| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Vista to give HD Photo format more exposure | |
|
||
| Time: 07:25 EST/12:25 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft is looking to supplant the ubiquitous JPEG with an image format of its own--and it's hoping the debut of Windows Vista will help do the job. In 2006, Microsoft began promoting its own image standard, formerly called Windows Media Photo but renamed HD Photo in November. The company makes no bones about its ambitions: "Our ultimate goal is that it does become the de facto standard people are using for digital photos," said Josh Weisberg, Microsoft's director of digital imaging evangelism. "HD" doesn't actually stand for "high definition," but it's supposed to connote the better image quality that comes with HD TV. Rico Malvar, a Microsoft Research director who helped develop the format, said that compared with JPEG, HD Photo preserves more subtle details, offers richer colors and takes up half the storage space at the same image quality. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:17:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 53078 (72.252.15.246) at 1/29/2007 8:57:13 AM |
| Best way to roll out support is a required update to xp as well as being in vista, and pushing browsers o support it liek firefox and opera... not to mention how do i get / use them? |
| #2 By 7390 (24.188.166.243) at 1/29/2007 9:31:52 AM |
|
lol, Microsoft always finds the highest mountains to climb and starts climbing it from the deepest valley.
Where do they find the energy to fight these battles? |
| #3 By 2459 (69.22.113.215) at 1/29/2007 9:38:57 AM |
|
Vista is the first OS to ship with HD Photo (actually Windows Media Photo -- the name and extension has changed since then so Vista will be updated soon to also support the new *.hdp extention in addition to *.wdp). It is not the only way to get support for HD Photo. HD Photo is supported on XP/Server 2003 via .NET 3.0 and the Windows Imaging Component (WIC) API. The spec and a device porting kit (DPK) is also available for implementations on other platforms. You'll probably see it as a format option on digital cameras shortly.
Check Bill Crow's blog for more details and links. http://blogs.msdn.com/billcrow/ |
| #4 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 1/29/2007 10:05:00 AM |
|
RedHook: It is annoying that MS keeps trying to outdo successful competition instead of focusing on their own core competencies, Windows, Office, and other software programs. Why create another format that no one needs?
Now my real complaint: I have never had an error in shipments of OEM MS products, until last week. Last week a 3-pack of Vista Home Premium arrived from ASI, my preferred distributor. Inside the movie like DVD cases were the correct DVD and product stickers, but the manual in each is for Home Basic. This indicates either poor quality control, or MS rushed to get the product out of production and into distributors warehouses, not caring if the manuals (which customers may want to read) match the OS version. Now MS plans to spread themselves even thinner. Stupid. |
| #5 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/29/2007 10:30:30 AM |
|
"Why create another format that no one needs?"
To annoy those who claim Microsoft never innovates? |
| #6 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 1/29/2007 11:15:10 AM |
|
"Why create another format that no one needs?"
No one ever destroyed competitors by using open standards. As for MS focusing on core competencies, I'd have to say that this move does exactly that. If course, Microsoft's core competencies are M&A's and destroying competitors in every market, even if they are MS partners, so that MS can own every conceivable market. You can't get licensing fees from all the digital camera makers if you don't own the format the use for image creation. I am sure the next step will be to strong arm the camera makers into using this new format, with a payment required for every device they manufacture. It's the Microsoft Way. |
| #7 By 32132 (142.32.208.233) at 1/29/2007 11:49:12 AM |
|
"No one ever destroyed competitors by using open standards. "
Bullsh*t. The whole point of ODF is to destroy Microsoft. That is the avowed goal of the Free Software Foundation. Thats why the fanatics HATE OpenXML. It ruins their propaganda effort. As for HD Photo: "The only licensing obligation is to maintain HD Photo image compatibility." "HD Photo technology is covered by the Open Specification Promise, an agreement under which Microsoft pledges not to assert its patent rights. " Keep up the lies Mystic ... it makes you look like an idiot. This post was edited by NotParker on Monday, January 29, 2007 at 11:53. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/29/2007 12:22:04 PM |
|
#7: Interesting theory. How, exactly, does ODF spell MS' doom? All this time, I thought ODF was an open document format that anyone could implement.
As for that license snippet you posted, where is the rest of it? You know, the inevitable part that somehow manages to exclude the FOSS community so that you can only really implement the MS solution under Windows (quelle surprise!). |
| #9 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 1/29/2007 1:43:01 PM |
|
NotParker: Play nice with the other kids. We're all entitled to an opinion, whether or not it is supported by facts. MS is spreading themselves too thin right now. At the same time they act as if they are invincible. This can be a bad combo in business. They need to focus on what they do best. Developing a new format designed to lock users into MS products isn't a great idea.
