"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