Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Brings Native HEIF Support to Windows 10 (thurrott.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Microsoft is bringing support for the new HEIF image format to Windows 10. First popularized by Apple with iOS 11, HEIF is a new image format that uses less storage space while preserving image quality. The new image format is used by default on Apple's iPhone X and other devices running iOS 11. While Microsoft's online services like OneDrive already supported HEIF since the release of iOS 11, Windows 10 didn't natively support the new format as of yet. But with the upcoming Redstone 4 update -- possibly called the Spring Creators Update -- the Microsoft Photos app in Windows 10 will support HEIF by default. Further reading: CNET.

152 comments

  1. .BMP forever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I only used uncompressed image storage formats. They are far superior.

    1. Re: .BMP forever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. .mov moving jpeg video format too! Or just store video as tiffs in a folder...much superior

    2. Re:.BMP forever! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      If you're going to use an uncompressed image format, you should use TGA.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re: .BMP forever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get no audio!

    4. Re: .BMP forever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was trying to watch some old f-machine videos last night on my Arch Linux laptop. Videos going back to '03 and '04 when there were fewer tattoos and that stupid butch lez Tomcat wasn't there to force all the models to use a vibrator. So if a girl was going to come, you could tell that the machines were actually doing something for her. You could have a chick mount a cactus covered in rattlesnake fangs, have even her uterus and pancreas chewed up as collateral damage, and 9 out of 10 girls would still come if you handed them a vibrator. So anyway, here we are in 2018, the videos still play great in Windows, but the codecs were never fixed in Linux, so you can't scale the 320x240 video to window size, and sound doesn't work. Sad times we live in.

    5. Re:.BMP forever! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      TGA's while being a very nice simple format, and technically could store HDR images, support doesn't seem popular enough to handle sadly.

      How do you _save_

      * 16-bit grayscale (16-bits)
      * 16-bit/channel (64-bits)
      * 32-bit/channel (128-bit)

      Also, which Data Type value would you use?

      Unless Photoshop supports it out-of-the-box the format is dead.

      Speaking of Photoshop -- Adobe Photoshop's native .PSD handle these without any problems and have been around for ages.

      BMP's are easy to read/load they also don't support HDR formats.

    6. Re:.BMP forever! by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      One of the earlier ones to support a proper alpha channel, unless I'm seriously misinformed. Don't recall if it was in the original spec, but this aspect of TGA was handy for getting renders out of ancient software (Asymetrix Web3D or 3Dfx, don't ask), in a format that could be used with very little further work.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    7. Re:.BMP forever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite what the article says HEIF is not an image format, it is a container format. You could still use BMP encoding inside of that container.

    8. Re:.BMP forever! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Sure, once I get a .BMP on my head.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?

    Are they waiting to see if PDF will "take off"? Are they waiting to see if their "PDF-Killer" XPS will win-out (hint: It won't). Or what?!?

    What morons.

    1. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you're first issue is that you're trying to use a version of Server that doesn't exist.

    2. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014

      Their client OS supports PDF natively. I think the problem you're having is you're trying to use a server OS as a client OS.

    3. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      [sarcasm]Heaven forbid someone should open and read a PDF document on a server. I mean it's not like everyone uses that format being so obscure. Every installation manual I've used in the last several years was in binary in .txt files.[/sarcasm]

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by tepples · · Score: 1

      I think the intended use case is to read documentation on the client device through which you are remotely accessing the server.

    5. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) WTF is "MS Server 2014"
      b) When a file format contains so many known (and more as-yet-undiscovered) vulnerabilities in so many reader implementations, why are you trying to open these files *on a server*? If it *had* support, and your server got owned because of it, instead you'd be loudly complaining (here and elsewhere) about the needlessly large attack surface built into the OS that you can't get rid of. Which is it going to be?

    6. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Informative

      WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?

      Are they waiting to see if PDF will "take off"? Are they waiting to see if their "PDF-Killer" XPS will win-out (hint: It won't). Or what?!?

      What morons.

      Microsoft ships Win10 with a "print to PDF" option out of the box.

      Also, they natively open PDFs in Edge, to the point of restoring the file association with every major upgrade.

      So, you got exactly what you wanted, in the exact Microsoft way of handling such a situation. I hope you're happy.

    7. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you trying to open a PDF or anything else on a Server? Are you trying to get the server infected?

      The desktop version can open PDFs natively.

    8. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know some *nix servers don't even have a GUI? Heaven forbid someone should be easily able to administrate without remembering arcane 100 word command lines.

      Having a PDF viewer is simply just another unnecessary attack vector. /sarcasm

    9. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Which shows a complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS. That assumes the scenario that I only remote login to the server and I never have actual access to it. For example the installation is on a CD/USB, it's much easier to stick into the server than upload it to a network share then download it.

      The second part of why that is silly is that after I unpack/unzip the installation files on the server. I have to do the same thing on my machine just to read the documentation on the installation process. Or transfer them my client machine." That also doesn't take into account if there are issues and I have to look at additional information written in PDF from the vendor.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      You know this whole thread we are talking about Windows right?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XPS can still be legitimately useful if you absolutely *need* to generate a print job on a machine with no printer access (with the intention of moving the XPS elsewhere to print), but that's about all I've ever needed it for. The fact that they included a PDF printer target with win10 suggests they don't care too much about XPS anymore.

    12. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?

      That's easy to solve, just install the MS app store on your critical server and install Edge, then everything is handled natively by MS's OS bundled apps.

      Or maybe you're an idiot for wanting this bundled on a server, doubly so from an MS package. Absolutely EVERYTHING should be opt-in on a server, including what happens when I click on a file (that is after I choose to install a GUI).

    13. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      You know this whole thread we are talking about Windows right?

      No, I thought that we were discussing "MS Server 2014," whatever the hell that is.

      BT-dubs: Administrators can read PDFs natively on Windows Server 2016 in the Edge browser. Instead of complaining of a "complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS," complain about your years-out-of-date knowledge about Windows.

    14. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 0

      WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014

      Their client OS supports PDF natively. I think the problem you're having is you're trying to use a server OS as a client OS.

      No. Gimme a break!

      I was ON the Server (well, RDC'ed in), and was trying to check the output of some of my code running on that Server, that was creating a PDF File.

