That is a huge amount of RAM to be needed by a media player. Most of Apple's consumer machines won't be able to use it to it's potential out of the box.

Bad move, Real.

My Gawd!!! 512MB recommended??? For one app????

Well, I guess it's not just one app, it's an instance of Safari, QuickTime, and likely several other apps cobbled together behind an Aqua interface. No wonder it's a pig.

Wonder how Apple feels about Real repackaging its apps and putting their name on it?

Vern Seward

What a hoot, the new 1.8 GHz G5s come with only half the recommended memory requirement for RealPlayer 10. Of course you could use a $500 PC to run RealPlayer.

They might just be saying the obvious about RAM...you need at LEAST 256 MB to comfortably run OS X. 512 MB is enough to where you can run more than a few apps comfortably without disk-thrashing when you switch between them. I typically run about 25 apps, and I've got 1 GB of RAM. When I had 512 MB, I noticed more thrashing than I have now.

I don't think Real itself needs that much RAM. Apple should include 256 MB minimum, with 512 in the G5s. I suppose Apple's only reason not to is to give its resellers the opportunity to put in their own sales pitches ("free 256 MB RAM, etc). It would cost Apple a few dollars, if that, to put in at least 256 MB, as opposed to 128 MB.

Memory requirements aside (which is understandable if you're wanting to run full-screen quality video - give them a break).

I for one am happy that Quicktime is receiving some much needed competition. Hopefully we'll see the end of the nagging to upgrade to Quicktime Pro every time you launch Quicktime and instead they'll include the features in all versions.

Does anyone still think that factory RAM levels are anywhere near what you really need un a computer? Real is just stating the obvious. You need RAM to do what computers do.
Get over it. The answer to how much RAM you need is how much fits. I have never heard anyone say that they have to much RAM. It is just part of modern computing, Let's hear it for a company trying to bring a parity to Mac

The statement on DRM is interesting--why did they bother to update Real for the Mac if they're not going to give them access to the Real-exclusive content?

I foresee updating Real on my machine if it allows me to stream movies. I don't think I will be otherwise.

There are a few benefits to the real player. But overall, I'd just like the decompression codec for their files in QuickTime. I don't need another player.

I think Real is just stating the obvious. An OS X box without 512 mb RAM won't be doing full screen video with any application (at least not with longer video clips). Apple shouldn't be shipping any Macs without 512 megs of RAM in my opinion, except in the case where you want to buy it later from anotherr vendor.

It's good to see competition, anyway. I just hope that this player from Real isn't as buggy as those in the past. It's a shame, though, because my guess is that Real is on its way out. They are getting their can's kicked by Media Player and QT on video, and especially by iTunes on the audio front.

Quote

VSeward wrote:
Wonder how Apple feels about Real repackaging its apps and putting their name on it?

Apple probably LOVES it. That's why they provide the QuickTime SDK and the Apple Web Kit (Safari) to outside developers. There are some radio streams I like that are only available in Real, so if this means Apple has made it easier for Real to not leave the Mac platform, we all win here.

That comment was actually a little bit unfair and/or uninformed. These core technologies are used by many, many apps. Is Apple Mail a bigger pig because it uses Safari Web Kit to display formatted email, or is it more efficient because it means it can share the HTML renderer instead of adding redundant code? What to make of iTunes, which includes an HTML renderer (probably Web Kit), and QuickTime (it's gotta play audio and video)? iTunes...what a pig!

Ultimately, Real and other apps do NOT become bloatware by calling on Web Kit, QuickTime, etc., simply because these technologies are already running on the OS. They just have to call them.

Is it really the case that you could easily replace RealPlayer with your own cobbled collection? No, because there are Real codecs, caching, communications, and display algorithms that are Real's own work. If RealPlayer needs more RAM, it's not because of the Apple technologies that they hook into, it is going to be due to the efficiency (or inefficiency) of Real's code for their own technology.

And that $499 machine RC was talking about? It comes with a whopping 128MB RAM standard. Even the high-end desktop only comes with 512 MB, same as Apple. Check the facts:

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/desktops?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

Ya got to have ram and lots of it..

"Much like Apple's integration of a Web browser into iTunes,..."

This is not true as noted here http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/

RealPlayer 10 only recommends 128MB on Windows, not the ridiculous 512MB on Macs. Check the facts, then you can correct your post:

http://www.real.com/moreinfo/superpass_sysreq.html?

Of course you'll probably want to also run your operating system while running Real Player on the PC. Windows XP has a minimum requirement of 128 MB. Try running XP on that amount of RAM and get back to us, mmmkay? Check the facts at:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
RealPlayer 10 only recommends 128MB on Windows, not the ridiculous 512MB on Macs. Check the facts, then you can correct your post:

You would still have to use Windows on a tinny computer to save those measly few bucks worth of RAM. No thanks, I will stick with my Mac.

This is good news and shows that Apple stuff can be elegantly integrated by third parties with what looks like good results. Very promising.

As for Windows being able to do the same with 128 -- I've seen it working, stopping, starting, hiccupping,...

Get real; if you want to play full video on any machine, you need the RAM (and a decent OS, otherwise you're likely to be rebooting a lot, too...).

