MLB.TV help on a Mac?

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 3, 2007 12:07 AM EST Comment 35 comments

I remember someone on the last MLB.TV thread saying they were able to get the MLB.TV player to go full-screen. The first Dodger game of the year is on tomorrow morning (joy!), and I can't seem to figure out how to maximize the window.

I have tried to watch the game on Firefox, Safari, Mozilla, Opera and Explorer. I have tried using Flip4Mac and Windows Media Player (I even redownloaded WMP 9). Right now, I can watch the game in normal (read, small) size with F4M, while I can't even get the feed to start with WMP. On NEITHER version can I get anything that resembles an indication that I could go full-screen.

Is there something else somebody could recommend doing? Is there anything that works for others? Is there something I should download?

I'm sorry to create a whole diary about this, but I'm getting desperate. It's Friday night, and I need to go out and get trashed. The last thing I want to do when I'm hung over tomorrow morning is try to squint at some tiny-@$$ screen or, worse, try to figure this $#!+ out then.

What the hell am I doing wrong?

Poll

Is there any reason to have a poll with this diary?

Yes

0 votes

No

4 votes

Other

5 votes

Philip Hughes

22 votes

31 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well

You bought a Mac.

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/J-R-B --- Projections, prospect spotlights, fantasy bits, and witty banter. Feb 20: Bullpen Bolsterin' in ATL

by JRB on Mar 3, 2007 12:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

yup

That about sums it up

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Mar 3, 2007 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and what does it say about that decision....

.....that I would still it every time, even if that shrunk the picture to HALF it's current size?

Well, at least we can all agree the answer to the poll is Philip Hughes. I'm out for the night. If anyone who actually HAS a Mac wants to answer, I'd be forever grateful when I get back and find an answer.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 3, 2007 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And

We'll continue to chuckle good-naturedly at your situation.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Mar 3, 2007 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

chuckle all you'd like....

....but now my feed goes fullscreen just like yours. And, meanwhile, my computer is just better, which I think your "good-natured chuckling" pretty much proves. How so? Well, if you thought you had a Lexus and I had bought the Ford Taurus, would you really be laughing that yours worked better than mine? But, if I had gone big and bought a Mercedes, while you had decided to go economical and buy an Accord, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to laugh when your dependable Accord held together while my luxurious Benz experienced a few difficulties. Seems to me the latter is this situation. So, laugh all you want, but I'm going to continue to enjoy my Benz while watching Loney, LaRoche, Kemp, D.Y. and Abreu in fullscreen.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 3, 2007 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now THAT is funny...

A Mac as a Benz...
The perfect car comparison for a Mac, if anything, is the Mini Cooper, from the overemphasis on design to the yuppie market share and the necessity of overpriced custom parts.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Mar 3, 2007 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what kind of yuppies....

....buy Mini Coopers? You seem to confuse snobs and little b*tches in your stereotyping frequently.

Maybe a Benz isn't the perfect analogy, but I stick to my basic point.

p.s., Would you please stop confusing all Macs with iMacs? The iMac is the C-Class of Benzs -- you'd have to be a fool to think you're getting the company's actual product instead of just the name if you buy one.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 3, 2007 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Unreal

Your lack of knowledge of the Mac is astounding. Go ahead and keep enjoying your OS-limited machine that doesn't work nearly as well.

by FunWithHeadlines on Mar 3, 2007 9:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

go to the main apple page and then look for the

discussion forums and ask someone. Theres many nice people in those forums who have helped me a few times. Use this link

http://discussions.apple.com/index.jspa
hope it works out for you

by krgrecw on Mar 3, 2007 1:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I have a Mac

Just got it, and the lack of full screen was a tragedy---MLBTV back in '05 actually worked with quicktime, and now that it's windows media, we're kinda screwed man...

I have that premium MLB.TV package too, so I'd love to utilize it to its fullest. I'd take double size, whatever. It's just a bad job by MLB to market that it's "compatible" with macs when it has such a horrible limitation to it.