    15. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      [sarcasm]Heaven forbid someone should open and read a PDF document on a server. I mean it's not like everyone uses that format being so obscure. Every installation manual I've used in the last several years was in binary in .txt files.[/sarcasm]

      EXACTLY my point!

      Even MICROSOFT distributes docs in PDF, FFS!

    16. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I think the intended use case is to read documentation on the client device through which you are remotely accessing the server.

      And when that Client is ALSO a Microsoft OS, like the W7 my work laptop runs, you STILL have to to out of your way to install that bug-fest that is Adobe Acrobat, JUST to read a frickin' file that's in a PUBLIC DOMAIN format!!!

    17. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Which shows a complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS. That assumes the scenario that I only remote login to the server and I never have actual access to it. For example the installation is on a CD/USB, it's much easier to stick into the server than upload it to a network share then download it.

      The second part of why that is silly is that after I unpack/unzip the installation files on the server. I have to do the same thing on my machine just to read the documentation on the installation process. Or transfer them my client machine." That also doesn't take into account if there are issues and I have to look at additional information written in PDF from the vendor.

      Bottom line: There's just NO excuse; and I would be a Meeelion dollars that every one of the Slashtards that is naysaying the completely-foreign concept of being able to open a PDF on their MS Servers HAS ALREADY INSTALLED ACROBAT for that EXACT Reason!

      But they'll never admit it; because they just like to argue.

    18. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No, I thought that we were discussing "MS Server 2014," whatever the hell that is.

      I assume he means 2012 R2 which was released in 2014.

      BT-dubs: Administrators can read PDFs natively on Windows Server 2016 in the Edge browser. Instead of complaining of a "complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS," complain about your years-out-of-date knowledge about Windows.

      So you don't deny that before Server 2016 it's a problem. You see in my real world scenario, we don't install whatever version of Windows Server we want. We have to install versions of Windows that we have license to install. Also in my real world scenario, I don't update the server OS on a live server because I want to read a PDF. In my scenario I have to use whatever version already exists like 2012 R2. But to address my question: how do you explain that in a server OS released in 2014, MS didn't think to include a PDF viewer?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    19. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?

      Are they waiting to see if PDF will "take off"? Are they waiting to see if their "PDF-Killer" XPS will win-out (hint: It won't). Or what?!?

      What morons.

      Microsoft ships Win10 with a "print to PDF" option out of the box.

      Also, they natively open PDFs in Edge, to the point of restoring the file association with every major upgrade.

      So, you got exactly what you wanted, in the exact Microsoft way of handling such a situation. I hope you're happy.

      Well, other than the fact that I was talking specifically about MS SERVER (not Windows 10), AND that "Restoring the Association" is just typical "This is not YOUR computer" MS-think; it IS exactly what I want...

    20. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?

      That's easy to solve, just install the MS app store on your critical server and install Edge, then everything is handled natively by MS's OS bundled apps.

      Or maybe you're an idiot for wanting this bundled on a server, doubly so from an MS package. Absolutely EVERYTHING should be opt-in on a server, including what happens when I click on a file (that is after I choose to install a GUI).

      I just used MS Server 14 as an example; because that's where I encountered this long-standing weakness most recently.

      And WHY should I have to use a specific BROWSER to gain system-wide PDF support?!?

    21. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I think you're first issue is that you're trying to use a version of Server that doesn't exist.

      You are correct.

      The Server OS is 2012 R2. I was brain-farting the SQL Server version, sorry.

    22. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell no, this whiner is never happy.

    23. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      So you don't deny that before Server 2016 it's a problem. You see in my real world scenario, we don't install whatever version of Windows Server we want. We have to install versions of Windows that we have license to install. Also in my real world scenario, I don't update the server OS on a live server because I want to read a PDF. In my scenario I have to use whatever version already exists like 2012 R2. But to address my question: how do you explain that in a server OS released in 2014, MS didn't think to include a PDF viewer?

      In my real-world scenario, I install Chrome and stop whining like a two year old about a problem that isn't one.

    24. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      In my real-world scenario, I install Chrome and stop whining like a two year old about a problem that isn't one.

      Instead you complain about other people who have real problems because you don't have the same problem. Also you didn't think that real world scenarios exist merely because they don't exist for you.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    25. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sumatra PDF.

      Installer looks a little hokey, but it works great. Been my viewer of choice since Foxit went to shit.

    26. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And WHY should I have to use a specific BROWSER to gain system-wide PDF support?!?

      You don't. You wanted to know why it wasn't natively in there, and now you're complaining at the potential native solution that MS would offer (Edge is the native PDF renderer in Windows 10)

      All this leads me to my original point: Thank Christ the ball is in your court to install something and you're not shipped with a default turd.

    27. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      And WHY should I have to use a specific BROWSER to gain system-wide PDF support?!?

      You don't. You wanted to know why it wasn't natively in there, and now you're complaining at the potential native solution that MS would offer (Edge is the native PDF renderer in Windows 10)

      All this leads me to my original point: Thank Christ the ball is in your court to install something and you're not shipped with a default turd.

      If that is an aside slight regarding MacOS' and iOS' native PDF support; both of those OSes have the ability to Open PDFs in alternate Applications. So, you aren't "stuck" with ANYTHING.

      But if you are just trying to read a PDF documentation file, would you rather have to mess around and Install something; or just Open the frickin' file? Afterall, most documentation files are nothing more than piles of text, with perhaps the occasional table or illustration. None of those elements are likely to trip any esoteric issues in anyone's PDF-rendering library.

    28. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got em.

    29. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Absolutely EVERYTHING should be opt-in on a server

      Except systemd, of course.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by stooo · · Score: 1

      >> MS Server 2014
      We're in 2018. You should use Linux Server 2014 R2 :)

      --
      aaaaaaa
    31. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have to log into a graphical environment on your server to install things, then either you're not a very good admin or the software you're using isn't very good. For the former: Learn CLI. I'm not trying to gatekeep or be a smug bastard, it's simply a superior way to manage machines. For the latter, that sucks. I'm sorry. But maybe you should use your remote tools to move the PDF to your local system rather than increase your server's attack surface by installing a viewer for an incredibly over-complicated file format.

    32. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      If you have to log into a graphical environment on your server to install things, then either you're not a very good admin or the software you're using isn't very good.

