Re: What makes a mac better?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ray, Aug 26, 2012.

  1. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Nov 6, 5:16 am, DanP <> wrote:
    > [...]
    >
    > That was epic. Didn't have the patience to read it all, but still, wow.


    Unfortunately, simply being a long rant doesn't mean that it contains
    factually correct content.

    For example, he said to go look at Message ID:


    .... to prove that he didn't make a typographical error:

    Here's the URL link to that post:

    http://groups.google.com/group/rec....v9f0Zmt2rpU6oXhZIFkY_NbtSiNNQK5AvTv1dYWRqP8Y4

    or:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/bp59m23

    now keyword search for:

    http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer

    ....you'll find that it only returns one hit:

    http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer.ppt

    What he missed was that the original file's name was not changed only
    at the end to add the .PPT: the original had a period in the middle,
    and if two periods had been left intact in the filename, this could
    have confused applications which have traditionally relied on periods
    as a delimeter for file type identifiers.


    Similarly, he claimed "one can deliberately choose a file format
    singularily unsuited to archival and then harping about that as if
    that was the average or usual case." Sorry, but that's a malicious
    misrepresentation and an attempt to "Monday Morning Quarterback" a
    decision that was made back in 1992: the format then chosen *was*
    what was believed at the time to be a 'good' format. A 'bad' one that
    was known back in that day would have been "PFS:First Choice".
    "Harvard Graphics" has also turned out to have been a bad one too, but
    I don't know offhand if it was already obviously in decline by 1992.

    The underlying point here is pretty simple: it isn't trivially easy to
    predict the future, particularly in technology. Had one asked me back
    in ~1980 the future direction of computer memory, I very well may have
    predicted the bubble memory that Texas Instrument was using on their
    "Silent 700" terminals. Whoops.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 7, 2012
    1. Advertising

  2. ray

    -hh Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > -hh <> said:
    > > [...]
    > > Had there been a polite request for clarification, I would have gladly
    > > revealed that my general intent was more rhetorical in nature, since I
    > > was using it to point out instances of self-contradiction which likely
    > > would not have been graciously received.

    >
    > ...and having used "begs the question" in the rhetorical sense to
    > illustrate an inconsistency, self-contradiction, or fallacious circular
    > argument, it would be more correct to label such an argument
    > a "begging question" where question means the issue, or
    > argument. Then your usage would be correct.


    A form that is 'more correct' is fine/understandable/("improvement for
    next time") - but was sufficiency obtained?

    I suspect the answer is 'yes', based on how you then discuss "Begs or
    begging" (below): it appear that you're accepting Begs -vs- begging
    to be reasonably synonymous, and that there's not a meaningful
    distiction between them. Fair conclusion?


    > "Begs or begging" comes from the original Latin "petitio principii"
    > where the "begging" is not intended to lead to a "question" as we would
    > normally use that word today. It is an indication that the individual
    > has either assumed, or omitted  a key premise or element  to the
    > argument or "question".
    > By using the argument as stated the author of the argument, or
    > "question", is pleading, or "begging" for the listener to accept the
    > argument, or "question" by ignoring the inconsistency by ignoring the
    > labor and rules of logic.
    >
    > This would be the same as an individual in these photo-groups making a
    > series of statements regarding a test of a specific camera and its lack
    > of performance, without including information regarding lenses used,
    > ISO settings, subject, and shooting environment, and wanting the
    > listener to accept his conclusion without providing the missing data.
    > This is a "begging question" where the petitioner, or proposer of the
    > argument or "question" (principii) is pleading or "begging" (petitio)
    > for the listener to accept the argument/question as presented and
    > ignore the inconsistency or without the key information.


    Agreed. As alluded to elsewhere, [level of detail in a discussion
    is] "Always a trade-off. The center of the picture is fine; it just
    makes sense that generalizations will get fuzzy out on the fringes (of
    both lunatics and images :)."


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 7, 2012
    1. Advertising

  3. -hh <> wrote:
    > On Nov 6, 5:16 am, DanP <> wrote:


    >> That was epic. Didn't have the patience to read it all, but still, wow.


    > Unfortunately, simply being a long rant doesn't mean that it contains
    > factually correct content.


    It also doesn't mean it does contain factually incorrect
    content.

    An often repeated claim and a bogus example 'file' as 'proof' ---
    your obstinate tactic --- indicate only stubbornness, but not a
    shred of factually correct content.

    With exactly the same tactics you could claim that the Earth was
    flat and that a single missing ship was proof for that since it
    sailed over the egde and was lost there. Never mind all the
    circumnavigations ...


    > http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer


    > ...you'll find that it only returns one hit:


    Let's complete the quote:
    | But since you think that it will make a difference, I've taken a copy
    | of the original file, revised its name to add a '.PPT' on the end and
    | uploaded it to this address:

    > http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer.ppt


    So you ... "revised its name to add a '.PPT' on the end" and had
    therefore to change the '.' to a '-'? Even Windows manages files
    with 2 '.' just fine!

    > What he missed was that the original file's name was not changed only
    > at the end to add the .PPT: the original had a period in the middle,
    > and if two periods had been left intact in the filename, this could
    > have confused applications which have traditionally relied on periods
    > as a delimeter for file type identifiers.


    Which application would that be, that didn't manage that, but
    did manage longer files than 8.3?

    And in how far would it be relevant to PowerPoint?

    And why do you think everyone but *you* is unable to rename
    files, when *you* are the one to deliver binary image files
    as text/plain?


    > Similarly, he claimed "one can deliberately choose a file format
    > singularily unsuited to archival and then harping about that as if
    > that was the average or usual case." Sorry, but that's a malicious
    > misrepresentation


    So you're claiming some proprietary, closed, ever changing, not
    supposed for image storage or interchange Microsoft format is an
    average and usual case *for* *intelligent* *people* *to* *use*
    *for* *the* *archival* *of* *images*?

    > and an attempt to "Monday Morning Quarterback" a
    > decision that was made back in 1992:


    I'm judging the decision on what was known to one skilled in the
    field in 1992. But you'd certainly claim criticising a quarterback
    repeatedly scoring own goals was "Monday Morning Quarterback"ing,
    after all, the game was on Sunday and how *could* he *possibly*
    have known which side was the wrong one.

    > the format then chosen *was*
    > what was believed at the time to be a 'good' format.


