MS unveils new image format
Originally Posted by Kestrel
So if it's better quality images at lower image sizes, this is bad how? 

Non-standarization.
Closed source.
Proprietary.
And a really stupid fucking name.
WMA was supposed to sound better than MP3s of comparable bitrate. BS. The quality is worse, but it's +3db, playing the trick on the human ear that "slightly louder is slightly better".
.jpg is fine for most uses, and if you want high quality small formats, use .png. This is another MS attempt to make things harder for nonMS OSs to exist.
.jpg is fine for most uses, and if you want high quality small formats, use .png. This is another MS attempt to make things harder for nonMS OSs to exist.
Originally Posted by Epoch
but it's +3db, playing the trick on the human ear that "slightly louder is slightly better".
Noobs always get shat on in the recording forums I go to because that's all they want. "How can I make my track louder?". Sacrificing quality for preceptive loudness.
Originally Posted by clickwir
Incompatability.
Non-standarization.
Closed source.
Proprietary.
And a really stupid fucking name.
Non-standarization.
Closed source.
Proprietary.
And a really stupid fucking name.
Originally Posted by Epoch
.jpg is fine for most uses, and if you want high quality small formats, use .png. This is another MS attempt to make things harder for nonMS OSs to exist.
Originally Posted by reno96teg
waa waa waaa..
i doubt it'll go far, but God forbid a software company actually work on..... *gasp!*.. new software technologies!! oh what is the world coming too?!
i doubt it'll go far, but God forbid a software company actually work on..... *gasp!*.. new software technologies!! oh what is the world coming too?!
Judge it when you see it for yourself. Maybe it IS better than JPG. And God forbid MS make some money off their efforts in creating a better image format (if it is indeed better).
Originally Posted by reno96teg
but God forbid a software company actually work on..... *gasp!*.. new software technologies!!
How about an OS that isn't as wide open as a cheerleader on prom night?
Originally Posted by Epoch
How about an OS that isn't as wide open as a cheerleader on prom night?
how bout you tell us about all the windows machines you've "hacked" into.
:rofl:
Originally Posted by dE.fUsEd
how bout you tell us about all the windows machines you've "hacked" into.
:rofl:
:rofl:
When I worked for an ISP, all of our hosting was done on Unix or Linux boxes. We only had a .NET server around to run special apps for customers that specifically requested it, but it was kept literally isolated from all our other service boxes because of the inherent security risk it posed.
Now, I'm not claiming to be a network security specialist, but there's a reason we had all our important internal services, as well as a majority of our hosting, on *NIX machines.
Originally Posted by Kestrel
Sounds like you guys hate it just because it's Microsoft.
PC's, Linux, Mac, and anything else anyone wants to use, has to have some standarization. Some interoperability. That's why the internet is doing as well as it is, cause any computer that uses TCP/IP can use the internet.
Wouldn't be such a great place if you had to use licensed microsoft images for everything.
Originally Posted by Epoch
WMA was supposed to sound better than MP3s of comparable bitrate. BS. The quality is worse, but it's +3db, playing the trick on the human ear that "slightly louder is slightly better".