A pre-2001 comparison on what player Albert would be most similar to: Fernando Tatis.

by PujolsJunkie on Mar 3, 2007 3:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

well try right clicking on the screen

Oh wait, you can't do that.

by wibadger on Mar 3, 2007 3:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

not true

Macs have a right click, either hit control click or, novel idea, hook up a 2 button mouse.

by shaftr on Mar 3, 2007 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

it really bothers when people act like a right-click is some special "perk" with a PC. if you really want it, it works on a Mac too. it's not like Steve Jobs never heard that PCs have these -- he just realized that, on a Mac, you really don't need one to get everything done easily. the inability to "right click on the screen" doesn't really make me feel deprived.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 3, 2007 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ha ha!

"on a Mac, you really don't need one to get everything done easily"

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Mar 3, 2007 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well......?

...................?

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 3, 2007 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Use flip4mac

and then change it to open in quick time and it will go to basically full screen

by andwoo on Mar 3, 2007 9:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

great!

i have a mac and haven't bought MLB.TV yet, and it'd be great if this is true...if others would confirm, that'd be great!

by scooter on Mar 3, 2007 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes! it works!

if you need any help getting it to work, I'll happily help you. it's really simple. i'm just (still) not sure if it will work on archived games, but you should be able to get live games in fullscreen no problem.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 3, 2007 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

brilliant!

I tried that 20 times for the archived games last night, and it wouldn't open up on a separate window. I wonder what the deal was there.

Anyway, thanks so much! I owe you big time.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 3, 2007 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

It really was just a setting in flip4mac, for wmp to open as quicktime....im VERY pleased

A pre-2001 comparison on what player Albert would be most similar to: Fernando Tatis.

by PujolsJunkie on Mar 3, 2007 2:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The point

is that time spent on a message board is not needed for PC-users to figure out how to go full-screen with MLB.TV. Macs are great computers - I don't dispute this - but I will opt for the simpler (and just as effective) technology that the other 98% of the world uses. Plus, I won't need to rely on civilian troubleshooting.

If I have a great need for video editing and have a lot of money to spend on technology that will outpace itself in 2-3 years, I buy a Mac. Since I don't have either of those things, I'll opt for the significantly cheaper and just as effective technology, and also be reassured that my company won't use refurbished parts to replace broken ones should such an event arise.

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/J-R-B --- Projections, prospect spotlights, fantasy bits, and witty banter. Feb 20: Bullpen Bolsterin' in ATL

by JRB on Mar 3, 2007 5:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

are you really making the claim...

....that PC users do not need help figuring out how to do things on computers? I think a quick search of the Internet (if not your common sense) will tell you that's absurd.

The difference between the two is that Mac users need to ask others for help when technology was originally built for PCs. PC users need to ask for help how to use their computer at all, or help repairing it after it gets infected. It's purely a preference which you'd rather ask others to help you with. I'll spend the extra money to buy a product that I can always work easily and, once in a while, have to jump through a few extra hoops to incorporate a PC-based technology.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 3, 2007 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

He think 98% of the world uses Windows (not true), that Macs get obsolete faster than PCs (just the opposite of reality), and that Macs are considerably more expensive (just the opposite unless you want such a low-end machine that it won't be good for much). Propaganda is effective.

by FunWithHeadlines on Mar 3, 2007 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

umm

Maybe not 98% but around 90%

Macs are more expensive and you have to be kidding me about the low-end pc. Either you are just making this up or know nothing about pc's.

Oh, and whomever mentioned limited by the OS is also incorrect. There is absolutely no problem putting Linux on a pc.

Dukes is Jurastically better than Bradley. After all Dukes has been playing baseball ever since T-ball.

by pedrophile on Mar 4, 2007 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Closer

OK, we've moved beyond the 98%.

