DNG open or not?

[Barry Pearson]

James O'Neill wrote:
[snip]

Oops. Too many Barries Error. I was talking to you as if you were
Barry F who I assume hadn't read any of it.

Chuckle! I suddenly guessed that sometime after I posted.

[snip]

Bottom line, although what they've spent is a some of money you or
I would cross the street to pick up, for a company of their size,
it's small change.

True. I was making a point that they had more in mind than just avoiding reverse-engineering costs, not that it was comparable in cost to a commercial product development. (Although they must have spent something on brand management as well, with a name, abbreviation, file-extension, logo, etc). When they started on DNG about 3 years ago, they must have known that it would involve ongoing cost for a long time, certainly several years. Yet it would also be several years before they would see a significant reduction in reverse-engineering costs, if at all.

Furthermore, if camera manufacturers could be persuaded to cooperate, there were cheaper ways of achieving cost reductions, such as getting specifications and camera details under NDA. (If a particular camera manufacturer couldn't be persuaded to provide such details, why expect them to switch to DNG?)

[snip]

I had a look at it, and to be honest if I compare it with Microsoft
SDKs I know about there is less in it than some of those, including
one I know which probably took only 2 man months of effort.

Gosh! I used to be fast, but not that fast. Certainly not making code of releasable quality.

[snip]

There's no guarantee that they'll get their money back.

True. I don't think they ever felt they could guarantee that. It was a "strategic" investment to transform part of an industry in a way that would suit them.

[snip]

Hmmm. We've had various people saying their objectives are this
that the other - just stopping short of saying they want
photographers to sell their children to buy monopoly Adobe software.

What else could we expect from a company where the directors sacrifice and eat a puppy during each board meeting?

The fact that RAW is a mess right now is bad for everyone doing
image processing software; it's in Adobe's best interests to make
life simpler. Adobe is the the only company who's standards might
get followed. And if a standard emerges that's good for everyone.

This is the point. That mess is inhibiting the take up of raw shooting. It sounds geeky, and the complications (visible in these forums) put some people off. I think Adobe want people to "shoot DNG" not "shoot raw", and have DNG work as smoothly as JPEG, although with the need for post-processing where they could sell product. (The menu in the Leica M8 doesn't have a "raw" option, just a "DNG" option. But that would make particular sense for a camera following a line of film cameras!)

It makes business sense for Adobe to develop and promote DNG, but not because they intend to make money out of DNG itself. Adobe works well in an industry structured with clean interfaces. They are not a total system supplier, so can't hope to lock-in people in the way that Nikon attempt. But in a structured industry, photographers have a need for well-considered workflows populated by inter-working tools, and Adobe can thrive there.

 

[Gareth_R]

no text

 

[El_Ogando]

What more do you need? Surely people will be more comfortable with
a neutral party heading things..do you not think?

[snip]

IS there such a party that is also capable of exercising the
necessary control and development of DNG?

In the post you just responded to, I pointed out the difficulties
finding such a party. I certainly believe that it would be bad for
DNG for ISO to take control of it, because it is too slow. (And
also they charge for their standards!) Any industrial consortium
that could be dominated by Canon or Nikon would be bad for
innovative minority cameras - for example, one addition to DNG
compared with ISO 12234-2 is support for Fujifilm offset sensors.

Barry,

may I calm your thoughts about ISO? You say "take control", "charge for their standards", "industrial consortium". With knowledge of the structure of institutions or without enough information about what´s going on there the same facts may sound wether positive or negative.

The ISO is first of all a consortium where national bodys take part. The members are from very different origin. First of all the members are selected and admitted as personal characters. Their task is moderation, not confrontation. Another good aspect. And yes, ISO and the national bodies charge for their standards. And that´s the trick in a positive sens.

A really fair deal for a relatively small price, afforadble for every company in foundation. The participant members at the ISO consortium agree in the fact that the copyrights for ISO-projects belong to ISO, don´t matter which bigger or smaller company or institution the members represent. So every young company founder in the street, freelancer or whatever may start his product on the base of an international standard, for small fees.

Companies use to have their propietarian projects and ISO-projects at the same time for many reasons. In the end companies and institutions should follow market demands - and often they do so. Of course ISO is dedicated at many, many things, so for shure they won´t be successfull in every aspect of daily life.

