 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Is there a FAQ describing guidelines for posting here, i.e. what is max
size, what is the optimum compression scheme to use, etc.
Jon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jon Berndt wrote:
>
> Is there a FAQ describing guidelines for posting here, i.e. what is max
> size, what is the optimum compression scheme to use, etc.
None that I am aware of. The max file size allowed on this news server
is 1 meg after encoding which means that your max file size will likely
be around 700k before encoding. As far as optimum compression I will
have to defer to other peoples opinions on this matter.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's best to use DivX;-) compression for avi files cause you have very good
quality at a high compression ratio. You can also use Mpeg or quickTime
which give good compression as well but their quality versus compression is
not as good as with DivX;-) avi files.
Rob.
Jon Berndt schreef:
> Is there a FAQ describing guidelines for posting here, i.e. what is max
> size, what is the optimum compression scheme to use, etc.
>
> Jon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rob Verweij <rg.### [at] worldonline nl> wrote:
: It's best to use DivX;-) compression
No, it isn't. Because not everyone can play them.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, then that's their loss.
Warp schreef:
> Rob Verweij <rg.### [at] worldonlinenl> wrote:
> : It's best to use DivX;-) compression
>
> No, it isn't. Because not everyone can play them.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rob Verweij wrote:
>
> Well, then that's their loss.
I agree. This is the penalty people have to pay for using obscure
unpopular operating systems that are not geared to the main stream
computer user.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rob Verweij" <rg.### [at] worldonlinenl> wrote :
>
> Well, then that's their loss.
Since one can only assume that one posts an image on a public forum
because one wants it viewed by that public, one can say that the loss is the
loss of the poster if that image cannot be viewed.
Clearly not a beneficial feature of the codex.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> "Rob Verweij" <rg.### [at] worldonlinenl> wrote :
> >
> > Well, then that's their loss.
>
> Since one can only assume that one posts an image on a public forum
> because one wants it viewed by that public, one can say that the loss is the
> loss of the poster if that image cannot be viewed.
>
> Clearly not a beneficial feature of the codex.
One might also argue that if one chooses not to keep up with advances
in computer software and computer hardware one disadvantages onself
unnecessarily and bears the responsibility for not being able to view
animations encoded with a particular codex.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
> >
> > Clearly not a beneficial feature of the codex.
>
> One might also argue that if one chooses not to keep up with advances
> in computer software and computer hardware one disadvantages onself
> unnecessarily and bears the responsibility for not being able to view
> animations encoded with a particular codex.
Sure, but the person posting is the one who wants the result.
Like with toilet seats. Women hate it when they go into the bathroom and
find the seat left up. They also hate it when men pee with the seat down. To
me, since women are the ones who have a problem, they should be the one who
make the changes in behavior.
-They- should remember to put it down before they use it and -they
should lift it up when they are done.
So, if someone wants their animation seen, they should do the things
that best achieve that result.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > "Rob Verweij" <rg.### [at] worldonlinenl> wrote :
> > >
> > > Well, then that's their loss.
> >
> > Since one can only assume that one posts an image on a public forum
> > because one wants it viewed by that public, one can say that the loss is the
> > loss of the poster if that image cannot be viewed.
> >
> > Clearly not a beneficial feature of the codex.
>
> One might also argue that if one chooses not to keep up with advances
> in computer software and computer hardware one disadvantages onself
> unnecessarily and bears the responsibility for not being able to view
> animations encoded with a particular codex.
Bah. This is like putting out a movie only on Betamax and saying "if you
can't play Beta tapes, that's your problem". You may think you've made
it someone else's problem, but you are the one who'll get bitten in the ass.
BTW, it's "codec". A "codex" is something else entirely.
Assuming that the media creator wants his media to be as accessible as
practically possible, it's his duty to use a codec that's accessible to
practically everybody. Windows and the various APIs, hardware calls,
etc. associated with it are NOT standards, regardless of their present
market dominance, and therefore a Windows-only codec is no more valid
than a Mac-only one, or a Linux-only one, or a Nintendo-only one.
But ultimately, all arguments are worthless, since people will use
whatever they feel like using. If you want people to be able to see your
work, use Quicktime, or better yet, MPEG. If you want to be an ignorant,
irresponsible, short-sighted fool, and you're willing to sacrifice a
part of your audience to do so, then by all means, use DivX.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rob Verweij" <rg.### [at] worldonlinenl> wrote in message
news:3A2E812F.AF534D7D@worldonline.nl...
> It's best to use DivX;-)
Without arguing about who loses what, how about if anyone who chooses to use
Divx or some other less accessible codec, please at least mention in your
subject line what codec you're using, so those of us who chose not to
install every codec in the world can skip your posting, and not waste the
time downloading an animation that we can't view. Then we can all be happy -
Divx users can post beautiful animations, and everyone else can ignore them.
Regards,
Dave
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> Assuming that the media creator wants his media to be as accessible as
> practically possible, it's his duty to use a codec that's accessible to
> practically everybody. Windows and the various APIs, hardware calls,
> etc. associated with it are NOT standards, regardless of their present
> market dominance, and therefore a Windows-only codec is no more valid
> than a Mac-only one, or a Linux-only one, or a Nintendo-only one.