    Belived by whom?

    I'm sure Nixon believed it a good idea to record his conversations
    in his office and to have them voice activated ... and to talk
    about trying to halt the Watergate FBI investigation where it
    could be recorded, too.


    But back to that format: in 1992:
    - was the format open? No.
    - were specifications to write your own viewer available? No.
    - was it proven to work? No, that year the first Windows version
    (3.0) with more than 256 colours had come out. The Mac version
    2.0 (which also had more than 256 colours) wasn't compatible
    in that critical point with the Windows version 2.0.
    - were there multiple sources for writing and reading the format?
    Nope. There's only one PP.
    - were there independent sources for viewers? Nope.
    - were the files usable on many computing platforms? Even now
    there's only Mac and Windows, and Mac-generated PPs sheets may
    not work on Windows if you used drag and drop for photos, from
    what I read.
    - Was at least an executable for the viewer and it's software
    environment (OS and co) saved and stored with the images?
    Seems it weren't ...
    - What were they thinking of using in 20 years to get their
    images? PowerPoint 3.0?

    It was a stupid idea evn in 1992, and at best you/they didn't know
    any better. Which made you/them singularly unsuited at the task.

    Additionally, it seems nothing was learned in the mean time,
    because no corrective action was taken. (Nope, that wasn't
    your point. Your point was that even if you do everything right
    you need some effort to keep the file formats in good shape.)


    > A 'bad' one that
    > was known back in that day would have been "PFS:First Choice".
    > "Harvard Graphics" has also turned out to have been a bad one too, but
    > I don't know offhand if it was already obviously in decline by 1992.


    The obvious format would have been BMP, version 3. Simple,
    robust, easy to implement a reader. The only drawback is that
    they're relatively large, compared to lossy compressed formats.

    JPEG was released *as* *a* *standard* in 1992. It *still* works,
    is used *everywhere*, nearly every photographic camera produces
    them (and 'nearly' only because some early Sigma DSLRs with Foveon
    didn't) and all the warning flags I listed above don't apply to
    JPEG for the last 10 years.

    So why not JPEG in 1992? Because the format was too new and
    programs using it probably not widely available back then.


    > The underlying point here is pretty simple: it isn't trivially easy to
    > predict the future, particularly in technology.


    It's trivially easy to see when a format is *certainly*
    not suitable as archival format. Even if the year was 1992.
    PowerPoint is a prime example. Red flags everywhere.

    > Had one asked me back
    > in ~1980 the future direction of computer memory, I very well may have
    > predicted the bubble memory that Texas Instrument was using on their
    > "Silent 700" terminals. Whoops.


    And what does bubble memory (or any other physical storage format
    that can store any sort of file formats) have to do with a file
    format's suitability for archival?

    BTW: Racetrack Memory.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 13, 2012
  4. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Nov 13, 8:08 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
    wrote:
    > -hh <> wrote:
    > > On Nov 6, 5:16 am, DanP <> wrote:
    > >> That was epic. Didn't have the patience to read it all, but still, wow..

    > > Unfortunately, simply being a long rant doesn't mean that it contains
    > > factually correct content.

    >
    > It also doesn't mean it does contain factually incorrect
    > content.


    I was being kind. Unfortunately, your continued duplicity indicates
    that I probably should have been more rude.


    > An often repeated claim and a bogus example 'file' as 'proof' ---
    > your obstinate tactic --- indicate only stubbornness, but not a
    > shred of factually correct content.


    Sorry, but that's yet another lie on your part. The facts of the
    matter are that this successfully retained file was a real document:
    it was publicly presented in an industry symposia back in 1992. And
    being a published paper, that is also why I also invested the
    resources to retain it.

    You're trying to make it sound like I've been orchestrating a grand
    plan since 1992 to have purposefully created a 'lost' format just to
    enter into a pissing contest with you. Sorry, but you're simply not
    that important.



    > >http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer
    > > ...you'll find that it only returns one hit:

    >
    > Let's complete the quote:
    > | But since you think that it will make a difference, I've taken a copy
    > | of the original file, revised its name to add a '.PPT' on the end and
    > | uploaded it to this address:
    >
    > >http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer.ppt

    >
    > So you ... "revised its name to add a '.PPT' on the end" and had
    > therefore to change the '.' to a '-'?


    Yes, the revision included changing the prior '.' to a '-', which is
    why the description stated **revise**, and not merely "added".


    > Even Windows manages files with 2 '.' just fine!


    Really? Every version of Windows since 1992? Plus does this also
    include all versions of Linux and Apache web servers too?

    Since this is not the case, then a revision to have only a single "."
    within the entire filename is the only approach that will have 100%
    success in resolving the dot-delimeter complaint that you had
    contrived.


    > > What he missed was that the original file's name was not changed only
    > > at the end to add the .PPT:  the original had a period in the middle,
    > > and if two periods had been left intact in the filename, this could
    > > have confused applications which have traditionally relied on periods
    > > as a delimeter for file type identifiers.

    >
    > Which application would that be, that didn't manage that, but
    > did manage longer files than 8.3?


    You were already told it was Microsoft PowerPoint.


    > And in how far would it be relevant to PowerPoint?


    See above. The lack of the 8.3 constraint was the free clue that it
    was the version of PowerPoint that ran on Mac OS, not Windows.




    > And why do you think everyone but *you* is unable to rename
    > files, when *you* are the one to deliver binary image files
    > as text/plain?


    I never said that no one else could rename the file, so that's YA lie
    from Wolfgang.



    > > Similarly, he claimed "one can deliberately choose a file format
    > > singularily unsuited to archival and then harping about that as if
    > > that was the average or usual case."   Sorry, but that's a malicious
    > > misrepresentation

    >
    > So you're claiming some proprietary, closed, ever changing, not
    > supposed for image storage or interchange Microsoft format is an
    > average and usual case *for* *intelligent* *people* *to* *use*
    > *for* *the* *archival* *of* *images*?


    No.

    The file format was what it was at its time of origin. Issues of how
    to improve its archivability were simply not a consideration at that
    time, and one simply cannot undo history to rectify that.




    > > and an attempt to "Monday Morning Quarterback" a
    > > decision that was made back in 1992:

    >
    > I'm judging the decision on what was known to one skilled in the
    > field in 1992.