If ISO will be fast or slow depends on the voluntary, constructive input in a way that it can be used. This may mean in concrete the success of the RAW-issue in photography may depend on your further input as well, as matter of possibilities, why not? - This is not meant as joke, but I will not explain more details, if you understand why.........

In this sense and according to the issue discussed here in special al lot of things seem to become better, not worser. Imho ISO is a chance and opportunity and really not an enemy.

Let´s keep it positive and let´s support the right personal people, anybody who like to help us. Let´s say, let´s keep in professional as well in some sense.

Cheers, Ogando,

speaking for working group digital standards at the photographer´s organization FreeLens, Germany
http://www.freelens.com/ansprechpartner/index.html

 

[Barry Pearson]

El_Ogando wrote:
[snip]

may I calm your thoughts about ISO? You say "take control", "charge
for their standards", "industrial consortium". With knowledge of
the structure of institutions or without enough information about
what´s going on there the same facts may sound wether positive or
negative.

I understand about ISO, etc. I wasn't criticising them for all the work they do. For example, while they would be hopeless at developing (say) the full PDF specification, they appear to have done a good job with the ISO 19005-1 (PDF/A) specification. It appears to be a good idea to have an ISO standard archival document format, and we now have one, in what appears to be an efficient manner. It is easier to make rules and pass laws where there is an ISO standard rather than a company's specification to refer to.

I was making the point that, by their nature, they can't react at a speed that is sometimes required. I track developments in TC42 WG18, and they have had some work in progress for years. ISO 12234-2 (TIFF/EP) was drafted in 1998, accepted in 2001, and is being reviewed this year. DNG was based on TIFF/EP, brought it up to date when it was launched in 2004, and is already on its 2nd version.

This problem is recognised by TC42 themselves. Their 2005 proposed business plan, (dated 2005-01-26, "for vote no later than 2006-03-31", an example of their problem), "proposes to revamp the management of its standards programs in order to insure timely development in accordance with the ISO Directives". It is about streamlining their processes, getting better priority for their work, making standard tools (eg. templates) readily available, etc. But even with any fast-track, they may struggle to keep up.

Things don't have to be full standards, of course. A specification could be an ISO/TS (Technical Specification) or an ISO/PAS (Public Available Specification), needing fewer votes and reducing the acceptance delay.

[snip]

In this sense and according to the issue discussed here in special
al lot of things seem to become better, not worser. Imho ISO is a
chance and opportunity and really not an enemy.

[snip]

ISO isn't an enemy. But neither does it appear to be suitable to control the DNG specification as the industry currently is. And it isn't clear to me why we should want it to. If we wanted organisations to be forced to use DNG, we would probably need a formal standard. But surely we don't, at least not yet? At the moment, the marketplace is deciding - people, organisations, companies, are able to make their own decisions. It is a messy process, but we will surely end up with something that works in practice.

I believe ISO, (in particular TC42, perhaps WG18 or perhaps in conjunction with another TC), could usefully develop an archival standard raw file format, and I suggest that the method used for PDF/A could be used to develop DNG/A. It would enable national archives to have rules or even laws, and ensure that they could share tools and images. They need stability, and this could provide it.

 

[James O'Neill]

Hmmm. We've had various people saying their objectives are this
that the other - just stopping short of saying they want
photographers to sell their children to buy monopoly Adobe software.
The fact that RAW is a mess right now is bad for everyone doing
image processing software; it's in Adobe's best interests to make
life simpler. Adobe is the the only company who's standards might
get followed. And if a standard emerges that's good for everyone.

And this comes from the fountain of MS knowledge does it?

I wouldn't position myself like that. I just happen to work there.

MS do
good stuff..but they have lost their touch..and need to tread with
caution in order not to get taken to court..again..as a monopoly
company..no it is not in the consumer interests, to have choice
restricted..and formats pushed by companies with the muscle to make
it stick.

Saying Microsoft have lost their touch is vague and something you can't prove, (or disprove). Microsoft's competitors have now switched from trying to produce better sofware to using European law which promotes competition whether it is consumers interests or not.

For example would consumers like to be able to create PDFs straight from their word processor or presentation graphics package AT NO EXTRA COST . Microsoft want to provide that with the new version of office. Adobe have threated legal action to defend their monopoly in PDF creation tools.