By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to the
90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows platform.
A 90% market share indicates that you are indeed attempting to reach
the greatest possible market with the highest quality at your disposal.
Why put out inferior material to cater to 10% of the worlds computer
users who refuse to fit into the main stream ?
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote :
> > >
> > > Clearly not a beneficial feature of the codex.
> >
> > One might also argue that if one chooses not to keep up with advances
> > in computer software and computer hardware one disadvantages onself
> > unnecessarily and bears the responsibility for not being able to view
> > animations encoded with a particular codex.
>
> Sure, but the person posting is the one who wants the result.
>
> Like with toilet seats. Women hate it when they go into the bathroom and
> find the seat left up. They also hate it when men pee with the seat down. To
> me, since women are the ones who have a problem, they should be the one who
> make the changes in behavior.
>
> -They- should remember to put it down before they use it and -they
> should lift it up when they are done.
>
> So, if someone wants their animation seen, they should do the things
> that best achieve that result.
After one looks behind all the jokes and cultural presumptions, the
difference between men and women is that men look before they squat.
--
He raped Thrace thrice.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 288
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So very wise you are.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> > Assuming that the media creator wants his media to be as accessible as
> > practically possible, it's his duty to use a codec that's accessible to
> > practically everybody. Windows and the various APIs, hardware calls,
> > etc. associated with it are NOT standards, regardless of their present
> > market dominance, and therefore a Windows-only codec is no more valid
> > than a Mac-only one, or a Linux-only one, or a Nintendo-only one.
>
> By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to the
> 90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows platform.
Hardly, Ken. Windows is not this dominant.
> Why put out inferior material to cater to 10% of the worlds computer
> users who refuse to fit into the main stream ?
Perhaps because one respects platform diversity, or at least accepts it?
Perhaps because Windows is a heap of shit which should be discouraged
rather than enforced?
Ah, well. I suppose I'm speaking to third parties here, since your own
"if you're not running Windows, you're a moron" position is clear.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> > By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to the
> > 90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows platform.
>
> Hardly, Ken. Windows is not this dominant.
It is impossible to know exactly what percentage or computer users
are Windows users but it is estimated that the range is between
85-90 percent. This came out in the monopoly lawsuit against Microsoft.
> > Why put out inferior material to cater to 10% of the worlds computer
> > users who refuse to fit into the main stream ?
>
> Perhaps because one respects platform diversity, or at least accepts it?
I accept and respect platform diversity. I will point out though
that those people who operate on these systems do so with the full
knowlege that they have inherent limitations that Windows users
do not suffer from the biggest of which if software diversity and
support.
> Perhaps because Windows is a heap of shit which should be discouraged
> rather than enforced?
I will not even dignify this obvious attempt at OS bashing with a rebuttle.
> Ah, well. I suppose I'm speaking to third parties here, since your own
> "if you're not running Windows, you're a moron" position is clear.
I implied nothing about a person's mental capacity based upon the
OS they choose to use. Those are your words not mine.
I think you fail to recognize that as a Mac user you are in a niche
market. The same is true of the nerds and geeks that prefer to use
linux, unix, and the other handful of alternative OS's available.
You are not mainsteam nor are you the majority no matter how much
you would wish it to be otherwise. You may consider yourself an
elitist, I do not. Enjoy your apple a day but if it keeps the DivX
away don't come crying on my shoulder.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:04:39 -0800, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>One might also argue that if one chooses not to keep up with advances
>in computer software and computer hardware one disadvantages onself
>unnecessarily and bears the responsibility for not being able to view
>animations encoded with a particular codex.
Rogue reverse-engineered codecs are not exactly the measure of keeping
up with advances in software and hardware. Not many visitors of this
server are as advanced as Warp is in this field (and then, they are
mostly POV-Team members :) ).
The user side of it is not the cutting edge either. After all,
developers always get to use the newest versions before the users.
Being a programmer makes up for staying on the crest of the wave.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> I accept and respect platform diversity. I will point out though
> that those people who operate on these systems do so with the full
> knowlege that they have inherent limitations that Windows users
> do not suffer from the biggest of which if software diversity and
> support.
*IF* there was some insurmountable limitation in the OS or hardware that
made the software impossible to port, or if the other markets were too
small to be viable, you might have an argument.. but since there isn't,
and they clearly aren't, this is ridiculous. You claim that software
availability is platform-inherent, which is likewise ridiculous.
I could make a similar argument to yours about HTML news and email, but
I won't pursue that at this point, because I happen to be opposed to
those things, and do not wish to be a devil's advocate.
> I think you fail to recognize that as a Mac user you are in a niche
> market.
Not at all. I simply refuse to accept Windows as a standard, de facto or
otherwise. It's simply not nearly good enough to embrace as the One True
Way to compute. All the other Mac users and *nix users and BeOS users
and what have you clearly agree with this sentiment or else they would
be using Windows, and I would suggest that there are a fair number of
Windows users who would agree as well; for a majority platform, it
certainly seems to be unpopular.
