Just wanted to chime in on this thread..was busy for a few days. first of all, there is a difference between an editing codec and a distribution codec. Quicktime Pro offers prbly 50 or more different codecs; some are for editiing (as in Final Cut) some are for distribution, such as for streaming on your web page. the original poster said his boss said WMV was "more advanced" than QT. I find that comment both nebulous and meaningless, since A) Apple releases updates and improvements to QT all the time, and B) Apple actually *creates* new developments in video, whereas the other company swipes, cops and tries to hobble video delivery and playback. Perhaps the "boss" meant that WMV was more advanced at hobbling your experience?? Now, there's an accomplishment to crow about! If you did a side by side of the same clip, QT is capable of delivering higher quality than WMV. QuickTime is an industry standard even among Windows professionals. Not to say that you can't edit and create in WMV/Windows, but QuickTime is the standard because of the level of quality it can deliver both in editing and in distributing. Yeah, h.264, et al, are highly processor intensive, but understand what they're for: distrubution. IOW, you do it ONCE, then let people benefit from a much smaller, but extremely high quality download. Great for trailers. Great for independent film distro. exporting to Pixlet, h.264, etc. is something you do when all your editing is done. You don't work with it WHILE editing. You hit export to h.264 on your G5 or mac pro at 4:59pm, then go home and have a life while the computer blasts away at it all night. nk