So you've got this stupid situation where because Microsoft have a huge market share, they are prevented from doing things customers would want, because that would mean they weren't forced to buy products from other companies and the EU acts in the interest of those comapnies, not the consumer. I've blogged about it (see http://blogs.technet.com/jamesone/archive/2006/09/20/457767.aspx )

I guess PDF is a case which both makes and contradicts your argument.

It's not in consumers interests for Adobe to have a lock on PDF. But the one company with the power to break that lock is Microsoft. The idea that Microsoft as consumers' ally doesn't square with the idea that they are a monopolist.

Nor does the idea of Adobe as "evil monopolist" engaged in political trickery to keep their lock on PDF fit with them being generous and benign with DNG. Remember the licenses they've put out for DNG would let Microsoft put DNG support into all it's products in exactly the way they are trying to stop them doing with PDF.

That's why I've been at pains to say you have to take each case on it's merits.

Is it consumers interests to have standards ? Sure, but it's a moot point if they don't get adopted. It needs someone with muscle to get a standard of the ground. You mentioned OpenOffice format, but it's just not being used. Most of the worlds documents are in Microsoft DOC, then in Adobe PDF.

In the specific case of DNG I think Adobe is a unique postion of being able to create a standard. There's not a singe bit of Microsoft software which reads RAW files, so who would take up a Microsoft RAW format ? (And I think Windows Media Photo has a very short future ahead of it)

Adobe isnt in the same league, but it is dominant..no question. It
makes sense not to want them to set the standard...

Who else ?

Both companies make great software..(and rubbish sometimes too...)..

People never let me forget that I work for the company which produced Bob.

Put simply I dont trust adobe...in much the same way as I dont
trust MS a whole lot either..and their partner support sucks big
time...!

I think by this point I've bored every one silly by saying never trusting Adobe or Microsoft is as foolish as always trusting them.

Final thought on this, from Desiderata
"Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery.

But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. "

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Saying Microsoft have lost their touch is vague and something you
can't prove, (or disprove).

IMO they have lost it...but that is only my view. MS are a landmark software company..but the rot starts with "vista" as far as I am concerned. More restrictive licensing..making it more hassle for people to upgrade and transfer their OS.

Microsoft's competitors have now

switched from trying to produce better sofware to using European
law which promotes competition whether it is consumers interests or
not.

MS have a virtual monopoly on computer operating systems, but there is some competition. Real media won a case against ms for windows media player being bundled with windows. Thus being unfair to real...Being honest real player sucks IMO...but they had a point.

MS unfairly tried to wipe netscape out..and threatened to withdraw licensing from vendors who bundled the browser with windows. AOL bought out netscape..Microsoft paid US $750 million to AOL after they filed suit. Need I carry on?

For example would consumers like to be able to create PDFs straight
from their word processor or presentation graphics package AT NO
EXTRA COST . Microsoft want to provide that with the new version of
office. Adobe have threated legal action to defend their monopoly
in PDF creation tools.

I dont agree with the adobe pdf situation...but open office has pdf creation, so does wordperfect etc etc...any reason for this?

So you've got this stupid situation where because Microsoft have a
huge market share, they are prevented from doing things customers
would want, because that would mean they weren't forced to buy
products from other companies and the EU acts in the interest of
those comapnies, not the consumer. I've blogged about it (see
http://blogs.technet.com/jamesone/archive/2006/09/20/457767.aspx )

Well you can argue it is not fair, you can argue that it isnt right MS can dominate the market.

I guess PDF is a case which both makes and contradicts your argument.
It's not in consumers interests for Adobe to have a lock on PDF.
But the one company with the power to break that lock is Microsoft.
The idea that Microsoft as consumers' ally doesn't square with the
idea that they are a monopolist.

Did I say I support pdf?

Nor does the idea of Adobe as "evil monopolist" engaged in
political trickery to keep their lock on PDF fit with them being
generous and benign with DNG. Remember the licenses they've put out
for DNG would let Microsoft put DNG support into all it's products
in exactly the way they are trying to stop them doing with PDF.

Only adobe know what the real motivation if any is.

That's why I've been at pains to say you have to take each case on
it's merits.

Maybe

Is it consumers interests to have standards ? Sure, but it's a moot
point if they don't get adopted. It needs someone with muscle to
get a standard of the ground. You mentioned OpenOffice format, but
it's just not being used. Most of the worlds documents are in
Microsoft DOC, then in Adobe PDF.

