Slashdot Mirror

I do this (run a business that archives people's pictures indefinitely), but I can't guarantee my company will be around in 100 years. If it is, that still brings up the question, how do your grandchildren know to come to me to get your pictures?

There are media that should last that long if stored properly. There is always the possibility of unexpected reciprocity failure in testing, or a type of degradation of which we are not yet aware and didn't test for, but experts, including those at the Library of Congress and other notable institutions, seem to think that MDM-A Gold CD's will last over 100 years. Of course, this leaves the problems of
1. Will anything be able to read CD's?
and
2. Will anything be able to view JPEG's?

I would guess that the answer to these is "yes." JPEG's are so ubiquitous and maintaining support for them on computers is so easy, I suspect they'll remain readable. Maybe the equivalent to the average web-browser or whatever won't read them then, but the 2106 equivalent to GraphicConverter will.

Player availability is more ify. CD's have already been around for 24 years, and the next generation of players (HD-DVD and Blue-Ray) will still play the original CD's. As long as small spinning disks are a popular layout for data storage, the costs of including compatibility for CD's is tiny and will keep shrinking. Meanwhile, CD's are incredibly popular. So I think we've got a lot of backwards compatibility left. When we moved from wax cylinders to flat records to tapes to CD's, maintaining backwards compatibility was essentially impossible; or at least, it was no easier than making two separate machines and gluing them together. But today everything runs of general-purpose micro processors, so maintaining backwards compatibility gets easier and easier. Add to that the fact that if you have a shellac 78-RPM record from the 1890's that you can still easily buy a brand-new record player that will play it, about 120 years later. So again, if not common, I think there will be machines available that play CD's. Or at the very least, labs you can take them to for transfer, like 8mm home movies.

But I think the best method is simply to have someone keep track of them. Keep them on your computer. Keep your computer backed-up at home. Then get some kind of off-site backup, like online backup, mailing good backup disks to a relative or putting them in a safety-deposit box, or hiring me :) With constant stewardship, it doesn't matter if you media is long-lived. If your primary fails, you replace your primary and restore from backup. If your house burns down, you buy a new computer, anew backup drive, and restore from your most recent off-site backup. Nothing- the devices, the formats, the readers- have to be time-proof.

If you keep track of your photos in something like Picassa, iPhoto, etc, you'll notice if they stop working, and can get a converter and move them to a modern format conveniently, when the changeover happens and it's easy to do. Keep them organized and delete the bad ones, so they're worth looking through. And when you get older, hand them down to someone younger to care for. Maybe a younger generation won't care and will lose them all, but whether you've got them on archival gold disks, held by a professional backup company, or on your own hard drive, if your family doesn't care, it won't matter. No technology will surpass basic stewardship within your family. However, the incorrect technology could destroy them all, so do some research and take some precautions.

The shareware fee is $30.

If you want help programming, plenty of people have given links. If you want help with the interface end of things, try using some of the best Apple applications and see how things "work"--iTunes, The Omni Group, Bare Bones Software, Lemkesoft's Graphic Converter, Rancho's NetNewsWire. There are many others, but trying these on should give you a feel for what makes a great Mac App. Also, it is a commonly-perceived problem that there is no great mac Word-processing software. There are acceptable entries, including MS Office, and several others, but this is one area where OS X is gravely deficient (if you want to write the best Mac WP ever, feel free! I'd even buy a copy).

Lots of people (i.e., Windows & Linux Fanpersons) will deride many interface trends as "fluff"; do not make this mistake. Apple is pretty careful about what stuff they include, and while there might be a few things in there for no real reason (animated screensavers as you desktop background?), most of the "fluff" has a damn good reason to be there.

But there are better options:
Microspot Interiors, etc
Sketchup
VectorWorks 11.5
Form*Z
PowerCADD
VersaCAD
Cadintosh

But there is no current Mac version of AutoCAD, Pro/E, or Microstation. Bad news if you're planning on designing a new aircraft carrier on your new Mac Mini...

http://www.hamrick.com/ Ed Hamrick, Author of Vuescan, supports 100+ scanners/cams HIMSELF. I licensed Vuescan while having Canon's own scanning software. It was simply better.

http://www.lemkesoft.de/ Adrian Lemke, Author of Graphics Converter.

You meant single coders, those guys are single coding. I know more like 2-3 coder guys/gals , also use/buy their software.

What about RAR "labs"? We know its a single guy coding (Alexander Roshal) .

If people buy the stuff they use, there will be many more "lonely coder" guys.

I've never even SEEN any of the above mentioned programs, but I have played with gimp, blender, and POV-Ray, enough to confirm my suspicions that while I can learn how to use the software's features, I have the artistic talent of a turnip. (sorry, turnips...) So I use my digital camera, and get friends to send me images from their travels around the world, frequent the NASA, US Fish and Wildlife department, and other free image sites, and use a shareware program for the Mac called GraphicConverter, for which registration cost $30. I don't think I've done too badly. My business clients like having photos from their building or location play a part in their website, and personal site clients love having their site decorated with personally significant "artwork". Fonts also play a large part in my work, I simply set up a test .html page and fiddle with the CSS, using the DigitalColorMeter utility included with OS X, until I'm happy with the colors and size, then use Grab, a screen capture utility included with OS X, to save the file (it only saves in .tiff format), and GraphicConverter to tweak it and save it in the format I want. I get a lot of ideas in layout from A List Apart and css/edge.

http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/index.htm
http://www.alistapart.com/
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/

Maybe I should write a tutorial. "Great Graphics On The Cheap".

