JPEG2000 has -lots- of advantages including progressive encoding/decoding (i.e., you can save and extract multiple resolutions and compression ratios in the same saved file), the core standard is a -published- document and it isn't encumbered with IP issues, consistent methods for lossy/lossless compression (unlike JPEG)... There are also open source reference implementations in C and Java.
The last thing we need is yet-another-claim of high compression with an undocumented algorithm in a proprietary image format.
What about those of us who -have- to use Windows, due to corporate policy? I'd like to use some open source stuff-- but the unhelpful attitude of a lot of open source developers (e.g., 'I don't have a Windows box, I don't plan to get one, and why can't you just use a makefile like a normal person') is a serious barrier.
Also, there is a true-lossless compression option in JPEG2000, which is even more to the point for this story. For background info, old JPEG has a true- lossless option, but it has never been widely implemented-- Getting lossless compression right is one of the various things that JPEG2000 fixes.
Repeat: 'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing. 'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing. 'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing. 'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing. 'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing. 'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing....
Well, it would be nice to have one of the latest NV boards. Maybe someday.
In any case, FYI, ATI's OpenGL drivers are 'touchy' and generally disliked among OGL developers who would prefer to do the first pass on an NV board to get the durn program to work and then make whatever changes are needed to get it to work with the ATI driver.
Slashdot Mirror
Gates is talking about commoditization. And -if- digital music technology becomes portable and commoditized, there's a good chance that he's right.
JPEG2000 has -lots- of advantages including progressive encoding/decoding (i.e., you can save and extract multiple resolutions and compression ratios in the same saved file), the core standard is a -published- document and it isn't encumbered with IP issues, consistent methods for lossy/lossless compression (unlike JPEG)... There are also open source reference implementations in C and Java. The last thing we need is yet-another-claim of high compression with an undocumented algorithm in a proprietary image format.
What about those of us who -have- to use Windows, due to corporate policy? I'd like to use some open source stuff-- but the unhelpful attitude of a lot of open source developers (e.g., 'I don't have a Windows box, I don't plan to get one, and why can't you just use a makefile like a normal person') is a serious barrier.
Also, there is a true-lossless compression option in JPEG2000, which is even more to the point for this story. For background info, old JPEG has a true- lossless option, but it has never been widely implemented-- Getting lossless compression right is one of the various things that JPEG2000 fixes.
Repeat: ...
'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
'Affect' and 'Effect' do not mean the same thing.
Well, it would be nice to have one of the latest NV boards. Maybe someday. In any case, FYI, ATI's OpenGL drivers are 'touchy' and generally disliked among OGL developers who would prefer to do the first pass on an NV board to get the durn program to work and then make whatever changes are needed to get it to work with the ATI driver.
You can get the OpenGL spec (1.5!) for free from opengl.org, if you are a true hard-core OpenGL programmer.