I beg to differ. Open office causes fear at Redmond! Sure nobody will admit it..but OO is doing well. It is free..it should do. As time goes on more and more people and companies are adopting it. It isnt as fully featured as office..sure, but if its good enough for a top firm of london accountants..it is good enough for most. Not to say office isnt a great piece of software, it is...just overpriced IMO. I bundle OO with my pc's I sell, people like it, and are happy I save them money. I dont sell a lot of pc's compared to many..but hey, small steps

In the specific case of DNG I think Adobe is a unique postion of
being able to create a standard. There's not a singe bit of
Microsoft software which reads RAW files, so who would take up a
Microsoft RAW format ? (And I think Windows Media Photo has a very
short future ahead of it)

Adobe isnt in the same league, but it is dominant..no question. It
makes sense not to want them to set the standard...

Who else ?

Anyone else!

Both companies make great software..(and rubbish sometimes too...)..

People never let me forget that I work for the company which
produced Bob.

Put simply I dont trust adobe...in much the same way as I dont
trust MS a whole lot either..and their partner support sucks big
time...!

I think by this point I've bored every one silly by saying never
trusting Adobe or Microsoft is as foolish as always trusting them.

Final thought on this, from Desiderata
"Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full
of trickery.
But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many persons
strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. "

Dont take me as anti Adobe or even MS...but times have changed, and I look forward to more open source software, including operating sytems. I am moving away from MS...and they only have themselves to blame.

--

 

[El_Ogando]

I believe ISO, (in particular TC42, perhaps WG18 or perhaps in
conjunction with another TC), could usefully develop an archival
standard raw file format, and I suggest that the method used for
PDF/A could be used to develop DNG/A. It would enable national
archives to have rules or even laws, and ensure that they could
share tools and images. They need stability, and this could provide
it.

Barry,
thanks again for your kind and informative 2nd reply.

Do you have concrete suggestions for this
archival raw file format you suggested?
Maybe in form of a summary, or a diagram?
Personal copyright will be guaranteed, of course !

I´m communicator, not computer scientist,
but I can adress serious input, where it might be usefull.
You are free to contact me in private mail, if you like.
Or you may publish it by yourself, it makes you feel safer.

Ogando,
speaking for working group digital standards
at the photographer´s organization FreeLens, Germany
http://www.freelens.com/ansprechpartner/index.html

 

[Barry Pearson]

El_Ogando wrote:
[snip]

Do you have concrete suggestions for this
archival raw file format you suggested?
Maybe in form of a summary, or a diagram?
Personal copyright will be guaranteed, of course !

[snip]

The best I have is here:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/speculate.htm#00

I say: "... so the archival variant, (DNG/A, say), might be a slim specification that identified a set of constraints on the full specification, rather like the relationship between ISO's PDF/A and Adobe's PDF 1.4. ISO may object to fields such as DNGPrivateData, or want to reduce some variability, or identify conformance levels, etc".

Please use this material in any way you like, with acknowldgements and/or links where relevant. I know that Adobe believe in the potential of DNG as an archival format. So does Chuck Westfall of Canon. And the Library of Congress. See:
http://www.i3a.org/virtual/eye_on_imaging_v3_n2.html
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/still_preferences.shtml

I believe all of those are represented on TC42, which is why I think TC42 may decide that this would be a good thing.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Here is another bit about what an archival raw file format needs:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/benefits.htm#archiving

 

[El_Ogando]

Do you have concrete suggestions for this
archival raw file format you suggested?
Maybe in form of a summary, or a diagram?
Personal copyright will be guaranteed, of course !

[snip]

The best I have is here:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/speculate.htm#00

I say: "... so the archival variant, (DNG/A, say), might be a slim
specification that identified a set of constraints on the full
specification, rather like the relationship between ISO's PDF/A and
Adobe's PDF 1.4. ISO may object to fields such as DNGPrivateData,
or want to reduce some variability, or identify conformance levels,
etc".

Please use this material in any way you like, with acknowldgements
and/or links where relevant. I know that Adobe believe in the
potential of DNG as an archival format. So does Chuck Westfall of
Canon. And the Library of Congress. See:
http://www.i3a.org/virtual/eye_on_imaging_v3_n2.html
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/content/still_preferences.shtml

I believe all of those are represented on TC42, which is why I
think TC42 may decide that this would be a good thing.