I'm assuming those are maximum memory requirements for the most video-intensive activities. If it needs all that for radio streaming, it's much too bloated.

Still, it's good to see them trying to improve their products.

I went to the link provide by Guest, it said minimum for Windows XP is 64 MB, but 128 MB is recommended and that's what comes with a $500 PC.

Thanks for supporting my point. The base configuration of a $500 PC meets the recommend specs for RealPlayer 10, the base configuration of a $2,000 (or sorry $1,999) G5 does not meet the recommended specs for RealPlayer 10.

Either machine would of course benefit from more RAM, but the fact that a $500 PC with no upgrades can run something that a $2,000 G5 can't should give some clue that MACs have gotten grossly overpriced.

Over the last few years PC prices have been heading down, while Mac prices have been heading up. There's a simple reason *competition*, lots of PC vendors, only one Mac vendor, Apple who is gouging its dwindling base for all it can, just like Steve Jobs said he would do.

That is a big bold lie! Case closed!

Looks like RC has been caught in the Bill Gates RDF. If you believe that an XP PC with 128 MB RAM can adequately play back full-motion video, you need to jump out of the RDF for a moment. Ah, but since both Microsoft and Real state that 128 MB is the minimum required, it must be true!

The Guests are really having a bad day, Steve Jobs said:

"I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth -- and get busy on the next great thing".

In case you don't know iPod/iTunes is the next great thing. Here's the quote for doubting Thomases right on TMO. It's time iLemmings faced the music, so to speak.

http://www.macobserver.com/comments/commentindivdisplay.shtml?id=46342

"Over the last few years PC prices have been heading down, while Mac prices have been heading up. There's a simple reason *competition*, lots of PC vendors, only one Mac vendor, Apple who is gouging its dwindling base for all it can, just like Steve Jobs said he would do."

Mac prices have been heading up??? What are you smoking, buddy?

Tiny little detail our friend RC forgot to mention. Steve wasn't running Apple when he made that quote. So it is about as valid as what any of us would have to say if we were running Apple at the time.

Oh, and make sure you refer to the Mac properly. MAC standard for Medium Access Control.

"Looks like Apple will be out of business by midnight tonight. Too Bad." April 14, 2004

Man, you're clueless..get a life. Do something productive with your life...

I bet you don't have a girlfriend

:: djmacdaddy ::

A 500$ hell is 500$ in the trash. You would have to PAY ME 500$ just to take one...which I would probably give to someone I didnt like much. Dell's are like warm beer...they make me want to freaking PUKE!! And Real Player SUCKs very very badly. But this new version, against my better judgement, Actually shows some promise.
As for ram...yes all mac's should have 512 stock. GET OVER IT. Theres a few empty slots for a reason...TO FILL WITH MORE RAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
The Guests are really having a bad day, Steve Jobs said:

"I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth -- and get busy on the next great thing".

That is not a bad thing, it is good business, MicroSoft is milking Windows. At least a Macintosh looks and "feels" good when you milk it.

Guest quote:
"Mac prices have been heading up??? What are you smoking, buddy?'

Didn't you notice that Apple just raised the base price for a G5 from $1799 to $1999, that's a $200 increase. Apple also is discontinuing all PowerMac G4s which had a base price of $1299. That means the cheapest headless Mac just went from $1299 to $1999, a $700 or 54% price increase.

The new base price for a G5 is much higher than the base price in years past for G3s and G4s. I know you're saying "but you're getting so much more", true, but PCs are also much improved during the last few years, yet their prices have been going down.

This Guest must have been high on Apple Kool-Aid to deny that Mac prices are increasing. Setting all these Guests straight is starting to feel like a turkey shoot.

Quote

Guest wrote:
There are a few benefits to the real player. But overall, I'd just like the decompression codec for their files in QuickTime. I don't need another player.

I have actually asked Real about this. Here's their response:

Quote

Sorry. Here's the problem. We pay licensing fees to a lot of third parties, who bind us to using these codecs only for our stuff.

Moreover, we license the codecs for a reason. We do it to make our media framework and products more useful and enticing. So, while I'm sure everyone would love it if we opened these up to everyone else's framework, I would hope that people think it through enough not to expect it.

As far as answering what else is enticing about our framework, I'll address that in another post.

Rob Lanphier
Development Support Manager
RealNetworks

A quick check of the Apple site shows that the least expensive Mac is the eMac at $799. This is less expensive than Macs of the past.

Of course, if you selectively pick and choose which models you'd like to base your pricing comparison on, and don't take into account extra goodies and features that are added to the newer machines, you can come up with any sort of bogus pricing comparison that you'd like.

One would think that having his flawed reasoning pointed out multiple times, RC would run off and worship his PC or something. But this forum must give him the attention he so desperately needs.

Quote

ld wrote:
Memory requirements aside (which is understandable if you're wanting to run full-screen quality video - give them a break).

I for one am happy that Quicktime is receiving some much needed competition. Hopefully we'll see the end of the nagging to upgrade to Quicktime Pro every time you launch Quicktime and instead they'll include the features in all versions.