Given this opposition, it would seem that the socially responsible thing
to do (inasmuch as online computer users are a "society") would be to
use file formats, codecs, etc. that allow one, within reason, to choose
how they compute, rather than forcing people into one mode just because
it's there and it's what you FEEL like using.. again, in much the same
way that most people prefer to eliminate HTML from email and news posts,
despite the features that HTML would offer, because the greater benefit
is had by allowing people to use the reader, system, and network
connection of their choosing (or at least, what's available to them at
the time).
If you and others who agree with you cannot see the logic of this, then
instead, I request that a new newsgroup, created specifically for DivX
files, be split off from p.b.a. This way, those people who refuse to
accept their social responsibility can at least spare the rest of us
from having to waste our time and bandwidth on their posts.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to the
> 90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows platform.
> A 90% market share indicates that you are indeed attempting to reach
> the greatest possible market with the highest quality at your disposal.
> Why put out inferior material to cater to 10% of the worlds computer
> users who refuse to fit into the main stream ?
Don't forget: DivX also exists for Linux!
--
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
>
> Not at all. I simply refuse to accept Windows as a standard, de facto or
> otherwise. It's simply not nearly good enough
Whatever technical problems you have with Windows does not affect its
suitability as a standard. I mean, look at the English measuring system.
It's a Standard, even though it is being replaced. Then lets look at the
problems with the two main TV standards, each as bad as the other.
Windows is the standard, evidenced by the way Mac tried for so long to
supplant it but then finally became Windows compatible, not to mention Linux
windowing systems...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Many people cannot see DivX >:P !
M-peg is a common standard that offers nearly all viewers the courtesy of
actually being able to see your animation.
Rob Verweij wrote:
> It's best to use DivX;-) compression for avi files cause you have very good
> quality at a high compression ratio. You can also use Mpeg or quickTime
> which give good compression as well but their quality versus compression is
> not as good as with DivX;-) avi files.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to the
> > 90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows platform.
>
> Hardly, Ken. Windows is not this dominant.
First of all, using DivX is not catering to Win users but a very small subset
of them.
As for the use of Win, it depends on whether you're talking about a
pov-specific community or the whole world.
TheCounter.com statistics. First column is the 2200 visitors to the
10best.raytrace.com site, the other is the half a billion visitors to all web
pages in the TheCounter.com database.
[1] [2]
Win 98 43% 66%
Win NT 17% 7%
Win 95 12% 15%
Win 2K 8% 3%
Linux 7% 0%
Unkn 4% 2%
Mac 3% 2%
Unix 2% 0%
Total
Windows 80% 91%
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to
> the 90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows
> platform.
> Why put out inferior material to cater to 10%
> of the worlds computer users who refuse to fit into the main
> stream ?
This is getting very close to being flame bait of the highest degree. If someone
does not use Windows they are "refusing to fit in"??!! Maybe I misunderstand
your point, but I am an engineer; I use the best tool for the task at hand.
Sometimes it's on a Windows box (because the *client* wants it), sometimes it's
not.
In any case, all that my original question was posed for was to determine the
largest size that was permissible to post, and which format gave the best
size/quality.
As far as which platform supports which formats, Windows supports a wide range,
but Linux appears to support a quite sufficient portion of these, as well. Here
is the relevent portion of the man page for xanim (and there are plenty of other
animation players out there for Linux - and I am sure that Mac supports a huge
variety of players, as well):
+ FLI animations.
+ FLC animations.
+ IFF animations. The following features are supported:
-> Compressions 3,5,7,J(movies) and l(small L).
-> Color cycling during single images and anims.
-> Display Modes: depth 1-8, EHB, HAM and HAM8.
+ GIF87a and GIF89a files.
-> single and multiple images supported.
-> GIF89a animation extensions supported.
+ GIF89a animation extension support.
+ a kludgy text file listing gifs and what order to show them in.
+ DL animations. Formats 1, 2 and partial 3.
+ Amiga PFX(PageFlipper Plus F/X) animations. TEMP DISABLED
+ Amiga MovieSetter animations(For those Eric Schwartz fans).
+ Utah Raster Toolkit RLE images and anims.
+ AVI Animations Format
Supported Video Codecs:
-> IBM Ultimotion (ULTI) depth 16.
-> JPEG (JPEG) depth 24.
-> Motion JPEG (MJPG) depth 24.
-> Intergraph JPEG (IJPG) depth 24.
-> Microsoft Video 1 (CRAM) depth 8 and 16.
-> Radius Cinepak (CVID) depth 24. (see NOTE 1)
-> Intel Indeo 3.1 (IV31) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Intel Indeo 3.2 (IV32) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Intel Raw YUV (YUV9) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Creative CYUV (CYUV) depth 16. (see NOTE 3)
-> Uncompressed (RGB ) depth 4.
-> Uncompressed (RGB ) depth 8.
-> Uncompressed (RGB ) depth 16.
-> Uncompressed (RGB ) depth 24.
-> Run length encoded (RLE8) depth 8.
-> Editable MPEG (XMPG) depth 24.