      You do know we are talking about Windows Server, right which was the point of this entire thread and post? I don't control that Microsoft has put in a GUI into their Server software. With Server 2016 you can opt to install the GUI but previous versions has it installed by default.

      For the former: Learn CLI. I'm not trying to gatekeep or be a smug bastard, it's simply a superior way to manage machines.

      I would advise you do so the same and read the thread to learn what we are talking about before you put in your irrelevant points. Also you don't know what I know. I do administer Linux machines as well as Windows one.

      For the latter, that sucks. I'm sorry. But maybe you should use your remote tools to move the PDF to your local system rather than increase your server's attack surface by installing a viewer for an incredibly over-complicated file format.

      That would be great if I used remote tools. You do also know that turning on RDP on a Windows Server increases the attack surface? For an admin it is harder when RDP is off as we have to be physically logged into the machine to do things like install new software.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    33. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Sumatra PDF.

      Installer looks a little hokey, but it works great. Been my viewer of choice since Foxit went to shit.

      I became aware of SumatraPDF when I needed a PDF Print Application that could actually be driven by a Command Line, and could be made COMPLETELY "Silent".

      And no, none of the Acrobat Components can do it, sorry. Plus, that wasn't really an option.

      But that isn't really what we were talking about...

    34. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      You know this whole thread we are talking about Windows right?

      No, I thought that we were discussing "MS Server 2014," whatever the hell that is.

      BT-dubs: Administrators can read PDFs natively on Windows Server 2016 in the Edge browser. Instead of complaining of a "complete lack of forethought about real world scenarios on the part of MS," complain about your years-out-of-date knowledge about Windows.

      Doesn't matter: You deal with the Server OS as you find it. In this case it was Server 2012 R2 (sorry for the brain fart about Server 2014. I was thinking of SQL Server 2014, which was also on this particular Server box). Wishing for something that was in Server 2016 would have been ridiculous.

      Almost as ridiculous as no NATIVE PDF Support in an OS released in 2014...

    35. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      You see in my real world scenario, we don't install whatever version of Windows Server we want. We have to install versions of Windows that we have license to install. Also in my real world scenario, I don't update the server OS on a live server because I want to read a PDF. In my scenario I have to use whatever version already exists like 2012 R2. But to address my question: how do you explain that in a server OS released in 2014, MS didn't think to include a PDF viewer?

      Exactly! At least SOMEONE else has been outside their Mother's basement!!!

    36. Re: Great! Now let's work on Native PDF Support by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      So you don't deny that before Server 2016 it's a problem. You see in my real world scenario, we don't install whatever version of Windows Server we want. We have to install versions of Windows that we have license to install. Also in my real world scenario, I don't update the server OS on a live server because I want to read a PDF. In my scenario I have to use whatever version already exists like 2012 R2. But to address my question: how do you explain that in a server OS released in 2014, MS didn't think to include a PDF viewer?

      In my real-world scenario, I install Chrome and stop whining like a two year old about a problem that isn't one.

      What do you do when it is someone ELSE's Server, and you're just maintaining some software on it?

  3. MPEG by ELCouz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Great ... just what we need another patent minefield image format.

    1. Re:MPEG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great ... just what we need another patent minefield image format.

      And now I want to start development on PMIF, a format that uses just enough from every existing standard to be completely impractical to implement legally.

    2. Re:MPEG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The HEIF image format uses the HEVC video codec to encode an image. The fact that HEVC is a patent encumbered mess has been discussed on /. before, so I won't go into that.

      Apparently some people are trying to see if AV1 can be used in the same way patent-encumbered HEVC is used here, too. If that happens, this is a solution in search of a problem, because AV1 is supposed to be as good or better than the HEVC codec, without the patents.

      I hope HEVC never gets a foothold, but instead fades into obsolesence. The greed of a few has, thankfully, nearly killed the HEVC codec[1], but this could unfortunately cause HEVC to come back.

      [1] - For HEVC, unlike its predecessor AVC, there are actually multiple patent pools and independent companies you will have to negotiate with for a license. Because of this, some corporations have decided they don't have to deal with this licensing extortion idiocy, and have banded together to make the AV1 codec, and are sticking with patent-free VP9 right now. Unlike AVC, uptake of HEVC has been very slow and it doesn't see very much use.

    3. Re:MPEG by mccalli · · Score: 1

      Everyone running iOS 11/High Sierra and compatible Apple gear is using HEVC natively, without ever knowing it. It most certainly is seeing a lot of use, it was just introduced transparently.

    4. Re:MPEG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because AV1 is supposed to be as good or better than the HEVC codec

      Bullshit. I've heard the same salespitch for every other previous free video codec but it never ends up being true. If you can't afford the fees then get the fuck out of the game.

    5. Re:MPEG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you look at this image compression comparison tool (note BPG uses HEVC) you'll notice a few things (I recommend the obvious: compare at 3x against the original). (1) All the different sizes are about the same size so the real test is quality per size. (2) At large, (virtually?) all the formats look nearly indistinguishable from the original. (3) Most formats other than jpeg/jpeg2000 get progressively blurrier the small they get while jpeg/jpeg2000 gets blocky*. (4) The ratio from large to original is about 10-15%. (5) The ratio for tiny (which usually but not always look pretty bad in most formats) to original is 2-3%. Which means (6) the actual size change is on the order of 70KB (20%) of say a 350KB lossy image of an 2048KB original.

      So, sure you can get intermediate improvements. But no image format guarantees much more of a shrinkage with substantially high quality than jpeg already delivers. Ie, you can get it but you always risk that the image format you use will end up producing blurriness So, the only safe thing to do is to compress in multiple successive sizes and do a comparison until some point where it's just too blurry in the finer details for your intentions. Or just stick with jpeg and buy more storage.

      * My guess is that jpeg/jpeg2k decoders could put in more post processor blur if blockiness is detected to at least make the blockines less noticeable, which seems in part what all the other encoders are doing. After all, in life out of focus detail does blur; it doesn't turn blocky. So, it makes sense to simulate that.