    Unfortunately, that's a critical error on your part.

    Quite frankly, I also have my doubts that even the 'experts' were this
    far along back in 1992 regarding long term data retention issues,
    particularly including the recommendation to use JPEG for long term
    archivability. Feel free to produce redundant published references
    that discusses this issue that were disseminated in mainstream news
    outlets back in this period (1992) which includes the JPEG
    conclusion.


    > But you'd certainly claim criticising a quarterback
    > repeatedly scoring own goals was "Monday Morning Quarterback"ing,
    > after all, the game was on Sunday and how *could* he *possibly*
    > have known which side was the wrong one.


    Sorry, but you've just revealed that English isn't your primary
    language and you're misapplying the colloquialism.


    > > the format then chosen *was*
    > > what was believed at the time to be a 'good' format.

    >
    > Belived by whom?


    The generic business office user. As I said above, I have my doubts
    that even the 'experts' were already recommending JPEGS for all
    graphics as early as 1992, and it is going to require published
    references to convince me otherwise.




    > But back to that format:
    > [...]
    > - were there multiple sources for writing and reading the format?
    >   Nope.  There's only one PP.


    Except that what you're ignoring is that the software developers of
    that period consistently provided full & transparent backwards
    compatibility to their older file formats.

    [...]
    > - What were they thinking of using in 20 years to get their
    >   images?  PowerPoint 3.0?


    PowerPoint 3.0 worked just fine in being backwards-compatible to v2.0

    So did PowerPoint 4.0

    It wasn't until PowerPoint 98 (8.0) in 1998 that the backwards-
    compatibility was broken.


    > It was a stupid idea evn in 1992, and at best you/they didn't know
    > any better.  Which made you/them singularly unsuited at the task.


    Do feel free to show the "Save As JPEG" command in these Applications
    to have provided any alternative approach.


    > Additionally, it seems nothing was learned in the mean time,
    > because no corrective action was taken.  (Nope, that wasn't
    > your point.  Your point was that even if you do everything right
    > you need some effort to keep the file formats in good shape.)


    Logic Fail: an absence of discussion of corrective actions does not
    constitute evidence that no corrective action ever took place.




    > > A 'bad' one that
    > > was known back in that day would have been "PFS:First Choice".
    > > "Harvard Graphics" has also turned out to have been a bad one too, but
    > > I don't know offhand if it was already obviously in decline by 1992.

    >
    > The obvious format would have been BMP, version 3.  Simple,
    > robust, easy to implement a reader.  The only drawback is that
    > they're relatively large, compared to lossy compressed formats.


    But was BMP available on the Mac back in 1992?
    And as critically, as a "Save As" option within PowerPoint?


    > JPEG was released *as* *a* *standard* in 1992.


    Which meant that it was not adequately mature - - or had adequate
    assurances that it would still be around in 20+ years - - to have been
    a serious consideration for a decision that was made back in 1992.


    > It *still* works, ...


    Yes, but that's a retrospective view: you've picked the winner after
    it has survived for 20 years. That's useless advice unless you also
    have a time machine in your back pocket.


    > So why not JPEG in 1992?  Because the format was too new and
    > programs using it probably not widely available back then.


    And I don't really recall BMP being supported back then by Macs, even
    within Microsoft products. As such, your recommendation doesn't
    appear to be one that would have been an available choice either.


    > > The underlying point here is pretty simple: it isn't trivially easy to
    > > predict the future, particularly in technology.

    >
    > It's trivially easy to see when a format is *certainly*
    > not suitable as archival format.  Even if the year was 1992.
    > PowerPoint is a prime example.  Red flags everywhere.


    Except that it only became evident as a problem six (6) years later,
    when Microsoft dropped their backwards-compatibility to their earlier
    file format without any particularly overt notification to their
    customers.



    > > Had one asked me back
    > > in ~1980 the future direction of computer memory, I very well may have
    > > predicted the bubble memory that Texas Instrument was using on their
    > > "Silent 700" terminals.  Whoops.

    >
    > And what does bubble memory (or any other physical storage format
    > that can store any sort of file formats) have to do with a file
    > format's suitability for archival?


    It merely serves as YA example for how trying to predict the future
    isn't an 'exact science'. The uncertainty of the future is what has
    prevented archiving from being a trivial & easy activity.



    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 18, 2012
  5. -hh <> wrote:
    > On Nov 13, 8:08 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
    > wrote:
    >> -hh <> wrote:
    >> > On Nov 6, 5:16 am, DanP <> wrote:
    >> >> That was epic. Didn't have the patience to read it all, but still, wow.
    >> > Unfortunately, simply being a long rant doesn't mean that it contains
    >> > factually correct content.


    >> It also doesn't mean it does contain factually incorrect
    >> content.


    > I was being kind. Unfortunately, your continued duplicity indicates
    > that I probably should have been more rude.


    Well, to be rude: You were an idiot when you archived your
    photos in powerpoint, and you were twice an idiot when you
    didn't rectify the situation once you knew better. But maybe
    you're simply unable to learn from your mistakes.

    >> An often repeated claim and a bogus example 'file' as 'proof' ---
    >> your obstinate tactic --- indicate only stubbornness, but not a
    >> shred of factually correct content.


    > Sorry, but that's yet another lie on your part. The facts of the
    > matter are that this successfully retained file was a real document:
    > it was publicly presented in an industry symposia back in 1992. And
    > being a published paper, that is also why I also invested the
    > resources to retain it.


    This changes ... nothing. Except that the document was
    never meant for archival, just as glass plates standing in as
    greenhouse glass aren't. (And yes, the latter happened.)


    > You're trying to make it sound like I've been orchestrating a grand
    > plan since 1992 to have purposefully created a 'lost' format just to
    > enter into a pissing contest with you. Sorry, but you're simply not
    > that important.


    No, that would imply you'd have brains enough to plan ahead
    for 20 years, which you clearly didn't.


    >> >http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer
    >> > ...you'll find that it only returns one hit:


    >> Let's complete the quote:
    >> | But since you think that it will make a difference, I've taken a copy
    >> | of the original file, revised its name to add a '.PPT' on the end and
    >> | uploaded it to this address:


    >> >http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer.ppt


    >> So you ... "revised its name to add a '.PPT' on the end" and had
    >> therefore to change the '.' to a '-'?