Yes, MS does innovate. But, not often. The Presentation mode in Vista is innovative and useful. Giving away virtual machines and Virtual PC being free is great. I am grateful that Vista Windows Mail has a built in spam filter. This is a most welcome non-innovative feature. |
| #10 By 32132 (142.32.208.233) at 1/29/2007 2:14:54 PM |
|
#8 coffee girl, I assumed you were at least bright enough to click on links in an article. I was wrong in assuming that.
#9 "Developing a new format designed to lock users into MS products isn't a great idea." Are you having trouble reading the whole article? |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/29/2007 2:51:37 PM |
|
#1); OK, there it is:
Q: Is this Promise consistent with open source licensing, namely the GPL? And can anyone implement the specification(s) without any concerns about Microsoft patents? A: The Open Specification Promise is a simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and customers working with commercial or open source software can implement the covered specification(s). We leave it to those implementing these technologies to understand the legal environments in which they operate. This includes people operating in a GPL environment. Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can’t give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but based on feedback from the open source community we believe that a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s). ================= Leave it to MS. It takes a bunch of simple Yes/No questions and answers them with ambiguous, weaselly FUD. They won't actually come out and say that, yes, you can use it with the GPL. But they also don't come out and say no either, just to keep you guessing. Great FUD job. And they're FUDding again about the GPL not being interpreted the same. You could say that of almost any legal contract, but as they have shown in the media recently, the only people that seem to not know what the GPL means are Novell and Microsoft. And, as we've seen from the DOJ antitrust trials, MS is very good about not knowing about things it doesn't want to know about. |
| #12 By 32132 (142.32.208.233) at 1/29/2007 3:26:53 PM |
|
#11 You a such an OSS suckup.
It isn't Microsofts job to interpret the GPL. And they are honest enough to admit it. Even the GPL fanatics were split on the Microsoft/Novell deal. Some honest ones admitted that yes, it was legal but against the "spirit" of the GPL. The rest lied. Now the OSS fanatics are "banning" binary blobs with Linus against the fanatics. Even the head of Linux can't interpret the GPL "properly" it seems. "It will only result in _exactly_ the crap we were just trying to avoid, namely stupid "shell game" drivers that don't actually help anything at all, and move code into user space instead. What was the point again? Was the point to alienate people by showing how we're less about the technology than about licenses? Was the point to show that we think we can extend our reach past derived work boundaries by just saying so? The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly granted by copyright law. Doesn't anybody else see that as being hypocritical?" http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/13/370 This post was edited by NotParker on Monday, January 29, 2007 at 15:28. |
| #13 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/29/2007 3:42:18 PM |
|
#11, Actually, Latch, Microsoft has been very clear - they opened their formats and support the OpenXML format and have stated often, and clearly, that they are not going to enforce their patents. It seems you want Microsoft to also say that they do not have such patents, when the same are on file, legitimate and no one is challenging them. Why not just look at the good side of this - wide support for OpenXML.
#12, Yes, in this case, I do see it as being hypocritical. Look, a lot of folks want it both ways, or should one say, "all ways." That just doesn't work - I mean it doesn't have to be zero-sum, but it can't be all ways, either. It reminds me of "The New Communist Man" - the socialist utopia that the reds held out for decades was just around the corner... as foolishly, we now see very similar [regardless of how well intentioned] nonsense coming out of the EU and FOSS just about daily. To that, all I have to say is, "GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS - MOST OF US WOULD RATHER FIGHT AND DIE THAN LIVE LIKE THAT and NO ONE WANTS FOSS, or what comes from it. WE'D RATHER PAY FOR SOFTWARE and have someone to call when it fouls up. For those that refuse to get it - if you work really hard and stick at it, good things happen for you. That starts and ends with the ability to OWN PROPERTY - without that you are a slave.... and subsidizing socialism by diluting companies like Microsoft is not the same thing as competing and winning the hearts, minds and wallets of the people. Now go build something people want to pay for, or at least leave the rest of us alone that are doing just that. |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/30/2007 8:04:25 AM |
|
#12: I agree it's not MS job to interpret the GPL. Why, then, do they feel the need to mention the GPL in the context of "We don't know if this is kosher or not" instead of just not mentioning it at all? Unless there was some FUDdy angle they were shooting for.
#13: I want to see a world where MS claims something is open and freely available to everyone without their fingers crossed behind their back. I want to see them make their technology available truly to all, without specific strings attached that prevent a certain portion of the general public form using their tech. This sick game MS is playing where they try to show the world that they can be open too (based on MS' definition of the word "open") while simultaneously crafting a license to deliberately exclude FOSS. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:17:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