    6. Re:MPEG by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The greed of a few has, thankfully, nearly killed the HEVC codec

      Killed it where? Maybe on the distribution back end of Youtube and Netflix, but it is a very real part of the system behind the scenes in Apple, and MS. That is mostly driven by hardware companies, Intel, NVIDIA, and AMD all support various forms of hardware encoding for HEVC but are limited to decoding only for VP9 and AVC. This also becomes a default in things like video streaming of gaming sessions in Windows.

      Right now hardware encoders for HEVC are dime a dozen, but hardware encoders for the other formats are rare and expensive.

      I want to see HEVC die too, but before I do I want to have a native hardware encoding alternative for it. Someone getting their panties in a twist should not cause me to have to drop my frame rate from 130fps to 8fps.

    7. Re:MPEG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that jpeg/jpeg2k decoders could put in more post processor blur if blockiness is detected to at least make the blockines less noticeable, which seems in part what all the other encoders are doing. After all, in life out of focus detail does blur; it doesn't turn blocky. So, it makes sense to simulate that.

      This actually sounds like a not-very-good idea, for several reasons.

      The main reason is that, if you take an image and do the following process "JPEG encode -> JPEG decode -> JPEG encode -> JPEG decode" many times it will actually retain the image quality (assuming you don't change the image between decoding and encoding, and assuming you use always the same settings). On the other hand, if you repeat the process "JPEG encode -> JPEG decode -> blur -> JPEG encode -> JPEG decode -> blur" many times, you will completely obliterate all information in your image and make the process unnecessarily (extra) lossy, just for the sake of making DCT artifacts more perceptually pleasant.

      Another reason is that this behaviour is unexpected: no one expects a JPEG decoder to apply post-blur on images, so your JPEG decoder would be seen as buggy and/or as not following the JPEG specifications (though the JPEG specifications probably don't explicitly say that you can't apply post-decoding blur, this is highly unexpected behaviour). JPEG is already lossy and non-transparent (except for images that result from a JPEG decoder), and you want to make it even worse, by making the process lossy *even for images that result from a JPEG decoder*.

      TL;DR: If DCT artifacts annoy you, it's probably a better idea to simply use some other image format (or invent your own... everybody's doing it!), rather than to try to convince people to use a non-standard JPEG decoder that makes things even more lossy than they need to be.

    8. Re:MPEG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You entirely missed the point. The point was most the other image formats chose blurring as part of their spec so that at lower quality settings they look better because we notice jpeg artifcating more than blur artifcating. Ie, if the jpeg spec said that on display a post processor could blur the images, we'd probably not notice the difference. So, most the claims of looking better at smaller sizes have more to do with our expectations of jpeg and not of actual quality differences. This is important because the baseline is not "does not look as bad as bad jpeg" but "maintains the quality of the original image".

      Having said that, I looked through some more images and did see a few (one with trees comes to mind) that did look blurry at "large" size with jpeg but not with others, so there probably is room for another encoder on the quality front. To that end, I'd say the rest are about equal at "large" size, and again the cut off point of bad varies per image for size below "large". I'll admit I wasn't exhaustive in my testing, so it's hard for me to give a clear winner on smallest size that's acceptable. But I would say, again, that from my limited testing that only "large" produced consistently high quality results.

      So, at that level, any format (except maybe jpeg in certain circumstances) would be adequate. Given how widespread jpeg is and the rest aren't it's hard to argue for a specific format. Put another way, the thing that really needs to happen is not to invent yet another format. It's just to pick one of the extant formats that already exist without patent troubles and stick with that as the new standard. Sadly, at the moment, that seems to be jpeg.

    9. Re:MPEG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel, AMD, NVidia, and other such hardware designers are on AOMedia too, so presumably they have an interest in replacing HEVC with AV1. Hopefully sometime soon that will translate into a hardware encoder.

      You have a good point, though, about the lack of comparable alternatives for hardware encoders at the moment. (VP9 is apparently similar in quality to HEVC, but hardware encoders are relatively few.)

  4. So this means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...all Windows programs will automatically support HEIF image format, right?

    Right?

    1. Re:So this means... by stooo · · Score: 1

      Embrace
      Extend
      Extinguish.

      Support is nowhere to be seen.

      --
      aaaaaaa
  5. In this case, I agree with Microsoft by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?

    In my view, getting P0WN3D should be opt-in.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Informative

      The basic PDF format is secure, it's only data. That's what OS X/macOS/iOS supports.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Malformed WMF and PDF files are excellent malware vectors, among others. And people are not as careful as when they run an executable.

      Vulnerabilities due to a flaw in parsing data are common. Zlib just deals with data right? It had vulnerabilities.

      The basic pdf standard defines segments of text containing compressed data, and that decompression process could have parsing bugs.

    3. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malformed WMF and PDF files are excellent malware vectors, among others. And people are not as careful as when they run an executable.

      Vulnerabilities due to a flaw in parsing data are common. Zlib just deals with data right? It had vulnerabilities.

      The basic pdf standard defines segments of text containing compressed data, and that decompression process could have parsing bugs.

      So write the parser in Rust. Wouldn't that help? Or, is this really a speed-critical task? Couldn't a memory-safe interpreted language (say, Python) be used?

      I'm asking about the technical merits, here. Sadly Rust seems mired in irrelevant and distracting political topics and that's a shame.

    4. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of what you use, it can only minimize your attack surface -- not eliminate it. What if there's a bug in Rust? Rust itself doesn't mitigate certain bugs like granting too much permission to a database.

      On a server, you want the minimum components you need to run whatever's being served.

    5. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?

      In my view, getting P0WN3D should be opt-in.

      It is Acrobat that is insecure, not PDF itself. MS has enough Developers to create their own native PDF parser.

    6. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      The basic PDF format is secure, it's only data. That's what OS X/macOS/iOS supports.

      Since OS X 10.0.0. That's why it bugs me to no-end at work, that I have to go install Acrobat Reader on ANYTHING in 2018, just to open a Documentation file.

    7. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's what OS X/macOS/iOS supports.

      The caveat there is that this breaks a lot of PDF files out there, is incompatible with anything protected, and isn't that good with embedded content (e.g. a font to render a different language).

      On a server I'd rather be forced to make the choice of what software opens what filetype than rely on my vendor shipping something broken by default to eliminate attack vendors. Just don't ship anything at all.

      Mind you, who opens PDFs on a server, and how do you even get them to display in an 80x25 text mode console.