    > Yes, the revision included changing the prior '.' to a '-', which is
    > why the description stated **revise**, and not merely "added".


    >> Even Windows manages files with 2 '.' just fine!


    > Really? Every version of Windows since 1992?


    Ever since they managed more than 8.3.

    Note: Windows 3.1/3.11/3.11 for workgroups didn't. Only 95
    and later did.
    So they'd not work with "ADPA-snipertrainer.ppt" nor
    "ADPA.snipertrainer", neither being 8.3 compliant. Poof!


    > Plus does this also
    > include all versions of Linux and Apache web servers too?


    Yep. Even on FAT file systems. Which only an idiot would
    run an apache webserver on top of.

    > Since this is not the case,


    What is not the case?

    Your filename does NOT work for every version of Windows
    since 1992 either. 2 dots work whereever long filenames
    work.

    > then a revision to have only a single "."
    > within the entire filename is the only approach that will have 100%
    > success in resolving the dot-delimeter complaint that you had
    > contrived.


    Dig harder. You hole is not deep enough to cover the
    incompetence yet.


    >> > What he missed was that the original file's name was not changed only
    >> > at the end to add the .PPT:  the original had a period in the middle,
    >> > and if two periods had been left intact in the filename, this could
    >> > have confused applications which have traditionally relied on periods
    >> > as a delimeter for file type identifiers.


    >> Which application would that be, that didn't manage that, but
    >> did manage longer files than 8.3?


    > You were already told it was Microsoft PowerPoint.


    .... that created the file.
    BTW: Applications care nothing at all about file names.

    >> And in how far would it be relevant to PowerPoint?


    > See above. The lack of the 8.3 constraint was the free clue that it
    > was the version of PowerPoint that ran on Mac OS, not Windows.


    So what's your 'every Windows since 1992' yammering about?


    >> And why do you think everyone but *you* is unable to rename
    >> files, when *you* are the one to deliver binary image files
    >> as text/plain?


    > I never said that no one else could rename the file, so that's YA lie
    > from Wolfgang.


    I didn't say you said so, I said you thought so.
    But maybe that's a lie, too, and you don't think, you just
    knee-jerk.


    >> > Similarly, he claimed "one can deliberately choose a file format
    >> > singularily unsuited to archival and then harping about that as if
    >> > that was the average or usual case."   Sorry, but that's a malicious
    >> > misrepresentation


    >> So you're claiming some proprietary, closed, ever changing, not
    >> supposed for image storage or interchange Microsoft format is an
    >> average and usual case *for* *intelligent* *people* *to* *use*
    >> *for* *the* *archival* *of* *images*?


    > No.


    Then what's your point with that PP file? None?

    > The file format was what it was at its time of origin.


    The white horse was white when you saw it. Yes.

    > Issues of how
    > to improve its archivability were simply not a consideration at that
    > time, and one simply cannot undo history to rectify that.


    A normal person would recognize some day that some formats
    are not archival quality and --- assuming some brains ---
    transform the original into a more archival quality format.

    Just like a normal person would some day recognoize that
    a mildew-afflicted shoe box was not the best way to store
    negatives and then --- assuming some brains --- do something
    constructive about it.

    >> > and an attempt to "Monday Morning Quarterback" a
    >> > decision that was made back in 1992:


    >> I'm judging the decision on what was known to one skilled in the
    >> field in 1992.


    > Unfortunately, that's a critical error on your part.


    > Quite frankly, I also have my doubts that even the 'experts' were this
    > far along back in 1992 regarding long term data retention issues,
    > particularly including the recommendation to use JPEG for long term
    > archivability. Feel free to produce redundant published references
    > that discusses this issue that were disseminated in mainstream news
    > outlets back in this period (1992) which includes the JPEG
    > conclusion.


    Again, you are not able to read what I wrote. I've been
    *very* careful not nominating JPEG as image storage format
    back then.


    >> But you'd certainly claim criticising a quarterback
    >> repeatedly scoring own goals was "Monday Morning Quarterback"ing,
    >> after all, the game was on Sunday and how *could* he *possibly*
    >> have known which side was the wrong one.


    > Sorry, but you've just revealed that English isn't your primary
    > language and you're misapplying the colloquialism.


    It's *very* well known that English isn't my primary
    language, but it's good to know I can fool someone for so
    long without even trying. Having said that: So criticising
    a player for atrocious play is being a monday morning
    quarterback, you haven't denied it-


    >> > the format then chosen *was*
    >> > what was believed at the time to be a 'good' format.


    >> Belived by whom?


    > The generic business office user.


    I see. So you'd ask J. Random Nigerian how to invest your
    money, too?

    > As I said above, I have my doubts
    > that even the 'experts' were already recommending JPEGS for all
    > graphics as early as 1992, and it is going to require published
    > references to convince me otherwise.


    And again you have been misreading me. This happens so
    often that you either don't read what I write, are unable to
    concentrate long enough on the text or are not understanding
    the language you write in. Or maybe you do it on purpose.

    >> But back to that format:
    >> [...]
    >> - were there multiple sources for writing and reading the format?
    >>   Nope.  There's only one PP.


    > Except that what you're ignoring is that the software developers of
    > that period consistently provided full & transparent backwards
    > compatibility to their older file formats.


    Or was that the impression of J Random Business User, who only
    ever saw 3 programs?


    > [...]
    >> - What were they thinking of using in 20 years to get their
    >>   images?  PowerPoint 3.0?


    > PowerPoint 3.0 worked just fine in being backwards-compatible to v2.0


    > So did PowerPoint 4.0


    You have NOT gotten the question. Again.


    > It wasn't until PowerPoint 98 (8.0) in 1998 that the backwards-
    > compatibility was broken.


    And converters were made available.


    >> It was a stupid idea evn in 1992, and at best you/they didn't know
    >> any better.  Which made you/them singularly unsuited at the task.


    > Do feel free to show the "Save As JPEG" command in these Applications
    > to have provided any alternative approach.


    Do feel free to READ WHAT I WRITE! BMP != JPEG. If you can't
    export your PowerPoints to some simple format, then even J
    Completely-Deranged Business User can't think that's good for
    archival of photos.


    >> Additionally, it seems nothing was learned in the mean time,
    >> because no corrective action was taken.  (Nope, that wasn't
    >> your point.  Your point was that even if you do everything right
    >> you need some effort to keep the file formats in good shape.)


