The OP thought that the full version of the SW would only play video in fullscreen ie 4:3. Numanoid pointed out correctly that fullscreen means "wholescreen" in this case. The video would present in whatever aspect ratio the software provided. The OP then "corrected" him. I corrected the OP that Numanoid was right and he/she was wrong.

So your comment, quoted above, is completely wrong. He did NOT mean what I, Numanoid, and others posted. He thought that "fullscreen" would take a wide image and matte it down.

You scream, I scream, we all scream, for Widescreen!

You quoted Class316. The original poster was incorrect, but Class316 seemed to mean exactly what others have described, at least in the sense that i got.

Are we actually having this conversation? :whofart:

Gulp!

You're right. I quoted the wrong poster. Sorry.

<IMG SRC="http://home.comcast.net/~clarksbarn/trainwreck.jpg" border=2><P>

Come ON guys! When was the last time any of you LOOKED at an Apple computer? Most of them come with screens more closely approximating 16:9 anyway.

I didn't think it would be possible, but when I realized this fact, this conversation suddenly seemed MORE ridiculous. :P

unreal. some people need to get out more and smell the roses. (Maybe I'm in this category too for actually reading this thread!!!)

I'm a Mac person myself, but there's no reason that the mention of QuickTime is ridiculous. Like iTunes, there is a PC-compatible version of QuickTime, after all...

True, the Apple cinema display is in a widescreen ratio, but most of us can't afford one. Don't know about Apple's "midrange" monitor (haven't seen a picture lately), but I don't think their built-in monitors are widescreen (certainly not in the eMac).

By the way, how about that new "headless" iMac (the Mac Mini)? Who would've thought Apple would've come up with a Mac retailing for under $500!