Slow downloads

Discussion in 'Firefox' started by gcotterl@co.riverside.ca.us, Jul 13, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I'm using Firefox 1.0.4, Earthlink.net and Windows 2000 Professional.

    Why am I not getting "instantaneous" video downloads, as advertised?

    How do I resolve the "Quick time is missing software required to
    perform this operation. Unfortunately, it is not available on the quick
    time server." message?
     
    , Jul 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Splibbilla Guest

    in news::

    > I'm using Firefox 1.0.4, Earthlink.net and Windows 2000 Professional.
    >
    > Why am I not getting "instantaneous" video downloads, as advertised?
    >
    > How do I resolve the "Quick time is missing software required to
    > perform this operation. Unfortunately, it is not available on the quick
    > time server." message?


    you probably googled, but.. did any of these give clues?
    http://groups.google.dk/groups?hl=e...e required to perform this operation. Unfortu
    nately,+it+is+not+available+on+the+quicktime+server%22
     
    Splibbilla, Jul 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Moz Champion Guest

    Splibbilla wrote:
    > in news::
    >
    >
    >>I'm using Firefox 1.0.4, Earthlink.net and Windows 2000 Professional.
    >>
    >>Why am I not getting "instantaneous" video downloads, as advertised?
    >>
    >>How do I resolve the "Quick time is missing software required to
    >>perform this operation. Unfortunately, it is not available on the quick
    >>time server." message?

    >
    >
    > you probably googled, but.. did any of these give clues?
    > http://groups.google.dk/groups?hl=e...e required to perform this operation. Unfortu
    > nately,+it+is+not+available+on+the+quicktime+server%22



    'instantaneous' depends on the speed of your connection and the size of
    the video download

    In most cases, the quicktime error is generated because the underlying
    file is improperly formatted or contains errors in the script.
     
    Moz Champion, Jul 13, 2005
    #3
  4. Guest

    I connect to the Internet via DSL and the video downloads are less than
    10 MB.

    ===================================================================================

    Most of the time, when the video download is in a format that Quick
    Time can handle, I first see the Quick Time "clock" logo, then the
    video plays.

    But, sometimes, I see the Quick Time "clock" icon. Then, after a
    while, it changes to Quick Time's "broken-film" icon and the video is
    NOT played.

    Or, a bar (which normally shows how much of the video has played and
    how much remains) is displayed. Then, after a while, the box appears
    saying "Quick time is missing software required to perform this
    operation. Unfortunately, it is not available on the Quick Time server"
    and the video is NOT played.
     
    , Jul 14, 2005
    #4
  5. Moz Champion Guest

    wrote:
    > I connect to the Internet via DSL and the video downloads are less than
    > 10 MB.
    >
    > ===================================================================================
    >
    > Most of the time, when the video download is in a format that Quick
    > Time can handle, I first see the Quick Time "clock" logo, then the
    > video plays.
    >
    > But, sometimes, I see the Quick Time "clock" icon. Then, after a
    > while, it changes to Quick Time's "broken-film" icon and the video is
    > NOT played.
    >
    > Or, a bar (which normally shows how much of the video has played and
    > how much remains) is displayed. Then, after a while, the box appears
    > saying "Quick time is missing software required to perform this
    > operation. Unfortunately, it is not available on the Quick Time server"
    > and the video is NOT played.
    >


    You lost me here, what the heck are you talking about?
    I dont have the time to re-read each and every message in a thread to
    re-call a discussion I was participating in.

    Please, to make it a lot easier, quote previous messages.

    Okay so you got DSL and the downloads are less than 10mb, what does that
    have to do with anything?

    The quick time problem. It depends on how the file is presented on the
    server, its format and whether or not its mime type is correct or not.
    Dependent upon the url where you get the message, it can be that the
    file is presented with an incorrect mime type from the server. Simply
    because its called a mov (quick time movie) doesnt make it a qt movie
    if its encoded as an avi.
     
    Moz Champion, Jul 14, 2005
    #5
  6. Guest

    My original posting said: "Why am I not getting 'instantanous' video
    downloads, as advertised? I'm using Firefox 1.0.4, Earthlink.net and
    Windows 2000 Professional".

    Your reply said that "instantaneous' depends on the speed of my
    connection and the size of the video download.

    In my reply to you, I said that I'm connecting to the Internet via DSL
    and the video downloads are less than 10 MB.

    Your last reply said "You lost me here, what the heck are you talking
    about? I dont have the time to re-read each and every message in a
    thread to re-call a discussion I was participating in".
     