Supported Audio Codecs:
-> PCM 8/16 bits mono/stereo
-> uLAW mono/stereo
-> MSADPCM mono/stereo
-> Intel DVI(IMA4) mono/stereo
-> GSM 6.10 mono
+ Quicktime Animations.
Supported Video Codecs:
-> Uncompressed (RAW ) depth 1,4,8,16,24 and 24+
-> Uncompressed (RAW ) Gray depth 1,4 and 8.
-> Apple Graphics (RLE ) depth 1,8,16 and 24.
-> Apple Graphics (RLE ) GRAY depth 8.
-> Apple Animation (SMC ) depth 8 and GRAY 8.
-> Apple Video (RPZA) depth 16.
-> Radius Cinepak (CVID) depth 24. (see NOTE 1)
-> Radius Cinepak (CVID) GRAY 8. (see NOTE 1)
-> Intel Indeo 3.1 (IV31) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Intel Indeo 3.2 (IV32) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Intel Raw YUV (YUV9) depth 24. (see NOTE 2)
-> Component Video (YUV2) depth 24.
-> Photo JPEG (JPEG) depth 8 and 24.
-> Kodak Photo CD (KPCD) depth 24.
-> Microsoft Video 1 (CRAM) depth 8 and 16.
Supported Audio Codecs:
-> Unsigned PCM (raw) 8/16 bits mono/stereo
-> Signed PCM (twos) 8/16 bits mono/stereo
-> uLAW (ulaw) mono/stereo
-> IMA4 (ima4) mono/stereo
-> GSM 6.10 (agsm) mono
The following features are supported:
-> Supports multiple video trak's.
-> Supports animations with multiple codecs.
-> Supports merged and separated resource forks.
+ SGI Movie Format Files.
Supported Video Codecs:
-> Uncompressed RGB 24 bits
-> MVC1
-> MVC2
-> JPEG
Supported Audio Codecs:
-> Unsigned PCM 8/16 mono/stereo
-> Signed PCM 8/16 mono/stereo
+ WAV audio files may have their sound added to any animation type that
doesn't already have audio, by specifying the .wav file after the animation file
on the command line.
Supported Audio Codecs:
-> PCM 8/16 bits mono/stereo
-> uLAW mono/stereo
-> MSADPCM mono/stereo
-> Intel DVI(IMA4) mono/stereo
-> GSM 6.10 mono
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> It is impossible to know exactly what percentage or computer users
> are Windows users but it is estimated that the range is between
> 85-90 percent. This came out in the monopoly lawsuit against Microsoft.
And it is changing daily.
> I accept and respect platform diversity. I will point out though
> that those people who operate on these systems do so with the full
> knowlege that they have inherent limitations that Windows users
> do not suffer from the biggest of which if software diversity and
> support.
THat was the case at one time. It is simply no longer relevant. Windows has a
huge glut of software available (of wildly varying quality). Linux is gaining
the support of industry leaders and commercial giants every day. Right now, I
have no reason to turn on my Windows machine at all, except for the fact that my
wife uses it. As it stands currently, Windows is easier to use for neophytes,
but even that may not be the case very shortly.
> I think you fail to recognize that as a Mac user you are in a niche
> market. The same is true of the nerds and geeks that prefer to use
> linux, unix, and the other handful of alternative OS's available.
> You are not mainsteam nor are you the majority no matter how much
> you would wish it to be otherwise. You may consider yourself an
> elitist, I do not. Enjoy your apple a day but if it keeps the DivX
> away don't come crying on my shoulder.
I thought as you do at one time, Ken. However, I have come to feel that Apple's
engineering is admirable. Steve Jobs has turned them around, and I think Mac is
coming back as a force to be reckoned with. Microsoft will not gain market
share, and will likely not even hold their own in the coming years, with respect
to market share.
This should really be mnoved to "off-topic".
Jon
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: I agree. This is the penalty people have to pay for using obscure
: unpopular operating systems that are not geared to the main stream
: computer user.
Don't you think that's impolite and selfish?
And hypocritical, since IIRC your opinion is that no-one should send
html-code to the newsgroups although the "mainstream" HTML browsers can
read this kind of articles.
Some people want to work with real operating systems, which are stable and
efficient, not toys. If the mainstream computer user uses shit, that doesn't
mean that everyone should use it.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: One might also argue that if one chooses not to keep up with advances
: in computer software
You call Windows an "advance"?
Yeah. Sure. Do you have any more jokes like that?
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: The same is true of the nerds and geeks that prefer to use
: linux, unix, and the other handful of alternative OS's available.
You seem to think that everyone is using a PC.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote:
: Don't forget: DivX also exists for Linux!
This statement is a bit misleading.
"A file format exists for Linux". Since when file formats exist only
in certain systems? Do the stop existing in other systems?
You probably meant that there's a DivX player for Linux.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : I agree. This is the penalty people have to pay for using obscure
> : unpopular operating systems that are not geared to the main stream
> : computer user.
>
> Don't you think that's impolite and selfish?
> And hypocritical, since IIRC your opinion is that no-one should send
> html-code to the newsgroups although the "mainstream" HTML browsers can
> read this kind of articles.