    8. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      Regardless of what you use, it can only minimize your attack surface -- not eliminate it. What if there's a bug in Rust? Rust itself doesn't mitigate certain bugs like granting too much permission to a database.

      On a server, you want the minimum components you need to run whatever's being served.

      Until you're trying to troubleshoot something, and the only help you can find is in a PDF.

    9. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      That's what OS X/macOS/iOS supports.

      The caveat there is that this breaks a lot of PDF files out there, is incompatible with anything protected, and isn't that good with embedded content (e.g. a font to render a different language).

      On a server I'd rather be forced to make the choice of what software opens what filetype than rely on my vendor shipping something broken by default to eliminate attack vendors. Just don't ship anything at all.

      Mind you, who opens PDFs on a server, and how do you even get them to display in an 80x25 text mode console.

      Even on iOS, you can choose to Open In... any App that can handle the filetype. And on macOS, where the rules about "private libraries" are nonexistent, you can truly have alternate PDF renderers. So, you have the CHOICE to use the built-in PDF libraries, or some other Applications' versions.

    10. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows Server... think home operating system on server hardware.

    11. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malformed WMF and PDF files are excellent malware vectors, among others. And people are not as careful as when they run an executable.

      In the case of both, the reason is both supply a means of arbitrary code execution without any sort of a sandbox. The solution is to either disable all the execution scripts or to create a secure sandbox. You know what also supports scripts, btw? MS Office documents. If MS was worried about scripts so much, then they should either drop support for their own MS Office formats or do the above.

      Vulnerabilities due to a flaw in parsing data are common. Zlib just deals with data right? It had vulnerabilities.

      There's been plenty of html/xml parsing bugs. And gzip is a standard encoding for http. I guess MS will just have to drop Edge. Oh, also, the newer MS Office formats are also zipped (ie presumably their own zlib implementation).

      The basic pdf standard defines segments of text containing compressed data, and that decompression process could have parsing bugs.

      See above. Want to be honest? Microsoft has no interest in supporting PDF because it would allow for an effective export format that all Windows systems could natively support. That would discourage at least some people from buying MS Office. Meanwhile, they'd really gain nothing from it. So, it's in their best interest to let Adobe deal with. Adobe, meanwhile, wants to keep the scripting support because that's their major selling point versus all the other pdf implementations. Yet, scripting is much harder to get right that a simple parser, so Adobe Reader being synonymous with PDF casts the problem as PDF and excuses MS from the effort.

      If all your excuses had anything to do with the truth, Microsoft would abandon HEIF along with most other formats and go through the effort of formally proving a few simple formats as the basis for everything. That'd mean we'd probably be stuck with MPEG v1, some PCM encoding, and RIFF. I can only begin to imagine the million ways one can subvert modes video/audio codecs, let alone their container format.

    12. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a server I'd rather be forced to make the choice of what software opens what filetype than rely on my vendor shipping something broken by default to eliminate attack vendors.

      Funny, I'd rather having the vendor shipping something that by default eliminates attack vectors* even if presents some things as broken and leave it to me to install something else if I want to take the risk. That being said, ...

      Just don't ship anything at all.

      No, ship it. Just make it optional. There's no reason why the install media can't contain secure versions of a lot of different readers if I absolutely need a minimal one for a server. That'd be much more preferred than having the one and only option a commercial version where the vendor clearly doesn't care about security.

      Mind you, who opens PDFs on a server, and how do you even get them to display in an 80x25 text mode console.

      Parsing PDF files down to text files to automatically server to an internal network where the PDF is kept in case some user wants the original? I'm sure there's lots of other possibles, but the point is one doesn't need to be a local user on the server to have some use for a PDF/JPG/whatever parser.

      * Was that an Adobe faux pas?

    13. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What if there's a bug in Rust?

      Burn the heretic! Why do hate LBGWT^3 people so much?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      By default, Windows 10 associates PDFs with..... Microsoft Edge. Annoyingly, it restores this default association after any one of those big Windows 10 updates...... grrr.

    15. Re:In this case, I agree with Microsoft by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Until Adobe stopped making PDF a read-only format and started adding all sorts of new and unnecessary features. You should not need to edit PDFs, especially for things that are not meant to be edited (a chip's datasheet for instance). If I have a chip's datahseet, I do not want or need to change that PDF, and yet they all seem to think I want to edit them. A document meant to be edited should be supplied in a different format. I also don't want to have to request and maintain certificates just to look at at document, I don't want to fill out a form on the document, I don't want it to remember what pages I have looked at, and so forth.

      When I use a PDF file, what I want is a digital equivalent of a physical printout, not a malware vector.

  6. HEIF is a container, not an image format by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    HEIF is a container, not an image format. However typical container contents (HEVC and H.264/MPEG-4) are patent encumbered.

  7. HEIF HEIF HEIF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody care to dig up the bits that matter? Like, WHY is this all-singing all-dancing all-wonderful format just all that, hm?

    msmash won't do it, too busy posing as a hacker. So, anybody else?

  8. Patent encumbered, of course by l2718 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why am I not surprised to discover that both the container for format (HEIF) Anna the codec (HVEC) are extensively covered by patents? This is the GIF story again, except this time done deliberately by Apple and Microsoft.

    1. Re:Patent encumbered, of course by Malc · · Score: 1

      The container is ISO Base Media format, a.k.a. MP4. moov, meta and mdat atoms, as would be expected. MP4 is about as ubiquitous as they come. What's your problem with this?

    2. Re:Patent encumbered, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well im with freetard you can be a paytard at least i got more doh to buy shampoo and soap for a daly wash , maybe you should eat the bar of soap

    3. Re:Patent encumbered, of course by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't he write his own image compression method and then get all the phone and camera manufacturers to sign on?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    4. Re:Patent encumbered, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. The problem is in the containee, of course. The container itself is useless.

      You must be a shill. Or an idiot.

    5. Re:Patent encumbered, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except he was replying to the original, that complained that both the container and the codec were patented.

    6. Re:Patent encumbered, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not indeed? Oh right, because open sores programmers FUCKING SUCK. You dumbasses couldn't innovate your way out of a wet paper bag. What do gimp, SystemD, liberoffice and gnome have in common? They're open sores and NO ONE USES THEM. If you still buy into the BS about open sores being a "better" way to write software then you are an utter and complete imbecile. Closed source software has wiped the floor with open sores for decades now and you fucking freetards still drone on about the same old bullshit. Pathetic.