Thanks for your cooperation Barry,
I will have a look on your articles and I will inform you,
with acknowledgements and/or links, if something is used somewhere by us.

If I have a special techical question I will try to contact you along your webpage.

Our organization FreeLens is new on the international floor since beginning of this year.

I see you´re already informed very well. I´m sorry not to answer your assumptions.

One of the gentleman-agreements is not to talk about internal details of any kind outside.

We fully respect given agreements. But talking by walking about the future of file formats,
it´s really not a problem, how could it be one ..... )

Ogando,
speaking for working group digital standards
at the photographer´s organization FreeLens, Germany
http://www.freelens.com/ansprechpartner/index.html

 

[Dana G]

So people are going to shoot in pentax RAW, the convert to DNG? And
do what? Embed the original RAW in the DNG thus creating a far
larger file?

No, most of us convert to DNG without embedding the original. Why would I want to have two or three proprietary RAW formats when I can keep the whole lot as DNG?

I thought the idea is to just have DNG on it's own. Why make more
work for yourself...sure I have tried the "free" DNG covertor..its
fairly fast..but what is the point?

See above

The idea of DNG is sound...just dont fancy the ADOBE sign all over it.

So whose sign woud you like on it? Some "independant (hahhaha!) stndards body?

--
'We have met the enemy, and he is us!

 

[Dana G]

Has anyone been complaining about TIFF, whch is also created by Adobe?

DNG will be the RAW version of TIFF. It's here, it's practical, it works, and it's free. I don't see TIFF as a danger, so why is DNG so terrible?
--
'We have met the enemy, and he is us!

 

[jeffkrol]

http://home.earthlink.net/~ritter/tiff/#whoowns
......Who owns TIFF?

TIFF was developed by Aldus and Microsoft Corp, and the specification was owned by Aldus, which in turn merged with Adobe Systems, Incorporated. Consequently, Adobe Systems now holds the Copyright for the TIFF specification.

TIFF is a trademark, formerly registered to Aldus, and which is now claimed (though not yet registered) by Adobe Systems, Inc.

and:
is the LZW Compression in TIFF patented?

Yep; Unisys holds a patent on the compression algorithm, which is the same as the one used in Compuserve's GIF format. For more information, see the Graphics File Format FAQ entry, which has further details and pointers to the patents and licensing agreements.

See also the "Extensions" section on the freeware "Zip-in-TIFF" alternative proposed.
..............................
Who says us conspiracy theorists aren't worried about TIFF

Anyways TIFF and DNG are interwined at the hip anyways....
--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

 

[James O'Neill]

Saying Microsoft have lost their touch is vague and something you
can't prove, (or disprove).

IMO they have lost it...but that is only my view. MS are a landmark
software company..but the rot starts with "vista" as far as I am
concerned. More restrictive licensing..making it more hassle for
people to upgrade and transfer their OS.

Most copies of Windows are sold on new machines. OEM licenses have never been transferable. I'm not sure what's brought about the change for retail licences. I've being running Vista as my everyday OS since March and it's the biggest step forward we've had in the last 10 years.

Real media won a case against ms for windows
media player being bundled with windows. Thus being unfair to
real...Being honest real player sucks IMO...but they had a point.

That was my point. Real won in Europe (and nowhere else) because the EC has a commisioner for competition - not for consumers interests. One of the things that the Netscape case in the US courts ruled was that bundling a package as part of the OS doesn't exclude a competitor. The EC said it made things too hard for Real. But no one wanted real (read this http://jogin.com/weblog/2004/2/29/real-obnoxious ) , and no one wanted Windows with the media player taken out.

MS unfairly tried to wipe netscape out..

That was 8 years ago, before I joined Microsoft. There's a general sense of shame about that sort of behaviour, and the company has changed since I've been there. I hear people say "it's still the same company" and presumably they say "Germany is still the same country that it was in the 1930s"

Adobe have threated legal action to defend their monopoly
in PDF creation tools.

I dont agree with the adobe pdf situation...but open office has pdf
creation, so does wordperfect etc etc...any reason for this?

Market share. The number of sales lost to these is tiny. The Sales lost to PDF tools going into office (or ideally in my view a Print to PDF driver in Vista) would be huge.