I have no problem with html posts what so ever. I have a reasonably
fast internet connection and I use modern software that is html
compliant. The only reason that I help enforce the non html ruling
here in the news groups is because of the issue that people such
as yourself complain so loudly on the subject that I get tired of
hearing about it. Also as a memeber of the TAG I have a responsibility
to to the POV-Team to help keep the strain on the news servers
resources down to a minimum.
Otherwise I wouldn't care one way or another. Sometimes I really
miss not being able to use some of the added bennefits of posting
in html. It would be really nice to color highlight or underline a
phrase to add emphasis to a statement or hightlight a problem in
scene code. Plain text is boring and restrictive.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Creating computer graphics is one of the most computer intensive
proffesions/hobbies around and people who create and/or watch CG (especially 3D
CGI) know they need some real computing power to keep up with the developments
of it's industry, especially online. Since this NG is geared toward animations
most of it's readers probably have a reasonable World Wide Web connection and so
they have the abillity to download the latest and greatest of codecs or any
other software/driver and I strongly suggest they do because if you wanna keep
up with the rest it's best to have the latest technologies at your disposal and
currently for online animations DivX;-) can't be beat. It has super quality at a
high compression ratio and that's what we all want. If you don't want some
people to miss out on your latest and greatest animation then post them in
several different formats. Especially in 3DCGI, people preffer quality and
that's what DivX;-) delivers: High quality at a great compression ratio. Have
you ever tried to create a descent looking animation using the Cinepak codec?
Then you know what I mean when I say it's quality (well, at least most of us) we
want.
HTML-coding your NG postings is a totally different ball game.HTML-code is used
to create Webpages or enhanced E-mails and indeed could be used for sending a
HTML message to a NG but not sending them that way to a NG has to do with ethics
and not with the abillity of browsers to read them.
Oh, one more thing, it's not the OS you use it's how you use it.
If you're reffering to the OS a Mac uses that's not as stable as you think.
People who work on DEC Alpha's or SGI's and use IRIX well they still preffer to
watch quality animations instead of highly compressed animations with low
quality. (Why else would they be using the Workstations they use?).
My 2 cents,
Rob Verweij.
Warp schreef:
> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> : I agree. This is the penalty people have to pay for using obscure
> : unpopular operating systems that are not geared to the main stream
> : computer user.
>
> Don't you think that's impolite and selfish?
> And hypocritical, since IIRC your opinion is that no-one should send
> html-code to the newsgroups although the "mainstream" HTML browsers can
> read this kind of articles.
>
> Some people want to work with real operating systems, which are stable and
> efficient, not toys. If the mainstream computer user uses shit, that doesn't
> mean that everyone should use it.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It all boils down to a matter of personal opinion. I, and many others with me,
preffer quality especially in 3DCGI. You have a point there and, as I always do,
I suggest to anyone who wants his or her animation to be seen by the widest
range of viewers to post their animations in several different file formats.
Rob Verweij.
Bill DeWitt schreef:
> "Rob Verweij" <rg.### [at] worldonlinenl> wrote :
> >
> > Well, then that's their loss.
>
> Since one can only assume that one posts an image on a public forum
> because one wants it viewed by that public, one can say that the loss is the
> loss of the poster if that image cannot be viewed.
>
> Clearly not a beneficial feature of the codex.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And that's exactly what I always do. In the subject line I always tell which
Codec I have used.
I use the best compression which also turns out to be the best quality, why else
you think a DVD looks so great?
Most people who are working in the 3DCGI industry know what heir audience wants
and that's quality and that's exactly what the DivX;-) codec delivers and that's
also the reason why most of the 3DCGI studios I know post their work online
using the DivX;-) codec.
Rob.
Dave Blandston schreef:
> "Rob Verweij" <rg.### [at] worldonlinenl> wrote in message
> news:3A2E812F.AF534D7D@worldonline.nl...
> > It's best to use DivX;-)
>
> Without arguing about who loses what, how about if anyone who chooses to use
> Divx or some other less accessible codec, please at least mention in your
> subject line what codec you're using, so those of us who chose not to
> install every codec in the world can skip your posting, and not waste the
> time downloading an animation that we can't view. Then we can all be happy -
> Divx users can post beautiful animations, and everyone else can ignore them.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
: I have no problem with html posts what so ever. I have a reasonably
: fast internet connection and I use modern software that is html
: compliant.
Your problem is that you think that html compliance is a measurement
of an advanced news reader. However, you are using a very limited news
reader, which happens to know html, and you think that it's very advanced
because of that.
However, those who are using really advanced news readers would have to
degrade their software if they started using the same browsers you are using.
They wouldn't be able to use all the advanced features they are using right
now only because they had to use a limited html browser to read the news.
So what you call "modern software" would actually be a huge step backwards
in news reading.
Granted, you'll get graphical html support, but you will also lose lots
of advanced and efficient features found in good news readers.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schreef in berichtnieuws
3a2fa5d8@news.povray.org...
> Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] studentkuleuvenacbe> wrote:
> : Don't forget: DivX also exists for Linux!
