Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: mobrien_12 on 11 August 2005, 03:09
-
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5827627.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
The office, a division of the Library of Congress, invited comments through Aug. 22 on an upcoming Web service for prospective copyright owners that may launch with support for only limited browsers.
"At this point in the process of developing the Copyright Office's system for online preregistration, it is not entirely clear whether the system will be compatible with Web browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.1 and higher," the office said in its notice. "In order to ensure that preregistration can be implemented in a smoothly functioning and timely manner, the office now seeks comments that will assist it in determining whether any eligible parties will be prevented from preregistering a claim due to browser requirements of the preregistration system."
The copyright office would like to have comments on this.
You can find out how to submit your comments by reading their docket (http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.html).
They say they will eventually support other browsers eventually, but never opera or safari, because the software vendor doesn't see the demand. Of course... if they wrote it to STANDARDS in the first place....
-
Well that stinks, MS must be lovin though. I am not going to ocomment because i do not feel like mailling something, I wish they had e-mail comments
-
Well that stinks, MS must be lovin though. I am not going to ocomment because i do not feel like mailling something, I wish they had e-mail comments
Then you musn't really dislike microsoft. If you aren't actually willing to exert more than the most basic of eneriges towards something, how can you even pretend that it actually matters to you?
-
I'll mess something up and send it to the wrong person thats why
-
Keep telling yourself that buddy...
-
Yes, mess up writing the address they give you, and putting a stamp on it! How do you use a computer?
-
He uses windows...
-
xyle_one: I acknowledge that you are senior to me in terms of MES, but let me express the opinion that you are very intolerant to other users. Please let others have their own opinion/approach without having to indure your sharp insults, like the one above.
-
xyle_one: I acknowledge that you are senior to me in terms of MES, but let me express the opinion that you are very intolerant to other users. Please let others have their own opinion/approach without having to indure your sharp insults, like the one above.
You forgot, "Jaded" senior member.
-
Do 'partially' and 'only' fit in the same sentence?
Anyhow, people who work in the Patent Office are whores.
Fuck 'em.
-
Jaded (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Jaded)?
-
Jaded (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Jaded)?
Yep.
-
Yep.
So you've become a useless horse then? :D
-
Don't forget broken down ;)
-
Safari and Firefox are just forks of the Mozilla project, so once one works, they will all probably work.
On the subject, does anybody know (or guess) what the market share for the browsers is? Firefox and Linux are getting really popular, but have they made any signifigant progress? Or is IE still the unopposed champ?
-
Last I read firefox continues to gain market share. It is still growing fast.
Not that it matters, but just about everyone I know uses it :/
-
Safari is unrelated to Mozilla. It's KDEHTMLthingamajig based.
-
My bad. You are correct - Safari is KHTML-based.
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, KHTML is far less error tolerant than Gecko, the rendering engine of Mozilla. I would actually consider that a good thing, since it forces people who write sites for Safari and Konqueror to actually be intelligent and pay attention to their code.
-
anything that will only work with M$ peoducts is crap. my sites dont work with ie at all. theres a few bugs in firefox that i use to my advantage. like, in a frame or iframe, the bgcolor of the page in it is the same as tha main background unless it is specified in the frame-page.
-
anything that will only work with M$ peoducts is crap. my sites dont work with ie at all. theres a few bugs in firefox that i use to my advantage. like, in a frame or iframe, the bgcolor of the page in it is the same as tha main background unless it is specified in the frame-page.
So basically, you don't like the W3C because it produces pages that show up properly in ALL browsers (MSIE included)? What about Safari, Konqueror, and Galeon? You realize that makes you worse than Microsoft, since you're effectively telling MSIE not to view your site and thus shooting any potential "switch to *x* browser" effort you may launch squarely in the foot? I mean, don't take this personally, but don't you think you're being a little petty by shutting out browsers like that? What if somebody has Firefox identifying as MSIE to get into, say, their bank's billpay site? What then? :p
-
You can spoof your user-agent easily enough. Opera can do it and Firefox has an extension for it. To refuse to support only IE would have to be willful. That is to say, using some form of Java or Windows authentication that another browser couldn't spoof.
I've been to Yahoo's streaming music site in Firefox and they let me in if I pretend to be a PC running XP and IE6 (when it's actually an eMac/Panther/Firefox. But, the music won't play because the popup window's Java is slightly different than a real pc's with IE, so some of the controls aren't there.