If the EC was interested in Consumer rights and maling a Level playing field, Adobe wouldn't have whelk's chance in a Supernova.

So you've got this stupid situation (with the EU)

Well you can argue it is not fair, you can argue that it isnt right
MS can dominate the market.

It's not logical. I always thought everyone was equal before the law, and that was a principle worth standing up for... Fair ? Well it's not fair that one company ends up with a big market share but that's how economics works...

The worry with a monopoly is that if you drive competitors out of the market consumers get a worse deal. It's good for consumers if they get free PDF software; it's good if they get a free media player. But the Real Networks case, shows EC competition commsion will help the smaller player against the big one even though it is bad for consumers. Adobe seems to be banking on the same thing with PDF in office. I'll bet they don't like Wordperfect having PDF support, but they won't get any help because wordperfect are smaller than them, but against someone bigger (Microsoft) the rules are different.

I guess PDF is a case which both makes and contradicts your argument.

Did I say I support pdf?

No. I brought PDF into this, because it shows Adobe is not a monolithic company which behaves the same way in every set of circumstances.

You mentioned OpenOffice format, but
it's just not being used. Most of the worlds documents are in
Microsoft DOC, then in Adobe PDF.

I beg to differ. Open office causes fear at Redmond! Sure nobody
will admit it..but OO is doing well. It is free..it should do.

Free Software only saves you money if your time has no value. There's no more fear of OO that there is of any other competitor. Actually it's too easy for a product team to lose their edge when the competition is weak - look how Internet explorer did practically nothing from the disappearance of netscape till the emergence of firefox. We don't like losing sales (who does) - which is why we do our best work when there is a competitor.

As
time goes on more and more people and companies are adopting it. It
isnt as fully featured as office..sure, but if its good enough for
a top firm of london accountants..it is good enough for most.

Really ? Which firm ? Accounts are one of the hardest verticals to move even between versions of Microsoft office because they have the most intricately linked spreadsheets and complex macros, which don't work in open office

Not
to say office isnt a great piece of software, it is...just
overpriced IMO. I bundle OO with my pc's I sell, people like it,
and are happy I save them money. I dont sell a lot of pc's compared
to many..but hey, small steps

That also gives you a distorted perspective of the take-up of OO.

Adobe isnt in the same league, but it is dominant..no question. It
makes sense not to want them to set the standard...

Who else ?

Anyone else!

Now, sorry but that is just being stupid.

Dont take me as anti Adobe

When you say Anyone but Adobe should set the standard it's hard not to.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Real won in Europe (and nowhere else) because
the EC has a commisioner for competition - not for consumers
interests. One of the things that the Netscape case in the US
courts ruled was that bundling a package as part of the OS doesn't
exclude a competitor. The EC said it made things too hard for Real.
But no one wanted real (read this
http://jogin.com/weblog/2004/2/29/real-obnoxious ) , and no one
wanted Windows with the media player taken out.

You certainly got that right. For some reason known only to the BBC they use only Real for many of their online services and I (like many others) was dismayed that I had to install this invasive piece of cr@p just to be able to listen to BBC internet radio. Happily I discovered "Real Alternative" which has replaced Real for my uses.

--
John Bean

PAW Week 42:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/3/104404611/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

 

[IanSeward]

You certainly got that right. For some reason known only to the BBC
they use only Real for many of their online services and I (like
many others) was dismayed that I had to install this invasive
piece of cr@p just to be able to listen to BBC internet radio.
Happily I discovered "Real Alternative" which has replaced Real for
my uses.

I agree 100% with you John about BBC and Real Player. I did not know about Real Alternative - many thanks, I will download ASAP.
--
Ian

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

James O'Neill wrote:

Most copies of Windows are sold on new machines. OEM licenses have
never been transferable. I'm not sure what's brought about the
change for retail licences. I've being running Vista as my everyday
OS since March and it's the biggest step forward we've had in the
last 10 years.

Well you would say that wouldnt you. Until 64bit is rocking 100%...I advise others not to bother.

I transfered my XP pro license..but only after I gave MS all hell on the phone. Why? Because my socket A board died, so I used the parts for another s/h pc and sold it with a new XP home license. I think it is pretty fair to allow people to upgrade and or replace hardware. MS did make life hard...but I whipped em!!! lol...bingo XP pro working on my new pc..