    > Logic Fail: an absence of discussion of corrective actions does not
    > constitute evidence that no corrective action ever took place.


    So you either are throwing smoke grenades --- again --- or
    you admit that your 'example' never was any problem.

    >> > A 'bad' one that
    >> > was known back in that day would have been "PFS:First Choice".
    >> > "Harvard Graphics" has also turned out to have been a bad one too, but
    >> > I don't know offhand if it was already obviously in decline by 1992.


    >> The obvious format would have been BMP, version 3.  Simple,
    >> robust, easy to implement a reader.  The only drawback is that
    >> they're relatively large, compared to lossy compressed formats.


    > But was BMP available on the Mac back in 1992?


    Yes. It's a file format. A trivial simple one.

    > And as critically, as a "Save As" option within PowerPoint?


    If no, PP was not fit for archival, since you couldn't get
    your photos back out.


    >> JPEG was released *as* *a* *standard* in 1992.


    > Which meant that it was not adequately mature


    It was. Though it wasn't common enough.

    > - - or had adequate
    > assurances that it would still be around in 20+ years - -


    What part of "released *as* *a* *standard*" didn't you grasp?
    The fact that I didn't write that the complete process how to
    create and how to interpret a JPEG file was described in
    painstaking detail, enabling any programmer to create his own
    implementation from scratch --- even in 20+ years?

    > to have been
    > a serious consideration for a decision that was made back in 1992.


    Now ponder why I said BMP.


    >> It *still* works, ...


    > Yes, but that's a retrospective view:


    Simple, easy to implement standards tend to have that feature.

    > you've picked the winner after
    > it has survived for 20 years. That's useless advice unless you also
    > have a time machine in your back pocket.


    Name one open, free standard of 1992 or earlier that can't be
    read today.

    >> So why not JPEG in 1992?  Because the format was too new and
    >> programs using it probably not widely available back then.


    > And I don't really recall BMP being supported back then by Macs, even
    > within Microsoft products. As such, your recommendation doesn't
    > appear to be one that would have been an available choice either.


    So into what format could PP on Mac export photos and text?


    >> > The underlying point here is pretty simple: it isn't trivially easy to
    >> > predict the future, particularly in technology.


    >> It's trivially easy to see when a format is *certainly*
    >> not suitable as archival format.  Even if the year was 1992.
    >> PowerPoint is a prime example.  Red flags everywhere.


    > Except that it only became evident as a problem six (6) years later,
    > when Microsoft dropped their backwards-compatibility to their earlier
    > file format without any particularly overt notification to their
    > customers.


    It's like speeding with no seatbelt and no airbag. It'll get
    you, even if it takes a couple years. Anyone with eyes can
    see that.


    >> > Had one asked me back
    >> > in ~1980 the future direction of computer memory, I very well may have
    >> > predicted the bubble memory that Texas Instrument was using on their
    >> > "Silent 700" terminals.  Whoops.


    >> And what does bubble memory (or any other physical storage format
    >> that can store any sort of file formats) have to do with a file
    >> format's suitability for archival?


    > It merely serves as YA example for how trying to predict the future
    > isn't an 'exact science'.


    No, it's an example how *YOU* have been wrong about the future.
    Not about people in general or 'exact science'.

    > The uncertainty of the future is what has
    > prevented archiving from being a trivial & easy activity.


    Ah ... no.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 25, 2012
  6. ray

    -hh Guest

    On Nov 25, 6:09 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
    wrote:
    > -hh <> wrote:
    > > On Nov 13, 8:08 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> -hh <> wrote:
    > >> > On Nov 6, 5:16 am, DanP <> wrote:
    > >> >> That was epic. Didn't have the patience to read it all, but still, wow.
    > >> > Unfortunately, simply being a long rant doesn't mean that it contains
    > >> > factually correct content.
    > >> It also doesn't mean it does contain factually incorrect
    > >> content.

    > > I was being kind.  Unfortunately, your continued duplicity indicates
    > > that I probably should have been more rude.

    >
    > Well, to be rude: You were an idiot when you archived your
    > photos in powerpoint,...


    Unfortunately, JPEG wasn't a viable option back in 1992, as you've
    since discovered. And you've also not provided any concrete
    suggestion for what should have been used back in 1992. And you've
    not provided any documentation from "experts" from that period for
    what specific format was being recommended for use back in 1992.

    All you have are lame insult attempts.


    > ... and you were twice an idiot when you
    > didn't rectify the situation once you knew better.


    Yes, rectifying such situations (in time) is a consideration, but
    that's a maintenance expense ... which was a point that I had raised
    already.

    Of course, if you want to continue to claim that I've been an idiot
    and that this data file has been irrecoverably lost, then please be
    willing to back up your assertion with a bet, specifically one of
    sufficient magnitude that it will easily cover the expenses of mailing
    you a hardcopy.

    I think 20 Euros would be more than adequate to make it worth my
    while. Sorry, but I'm not going to extend credit to you; send one
    blue 20EUR note in the mail to my domain's NJ address and include what
    mailing address you want the material sent to and it will be promptly
    on its way.


    > But maybe
    > you're simply unable to learn from your mistakes.


    YA insult attempt.



    > >> An often repeated claim and a bogus example 'file' as 'proof' ---
    > >> your obstinate tactic --- indicate only stubbornness, but not a
    > >> shred of factually correct content.

    > > Sorry, but that's yet another lie on your part.  The facts of the
    > > matter are that this successfully retained file was a real document:
    > > it was publicly presented in an industry symposia back in 1992.  And
    > > being a published paper, that is also why I also invested the
    > > resources to retain it.

    >
    > This changes ... nothing.  Except that the document was
    > never meant for archival, just as glass plates standing in as
    > greenhouse glass aren't.  (And yes, the latter happened.)


    Except that it goes to illustrate my point that 'ordinary'
    contemporary items are disappearing from "Uncle Bob's Photo
    Collection", because Uncle Bob wasn't necessarily proactive in his
    file format selection. Golly, he might have even used one of those
    non-JPEG "RAW" formats, which contain proprietary elements and are
    not Open Standards, see:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format#Standardization


    > > You're trying to make it sound like I've been orchestrating a grand
    > > plan since 1992 to have purposefully created a 'lost' format just to
    > > enter into a pissing contest with you.  Sorry, but you're simply not
    > > that important.