>
> This statement is a bit misleading.
>
> "A file format exists for Linux". Since when file formats exist only
> in certain systems? Do the stop existing in other systems?
> You probably meant that there's a DivX player for Linux.
I was talking about the codec, not about the file format. All I know is
that you can play DivX;-) files on Linux.
--
ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You call Windows an "advance"?
what would you suggest?, we all go linux and back to the days of a GUI
sitting on top of a command line OS?
Windows is a major advance in that it has made computers accessible to the
masses, I don't see any of the competition having anything like that kind of
impact.
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://www.kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
>
> what would you suggest?, we all go linux and back to the days of a GUI
> sitting on top of a command line OS?
>
Er... Have you even seen Linux?
It has a command line (which is actually rather useful, unlike DOS) - but you
don't have to look at it under Linux any more so than under Windows, if you
don't want to. And what exactly is your definition of a command line OS? AFAIK
Windows 2000 has a command line too, but the default UI is graphical. You can
set a graphical UI to be the default under Linux, too. So where's the
difference?
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Home page http://www.hot.ee/margusrt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
>
> > You call Windows an "advance"?
>
> what would you suggest?, we all go linux and back to the days of a GUI
> sitting on top of a command line OS?
>
> Windows is a major advance in that it has made computers accessible to the
> masses, I don't see any of the competition having anything like that kind of
> impact.
Oh, this is bull.
First off, Windows is also a GUI sitting on a command line.
Second, there were plenty of masses using DOS. They didn't need no
steenkin' Windows.
And third, if you want to make this kind of argument, you should be
making it about the platform that brought us a GUI long before anyone
else did, and that Windows blatantly ripped off. (I think we all know
which one that is.)
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
> >
> > Not at all. I simply refuse to accept Windows as a standard, de facto or
> > otherwise. It's simply not nearly good enough
>
> Whatever technical problems you have with Windows does not affect its
> suitability as a standard.
Funny, I thought they were extremely relevant.
> Windows is the standard...
Saying don't make it so, pal.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
>
> Saying don't make it so, pal.
Saying it is not without giving reasons that actually apply to the
formation of a standard in an industry doesn't make it so either, what's
your point. There have been many reasons posted here as to why Windows can
be considered a standard, wide range of use, large number of programs
written for it while other OS's scramble to make their system play the
Windows programs, ease of use to newcomers and powerful use of new
technology.
Sure all the other OS's have one or two of the many reasons, but Windows
has them all. And sure Windows has some problems and each of the other OS's
have some of those problems as well as different problems of their own.
"I don't like Windows", no matter how often repeated doesn't mean
something is not a standard. I don't like 10/32 threaded pan head slot
screws, but they are a standard for hanging ceiling fans. I don't like wire
sized screws at all, but they are a standard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> > Windows is a major advance in that it has made computers accessible to the
> > masses, I don't see any of the competition having anything like that kind of
> > impact.
>
> Oh, this is bull.
>
> First off, Windows is also a GUI sitting on a command line.
Regardless of statements to the contrary, yes, Windows is still a GUI on top of
DOS. Additionally, in order to maintain backward compatibility, Windows has had
to keep a lot of badly designed legacy code. Windows has picked up a lot of new
baggage, a really incredible amount, in their attempt to be everything to all
people. I must say that I do enjoy programming for Windows using a properly
designed framework (Borland's VCL under C++Builder), but I can't wait for the
Linux version to come around.
> Second, there were plenty of masses using DOS. They didn't need no
> steenkin' Windows.
I have installed the CygWin environment (Unix on Windows) so I can have the nice
Unix-type tools that Windows is lacking. It helps ease the pain ;-)
> And third, if you want to make this kind of argument, you should be
> making it about the platform that brought us a GUI long before anyone
> else did, and that Windows blatantly ripped off. (I think we all know
> which one that is.)
... which Apple got from Xerox and improved upon. I've always wondered if Apple
didn't look at Windows when it first came out and remarked the phrase that
Cheech Marin quoted in one of his movies: "Hey, man! Somebody ripped off what I
ripped off!" ;-) What I like about Apple lately is their close attention to
what the public wants, now. Their new machines are really nice.
I use my Linux box more than I use my Windows box, but I have to say that I
can't recommend it to my less computer literate friends and family, yet. But I
would recommend a Mac to them before I recommended a Windows machine. I just
think that they have really got their act together now, and they know exatcly
where they are going.
Jon
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
> >
> > Saying don't make it so, pal.
>
> Saying it is not without giving reasons that actually apply to the
> formation of a standard in an industry doesn't make it so either, what's
> your point. There have been many reasons posted here as to why Windows can
> be considered a standard, wide range of use, large number of programs
> written for it while other OS's scramble to make their system play the
> Windows programs, ease of use to newcomers and powerful use of new
> technology.
I think there is a point to be clarified here.