Hmm... their homepage says they are "a dicom solution".

A versiontracker search for "dicom" under MacOSX returns these programs.

Or you could just use the ubiquitous GraphicConverter which handles just about everything, including dicom images iirc.

I do a lot of graphics work. I've also used a large number of the true graphics programs (3d, 2d, vector, etc... not MSPaint) out there at one point or another. In addition to this, I also do freelance development from time to time. It is the user interface alone that makes or breaks the program, in my opinion. Without a good interface, it doesn't matter what the rest of the code does.

Here are my remarks on a few of the ones I've used at one time or another:

Photoshop - Easy to use interface. Provides an easy introduction for those unfamiliar with the program and provides the power necessary for advanced users.

GraphicsConverter - Another easy to use interface. Though it lacks the power photoshop has, it makes up for it in the large number of image formats it can read and write.

Paint Shop Pro - I am not overly fond of this interface. For one, I think there are far too many icons used. Drowning out interface buttons and such with icons is very irritating for a novice user as they generally have to hover the mouse and wait for the tooltip to figure out what something is. Further, it has the "too much help" syndrome that seems a standard on windows. I much prefer that the help system be delegated to something else and not be built into the program.

Poser - This is definitely a unique interface, but it still provides simplicity for novice users and control for advanced users. The largest downside is that by not using default system-provided user interface widgets, some of the details you would expect are not there whereas they would be there if the system versions were used.

Bryce - Bryce is extremely easy to use. It was my first 3d program and is still one of my favorites due to its simplicity. I have yet to find another 3d program with an object placement system that I like more than bryce's.

Blender - Not a big fan. Though it is quite powerful, the learning curve is very steep. On Macs, the interface text is quite small in some places and hard to read. The interface is also a bit clunky. Sections are not as clearly divided as I would like.

Carrara - I have not used this one for some time (and as such, newer versions may be different than what I remember), but I found it quite user-friendly when I did. All tools were placed in a context-sensible place and it had the camera system that I liked from bryce.

The Gimp - I don't like it. The user interface is extremely clunky by my standards. Consolidating a number of the windows into one and reorganizing the tools would go a long way towards helping it. There is also the fact that I am used to my nice Aqua interface and it has the drab sharp bevels and general lack of detail that is natural to most x86 OS's under default configurations.

Illustrator - I do not use this program frequently, but being from adobe, it has a very similar interface to photoshop that makes it very easy to use.

Fireworks - I'm apathetic about this one. It provides no real functionality that I cannot get in a program whose interface I like better and has more stuff I can use.

Freehand - Pretty much the same as Fireworks. I've only mostly toyed with this one as I found Illustrator more appealing.

One other feature I like about photoshop is that it is extremely easy to do image versioning. When doing web designs, I will

The existing font managing tools are so terrible, terrible, terrible I just can't believe it. No way to use them effectivly. I just pray that Apple got it right and that it will work on my old slow Mac. I have a 400 Mhz G3 with 576 MB RAM and plenty of free diskspace, but all solutions choked on my ~5000 fonts. I don't want to use them all at once, just some help to handle them. Oh it's so terrible, terrible... If FontBook (what has Thorsten Lemke to say about the name anyway?) nails it, I'll fly to Cupertino and clean Steve's Mac (Or does he still have that NextStep PC?).

this is what our product does (jargon lists don't count, actual sentences written in normal english required)

this is how it does it

these are the operating system/hardware requirements (cost estimates help a lot)

this is the estimated time to get up and running, i.e. what sorts of training/familiarity are needed to administer, use, set up this system

these our intended target market segments, both current and long-term

these are similar systems and a sentence or two on how we differ from them

here is a basic list of functions/features
Next, as I've gone through the FAQs, such as they are, I'm seeing lines and lines of coding required to address basic issues. Take a look at the UI of the system I linked to in the parent post to see this sort of thing done right. If I have to write half a page of code just to define a user set them I'm so gone.
Screenshots of the thing in action? Couldn't find any. Examples of people using it and how? Nope, didn't see that either.
Well, lessee, rights management? They say they have some. Guess that I'm supposed to guess about what. File types? No se. Routing approach? Haven't a clue. Admin functions? Nope. Archiving? Nope again.
Hmmmm... other then that? Other than the many other things I'm seeing like badly documented links that could be downloads, pages, or functions, click here and guess? Looks to me like I'm expected to download the app (while hoping that my setup will support it), find a way to get it running (who *knows* how long that will take. Hours? Days? Can't say) train myself in how to use it, get it running with some of my datasets, and then decide if it's useful or not.
I'm sorry, I *have* a life. I didn't put up with this when I was paid a salary to be a full-time sysadmin. I'm certainly not putting up with it now that I run my own business.
And if you think that "Oh, we're not at version one yet; we don't have time for that sort of thing", well, tiny little companies like LemkeSoft have been managing it just fine, pre-release, for over twenty years. Back when I bought my software on five and quarter inch disks for an Osborne there were already plenty of little one-person software companies that had far more respect for the people who actually *use* their software then ANY of the open source CRM projects feel they should have to condescend to accomplish.
What do I think? Thank you for a perfect example of exactly the sort of programmer-driven amateur hour I was talking about.
Rustin

Dicom is indeed listed on the list of understood formats. By the way, GC is not limited to OSX; it runs on any Mac with a 68020 or later processor and System 7 or later.