-
How to fuck with IE: the right way.
Make a website in graphical form
Save it as a png
add a layer above the sitegraphic
fill that layer with white
adjust the transparency of that layer until you can see through it well
save and upload
IE will just see a blue screen
-
How to fuck with IE: the right way.
Make a website in graphical form
Save it as a png
add a layer above the sitegraphic
fill that layer with white
adjust the transparency of that layer until you can see through it well
save and upload
IE will just see a blue screen
I have tweaked that on my new website.
I have a script which detects by PHP which browser you're using (the user won't even notice one thing, because it's all in the background).
If you use a real browser, you get feeded the css file, plus a seperate one, created for real browsers. It got this:
#logo { width: 225px; height: 55px; background: url("images/refalm.png") }
However, if you use IE, you get the CSS file, plus this:
#logo { width: 225px; height: 55px; filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(enabled=true, sizingMethod=scale src="images/refalm.png") }
Finally, I use this to insert the PNG into my website:
This clearly shows that Microsoft slows down progress of building websites and new web technologies.
Using a gif isn't usually an option, because it's outdated, and doesn't match the superb quality of PNG.
-
Using a gif isn't usually an option, because it's outdated, and doesn't match the superb quality of PNG.
Not to mention the fact that Compuserve requires anyone who produces a gif to have a license. Adobe bought a license, which transfers to you when you buy Photoshop. But the Gimp, being free and open source, cannot create gif images. Nor can any other open source program. That's the main reason the W3C created and pimped png in the first place.
Conspiracy theory:
Apparently, supporting png transparency is a trivial matter. The png specification is available for anyone who wants to read it, along with guides for implementation. Yet Microsoft is somehow unable to do this. Why? One possible answer is that they are dumb (but just like George W, their dumbness is a front designed to draw your attention away from their real intentions). Another possible answer is that they don't want to appear weak by "caving in" to web standards - if Microsoft supports one standard, customers will demand that they start supporting more. But I think that a secret deal with Compuserve is the real reason. Think about it: Compuserve gets into a little deal with Microsoft, Compuserve gets a few bucks and strong backing (which it must need since it pretty much died), while Microsoft has exclusive rights to extremely outdated gif technology. They continue to support gif - if they didn't, gif would be completely supplanted by the far superior png within a year, causing Compuserve to belly flop.
Just an idea - I can't prove any of it.
-
Not to mention the fact that Compuserve requires anyone who produces a gif to have a license. Adobe bought a license, which transfers to you when you buy Photoshop. But the Gimp, being free and open source, cannot create gif images. Nor can any other open source program. That's the main reason the W3C created and pimped png in the first place.
Conspiracy theory:
Apparently, supporting png transparency is a trivial matter. The png specification is available for anyone who wants to read it, along with guides for implementation. Yet Microsoft is somehow unable to do this. Why? One possible answer is that they are dumb (but just like George W, their dumbness is a front designed to draw your attention away from their real intentions). Another possible answer is that they don't want to appear weak by "caving in" to web standards - if Microsoft supports one standard, customers will demand that they start supporting more. But I think that a secret deal with Compuserve is the real reason. Think about it: Compuserve gets into a little deal with Microsoft, Compuserve gets a few bucks and strong backing (which it must need since it pretty much died), while Microsoft has exclusive rights to extremely outdated gif technology. They continue to support gif - if they didn't, gif would be completely supplanted by the far superior png within a year, causing Compuserve to belly flop.
Just an idea - I can't prove any of it.
Um.... the GIF patent expired 2 years ago in the US, and a year ago everywhere else. And compuserve sold the patent to Unisys, who then cracked down on it's use.
http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw (http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw)
I use GIF because Adobe's PNG implementation is utter crap. If I use less than 256 colors (anything that isn't a photo, just about) Then I will use gif.
-
Gimp and Fireworks do good png work. In fact, png is Fireworks native format. I can't really speak for Adobe Photoshop, since I don't use it very often, and almost never for web graphics work.
There's nothing really wrong with jpeg as a web-deployable format, since it compresses quickly and strongly. Which makes it good for complex bitmaps, like photos. But I would never use it for non-web - that's what tiff is for.