Most software is not written "for Windows". This implies choice of the
basis of merit, when no such choice is made. Programmers don't generally
sit down and say, "gee, Windows beats the hell out of everything else, I
think I'll write software for it". Likewise, companies don't generally
say, "hey, we just really happen to LIKE Microsoft".. unless, of course,
they're coerced by monopoly power. ;P
The truth is, most software is written for the most profitable
platform.. which is to say, the largest. Ignoring the fact that the
different flavors of Windows tend to have all sorts of funny software
incompatibilities, this largest platform would be Windows.. but it could
just as easily be Macintosh, or Linux, or anything else, because the
software development has absolutely nothing to do with the platform itself.
Other platforms do *NOT* "scramble to make their system play Windows
programs". They make their systems play native programs. The only
exception I can think of is people who run Windows in emulation.. which
tells me that those people are being given no choice as to whether to
run Windows or not, but are so opposed to using it as their native OS
that they would rather take a performance hit than switch platforms.
And, as a matter of fact, there's plenty of Windows-only software that a
lot of non-Windows users simply couldn't care less about. I don't need a
Windows text editor or a Windows FTP client; I have Mac-only versions
which I think are equal or superior to similar software available for Windows.
The rest of your comments in that paragraph are simply ridiculous. Ease
of use to newcomers? If anything, that's a Mac, pal.. not the neurotic
interface nightmare from Redmond. Powerful use of new technology? This
could mean anything; consequently, it means nothing.
Now, then.. if none of those things makes Windows a standard, what does?
There's no body with the authority to declare Windows the standard in
computing, and given the number of people who don't like it, I think you
can hardly claim common consent. Though niche markets they may be, Mac
and Unix were around long before Windows, and seem to be surviving
despite its presence, so Windows can hardly be the standard by default.
And it certainly doesn't earn that status through merit; few people
would suggest that Windows is significantly more advanced than its competitors.
I submit that there is no standard.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> >
> > And third, if you want to make this kind of argument, you should be
> > making it about the platform that brought us a GUI long before anyone
> > else did, and that Windows blatantly ripped off. (I think we all know
> > which one that is.)
>
> ... which Apple got from Xerox and improved upon.
Got perfectly legally, I should point out. Apple paid Xerox quite a lot
to look at what was essentially a crude interactive proof-of-concept
mockup that demonstrated interface principles which had been floating
around since (supposedly) the 60s. And if someone bothered to read about
that old Xerox GUI, they'd find that it wasn't really very similar to
the Mac OS after all.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rob Verweij wrote in message <3A2FC179.111E06A3@worldonline.nl>...
>Since this NG is geared toward animations
>most of it's readers probably have a reasonable World Wide Web connection
and so
>they have the abillity to download the latest and greatest of codecs or any
>other software
My two cents: I've got a 26400 connection. I figure I can download 10MB per
hour.
--
Mark
"The derivative of sin(2x) is cos(2x)" - Matt Giwer
"I never said that" - Matt Giwer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rob Verweij wrote:
>
> most of it's readers probably have a reasonable World Wide Web connection and so
> they have the abillity to download the latest and greatest of codecs or any
> other software/driver and I strongly suggest they do because if you wanna keep
> up with the rest it's best to have the latest technologies at your disposal and
> currently for online animations DivX;-) can't be beat. It has super quality at a
Yes, I have good connection to the internet (mostly at about 100 to 300
kBytes
per second), but I am not willing to install yet another codec on my
system.
MPEG is enough. Why install another one for 2% size decrease with 2%
better
quality?
> people to miss out on your latest and greatest animation then post them in
> several different formats. Especially in 3DCGI, people preffer quality and
Now that's nice: You want to save bandwidth with a "better" codec and
then
suggest to post it in several formats? Sheesh...
> that's what DivX;-) delivers: High quality at a great compression ratio. Have
That's what MPEG delivers, too.
> you ever tried to create a descent looking animation using the Cinepak codec?
Noone talked of cinepak.
Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
>
> Most software is not written "for Windows".
><snip>
> The truth is, most software is written for the most profitable
> platform..
Well, considering the comments in some of my programming classes many
people want to learn C++ so that "I can write programs for Windows", looking
at the programming shelves of book stores, while there are more books for
using linux than there used to be, most of the programming books are
programming for Windows. Most of the programs I have are for Windows only,
written for windows and some of them are ported to other OS's only after
months of popular use in Windows.
> Other platforms do *NOT* "scramble to make their system play Windows
> programs".
Yes, they do. Perhaps most of the scrambling was done before you started
using computers, but I remember how many people came into my store asking
for a way to make Mac play Windows programs. There was a -huge- scramble
when it became possible.
> The rest of your comments in that paragraph are simply ridiculous. Ease
> of use to newcomers? If anything, that's a Mac, pal
I did say that other OS's have some of the same benefits, just because
Mac is easy to use doesn't mean Winows is not. The best thing about Windows
is that because it is such a widespread standard, if you need a little help
with your computer, you can go right next door and ask your neighbor or go
down to almost any computer, software or office store and get some free
advice.
> Powerful use of new technology? This
> could mean anything; consequently, it means nothing.
Now that -is- rediculous. You not being able to see what it means does
not negate it's meaning. As to what it means, Linux can't see my CDRW and
all the voice tech stuff is written for windows. And before you start up,
yes, other OS's address some new technology too. That does not detract from
the fact that Windows does too.