    7. Re:Patent encumbered, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They're open sores and NO ONE USES THEM."

      I think if no one used them you would feel less threatened by them.

    8. Re:Patent encumbered, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem very angry about something that 'nobody uses'. You sound like you need a safe space away from the nasty 'open sores' where a little snowflake like yourself won't have to worry about the non-existent people who are not using these products.

    9. Re:Patent encumbered, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly threatened, but nice projection. Like many others, I am just sick and tired of you lame preachy whiners clogging up every online forum with your bullshit. And guess what, we've taken back our online spaces from the libtards and the SJW's and now we will take it back from you freetards and linsux pushing losers too.

  9. uses less ... space while preserving ... quality"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uses less storage space while preserving image quality.

    BULLSHIT

    You compress it, you will lose quality.

    Or all of information theory is wrong.

  10. OneDrive *doesn't* properly support HEIF by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

    OneDrive doesn't properly support HEIF, or at least didn't as of September last year. https://mspoweruser.com/micros...

    Microsoft has reached out to us, clarifying that OneDrive on iOS will automatically convert HEIC files to JPEG when you back them up on your iPhone, so you will still be able to view them as regular image files in your Windows 10 device and iPhone.

    1. Re:OneDrive *doesn't* properly support HEIF by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

      If you're storing files on OneDrive, you're part of the issue -- an enabler of MS's data theft (aka "cloud ecosystem").

    2. Re:OneDrive *doesn't* properly support HEIF by JD-1027 · · Score: 1

      Wait, since when does a "drive" convert files before storing them?

  11. HEIF ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HEIF is a container that can contain anything, usually images or a sequence of images but also video ... HEVC is the image format ....

    1. Re:HEIF ... by stooo · · Score: 1

      >> HEIF is a container that can contain anything
      Nope.
      Can't contain my beer.
      Back to PNG.

      --
      aaaaaaa
  12. Linux? by Kethinov · · Score: 1

    Are there any implementations for Linux?

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    1. Re:Linux? by Malc · · Score: 0

      It would probably have taken you less time to Google search this than post a "I must mention Linux" comment. GPAC for instance made an announcement at the same time that Apple announced this at WWDC2017.

    2. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there any implementations for Linux?

      Gimp plugin: https://github.com/strukturag/heif-gimp-plugin

      There are others, too.

      This article seems to forget to mention that the HEIF is an MPEG Group format, and not created by Apple as implied. It is newer, but support is coming along.

      I have no skin in this game, just here to help.

  13. Give them a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're just trying to solve a problem that ultimately affects everybody. The problem is that the executive team needs bigger vacation homes.

  14. Re:uses less ... space while preserving ... qualit by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

    >You compress it, you will lose quality.
    Um, NO. lossless compression is possible.

  15. Re:uses less ... space while preserving ... qualit by Clomer · · Score: 1

    That comment in the summary probably could have been worded better, but I think it was intended to say that it does a better job of preserving image quality per amount of space used when compared to other image compression algorithms, such as .jpg (which is the defacto standard right now).

    --
    Intelligent responses welcome, flames will be met with marshmallows.
  16. Damned if you do, damned if you don't by Comboman · · Score: 1

    If MS built PDF into their OS, there would immediately be cries that they were abusing their monopoly position to try to kill Adobe and third-party PDF apps.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      It is built into their desktop OS (Edge opens PDF files by default.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      If MS built PDF into their OS, there would immediately be cries that they were abusing their monopoly position to try to kill Adobe and third-party PDF apps.

      I think you forgot the sarcasm tag.

    3. Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      It is built into their desktop OS (Edge opens PDF files by default.)

      Which begs the question even more, not less.

  17. Re:uses less ... space while preserving ... qualit by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

    uses less storage space while preserving image quality.

    BULLSHIT

    You compress it, you will lose quality.

    Or all of information theory is wrong.

    Or you shift some of the storage space to the program that decompresses. You know, with things like Run Length Encoding, or Huffman compression, or LZW. Or things like Fractal Image Compression where you effectively gain artificial, but perceptible, quality by trading for time and storage space during both an analysis phase and decompression. I'm just guessing, but you seem to have missed out on the last three decades of the previous century. Now if you want to make an argument for the loss of quality for all encoding techniques, regardless of compression used, when reducing an original image to a particular color depth, or resolution... then yes... all existing image formats are inherently lossy when going from real life to digital storage.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  18. good win 10 ysers please use this all time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good win 10 users please use this all time, then the rest of the world can go , can't see nothing win 10 is producing, and hte majority not using it will make this another waste of MS money

  19. Why HEIF matters. by Comboman · · Score: 2

    It has slightly better image quality than JPG for the same file size, but the main benefit is that it allows multiple photos in a single file. This can either be a very short movie (Apple calls it Live Photo on the iPhone) or the same photo in multiple exposures or focal lengths (I believe photographers call this "bracketing") allowing you to fix a bad photo after the fact or do other creative things.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  20. Is HEIF encumbered by patents? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    How free is the HEIF format? Can open source support it?

    1. Re:Is HEIF encumbered by patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is HEVC (h265) for still images.
      So yes the algorithm is patented.

    2. Re:Is HEIF encumbered by patents? by tepples · · Score: 1

      HEIF is like BPG: a single-frame silent movie encoded using HEVC's keyframe encoder. Thus it depends on the same patents as HEVC, making it unusable in free software unless you can afford to move all your users out of countries where these patents are valid.

    3. Re:Is HEIF encumbered by patents? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ...making it unusable in free software...

      If that is the case, it looks as if Apple and Microsoft are trying to lock people into their proprietary environments. No surprise.

  21. Re:uses less ... space while preserving ... qualit by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    BULLSHIT

    You compress it, you will lose quality.

    Or all of information theory is wrong.

    I have three letters for you to study: PNG.

  22. They were fed up waiting for AOM to release AV1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is the ETA of AV1 bitsream freeze ? 2019 ?

  23. Is storage space really a concern anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been more than a decade since I've worried about this.