-
PNG even supports diffetent colour depths, 1, 4, 8 and 24 bit modes are supported, the only disadvantege it has it it lacks animation.
-
PNG even supports diffetent colour depths, 1, 4, 8 and 24 bit modes are supported, the only disadvantege it has it it lacks animation.
That could be an Advantage, because sometimes animation on webpages are very annoying. Some people here would approve.
-
Yeah, I hate Flash Banners!
-
So basically, you don't like the W3C because it produces pages that show up properly in ALL browsers (MSIE included)? What about Safari, Konqueror, and Galeon? You realize that makes you worse than Microsoft, since you're effectively telling MSIE not to view your site and thus shooting any potential "switch to *x* browser" effort you may launch squarely in the foot? I mean, don't take this personally, but don't you think you're being a little petty by shutting out browsers like that? What if somebody has Firefox identifying as MSIE to get into, say, their bank's billpay site? What then? :p
nothing to do with the agent, its stuff in the html engine. ie doesnt like parts of my site. im not recoding it all just soit looke great in ie.
-
Like going so far as to not install Flash in Camino, so that I can control when I see Flash animations? (I have to run a different browser to see 'em)
-
PNG even supports diffetent colour depths, 1, 4, 8 and 24 bit modes are supported, the only disadvantege it has it it lacks animation.
Not true - Fireworks will make animated pngs. Not sure about gimp - haven't tried it yet.
-
If think the animated equivalent of png is called mng. Which has very little support to my knowledge. Not even the gimp 2.2 supports it.
-
Safari and Firefox are just forks of the Mozilla project, so once one works, they will all probably work.
Safari uses code from KHTML,the code base of KDE's Konqueror browser, not mozilla. Check out Apple's own Safari page (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/safari/).
Open Source
Safari uses open source software for its web page rendering engine, Safari draws on KHTML and KJS software from the KDE open source project.
In fact, Apple's rejection of Mozilla code was one of the reasons the Mozilla group decided to start the FireFox project.
-
Hmm. Now that we're on the subject, is there anyone that could summarize the (dis)advantages and (mis)uses of different picture formats? And could you include all the crappy ones, for completeness, too? I think I will not be the only one to profit from a little more knowledge...
Thanks.
GIF TIFF JPG PNG BMP WMF [puke] etc...
-
First off, you have to think of raster graphics as a set of xy coordinates, with each pixel being assigned a color. Imagine a sheet of graphing paper.
bmp (bitmap):
The most basic format. Each pixel is assigned an xy value and an RGB value. Since the RGB value is usually in hexadecimal notation (FF11DD for a nice plum purple), you can see how image size is going to shoot up geometrically as dimensions increase. We're talking a byte or more per pixel - that's going to make some monstrous images. At this point in time, the only purpose of a bmp is as wallpaper in Windows 3.1.
tiff (tagged image file format):
Since bmp is so awful, tiff was invented. The main diff between bmp and tiff is that a tiff file has a header in it. This header can store all sorts of things, like file details, thumbnails, and more. It can even store compression algorithms. Thus, you get the millions of color variations of a bitmap, but without the size going nuts. tiff is the format you want to use for storing pictures, since it is not lossy (ie, it doesn't lose clarity over time), and it thumbnails easily.
jpeg (joint pictures engineering group):
jpeg is the king of the web and other raster graphics because you can compress it so well. Using an image optimizer, you can get jpegs down to 1/20 the size of a tiff, or more. Which makes it ideal for the web, since you can trade off quality for size. Unfortunately, the compression algorithm jpeg uses is a bitch. It compresses by finding rows or columns of extremely similar color and making using a single snatch of code to describe the whole thing. It does this each and every time you save your file. After 4 or 5 saves, a nice blue sky can turn into a mangled pixelated mess, and gradients go to shit rather quickly. Zoom in on any jpeg image and you will see linear artifacts - these grow and get more obvious over time. So the sacrifice of quality for size is only really good for web distribution.
gif (graphical interchange format):
Your basic indexed color image. Instead of every pixel having an RGB value, there is a color index table. So each pixel has position, but not value. In any image with less than 256 colors, this is going to save a lot of space. After that, though, the color table gets so advanced that the size tradeoff will be destroyed. Which is why you don't usually see gifs used for photos. gifs are better suited to small graphics with a limited color pallete. gif also supports transparency and frame animation, which makes it convenient for web deployment. Unfortunately, its past has been plagued with licensing problems from its inventor, CompuServe.