    >
    > No, that would imply you'd have brains enough to plan ahead
    > for 20 years, which you clearly didn't.


    YA insult attempt.

    Now did I perform due diligence in my maintenance of this particular
    data file?
    You don't know, because I haven't made a public statement: all I've
    done is provided the "pre-maintenance" data file.
    You would be wise to avoid making any further baseless claims.

    Don't think that I haven't noticed that you still haven't been
    successful in salvaging the file, despite all of your arrogance: you
    instead try to shift the blame to a decision made 20 years ago that
    simply can't be undone no matter how much you bluster and try to sling
    insults.

    And of course, this file's original version isn't quite completely
    useless: it is an educational tool for people who think that they
    know better.

    As I've said, if you want to continue to make your baseless claim that
    this data file has been irrecoverably lost, then please be willing to
    back up your assertion with a bet, specifically one of sufficient
    magnitude that it will easily cover my expenses to mail you a copy:
    20EUR.



    > >> >http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer
    > >> > ...you'll find that it only returns one hit:
    > >> Let's complete the quote:
    > >> | But since you think that it will make a difference, I've taken a copy
    > >> | of the original file, revised its name to add a '.PPT' on the end and
    > >> | uploaded it to this address:
    > >> >http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/ADPA-snipertrainer.ppt
    > >> So you ... "revised its name to add a '.PPT' on the end" and had
    > >> therefore to change the '.' to a '-'?

    > > Yes, the revision included changing the prior '.' to a '-', which is
    > > why the description stated **revise**, and not merely "added".
    > >> Even Windows manages files with 2 '.' just fine!

    > > Really?  Every version of Windows since 1992?

    >
    > Ever since they managed more than 8.3.


    Which is a "No".

    > Note: Windows 3.1/3.11/3.11 for workgroups didn't.  Only 95
    > and later did.


    See!

    > So they'd not work with "ADPA-snipertrainer.ppt" nor
    > "ADPA.snipertrainer", neither being 8.3 compliant.  Poof!
    >
    > > Plus does this also
    > > include all versions of Linux and Apache web servers too?

    >
    > Yep.  Even on FAT file systems.  Which only an idiot would
    > run an apache webserver on top of.


    YA insult attempt.

    > > Since this is not the case,

    >
    > What is not the case?
    >
    > Your filename does NOT work for every version of Windows
    > since 1992 either.  2 dots work whereever long filenames
    > work.


    Are you even sure of that? Better keep on checking.


    > > then a revision to have only a single "."
    > > within the entire filename is the only approach that will have 100%
    > > success in resolving the dot-delimeter complaint that you had
    > > contrived.

    >
    > Dig harder.  You hole is not deep enough to cover the
    > incompetence yet.


    YA insult attempt.

    Let's keep in mind that this still is all a 'Red Herring' distraction,
    where the only thing that the .ppt extension does is permit auto-
    launch. It did not have any material impact of your technical
    challenge to recover the document's contents. And yes, I'll remind
    you again that you **failed** at that.

    And as I've said, if you want to continue to make your baseless claim
    that this data file has been irrecoverably lost, then please be
    willing to back up your assertion with a bet, specifically one of
    sufficient magnitude that it will easily cover my expenses to mail you
    a copy: 20EUR will do, even though we both know that for you to even
    acknowledge that you're wrong is really more a hit to your pride than
    to your wallet.


    > >> > What he missed was that the original file's name was not changed only
    > >> > at the end to add the .PPT:  the original had a period in the middle,
    > >> > and if two periods had been left intact in the filename, this could
    > >> > have confused applications which have traditionally relied on periods
    > >> > as a delimeter for file type identifiers.
    > >> Which application would that be, that didn't manage that, but
    > >> did manage longer files than 8.3?

    > > You were already told it was Microsoft PowerPoint.

    >
    > ... that created the file.
    > BTW: Applications care nothing at all about file names.


    BTW: you were the one who chose to bitch about it, so now you're
    contradicting yourself.


    > >> And in how far would it be relevant to PowerPoint?

    > > See above.  The lack of the 8.3 constraint was the free clue that it
    > > was the version of PowerPoint that ran on Mac OS, not Windows.

    >
    > So what's your 'every Windows since 1992' yammering about?
    >
    > >> And why do you think everyone but *you* is unable to rename
    > >> files, when *you* are the one to deliver binary image files
    > >> as text/plain?

    > > I never said that no one else could rename the file, so that's YA lie
    > > from Wolfgang.

    >
    > I didn't say you said so, I said you thought so.


    Pedantic hair-splitting attempt? My, my, my!


    > But maybe that's a lie, too, and you don't think, you just
    > knee-jerk.


    YA insult attempt.

    Perhaps you should just try renaming the file yourself, rather than to
    perpetuate your impotent whining and attempt to place blame on anyone
    other than yourself.


    > >> > Similarly, he claimed "one can deliberately choose a file format
    > >> > singularily unsuited to archival and then harping about that as if
    > >> > that was the average or usual case."   Sorry, but that's a malicious
    > >> > misrepresentation
    > >> So you're claiming some proprietary, closed, ever changing, not
    > >> supposed for image storage or interchange Microsoft format is an
    > >> average and usual case *for* *intelligent* *people* *to* *use*
    > >> *for* *the* *archival* *of* *images*?

    > > No.

    >
    > Then what's your point with that PP file?  None?


    No. The point is that the use case is generalizable: this is not
    merely about image files.


    > > The file format was what it was at its time of origin.

    >
    > The white horse was white when you saw it.  Yes.


    And can't be undone 20 years later. Deal with what you have, not what
    you want.

    > > Issues of how
    > > to improve its archivability were simply not a consideration at that
    > > time, and one simply cannot undo history to rectify that.

    >
    > A normal person would recognize some day that some formats
    > are not archival quality and --- assuming some brains ---
    > transform the original into a more archival quality format.


    Golly, it seems like it was just in your prior post that you were
    making some claims about "experts", or something like that. Now,
    we've moved the goal posts all the way to 'normal people'. In the
    meantime, you've still not answered what either group was recommending
    twenty years ago.


