On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hans@at.or.at">hans@at.or.at</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style=""><div><br></div><div>64-bit Gem on Mac OS X could drop Quicktime/Carbon in favor of gstreamer and/or gmerlin which I believe is already implemented on GNU/Linux. </div></div></blockquote><div><br>That would throw away the advantages of QT on OSX, and I would probably no longer use GEM if that happened.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style=""><div>Then its just window management, which doesn't seem so huge, but I haven't done it before.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>It would require interfacing the C++ code with Objective-C. It is possible, but fairly masochistic. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div>Am I right in assuming that Gem could really benefit by 64-bit because it would allow it to use more than 4 gigs of RAM?</div><div> </div></div></blockquote><div>I cannot recall anyone ever saying they hit this limit. Even the massive projects I did using many HD clips and capture never got close to this.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div> </div></div></blockquote></div><br>