png (portable network graphics):
png was designed by the W3C to replace gif, because the restrictive license was impeding open development. So a png is just like a gif, but the creation engine/algorithm is open source. This made it possible for open source browsers and graphic apps to use it, and the birth of the gimp and the mozilla project are closely related to the rise of png. png supports transparency, animation, and color indexing. It also supports standard bitmap color referencing. It does this by having 3 different formats - 8, 16, and 24. The names presumably refer to how many bits each pixel can store. Although the png implementation is not quite complete or thorough yet (Adobe only supports png8 well), it has the potential to replace all the formats listed above.
This group here covers all the basics. Everything else is just same shit, different name. Some formats have proprietary compression packages, some have licensing issues, and some even write nearly unreadable headers. Many of them are very outdated or passe, based on the popularity that the internet has given gif and jpeg. And some even suck - provide no advantages whatsoever.
-
bmp and tga used in games because they are very simple formats. You can write loading functions for each in 5 minutes (if you only support a certain colour format).
tga has 32 bit colour so partial transparency is supported.
-
You kinda forgot SVG :)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&rls=nl&q=%22Scalable+Vector+Graphics%22&btnG=Zoeken&lr=
-
Cool. Thanks.
-
PNG even supports diffetent colour depths, 1, 4, 8 and 24 bit modes are supported, the only disadvantege it has it it lacks animation.
png supports transparency, animation, and color indexing.
Ummm... make up your minds. Does it, or does it not?
-
Ummm... make up your minds. Does it, or does it not?
It does.
-
It does.
OK. I thought so. That makes it my format of choice from now on. Along with Ogg. I'm just not decided yet on the text documents. Prolly .odt
-
But do Firefox and Microsoft Internet Explorer support animated pngs because if they don't there's no point in using them. Could someone please post one of these rare creatures an we'll se for ourselves.
By the way WMF and SGV are vector graphic formats not raster formats like bmp gif ect. Who actually uses svgs anyway - I've yet to encounter a website using them.
-
By the way WMF and SGV are vector graphic formats not raster formats like bmp gif ect. Who actually uses svgs anyway - I've yet to encounter a website using them.
I've never seen any on the web - they're usually first converted to PNG.
SVGs are used for icons alot (as well as PNGs I guess).
-
Supposedly, svg is going to take the place of Flash. Supposedly.
I didn't forget it, I just decided it didn't belong there.
I'll make an animated png tonight, just for you.
-
Supposedly, svg is going to take the place of Flash. Supposedly.
Interesting.
I see how it could take the place of Flash for simple and complex animations, but what about Actionscript? Is there or will there ever be any work on that for SVG?
Flash is the only Windows program I miss :(
-
Supposedly, svg is going to take the place of Flash. Supposedly.
I didn't forget it, I just decided it didn't belong there.
I'll make an animated png tonight, just for you.
You mean MNG, right? ;)
-
http://www.triple-bypass.net/download/spam.png
If this graphic is animated, then your browser supports animated png. Firefox Linux doesn't seem to... :(
-
Firefox on Windows doesn't either, nor does Opera or Internet Explorer, what's the point of having this format when no browsers supports it.
-
It worked inside Fireworks...
-
Didn't work in Firefox on a Mac in OS X, either. BUT, to get Firefox to accept PNG's at all in OS X meant forcing a file association on it. One of the members of a Yahoo group I belong to uses png's all the time. The first time I downloaded one Panther acted like the file was poison or something. After control-click/get info and forcing it to open with FF, all was well. But his png's are not animated.
I wonder if animated png's are benign compared to Flash gifs. I block all Flash by default, in part because it's so cpu intensive.
-
What's Fireworks?
-
What's Fireworks?
I believe worker201 is refering to Macromedia Fireworks (http://www.macromedia.com/software/fireworks/).
-
Ah... OK. Never heard of it before. I'm quite a noob in the business.
-
Very interesting - I was reading through the Fireworks MX "Complete Reference" last night (a bargain used at $9.98). In the chapters about animation, only GIF is mentioned. I'm starting to wonder if png really does support animation or not. More research is coming...