> Now, then.. if none of those things makes Windows a standard, what does?
> There's no body with the authority to declare Windows the standard in
> computing, and given the number of people who don't like it, I think you
> can hardly claim common consent. Though niche markets they may be, Mac
> and Unix were around long before Windows, and seem to be surviving
> despite its presence, so Windows can hardly be the standard by default.
> And it certainly doesn't earn that status through merit; few people
> would suggest that Windows is significantly more advanced than its
competitors.
The "standard" is not declared, it develops. I had a Renault once and
people used to jibe me about my boxy little car, then I let a couple of
friends drive it and the response was very gratifying. They all said how
nice it was to drive. One of them made a telling point. He said, "Well it is
not as nice as a BMW or a Mercedes." I agreed and said that at least he was
not comparing it to a Ford Pinto. Standards.
> I submit that there is no standard.
Well, those who walk into a computer store and just -assume- that a
computer has and will run Windows will probably disagree with you. Perhaps
you are using too narrow a definition of the word "Standard". Neither I nor
most people would claim that it is the -only- or even the -best- standard,
but comon sense tells us that it is a standard, one that other people strive
to meet or exceed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> but comon sense tells us that it is a standard, one that other people strive
> to meet or exceed.
Windows is a standard for only one reason: Lotus 1-2-3. If the latter
hadn't taken the market by storm in the Eighties, everyone wouldn't be
using a PC, and hence everyone wouldn't be using the perating system
that comes with them.
Other platforms are not striving to meet or exceed Windows in any aspect
of its product, except maybe sales.
--
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
flabreque | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir? You realize it
@ | actually means changing the bulb!"
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:34:22 -0500, Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
>> Ken wrote:
>> > By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to the
>> > 90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows platform.
[...]
>As for the use of Win, it depends on whether you're talking about a
>pov-specific community or the whole world.
>
>TheCounter.com statistics. First column is the 2200 visitors to the
>10best.raytrace.com site, the other is the half a billion visitors to all web
>pages in the TheCounter.com database.
>
> [1] [2]
>Win 98 43% 66%
>Win NT 17% 7%
>Win 95 12% 15%
>Win 2K 8% 3%
>Linux 7% 0%
>Unkn 4% 2%
>Mac 3% 2%
>Unix 2% 0%
>
>Total
>Windows 80% 91%
To add statistics which may (or may not) be more relevant for the
discussion about which file formats are appropriate for this group, here
is the distribution of the 45 people who posted here recently:
Windows: 38 84 %
OE: 21 47 %
Netscape: 14 31 %
Forte: 2 4 %
XNews: 1 2 %
Linux: 3 7 %
Netscape: 2 4 %
KNode: 1 2 %
Other Unix: 2 4 %
tin: 2 4 %
Mac: 2 4 %
Netscape: 2 4 %
This actually fits your statistics from TheCounter.com surprisingly
well.
The sample is rather small and includes quite a few people who have
posted only once, but I'd be confident in saying that 80-90% use some
kind of Windows, and the rest is widely dispersed.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Es war nicht Gegenstand der Abstimmung zu
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | Punkt 1b), die Anordnung der natürlichen
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | Zahlen neu festzulegen.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Johannes Schwenke <jby### [at] ginkode>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Er... Have you even seen Linux?
yes I duel boot.
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://www.kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3A2FADC4.DAF1E011@pacbell.net...
>
>
Sometimes I really
> miss not being able to use some of the added bennefits of posting
> in html. It would be really nice to color highlight or underline a
> phrase to add emphasis to a statement or hightlight a problem in
> scene code. Plain text is boring and restrictive.
>
Oddly enough, I was thinking, just last night, how useful HTML would be
in my .sig - I could make the 'E-Mail', 'PGP Key' and 'Pandora's Box' bits
into links and the actual addresses would get hidden away - plus text only
browsers would just show the whole thing address and all. But then I
realised just how many 'don't post HTML' flames I'd get.
--
Scott Hill.
Software Engineer.
E-Mail : sco### [at] innocentcom
PGP Key : http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
Pandora's Box : http://www.pandora-software.com
*Everything in this message/post is purely IMHO and no-one-else's*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote :
>
> Windows is a standard for only one reason: Lotus 1-2-3. If the latter
> hadn't taken the market by storm in the Eighties, everyone wouldn't be
> using a PC, and hence everyone wouldn't be using the perating system
> that comes with them.
Hmmm... I don't remember if or how much Lotus we sold before windows.
But you are probably right, between Lotus and Word (or Word Perfect)
probably 90% of the PC use was built on them. We were selling DOS program
managers before Windows, but I can tell you that when Windows came out,
people clamoured for it because of it's share-tasking. They wanted to have
their address book andc alculator and word processor working at the same
time.
> Other platforms are not striving to meet or exceed Windows in any aspect
> of its product, except maybe sales.
Matter of opinion I guess. When I see them spend marketing money to
convince people that they now have Windows like features, I think they are
trying to meet or exceed a standard. Even when Linux says that their OS is
faster than Windows and uses less resources, they are using Windows as the
standard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