    , Jul 14, 2005
    #6
  7. Guest

    My original posting said: "Why am I not getting 'instantanous' video
    downloads, as advertised? I'm using Firefox 1.0.4, Earthlink.net and
    Windows 2000 Professional".

    Your reply said that "instantaneous' depends on the speed of my
    connection and the size of the video download.

    In my reply to you, I said that I'm connecting to the Internet via DSL
    and the video downloads are less than 10 MB.

    Your last reply said "You lost me here, what the heck are you talking
    about? I dont have the time to re-read each and every message in a
    thread to re-call a discussion I was participating in".
     
    , Jul 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Moz Champion Guest

    wrote:
    > My original posting said: "Why am I not getting 'instantanous' video
    > downloads, as advertised? I'm using Firefox 1.0.4, Earthlink.net and
    > Windows 2000 Professional".
    >
    > Your reply said that "instantaneous' depends on the speed of my
    > connection and the size of the video download.
    >
    > In my reply to you, I said that I'm connecting to the Internet via DSL
    > and the video downloads are less than 10 MB.
    >
    > Your last reply said "You lost me here, what the heck are you talking
    > about? I dont have the time to re-read each and every message in a
    > thread to re-call a discussion I was participating in".
    >


    Well, if you had quoted previous messages, you wouldnt have had to
    explain that, would you, and I could have answered your implied question

    Who 'advertised' instaneous in the first place?
    Any ISP will always have a disclaimer (usually hidden in the TOS) about
    speeds - 'up to' 1mb for example means you can get as much as 1mb per
    second, but will probably see less in reality.

    The 1mb is the TOP speed you can get, its not the ONLY speed! Its like a
    car... many are advertised as capable of doing 120mph or even higher.
    Yes you CAN go that fast, but in most cases you simply wont. Traffic for
    one. Traffic on the internet can affect your speed most drastically. For
    example, when a software maker releases a new product, downloads from
    the site may be abysmally slow for a few days, simply because many are
    trying to get it at the same time.

    Coffee is advertised as 'instant' as well, isnt it? But they dont
    include heating the water in that concept, do they?

    What exactly is meant by 'instaneous' depends entirely on who is doing
    the talking. Its IMPOSSIBLE for example to get a 10mb file
    'instaneously' over a 1mb per second line - it would take at least 10
    seconds. The file may 'start' to download (or even play) in a few
    milliseconds (effectively instanteously) but it wont all be downloaded
    and available in an instant.

    Your 1mb limit is just one limit in the chain connecting you to the
    server on which the file resides. There may be a SLOWER connection
    somewhere between you and it, and files are transferred at the lowest limit.

    If you persist in editing out or not quoting previous messages, then I
    wont bother with assisting you. Others may, but I wont.
     
    Moz Champion, Jul 16, 2005
    #8
  9. Guest

    Moz,

    I thought my original posting plus all replies formed a "tree" so
    readers can refer to all of the postings without searching for each
    indivdual posting.

    Gary



    Moz Champion wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > My original posting said: "Why am I not getting 'instantanous' video
    > > downloads, as advertised? I'm using Firefox 1.0.4, Earthlink.net and
    > > Windows 2000 Professional".
    > >
    > > Your reply said that "instantaneous' depends on the speed of my
    > > connection and the size of the video download.
    > >
    > > In my reply to you, I said that I'm connecting to the Internet via DSL
    > > and the video downloads are less than 10 MB.
    > >
    > > Your last reply said "You lost me here, what the heck are you talking
    > > about? I dont have the time to re-read each and every message in a
    > > thread to re-call a discussion I was participating in".
    > >

    >
    > Well, if you had quoted previous messages, you wouldnt have had to
    > explain that, would you, and I could have answered your implied question
    >
    > Who 'advertised' instaneous in the first place?
    > Any ISP will always have a disclaimer (usually hidden in the TOS) about
    > speeds - 'up to' 1mb for example means you can get as much as 1mb per
    > second, but will probably see less in reality.
    >
    > The 1mb is the TOP speed you can get, its not the ONLY speed! Its like a
    > car... many are advertised as capable of doing 120mph or even higher.
    > Yes you CAN go that fast, but in most cases you simply wont. Traffic for
    > one. Traffic on the internet can affect your speed most drastically. For
    > example, when a software maker releases a new product, downloads from
    > the site may be abysmally slow for a few days, simply because many are
    > trying to get it at the same time.
    >
    > Coffee is advertised as 'instant' as well, isnt it? But they dont
    > include heating the water in that concept, do they?
    >
    > What exactly is meant by 'instaneous' depends entirely on who is doing
    > the talking. Its IMPOSSIBLE for example to get a 10mb file
    > 'instaneously' over a 1mb per second line - it would take at least 10
    > seconds. The file may 'start' to download (or even play) in a few
    > milliseconds (effectively instanteously) but it wont all be downloaded
    > and available in an instant.
    >
    > Your 1mb limit is just one limit in the chain connecting you to the
    > server on which the file resides. There may be a SLOWER connection
    > somewhere between you and it, and files are transferred at the lowest limit.
    >
    > If you persist in editing out or not quoting previous messages, then I
    > wont bother with assisting you. Others may, but I wont.
     