I work with PCs as well as Macs. I use both. I've been using PCs for over 20 years, and spent much of that time programming them. I know the PC market. The low-end PCs are not the ones you want to own. When you price the ones you want to own, compare to the Mac side, the pricing is similar. Move to the high end and the Mac gets cheaper in some cases.

PCs are OS-limited. They can only run Windows and Linux. Macs can run Windows, Linux, and OS X. Don't care about OS X? Then why did Microsoft copy it so closely to come up with Vista?

I'm fairly neutral when it comes to this subject in the sense that I think everyone should use what appeals to them and what works for them. You like a particular choice? Great, I'm glad it works for you. But when I see the same old outdated FUD about Macs, I want to step in just in case someone reads this and thinks it's true.

by FunWithHeadlines on Mar 4, 2007 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

low end pc

why are they inferior quality?

All you do is pick out a high end pc and wait 6 months for the price to drop then buy it. It's still the same high-end pc as it was 6 months ago but the price is lower.

Dukes is Jurastically better than Bradley. After all Dukes has been playing baseball ever since T-ball.

by pedrophile on Mar 7, 2007 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again

Read my post one more time. Nowhere did I say that Macs become obsolete faster than PCs - I said the "technology" in general outpaces itself - this meaning to include both PCs and Macs, which I thought I was making abundantly clear already by purposefully not being specific. There is no reason to buy a more expensive model when there will be something later and greater in just two years or less. Computer technology becomes obsolete faster than most any other kind of relatively expensive technology (save cell phones, and probably a few other exceptions that I'm just not thinking about right now).

Apparently, symptoms of using a Mac include erroneously generalizing others' arguments.

And I will never be convinced that Macs are just as cheap as PCs. I recently bought a new computer (an HP -- 2.00 GhZ Core 2 Duo, 2046 MB RAM, maxed out in almost every way). I compared prices with EVERYONE - Gateway, IBM, Apple, Dell, among others for entertainment's sake. I price-shopped for weeks, and not in one instance could I get a Mac with the same technology and the same price. Not to mention, reading the fine print of Apple's warranty is totally unattractive. I couldn't logically bring myself to pay such a cost for their product, but again, I might sing a different tune if I worked in the multimedia department for a magazine.

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/J-R-B --- Projections, prospect spotlights, fantasy bits, and witty banter. Feb 20: Bullpen Bolsterin' in ATL

by JRB on Mar 4, 2007 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Apple's warranties

I know they use refurbished parts to replace old ones. I can't say I've ever had a problem with one of their replacements.

I will say this about their warranty, though: They hook you up big-time. I break my iPod ALL THE TIME, dropping it and the like. I probably went through close to 40 of them in the past 3 years. Have they ever asked a question or said that the fact that I CLEARLY beat the $#!+ out of my iPod should make my broken iPod NOT under warranty? Nope. Not once. In fact, they even replaced my iPod once two months after my warranty ended, just as a favor.

As for the various Mac computers I've owned, I've only had one problem ONCE in my entire lifetime, which happened to be about a month ago. The power supply on my 15-month-old iMac G5 burned out. It is VERY disconcerting to have your computer turn off randomly, or refuse to turn back on at all. Anyway, since I had neglected to buy an extended warranty (knowing how well my Macs in the past had tended to run), I was no longer covered by the 12-month grace period. However, the woman at the Genius Bar told me that a burnt-out power supply was "totally their fault" and replaced mine completely free of charge overnight.

Would you expect to get service like that for your HP? If so, I'm glad to know customer service nationwide has gotten so generous. But, if not, I think you need to read PAST the fine print before your judge how generous Apple's warranties are.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 4, 2007 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How

would I be able to read "past the fine print", as you say, when I've never owned a Mac and can only go by what they say they will do for me? The warranty, in effect, is also an advertisement. It's language is not welcoming - that's all I was trying to say. Before I actually had to buy the product, I knew that HP (and Dell and Gateway for that matter) would replace any fault parts (luckily, none yet) with brand new ones. They also do cosmetic repairs - something that Apple says they won't do unless if it directly affects performance.