    1. Re:Is storage space really a concern anymore? by mccalli · · Score: 1

      Yes - mobile and cloud. That's why this was introduced on Apple phones a while back. Not sure about Android but I would be surprised if it didn't go that way.

  24. You will only be able to open it in Edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Winows 10 S^WS Mode^WEdgeOS is the end game. All apps and file formats will open only in Edge eventually.

  25. AV1 as time goes by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As time goes by AV1 looks more and more like vaporware.
    (end it's a pity)

    ETA was late 2017. Then end of february 2018. Then what ?

    1. Re:AV1 as time goes by by NoZart · · Score: 1

      That's hardly a DND (Duke Nukem Delay)

    2. Re:AV1 as time goes by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's much too soon to start calling it vaporware. It just sounds like the efforts to make this new codec have run into the same problem most codecs do: it's a lot of complicated work adding all the intended features, specifying a fixed encoding format so future hardware can utilize it, and then optimize the encoder so it doesn't run 2000% slower than the last generation. Compare this to long-term vaporware. If we don't hear anything for 6 months, then I might start to worry. Hopefully if that happens Google--who has probably the most invested into this with Youtube--will step in and complete it. Then again, Google has turned rather evil lately which is part of the reason people haven't adopted webp/webm. So, that could readily backfire.

    3. Re:AV1 as time goes by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As time goes by AV1 looks more and more like vaporware.

      Doesn't a thing need to either not exist or not be used to claim it is vaporware?

      Netflix has already reencoded their entire library from masters to AV1, and intend to switch over mobile devices to it "soon" and the website by end of the year.
      Youtube has also announced they are reencoding new uploads as AV1 along with the others they keep on hand, although I don't think they announced a date to begin streaming it to the public.

      Due to the content providers being among those creating AV1, with such a major change involved I'd like to think they know better than to just leap without getting it right the first time.

      It may well turn out AV1 doesn't work out as intended, which would be a shame as you say, but always a possibility. But I dare say the vaporware ship is already pulled out of the dock and about to sail away out of view.

  26. Will upgrade affect other software? by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

    I still use Photoshop CS6 (no real need to 'upgrade'), will the Windows upgrade mean I can open HEIC files in it?

    1. Re:Will upgrade affect other software? by aaron44126 · · Score: 1

      No... While the Windows update does include some back-end stuff that allows other applications to read HEIC/HEIF files, it looks like the applications will need to be updated in most cases. (It's probably trivial for many, just adding a few lines that are like, "if the file extension is HEIF, open this file using WIC" — but you can bet that Adobe won't be updating older Photoshop versions for this...)

    2. Re: Will upgrade affect other software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why are we even discussing OS level support for a file format. Isn't the OS supposed to treat all file the same and to let applications interpret them? What is the angle here?

      Or are we discussing: Win10 file explorer will show thumbnails for new format XXX?

  27. Fractal transform compression was patented by tepples · · Score: 1

    Or things like Fractal Image Compression where you effectively gain artificial, but perceptible, quality by trading for time and storage space during both an analysis phase and decompression.

    Not only time and storage space but also money, as Iterated Systems demanded substantial royalties for the use of techniques covered by its broad patents. And good luck moving all your users from countries where patents like these are valid to countries where they are not.

    The patent thicket around fractal transform compression allowed for more research into DCT, wavelet, and MDCT compression, and this research allowed these paradigms to overtake fractal transform compression.

  28. Who uses Windows 10 Photo App? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

    I couldn't stand that piece of shit. I found out how to re-enable the old Photo Viewer program and made it default. I don't do photo editing or anything advanced, but the app was garbage.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    1. Re:Who uses Windows 10 Photo App? by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 1

      I use it, primarily to bring photos into a central storage location from my iPhone.

  29. I'm a bad moderator by Sloppy · · Score: 0

    Posting to undo a click-o.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  30. Re:uses less ... space while preserving ... qualit by smithmc · · Score: 1

    That depends on what you mean by "quality" and what you consider important in the data. If you can compress away visual details that the eye/brain cannot detect, in an image that is primarily meant for human viewing, then you have reduced the data with no apparent loss of quality. Similarly for audio, if you throw out data that the average (or say 90th-percentile person) can't hear, you can reduce the amount of data with no apparent loss of quality. The use of formats like MP3, JPEG, and MPEG by hundreds of millions if not billions of people every day bears out this concept.

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  31. In other news, purple sugared milk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, McDonalds is adding purple sugared milk to its existing stable of green, pink, and orange sugared milk.

  32. This is by design. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?

    There is a reason for this:

    Adobe Systems refused to let Microsoft implement built-in PDF support in Microsoft Office, citing fears of EEE (Embrace, extend, and extinguish). -- Wikipedia

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:This is by design. by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with Microsoft that I can attempt to open a PDF in MS Server 2014, and it STILL can't handle it natively?!?

      There is a reason for this:

      Adobe Systems refused to let Microsoft implement built-in PDF support in Microsoft Office, citing fears of EEE (Embrace, extend, and extinguish). -- Wikipedia

      PDF is a Public-Domain Format. Exactly WHAT was Adobe going to "Refuse" them to do, legally?

      And so how is this different from the PDF support built-into Edge in W10?

    2. Re:This is by design. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      PDF is a Public-Domain Format.

      No, it's an ISO standard, specifically ISO 19005.

      Exactly WHAT was Adobe going to "Refuse" them to do, legally?

      That's a question for Adobe's legal department. I do know that regardless of legality, two large corporations going to war is expensive, so they generally try to avoid it.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  33. I Can Do That Too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, I tried to umbumpulate my Oracle monitor with a Python USB, but it didn't farcirculate. Try pentahogging the nanobanana with more Dell scrip. You know you've got a solid treeliminal when the Lenovo cable bogonicizes your capacitors with excess zerithrium.

    Does that purée your mixmaster?

  34. Server GUI by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    I doubt if most here run Windows servers. Neither do we distribute documentation exclusively in PDF format. I suppose if it were common for servers to have a GUI then we might consider a PDF reader to be necessary. However, my file manager is capable of browsing foreign servers and allowing me to open documents located on those servers, and it's possible that Microsoft has managed to duplicate this functionality as well.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Server GUI by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I doubt if most here run Windows servers. Neither do we distribute documentation exclusively in PDF format. I suppose if it were common for servers to have a GUI then we might consider a PDF reader to be necessary. However, my file manager is capable of browsing foreign servers and allowing me to open documents located on those servers, and it's possible that Microsoft has managed to duplicate this functionality as well.