    , Jul 16, 2005
    #9
  10. Moz Champion Guest

    wrote:
    > Moz,
    >
    > I thought my original posting plus all replies formed a "tree" so
    > readers can refer to all of the postings without searching for each
    > indivdual posting.
    >
    > Gary
    >
    >
    >
    > Moz Champion wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>My original posting said: "Why am I not getting 'instantanous' video
    >>>downloads, as advertised? I'm using Firefox 1.0.4, Earthlink.net and
    >>>Windows 2000 Professional".
    >>>
    >>>Your reply said that "instantaneous' depends on the speed of my
    >>>connection and the size of the video download.
    >>>
    >>>In my reply to you, I said that I'm connecting to the Internet via DSL
    >>>and the video downloads are less than 10 MB.
    >>>
    >>>Your last reply said "You lost me here, what the heck are you talking
    >>>about? I dont have the time to re-read each and every message in a
    >>>thread to re-call a discussion I was participating in".
    >>>

    >>
    >>Well, if you had quoted previous messages, you wouldnt have had to
    >>explain that, would you, and I could have answered your implied question
    >>
    >>Who 'advertised' instaneous in the first place?
    >>Any ISP will always have a disclaimer (usually hidden in the TOS) about
    >>speeds - 'up to' 1mb for example means you can get as much as 1mb per
    >>second, but will probably see less in reality.
    >>
    >>The 1mb is the TOP speed you can get, its not the ONLY speed! Its like a
    >>car... many are advertised as capable of doing 120mph or even higher.
    >>Yes you CAN go that fast, but in most cases you simply wont. Traffic for
    >>one. Traffic on the internet can affect your speed most drastically. For
    >>example, when a software maker releases a new product, downloads from
    >>the site may be abysmally slow for a few days, simply because many are
    >>trying to get it at the same time.
    >>
    >>Coffee is advertised as 'instant' as well, isnt it? But they dont
    >>include heating the water in that concept, do they?
    >>
    >>What exactly is meant by 'instaneous' depends entirely on who is doing
    >>the talking. Its IMPOSSIBLE for example to get a 10mb file
    >>'instaneously' over a 1mb per second line - it would take at least 10
    >>seconds. The file may 'start' to download (or even play) in a few
    >>milliseconds (effectively instanteously) but it wont all be downloaded
    >>and available in an instant.
    >>
    >>Your 1mb limit is just one limit in the chain connecting you to the
    >>server on which the file resides. There may be a SLOWER connection
    >>somewhere between you and it, and files are transferred at the lowest limit.
    >>
    >>If you persist in editing out or not quoting previous messages, then I
    >>wont bother with assisting you. Others may, but I wont.

    >
    >


    Please bottom post if you will. That is, quote previous messages then
    write your reply.

    You really expect me to read every single message in a 'tree' just so I
    can 'catch up' to what the conversation is about? The problem you are
    concerned with is familiar to you, you may remember what was said,
    suggested and tried. Personally I am involved in dozens of threads at
    any one point in time, and I simply DONT remember all the details for
    any specific problem.

    It's not the finding of the messages that takes time, threading takes
    care of that, its the effort required to open each individual message
    and then the next until all are read. You try it with a problem you are
    unfamiliar with, by the time you get to the last message in some
    threads, you cant remember what the original problem was!

    You want to edit and snip, then by all means go ahead. I simply wont be
    answering your questions if you do, because I value my time.
     
    Moz Champion, Jul 17, 2005
    #10
  11. RDL Guest

    Dear Moz Champion --

    Please save everyone a lot of time and aggravation by NOT
    replying at all to the top posters who annoy you so much. This
    would be a much more rational and efficient policy than your
    current one of appending an admonition to the bottom of every
    post that doesn't please you. I find it quite annoying to read
    down to the bottom of your replies to people's messages only to
    find nannyish complaints, but no help given.