I studied Apple's warranty because I wanted to buy one, but like I said, couldn't rationalize it. To each his own.

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/J-R-B --- Projections, prospect spotlights, fantasy bits, and witty banter. Feb 20: Bullpen Bolsterin' in ATL

by JRB on Mar 4, 2007 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I did read it

You did specify the Mac:

"If I have a great need for video editing and have a lot of money to spend on technology that will outpace itself in 2-3 years, I buy a Mac. "

Now if you meant that to be general and include PCs, you could have been clearer. I see no need to fault my reading skills when it's right there in black and white.

by FunWithHeadlines on Mar 4, 2007 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps

you're right. I meant for "technology" to include all computers. I will be clearer next time : ) My point remains, however.

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/J-R-B --- Projections, prospect spotlights, fantasy bits, and witty banter. Feb 20: Bullpen Bolsterin' in ATL

by JRB on Mar 4, 2007 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough /nt

by FunWithHeadlines on Mar 4, 2007 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

I'm not making that claim. Read this again:

"is that time spent on a message board is not needed for PC-users to figure out how to go full-screen with MLB.TV. Macs are great computers - I don't dispute this - but I will opt for the simpler (and just as effective) technology that the other 98% of the world uses. Plus, I won't need to rely on civilian troubleshooting."

What comment prompted your generalization of my entire post that PC-users do not need any sort of help? I merely implied that the great many of knowledgeable PC-users know how to perform such a simple operation as full-screening a live video feed, and that is what I explicitly said.

http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/J-R-B --- Projections, prospect spotlights, fantasy bits, and witty banter. Feb 20: Bullpen Bolsterin' in ATL

by JRB on Mar 4, 2007 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hey.....

I thought I was helping you out by making the generalization. With my generalization, all you were doing was making a bad (or thoughtless) assumption.

Now what you're telling me is that you were making a totally illogical statement.

I could have read it either way, but I chose the former over the latter, because the latter broke my faith in your ability to reason.

But, now that I know what you're REALLY saying, let me rephrase your "point":

"I will buy a PC over a Mac, because I do not wish to ask others how to enlarge to full-screen SPECIFICALLY on MLB.TV. Other types of problems with computers, or demanding help from others does not bother me. Nor does it alleviate the problem that GENERALLY enlarging things is not a problem (nor, ultimately, was it more than two mouseclicks to get MLB.TV to enlarge on a Mac). But whatever other differences there are between a PC and a Mac are rendered null by the fact that I may have to ask others how to enlarge something on MLB.TV."

Do you see how I'm having trouble taking that as a logical argument?

I was ASSUMING you meant that you GENERALLY wanted to be free of having to ask others for help on how to run applications. This seems like a valid point -- if it were true that PC users less frequently demanded help for how to run applications (though I would put a lot of money down that it's the opposite).

Instead, it turns out you have an ultra-specific phobia to asking about MLB.TV. And it is true -- (almost) no PC users would need help there (you really can't say none, since I'm pretty positive there ARE some who need help, just as there are many Mac owners who DID NOT need help -- which would have included me if I hadn't been trying archived games, which bizarrely don't go full-screen).

p.s., If you WEREN'T making the more general point, what's with the phrase (which you even bother to RE-QUOTE): "Plus, I won't need to rely on civilian troubleshooting." We both agree that, generally, PC owners DO need to rely on civilian troubleshooting quite often to general matters, right? So are you AGAIN simply referring to those using MLB.TV? I'm really having trouble accepting that we're having a Mac-PC debate where the entire scope of the argument has been limited by you to "ease of getting MLB.TV to go full-screen," and you have proclaimed the winner of this ULTRA-LIMITED battle to be the preferrable piece of hardware to purchase.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 4, 2007 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs