Java or Quicktime plugin?

[Francis]

I'm setting up a small website for panorama pictures. Problem is that I
must decide which type of viewer to use. I don't want one million versions
of the same panorama, so I must pick a viewer type to use. I like the java
viewer the best, but I also like the QuickTime one too. I don't want the
active-x one because it's (I believe) specific to MS Explorer.

If you had to choose, which one would you allow to load into your
computer... Java or QuickTime?

- Francis

 

[Crash Gordon]

You may also have problems with Java, it requiring JVM on the user's machine.
Then again Quicktime also requires plugin.

| I'm setting up a small website for panorama pictures. Problem is that I
| must decide which type of viewer to use. I don't want one million versions
| of the same panorama, so I must pick a viewer type to use. I like the java
| viewer the best, but I also like the QuickTime one too. I don't want the
| active-x one because it's (I believe) specific to MS Explorer.
|
| If you had to choose, which one would you allow to load into your
| computer... Java or QuickTime?
|
| - Francis
|
|

 

[Guest]

Francis

You are definitely dealing with a choice of compatibility. The Quicktime plug-in is easily downloaded but I have found that many people do not have it installed. The Java applet is by far the easiest, but Microsoft JVM will cause issues also

The best solution is to provide two, but you mentioned you didn't want to do that, so if it is one or the other I would probably go with the QuickTime. The reason for this is anybody can download QuickTime, compared to not being able to download the JVM at all

JD
***************

 

[Crash Gordon]

You can still get JVM though, I think newbies will walk away first...


| Francis,
|
| You are definitely dealing with a choice of compatibility. The Quicktime plug-in is easily downloaded but I have found that many people do not have it installed. The Java applet is by far the easiest, but Microsoft JVM will cause issues also.
|
| The best solution is to provide two, but you mentioned you didn't want to do that, so if it is one or the other I would probably go with the QuickTime. The reason for this is anybody can download QuickTime, compared to not being able to download the JVM at all.
|
| JDR
| ***************

 

[chris leeds]

another solution would be to use flash or JavaScript. I guess If I could
only chose between java and the QuickTime I'd go with the QuickTime. I've
seen some really cool things done with it. I think it's a quicker download
with less objectionable unintended potential as java.
IMHO

 

[Francis]

Thanks for the replies... perhaps the QuickTime plug-in may be the plug-in
of choice... hmmmm.

- Francis