    TIA,
    Richard

    Moz Champion <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> Moz,
    >>
    >> I thought my original posting plus all replies formed a "tree" so
    >> readers can refer to all of the postings without searching for each
    >> indivdual posting.
    >>
    >> Gary
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Moz Champion wrote:
    >>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>My original posting said: "Why am I not getting 'instantanous' video
    >>>>downloads, as advertised? I'm using Firefox 1.0.4, Earthlink.net and
    >>>>Windows 2000 Professional".
    >>>>
    >>>>Your reply said that "instantaneous' depends on the speed of my
    >>>>connection and the size of the video download.
    >>>>
    >>>>In my reply to you, I said that I'm connecting to the Internet via DSL
    >>>>and the video downloads are less than 10 MB.
    >>>>
    >>>>Your last reply said "You lost me here, what the heck are you talking
    >>>>about? I dont have the time to re-read each and every message in a
    >>>>thread to re-call a discussion I was participating in".
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Well, if you had quoted previous messages, you wouldnt have had to
    >>>explain that, would you, and I could have answered your implied question
    >>>
    >>>Who 'advertised' instaneous in the first place?
    >>>Any ISP will always have a disclaimer (usually hidden in the TOS) about
    >>>speeds - 'up to' 1mb for example means you can get as much as 1mb per
    >>>second, but will probably see less in reality.
    >>>
    >>>The 1mb is the TOP speed you can get, its not the ONLY speed! Its like a
    >>>car... many are advertised as capable of doing 120mph or even higher.
    >>>Yes you CAN go that fast, but in most cases you simply wont. Traffic for
    >>>one. Traffic on the internet can affect your speed most drastically. For
    >>>example, when a software maker releases a new product, downloads from
    >>>the site may be abysmally slow for a few days, simply because many are
    >>>trying to get it at the same time.
    >>>
    >>>Coffee is advertised as 'instant' as well, isnt it? But they dont
    >>>include heating the water in that concept, do they?
    >>>
    >>>What exactly is meant by 'instaneous' depends entirely on who is doing
    >>>the talking. Its IMPOSSIBLE for example to get a 10mb file
    >>>'instaneously' over a 1mb per second line - it would take at least 10
    >>>seconds. The file may 'start' to download (or even play) in a few
    >>>milliseconds (effectively instanteously) but it wont all be downloaded
    >>>and available in an instant.
    >>>
    >>>Your 1mb limit is just one limit in the chain connecting you to the
    >>>server on which the file resides. There may be a SLOWER connection
    >>>somewhere between you and it, and files are transferred at the lowest limit.
    >>>
    >>>If you persist in editing out or not quoting previous messages, then I
    >>>wont bother with assisting you. Others may, but I wont.

    >>
    >>

    >
    >Please bottom post if you will. That is, quote previous messages then
    >write your reply.
    >
    >You really expect me to read every single message in a 'tree' just so I
    >can 'catch up' to what the conversation is about? The problem you are
    >concerned with is familiar to you, you may remember what was said,
    >suggested and tried. Personally I am involved in dozens of threads at
    >any one point in time, and I simply DONT remember all the details for
    >any specific problem.
    >
    >It's not the finding of the messages that takes time, threading takes
    >care of that, its the effort required to open each individual message
    >and then the next until all are read. You try it with a problem you are
    >unfamiliar with, by the time you get to the last message in some
    >threads, you cant remember what the original problem was!
    >
    >You want to edit and snip, then by all means go ahead. I simply wont be
    >answering your questions if you do, because I value my time.



    ***************************
    Replace + with - for email
     
    RDL, Jul 17, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Expert lino fitter

    Re: slow slow slow!

    Expert lino fitter, Dec 10, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    668
    Expert lino fitter
    Dec 10, 2008
  2. Expert lino fitter

    Re: slow slow slow!

    Expert lino fitter, Dec 10, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    671
    Expert lino fitter
    Dec 12, 2008
  3. Beauregard T. Shagnasty

    Re: slow slow slow!

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 10, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    678
    Shel-hed
    Dec 10, 2008
  4. chuckcar

    Re: slow slow slow!

    chuckcar, Dec 10, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    549
    chuckcar
    Dec 10, 2008
  5. General Patron

    Re: slow slow slow!

    General Patron, Dec 11, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    529
    General Patron
    Dec 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page