On 2006-05-26, Larry Qualig <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2006-05-25, tim.the.bastard@xxxxxxxxx <tim.the.bastard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, Roy, would you basic position be that Microsoft should not ever
develop any new software?
New software is perfectly capable of operating on well established
data formats. You don't have to create your own entirely new technology
ghetto in order to get new features.
The same argument could have been used against jpeg 20 years ago. Or
the DIVX format for video. Why invent yet another format... something
that works already exists.
Yup, and it is a VERY compelling argument.
It's FAR better to have MPEG2 if you can spare the space than
something more proprietary. MPEG2 is remarkably more portable and
more futureproof. It also allows for a much wider array of options in
terms of decoders.
Or would your position be that existing compressed photo formats are so
good, they simply cannot be improved, so there is no point in this?
I am much more interested in my photos being readable 30 years
from now. Miniscule improvements that dramatically shrink the available
number of future image decoders are simply not very compelling.
Are there any prior image formats that aren't readable today? Not that
I know of. Why would this format be any different? If it's better
You got something on your current machine that can read
Degas or Spectrum image files?
There are PLENTY of proprietary media formats.
(better quality images and smaller files) then it's an improvement and
should be introduced and standardized.
[deletia]
"standardized" is the key phrase here.
That means that you can read and re-implement the format freely
and don't have to sign an NDA just to get a look at it. You are willfully
glossing over that part of the situation.
Highly dishonest.