-
People from England (such as myself) might also notice a hint of Irish some American accents - this is just another example of how Ireland has affect the lives of people in the US.
-
Aloone, that's the other thread. No Irish in here.
-
Animation
PNG does not offer animation. MNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNG) is an image format that supports animation and is based on the ideas and some of the chunks of PNG but is a complex system and does not offer fallback to single image display like GIF does. APNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG) is another image format based on PNG that supports animation and is simpler than MNG. APNG offers fallback to single image display for PNG decoders that do not support APNG. However, as of 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005) neither of these formats is widely supported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNG#Animation
And regarding Fireworks...
Bitmap graphics editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap_graphics_editor) support for PNG
See main article, Comparison of bitmap graphics editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_bitmap_graphics_editors)
Note that Macromedia Fireworks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macromedia_Fireworks) uses PNG as its native file format, but this contains a lot of metadata, such as information about layers, animation, text, and effects, so should not be distributed directly in this format. Fireworks can export as an optimised PNG (without the extra metadata), for use on web-pages etc. [2] (http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_13871)
Image processing programs that have PNG compression problems mainly related to lack of full implementation of the PNG compressor library
- IrfanView (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IrfanView) 3.85
- Microsoft Picture It! Photo Premium 9.
-
The animation didn't work for me either, thanks for the info Kintaro. :thumbup:
-
That explains why it works inside Fireworks, but not outside after exportation. Damn. Fucking gif.
-
Yeah, a gif disguised with a png tag? Sounds lame. :thumbdwn:
-
Err, its not a fucking gif. Its a png with extra features nobody else supports.
-
If Opera did comply with what standards?
Spyware standards?
Everyone is touting Firefox as "the browser". It's a IE copy as far as output goes.
Opera doesn't me the "It sucks" standard that allows pop-ups and history tracking. I don't have problems with any other sites.
The only thing that I missed in my move to linux was my opera.
Doesn't fit the standards! BS
I'm using it right now!
-
Um... Photoshop blows goats with PNG exporting.
-
The only thing that I missed in my move to linux was my opera.
What are you talking about? Opera is for Linux too!
-
OPERA ROOLS it kicks Firefuck's arse!
-
OPERA ROOLS it kicks Firefuck's arse!
Didn't you like Firefox up until recently?
What changed? Did it fuck up on you or something?
-
The market just provided a better alternative to Firefox.
One at a similar price too.
-
The market just provided a better alternative to Firefox.
One at a similar price too.
Oh yea, that's why Firefox got so shit overnight.
-
Firefox didn't get worse, Opera was just better, thats all.
It's easy to look good when it's being compared to IE.
-
Firefox didn't get worse
Corrrrrect!
Firefox fitted Aloone_Jonez's needs quite well, and that hasn't changed.
-
When the opportunities are increased, the needs will be adjusted accordingly. Thus, Jonezey might have been great with Firefox, but when something that met needs he didn't even know he had appeared, those needs suddenly became wants. Err, maybe not.
-
An IE user may try firefox, and discover tabs. IE did fit his needs perfectly before. but now with tabbed browsing, he may not want to use IE again, because it can no longer service his needs in a web-browser.
Opera is just better.
-
I don't care if Opera has been released for 'free'.
I continue to use Firefox, Opera may have a few features here and there that could be considered "better", but I really couldn't give a fuck, Firefox works fine for me as it is.
-
I have moved back to Firefox (Deerpark 2 alpha). It is better AFAIK
-
Sorry, my previous post was a bit trollish.
Firefox didn't get worse, Opera was just better, thats all.
It's easy to look good when it's being compared to IE.
You're telling me!
When the opportunities are increased, the needs will be adjusted accordingly. Thus, Jonezey might have been great with Firefox, but when something that met needs he didn't even know he had appeared, those needs suddenly became wants.
Err, maybe not.
Err yes, you're 100% spot on there.
Before, I relied on a separate download manager, and I never even realized how annoying it is to view pages designed for 800x600 on 1600x1200 I normally just altered the text size when this happened but this wasn't any good when the text was in columns and the text change but not the colum width. Recently I downloaded Opera and fell in love with it I'll never use Firefox again, unless Opera suddenly becomes shit or Firefox becomes better than Opera.