    > Just like a normal person would some day recognoize that
    > a mildew-afflicted shoe box was not the best way to store
    > negatives and then --- assuming some brains --- do something
    > constructive about it.


    Yet in the meantime, Uncle Bob's old 35mm pictures are in a dark
    closet someplace, or maybe the attic or worse yet, the basement. Does
    it have low humidity? Minimal temperature swings? Who knows? The
    storage facilities which are more likely to have active environmental
    controls are those of professionals...and Uncle Bob isn't one of these
    - - which was part of my point! Archiving with zero maintenance is
    going to affect its salvageability, and such scenarios are going to be
    more devastating to digital media than old school physical prints/
    slides.



    > >> > and an attempt to "Monday Morning Quarterback" a
    > >> > decision that was made back in 1992:
    > >> I'm judging the decision on what was known to one skilled in the
    > >> field in 1992.

    > > Unfortunately, that's a critical error on your part.
    > > Quite frankly, I also have my doubts that even the 'experts' were this
    > > far along back in 1992 regarding long term data retention issues,
    > > particularly including the recommendation to use JPEG for long term
    > > archivability.  Feel free to produce redundant published references
    > > that discusses this issue that were disseminated in mainstream news
    > > outlets back in this period (1992) which includes the JPEG
    > > conclusion.

    >
    > Again, you are not able to read what I wrote.  I've been
    > *very* careful not nominating JPEG as image storage format
    > back then.


    Oh, on the contrary: I saw that you **initially** screamed
    "JPEG!" ...

    ....but then ran away from that JPEG recommendation like a scalded cat
    when you realized that the original dates from 20 years ago, and JPEG
    wasn't yet mature enough to be considered a viable recommendation to
    have made back in 1992. That's when you tried to change your
    recommendation to BMP (Bitmap), but you've not determined if that was
    even a supported format for the Mac OS platform (let alone the
    application) back in that same period. As such, you haven't
    demonstrated anything viable from the period yet.


    > >> But you'd certainly claim criticising a quarterback
    > >> repeatedly scoring own goals was "Monday Morning Quarterback"ing,
    > >> after all, the game was on Sunday and how *could* he *possibly*
    > >> have known which side was the wrong one.

    > > Sorry, but you've just revealed that English isn't your primary
    > > language and you're misapplying the colloquialism.

    >
    > It's *very* well known that English isn't my primary
    > language, but it's good to know I can fool someone for so
    > long without even trying.  Having said that: So criticising
    > a player for atrocious play is being a monday morning
    > quarterback, you haven't denied it-


    You still got it wrong. The 'monday morning quarterback' is a slang
    term used to describe the logical fallacy of trying to critique
    history based on additional information that wasn't available at the
    time of the original decision.


    > >> > the format then chosen *was*
    > >> > what was believed at the time to be a 'good' format.
    > >> Belived by whom?

    > > The generic business office user.

    >
    > I see.  So you'd ask J. Random Nigerian how to invest your
    > money, too?


    YA insult attempt...and a pretty lame one at that.

    If you were allowed into a general white collar business office today
    in the USA, you'll find that most are still using Microsoft's Word/
    Excel/Powerpoint formats as their default, with no particular "special
    plans" for long term data archiving. So please go yell and scream at
    them: I'm merely the messenger who is reporting "what is", which does
    not constitute an endorsement on my part.


    > > As I said above, I have my doubts
    > > that even the 'experts' were already recommending JPEGS for all
    > > graphics as early as 1992, and it is going to require published
    > > references to convince me otherwise.

    >
    > And again you have been misreading me.


    No, that is you trying to avoid answering a key question: what
    options were realistically (not pedantically) available for
    consideration?


    > This happens so
    > often that you either don't read what I write, are unable to
    > concentrate long enough on the text or are not understanding
    > the language you write in.  Or maybe you do it on purpose.


    And this is you trying to blame others.

    The obvious conclusion is that you simply can not provide evidence
    that 'experts' back in 1992 were recommending the JPEG format to
    substantiate your claim ... oh, right: the claim of JPEG that you've
    tried to run away from! Well then, at least substantiate what format
    they were recommending in the professional literature, even if it was
    that BMP format...if there actually is any discussion to be found.

    Then the next step is that you'll need to demonstrate that that option
    (whatever it was) was effectively available to the general use case in
    the same time period.


    > >> But back to that format:
    > >> [...]
    > >> - were there multiple sources for writing and reading the format?
    > >>   Nope.  There's only one PP.

    > > Except that what you're ignoring is that the software developers of
    > > that period consistently provided full & transparent backwards
    > > compatibility to their older file formats.

    >
    > Or was that the impression of J Random Business User, who only
    > ever saw 3 programs?


    Oh, please! You're overlooking other applications from that period
    which I mentioned by brand name.


    > > [...]
    > >> - What were they thinking of using in 20 years to get their
    > >>   images?  PowerPoint 3.0?

    > > PowerPoint 3.0 worked just fine in being backwards-compatible to v2.0
    > > So did PowerPoint 4.0

    >
    > You have NOT gotten the question.  Again.


    I'm substantiating my point. You should try it sometime. The
    software manufacturer provided the backwards compatibility, satisfying
    the archivability requirement (at least for awhile).


    > > It wasn't until PowerPoint 98 (8.0) in 1998 that the backwards-
    > > compatibility was broken.

    >
    > And converters were made available.


    And yet you still weren't able to recover said file.


    > >> It was a stupid idea evn in 1992, and at best you/they didn't know
    > >> any better.  Which made you/them singularly unsuited at the task.

    > > Do feel free to show the "Save As JPEG" command in these Applications
    > > to have provided any alternative approach.

    >
    > Do feel free to READ WHAT I WRITE!  BMP != JPEG.


    Yes, I know that JPEG isn't BMP.

    I also know that your initial verbal abuse to use JPEG was abandoned
    and you went to BMP when you realized that your JPEG recommendation
    couldn't pragmatically have been employed 20 years ago.

    And I also know that you never acknowledged your initial
    recommendation (including all of the verbal abuse you hurled) as an
    error.


    > If you can't
    > export your PowerPoints to some simple format, then even J
    > Completely-Deranged Business User can't think that's good for
    > archival of photos.


    Yes, it would be **nice** for us to **believe** that there was a
    better file format alternative, but you have no proof for what options
    were specifically available back in 1992 to use instead (and an
    available "Save As" option from within that Application).


