Talk:QuickTime Alternative

Who's behind this package?
Anyone knows who's behind this package? I've been wondering about this for years now...
 * Well, Mr. Jobs, you needn't know everything.

AfD
The article deletion is still in progress, and is not archived yet. Please don't remove the afd notice. It will only gather more support if it is supported by the community--Anupamsr 12:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam link?
I tried to update the version information on this article, but it prevented me from doing so because it had a link to a site which was called spam. This site is the official distribution site for QuickTime Alternative as evidenced by the first result in Google when searching for Quicktime Alternative.

Criticisms at the end
Are the overly intrusive installation and tendency to leave components behind on uninstall problems with QuickTime Alternative, or with the official QuickTime software? The article doesn't make it very clear. CarrerCrytharis 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

cpu usage
QT seems to hog the cpu, driving the cpu to 100% even on fast modern Windows PCs. If QTA is better about cpu usage, that would be Notable. -69.87.204.26 (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Last Paragraph
The last paragraph just reads like an opinion of someone's and just sort of goes nowhere with no point or references. Delete? Clamum (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam and revert war over "official site"
I have semi-protected this article for a nominal period of 1 month because people are revert warring about which site (codecnews.com or codecguide.com) is the official site for this codec. Initially I wasn't sure which was the right site, but upon examining Alexa data, I see that codecnews.com has no traffic data, compared to codecguide.com which is around the 6000th most-visited site on the internet. This clear disparity suggests that codecnews.com is a domain registered to cannibalise on the traffic to codecguide.com, and is not the official site. A check of the WHOIS data on the domain confirms that it was registered in October 2008, compared to August 2004 for codecguide.com. In light of this, and without any references in favour of codecnews.com being the "official site", I am treating any link changes to codecnews.com as spam, and reverting accordingly. If the semi-protection is ineffective to prevent this spam, I will fully protect the article from editing. - Mark 13:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Windows 2000 - v1.90
QuickTime Alternative 1.90 was the last version with support for Windows 2000. This old version is still listed on the main codecguide website, and can be downloaded from FileHippo, along with lots of other old versions. filehippo.com/download_quicktime_alternative/3188/

But QT Lite 1.90 is also the last version with support for Windows 2000. It is not listed anywhere, and cannot be downloaded anywhere. Which is frustrating, and nuts. -96.237.13.253 (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

QTAlt - MPC = QTLite ?
The QuickTime Alternative installation offers a box to uncheck to not install Media Player Classic. The may result in an installation pretty much the same as QT Lite? -96.237.5.252 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At least that's what it's author says:
 * QT Lite contains exactly the same components as QuickTime Alternative. The ONLY difference between the two packs is that QT Lite does not contain Media Player Classic.
 * Fleet Command (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Operating System Support
Greetings, everyone.

I've temporarily changed the operating system support statement into "Microsoft Windows" only, because last statement — "Windows 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, 2008 and 7" — had some problems:
 * First: It lacked citation from a reliable source.
 * Second: It contradicts Features new to Windows 7 and Windows Media Player 12 articles. They state that Windows 7 natively supports playing QuickTime .MOV files.
 * Third: The history section says QuickTime Alternative no longer supports Windows 2000.

So, unless you get a reliable source that says exactly which version of Windows are supported by QuickTime Alternative or QT Lite, please No original researchs and no conclusions or personal opinions.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Newer versions are not spam
Newer versions are not spam, so do not revert, but check the site to verify instead. SoftwareGuide (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop your vandalim/linkspam, forcing visitors to visit your website instead of the developer website. Do not use multiple accounts for those operations. -Denniss (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

QuickTime Alternative/Lite and Real Player Alternative/Lite
Does anyone know why these two programs were removed without explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From the forums of the official download site: There are no links on the site anymore to stimulate the use and development of open-source alternatives, such as VLC and ffdshow, instead of the use of proprietary software. (codecs.freeforums.org/quicktime-lite-t3111.html)
 * In the same way also other non free codecs have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.154.217 (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Developers?
The link labelled developers does not point to a company or indivuals or a group, insted it points to another product, with another developer link... 134.247.251.245 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on QuickTime Alternative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for //codecs.freeforums.org/quicktime-lite-t3111.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)