      Straw man, nice to meet you!

    2. Re:Server GUI by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I doubt if most here run Windows servers.

      The problem is that lots of businesses run Windows servers and this is a problem.

      Neither do we distribute documentation exclusively in PDF format.

      You might not but other companies do document in PDF. Yes they might also have text files and HTML files but PDF is quite common.

      . I suppose if it were common for servers to have a GUI then we might consider a PDF reader to be necessary.

      You mean like Windows Server? Sure you can run command line things in Windows Server but it's not all command line.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Server GUI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, or not. That you have problems dealing with networked file systems is not anyone else's issue. If you have an OS platform that requires this, then that is also your problem. Recognizing that "server" and "GUI" go together like "ice cream" and "axe murder" provides the perspective to properly locate the failure here. That you're too thick to do so, and too thick to recognize what a "straw man" argument is, probably has a lot to do with why you're a Windows admin.

      Here's a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a better computer.

    4. Re:Server GUI by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      The problem is that lots of businesses run Windows servers and this is a problem.

      I would agree, but perhaps with a different emphasis.

      So in our hypothetical situation of needing to view a PDF on a remote server, what exactly is the problem with opening that folder in Explorer and using your local application to view said document? Are we suggesting that one might have administrative access but not file access? If you need to edit a bitmap on a remote server, would you install Photoshop as well? How about TeX files, or OpenOffice?

      This is the sort of problem which would only ever occur to Windows admins, and it doesn't speak well to either the ecosystem or the adminstrators.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    5. Re:Server GUI by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So in our hypothetical situation of needing to view a PDF on a remote server, what exactly is the problem with opening that folder in Explorer and using your local application to view said document?

      Other than that doesn't work if you don't have a local PDF application installed? Or the ability to install a PDF viewer due to admin privileges? Or the ability to get to download one because the server is firewalled from the Internet? That's the chief complaint is that there is no default reader on Windows Server before 2016. Even then you need to use Edge.

      Are we suggesting that one might have administrative access but not file access?

      Not the only access. Having a PDF viewer application would be helpful.

      If you need to edit a bitmap on a remote server, would you install Photoshop as well?

      The ability to read a PDF which is a universal document is an entirely different need than to edit a bitmap.

      How about TeX files, or OpenOffice?

      Again reading TeX files which are not universally used for documentation is a different requirement than PDF files as TeX is generally used for technical papers. But to your point most *nix servers require TeX or LaTeX to be installed to read them.

      This is the sort of problem which would only ever occur to Windows admins, and it doesn't speak well to either the ecosystem or the adminstrators.

      I would imagine Windows admins are the only ones who would have access to Windows Servers when trying to do their work which the OP was complaining about.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:Server GUI by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      It's really wonderful how you keep deliberately missing the point. The server's role here is to make the files available, and regardless of what the file type is, there is no requirement for it to have a client application installed. If you think otherwise, then apparently Microsoft has damaged your brain to the point of being unable to use a file browser.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    7. Re:Server GUI by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It's really wonderful how you keep deliberately missing the point.

      It's interesting how you don't seem to understand how things work on Windows servers.

      The server's role here is to make the files available, and regardless of what the file type is, there is no requirement for it to have a client application installed.

      You mean besides the fact that if the user isn't remote but is actually directly logged into a server. That was the very first thing that I said.

      . If you think otherwise, then apparently Microsoft has damaged your brain to the point of being unable to use a file browser.

      Again that only works if you simply ignore the scenario presented.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Server GUI by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      Dear, the servers are the things in the rack mount, not the ones with the keyboard and monitor attached.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    9. Re:Server GUI by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Dear, the servers are the things in the rack mount, not the ones with the keyboard and monitor attached.

      You do know that there are these things called rackmounted monitors and keyboards which allow you to directly access a server on a rack, right? They are designed to be 1U and stow away when not needed. If you don't I would have to wonder when is the last time you actually visited a server room.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:Server GUI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you're using one of those to look up PDF documentation, you're doing it wrong.

    11. Re:Server GUI by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So you can't use a keyboard and monitor tray to see documentation . . . how?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    12. Re:Server GUI by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Dear, the servers are the things in the rack mount, not the ones with the keyboard and monitor attached.

      You do know that there are these things called rackmounted monitors and keyboards which allow you to directly access a server on a rack, right? They are designed to be 1U and stow away when not needed. If you don't I would have to wonder when is the last time you actually visited a server room.

      And there are QUADRILLIONS of Stand-Alone Windows Servers that don't live in a Rack; because they are sitting in a closet or a back-room in a small business that doesn't have a full-time (or even part-time) IT Staff. They have a one or a few Power-Users that handle day-to-day "Admin" duties. Doesn't mean they "don't deserve" to read PDF docs on those Servers.

      And there are also other legit situations where getting a file back from a Remote Server isn't so straightforward. What then?

    13. Re:Server GUI by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Shhhh. Let's not spook him. I haven't told him about the mobile cart yet. That might blow his mind that equipment exists where you can move a monitor and keyboard to a server so that you can access it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    14. Re:Server GUI by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Shhhh. Let's not spook him. I haven't told him about the mobile cart yet. That might blow his mind that equipment exists where you can move a monitor and keyboard to a server so that you can access it.

      Some people are SOOOO myopic. If it doesn't suit their particular use-case or "world-view", it shouldn't be allowed.

      And unfortunately, not only is that an all-too-common mindset around these here parts; but it seems like the world in general is getting FAR too butthurt on FAR too minor of subjects.

  35. XPS is better by DogDude · · Score: 1

    We use some non-consumer level MS products that use XPS natively, and I prefer those. They're smaller and faster to work with.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  36. Chrome and Firefox have PDF viewers by tepples · · Score: 1

    Firefox comes with a basic PDF viewer. So does Google Chrome (and Chromium since third quarter 2014), though Mozilla PDF.js is also available from Chrome Web Store.

    Or are Chromium and Firefox also a "bug-fest"?

  37. Where am I? by mike.mondy · · Score: 1

    This can't be slashdot - TFS is way too well written