reply. I am very happy to be able to read the Roundup, without playing any videos. In fact, I use text-only web editions of the national news media. That said, I still get plenty of pictorial content.
Thanks for keeping the Roundup, and the forum going.
As soon as you mentioned 'Quick Time', I realized it is Apple software. It's unfortunate that Apple and IBM are not compatible in regard to video. I have plenty of software for movies and video. The low dial-up speed is what is limiting me. I don't intend to get cable or DSL in the near future, since I am happy with internet the way I now view it. Thanks for backing up John's advice.
It's good to see him on the forum!
Fred, surprisingly enough, Macs and Windows machines run the same videos, and can even use the same video players now that Apple went to OS X. You see, OS X, unlike Windows, now uses Unix, which is the operating system used on many multi-million dollar mainframe computers. Interestingly enough though, the Cray Super Computer uses a clone of Unix called Linux, which was--of course--developed by someone named Linus Torvalds (?).
What makes Unix so valuable as an operating system for a home or business computer is that it is used in servers, workstations, and mobile devices, so if your machine uses it, it is automatically compatible with them. And on top of that, UNIX is the base of the internet (and brought about the fundamental idea of computing as centered in networks). ARPANET, the original educational interchange branch of the internet was, in fact, completely based on Unix.
In 1991, Linus Torvalds began work on Linux, a Unix clone that initially ran on IBM PC compatible computers. Now Windows machines run on Windows, which is a proprietary system owned by Microsoft and will always have problems until Microsoft quits fooling around with an obsolete system, trying to keep it running (and making people by new machines) by tweaking it. The logical thing for Windows machines to do is to go to Linux (which is free, which they can run on right now, and which is so stable that a machine can be left running for months without a glitch.)
(read on if you need a laugh)
There are two problems with Unix, both of which I find hilarious.
The first one is funny now, but won't be so funny in 2038. You see, Unix stores system time as the number of seconds since midnight of...um-m-m...1 January, 1970 (back when it was first developed; I could be a year off). And for some reason I don't quite get because I am not into 32 bit systems, when 19 January 2038, and the number rolls over from one ridiculously big number (a zero followed by by 31 ones) to another ridiculously big number (a one followed by 31 zeroes), the systems all over the world will reset the time either to the year 1901 or 1970.
The fix is to go to 64 bit system, which will keep things running quietly for a while.
For 292 billion years, which ought to be enough to last us a while. :-)
The other problem is one that really cracks me up. If you have one Unix system, what do you say you have if you are using more than one Unix system?
The great geniuses who run the world can't make up their minds.
Some like to say "Unixes."
Others, no doubt the ones who got talked into taking Latin in school, prefer "Unices." They tell me that makes Unix a noun of the third declension, which to me explains why Rome got sacked by the Huns.
They were probably trying to decide whether to yell, "Here come the Huniticae," "Here come the Hunices," "Here come the Hunorae," or "Here come the Hunifora."
And before they could make up their minds the Huns were all atop the walls and all over them.
Others, who are no doubt descended from the Huns, and who like good-old Anglo-Saxon ways of forming words insist on "Unixen."
I would just say, "Here's my machine. Runs on Unix. So does that one over there. And you %$#@! Huns up there better get offa our walls or we'll blow your fannies back to the Volga. :-)
OK Tom, thanks for the info. So, 2038 will be interesting! We lived through 2000 (Y2K).
Maybe by that time we'll all be running on Unices. :-)
Posting comments requires a free account