There's an easy (and legal) way to end that nagging:
1. set your computer's date to sometime in the distant future- say 2015
2. Keep launching QT until the nag box appears and hit "remind me later" or whatever (i forget the exact words)
3. Set the date back to what it really is.

Ta-da! now QT won't nag you until after 2015!

It'd be nice, even if limited to listening on computer and CD burning. I fail to see why they'd even include limited Helix DRM support if they didn't plan on offering *something* downloadable. And if they could prove to Apple that a significant number of Mac users were downloading their 192k AAC files even for on-computer and burning only, then maybe Apple would be more willing to open the iPod to them.

I also maintain that if they offered it, I would *try* the Starz service. I can't say as to whether I'd keep it, but I would give it a fair shot. I've been a RealOne SuperPass subscriber for quite a while now, and I do look forward to the increased support that the new player will offer.

And, I have plenty of RAM, as should any OS X user who seriously expects to accomplish something with their machine. My 704 MB of RAM eagerly awaits RP10.

Got Milk?

This new release is great if they had an encoder for the OSX platform. As a developer nothing can beat Quicktime!

http://www.realnetworks.com/products/realexport/index.html

Quote

VSeward wrote:


Wonder how Apple feels about Real repackaging its apps and putting their name on it?

Vern Seward

Quicktime is an API. Webcore is an API. Apple fully intended developers to integrate these capabilities into their apps. Truth is, no one media player is the endallbeall. That webmasters doggedly cling to proprietary streaming formats and encoding necessitates RealPlayer, QuickTime, Windows Media Player, and VLC. Do I wish everyone streamed MPEG-4 over RTSP or SMIL? Yes. Will it happen? Two words, herding cats.

Thanks for the link.

Stoked and can't wait to check it out!!!!

According to the TMO article the minimum is 256 MB RAM, 512 MB recommended.

Can anyone confirm the RAM requirements?

Personally I wouldn't run Mac OS X or Windows 2000/XP on anything less than 512 MBs of RAM. Virtually all of the performance issues I encounter on 2000/XP boxes are due to a lack of RAM. In a heavily networked environment less than 512 MB RAM on 2000/XP leads to performance and productivity slowdowns.

Real Networks is in real trouble. They are failing to achieve profitability and in the most recent fiscal year achieved positive cash flow only through debt acquisition. The company is in a tough spot. No wonder they are attempting to release this version for Mac OS X without taking the development time to make RAM usage more efficient.

I tend to use Real Player on both Macs and Windows only when the content isn't available in QuickTime. Competing with both Microsoft and Apple in the media player market is not an easy task and Real's financial performance reflects this challenge.

The new features look interesting and I'm looking forward to testing the product on both Macs and PCs. I'm interested in a few of the Mac-specific features and how well the product is integrated with Rendevous and Safari.

Vern, it's not Safari or the QuickTime Player -- it's the WebKit Framework, and the QuickTime framework, and Apple really wants developers to use these frameworks.

There are different operating systems that need amounts of RAM and video memory. Window XP is not sharp graphic as Mac OS X except future Longhorn 2006. You who will own future Longhorn 2006 based PC computer will need more alot of memory than Window XP. Mac OS X uses alot of memory for font antialisasing with micro-pixel positioning and quartz delivers device-independent and resolution-independent rendering of anti-aliased text, bitmap images and vector graphics. Window lacks some or even, I notice Window XP's text somewhat looks ugly.

Quote

DawnTreader wrote:
According to the TMO article the minimum is 256 MB RAM, 512 MB recommended.

Can anyone confirm the RAM requirements?

The whole memory thing is being blown out of proportion. The 512 is a "recommendation" especially if people want to take advantage of fullscreen video and other sophisticated features while multitasking. In most test cases the player was very responsive and had no problems with configurations with lesser memories.
I do hope that everyone gives it a try and lets us know if there are any memory and performance issues (given that this is a beta, a little bit of that is expected and we will be working hard to optmize it for the final release).
Glad to see the excitement, our team is excited to be delivering a player that is one up with the well recieved RealOne Player for OSX (the current gold version).

Thanks, Guest

Our members will be among the first to try the new version.

I will give it a shot with my 1.8DP G5, with it's measly 512MB of RAM in it.

I hate Real content, always have and always will unless they do something drastic with it.

This does indeed sound drastic in the change department, but the RAM requirements, whether recommended or not, are still a bit on the large side.

Quicktime doesn't need 512MB of RAM to run full screen video smoothly, neither should Real.

rm format needs to die already

stone age

I only have 128 megs (yikes!) and Real's fullscreen video ran very smoothly even though I had several apps running. Not too shabby.

Quote

Spider wrote:
I will give it a shot with my 1.8DP G5, with it's measly 512MB of RAM in it.

I hate Real content, always have and always will unless they do something drastic with it.

This does indeed sound drastic in the change department, but the RAM requirements, whether recommended or not, are still a bit on the large side.

Quicktime doesn't need 512MB of RAM to run full screen video smoothly, neither should Real.

Glad to hear it. The player has been very well recieved and we would love your feedback on what you want to see in the next version.
thanks!
V
--
Vikram Dendi
Product Manager, RealPlayer for Mac