I am honest..and let us be frank here...despite attempts to stop piracy, all current systems dont work, for those who wish to go down that route. (not that I condone this) Windows retail is a silly price...

That was my point. Real won in Europe (and nowhere else) because
the EC has a commisioner for competition - not for consumers
interests.

Why not?

One of the things that the Netscape case in the US

courts ruled was that bundling a package as part of the OS doesn't
exclude a competitor. The EC said it made things too hard for Real.
But no one wanted real (read this
http://jogin.com/weblog/2004/2/29/real-obnoxious ) , and no one
wanted Windows with the media player taken out.

MS unfairly tried to wipe netscape out..

That was 8 years ago, before I joined Microsoft. There's a general
sense of shame about that sort of behaviour, and the company has
changed since I've been there. I hear people say "it's still the
same company" and presumably they say "Germany is still the same
country that it was in the 1930s"

Well.....funny thing was netscape was the better browser...(though now its a kinda half firefox ie thing)

Market share. The number of sales lost to these is tiny. The Sales
lost to PDF tools going into office (or ideally in my view a Print
to PDF driver in Vista) would be huge.

People can download free ones..aka pdf redirect..

If the EC was interested in Consumer rights and maling a Level
playing field, Adobe wouldn't have whelk's chance in a Supernova.

Maybe..

So you've got this stupid situation (with the EU)

It's not logical. I always thought everyone was equal before the
law, and that was a principle worth standing up for... Fair ? Well
it's not fair that one company ends up with a big market share but
that's how economics works...

This is now..in the future it may be different

The worry with a monopoly is that if you drive competitors out of
the market consumers get a worse deal. It's good for consumers if
they get free PDF software; it's good if they get a free media
player.

But the Real Networks case, shows EC competition commsion

will help the smaller player against the big one even though it is
bad for consumers.

Why is it bad for consumers?

Adobe seems to be banking on the same thing with

PDF in office. I'll bet they don't like Wordperfect having PDF
support, but they won't get any help because wordperfect are
smaller than them, but against someone bigger (Microsoft) the rules
are different.

Thats up to MS to sort out..

You mentioned OpenOffice format, but
it's just not being used. Most of the worlds documents are in
Microsoft DOC, then in Adobe PDF.

Well it is being used and it supports MS doc formats and opendocument too..something which ms now have to support..;-)

Free Software only saves you money if your time has no value.
There's no more fear of OO that there is of any other competitor.

Oh give me a break it is free! Office is sweet..but pricey..

And lets be honest 95% of people have no need for most of the stuff in it..I know people still using 97 suite

Actually it's too easy for a product team to lose their edge when
the competition is weak - look how Internet explorer did
practically nothing from the disappearance of netscape till the
emergence of firefox. We don't like losing sales (who does) - which
is why we do our best work when there is a competitor.

Netscape didnt go away....though it lost its shine.

That also gives you a distorted perspective of the take-up of OO.

Read this on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_office

Although Microsoft Office retains 95% of the general market, OpenOffice.org and StarOffice have secured 14% of the large enterprise market as of 2004.[24] The OpenOffice.org web site reports more than 61 million downloads.[25]

Large scale users of OpenOffice.org include Singapore's Ministry of Defense, and Bristol City Council in the UK. In France, OpenOffice.org has attracted the attention of both local and national government administrations who wish to rationalize their software procurement, as well as have stable, standard file formats for archival purposes. It is now the official office suite for the French Gendarmerie. [26]

Adobe isnt in the same league, but it is dominant..no question. It
makes sense not to want them to set the standard...

Who else ?

Anyone else!

Now, sorry but that is just being stupid.

Why?

Dont take me as anti Adobe

When you say Anyone but Adobe should set the standard it's hard not
to.

What you expect me to say? Let the big guns run the show?

--

 

[James O'Neill]

James O'Neill wrote:

I've being running Vista as my everyday
OS since March and it's the biggest step forward we've had in the
last 10 years.

Well you would say that wouldnt you

Well yes (a) I have been using it - photographers especially are going to love it (b) You don't take a job with Microsoft if you're inclined to thinking their products suck now do you ?

. Until 64bit is rocking 100%...I advise others not to bother.

It's surprised me just how dependant we are on some very iffy 32bit drivers for USB devices - which just aren't supported on 64 bit. 64 bit needs to build a bit of base before this gets sorted and it doesn't help build a base if drivers are an issue.

I transfered my XP pro license..but only after I gave MS all hell
on the phone. Why? Because my socket A board died, so I used the
parts for another s/h pc and sold it with a new XP home license. I
think it is pretty fair to allow people to upgrade and or replace
hardware. MS did make life hard...but I whipped em!!! lol...bingo
XP pro working on my new pc..

If it was an OEM license, sounds like you've got one past MSFT there, because the low cost of the licence is partly because you can't transfer it. If it was a retail license - well moving it is allowed but you get the 3rd degree because a legit move and piracy look identical. Giving the folks in front line "all hell" doesn't do anyone any good though. They don't make the policy and often don't even work for Microsoft.

the EC has a commisioner for competition - not for consumers
interests.

Why not?

That's the EC job. Nellie Kroes is commisioner for competition not for consumer affairs. The expectation is that the two interests will co-incide.

Take another example. Symantec are talking to the EC because they don't want Microsoft to include some Security features. What's in consumers interests. 100% of Vista users to have security for free. Or (say) 30% buy protection from Symantec, 30% get it somewhere else, and 40% are unprotected. I'd say the former. But Nellie Kroes' job is to protect competition.

The Sales
lost to PDF tools going into office (or ideally in my view a Print
to PDF driver in Vista) would be huge.

People can download free ones..aka pdf redirect..

But that's not so much of a worry as Microsoft giving it to every customer.

But the Real Networks case, shows EC competition commsion
will help the smaller player against the big one even though it is
bad for consumers.

Why is it bad for consumers?

See above. Since no consumer every bought Windows XP-N, it certainly wasn't in their interest.

against someone bigger (Microsoft) the rules
are different.

Thats up to MS to sort out..

How ? Shrink ?

You mentioned OpenOffice format,

Well it is being used and it supports MS doc formats and
opendocument too..something which ms now have to support..;-)

OpenDoc support is comming from a 3rd party (with MS backing).

And lets be honest 95% of people have no need for most of the stuff
in it..I know people still using 97 suite

I've always thought there is "core" part, and a "personal" part. I recokon the core is about 10% and the personal 10-15%. I doubt if anyone uses more than 1/3 of the features. I never do mail merges, but I use footnotes. I rely on VPN-less e-mail connections (only in Outlook from 2003) and if you schedule a lot of meetings one look at Outlook 2007 will win you over.

But then not everyone needs Autofocus, or exposure modes other than Apperture priority. (In 2001 I was still using an ME-Super as my main camera)

Read this on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_office

Although Microsoft Office retains 95% of the general market,
OpenOffice.org and StarOffice have secured 14% of the large
enterprise market as of 2004.[24] The OpenOffice.org web site
reports more than 61 million downloads.[25]

The claim of 14% comes from open office themselves, and 61M downloads includes the people who looked at it but didn't deploy it. Remember that on Linux, OO is the only game in town. I've seem linux and Apple Mac percentages all over the place - but this also suggest that OO has a lower percentage on non-MS than Microsoft has on Windows. Or MS-Office on Mac does more units than OO on Windows.

Adobe isnt in the same league, but it is dominant..no question. It
makes sense not to want them to set the standard...

Who else ?

Anyone else!

Now, sorry but that is just being stupid.

Why?

Saying anyone but {X} should set the standard - especially when there is no alternative - seems pretty stupid to me.

Dont take me as anti Adobe

When you say Anyone but Adobe should set the standard it's hard not
to.

What you expect me to say? Let the big guns run the show?

But thats the root of it. Your agument is that the big guns shouldn't be allowed to precisely because they ARE the big guns. But - see above - you don't have an alternative.
Standards get set by the big guns. No one listens to the Small bores.

ISO, ANSI and ECMA don't usally invent standards out of the blue - they take on established ones. Look what happend with - say - X400, set by a commitee, compared with say SMTP which was set by a couple of individuals who were big shots in the community.

 

[jeffkrol]

Hmmm,

For Win2K and WinXP, due to licensing agreements, a VIA USB2 driver package cannot be distributed online. Driver support for VIA USB 2.0 controllers requires Windows XP SP1 (Service Pack 1), Windows 2000 SP4, or system upgrade through Windows Update
--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.