    > >> Additionally, it seems nothing was learned in the mean time,
    > >> because no corrective action was taken.  (Nope, that wasn't
    > >> your point.  Your point was that even if you do everything right
    > >> you need some effort to keep the file formats in good shape.)

    > > Logic Fail:  an absence of discussion of corrective actions does not
    > > constitute evidence that no corrective action ever took place.

    >
    > So you either are throwing smoke grenades --- again --- or
    > you admit that your 'example' never was any problem.


    On the contrary: the example is a problem because today's Powerpoint
    doesn't support this old format. As such, an effort was required to
    go find older versions of PP to test each one to see where/when the
    backwards-compatibility was broken (supported).

    You're trying to make this into a question of if I *personally* have
    solved my data archiving problem. Sorry, but that's going to be an
    anecdotal report regardless of if I was successful or not.

    What's not anecdotal is that the challenges that this example involved
    is why I pointed out that the challenge of data archiving is not
    merely the data file, but also the Application and also the OS that
    said Application needs to run under. As a minimum, it is a path with
    three nodes on it, and a failure at any node results in a failure
    overall.


    > >> > A 'bad' one that
    > >> > was known back in that day would have been "PFS:First Choice".
    > >> > "Harvard Graphics" has also turned out to have been a bad one too, but
    > >> > I don't know offhand if it was already obviously in decline by 1992.
    > >> The obvious format would have been BMP, version 3.  Simple,
    > >> robust, easy to implement a reader.  The only drawback is that
    > >> they're relatively large, compared to lossy compressed formats.

    > > But was BMP available on the Mac back in 1992?

    >
    > Yes.  It's a file format.  A trivial simple one.


    Since you've not produced a 'salvage' from this case study, the
    evidence that supports characterizing it as "trivial" is absent.



    > > And as critically, as a "Save As" option within PowerPoint?

    >
    > If no, PP was not fit for archival, since you couldn't get
    > your photos back out.


    That's an "if", not a definitive response.


    > >> JPEG was released *as* *a* *standard* in 1992.

    > > Which meant that it was not adequately mature

    >
    > It was.  Though it wasn't common enough.


    Which meant that "experts" would not have yet been recommending JPEG
    for archiving...just as how you've backed away from that yourself.


    > > - - or had adequate
    > > assurances that it would still be around in 20+ years - -

    >
    > What part of "released *as* *a* *standard*" didn't you grasp?
    > The fact that I didn't write that the complete process how to
    > create and how to interpret a JPEG file was described in
    > painstaking detail, enabling any programmer to create his own
    > implementation from scratch --- even in 20+ years?


    Unfortunately, you keep on trying to equate "pedantic" to "pragmatic",
    and the question isn't if something is pedantically _possible_, it is
    if it is pragmatically _probable_.

    I'm not disputing that there can be _a_ path through the woods to a
    successful archive: my point is that there's many intersections
    (decision point nodes) along that path and a wrong turn at any of them
    results in failure. For example, a process that involves merely three
    (3) decision point nodes and with a 80% probability of selecting the
    correct one at each decision results in a process that only is
    successful ~50% (pedantic: 51.2%) of the time.

    So it doesn't matter if the files were pedantically saved in a file
    format that was a published standard back in 1992, if that standard is
    pragmatically dead and unsupported in mainstream applications in
    2012: the UI "double-click" comes up with the PC saying "???", and
    the risk is that the operator simply shrugs, perhaps assumes that the
    file was corrupted and throws the disk into trash can: that data is
    now lost forever.

    As I said many moons ago, someone who encounters a nominally
    unreadable set of files in the Estate of Uncle Bob isn't guaranteed to
    know exactly what they are, what to do with them, nor even recognize
    them as something of value to be retained ... so these archived files
    will more than likely get thrown out.


    > > to have been
    > > a serious consideration for a decision that was made back in 1992.

    >
    > Now ponder why I said BMP.
    >
    > >> It *still* works, ...

    > > Yes, but that's a retrospective view:

    >
    > Simple, easy to implement standards tend to have that feature.
    >
    > > you've picked the winner after
    > > it has survived for 20 years.  That's useless advice unless you also
    > > have a time machine in your back pocket.

    >
    > Name one open, free standard of 1992 or earlier that can't be
    > read today.


    Sorry, but this is all just a "gotcha!" game attempt. The pragmatic
    reality is that every feature within an application takes money to
    support & maintain, so there is a constant financial incentive to drop
    support of 'dead' (atrophied) features. What you've failed to do is
    to show us that **every** file format standard that existed in 1992 is
    still actively supported in mainstream products.

    For example, show us all just how well the TWAIN standard is working
    today in Adobe Photoshop. Yes, I know that you'll squeal like a pig
    in that this isn't a file format, but it is an OPEN STANDARD, which is
    all that you called for.

    The facts of the matter are that TWAIN is no longer part of the
    standard Photoshop install. Sure, one can go to their website to
    download a driver, but it isn't always going to work, as what we find
    is that the standard needs to have been updated for changes in
    hardware & OS architecture, such as to 64 bit, and these 64-bit
    systems were not written to be backwards-compatible to old 32-bit
    based plug-ins; see:

    http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/photo-video/3404070/get-your-scanner-work-with-photoshop-cs6/

    As can be seen above, the steady & inevitable death of TWAIN is proof
    that not all open standards live on forever...at least from a
    pragmatic "operator" perspective.

    But do feel free to prove me wrong by writing & distributing for free
    a 64-bit TWAIN driver that's compatible with the current versions of
    Photoshop running under the recent Mac OSs and which supports every
    digital scanner that's been sold by EPSON, CANON and NIKON since the
    inception of USB. I'll even pay you 30EUR for it :)


    > >> So why not JPEG in 1992?  Because the format was too new and
    > >> programs using it probably not widely available back then.

    > > And I don't really recall BMP being supported back then by Macs, even
    > > within Microsoft products.  As such, your recommendation doesn't
    > > appear to be one that would have been an available choice either.

    >
    > So into what format could PP on Mac export photos and text?


    Sorry, but you should have thought of that before criticizing a
    decision made 20 years ago.


    > >> > The underlying point here is pretty simple: it isn't trivially easy
    > >> > to predict the future, particularly in technology.
    > >> It's trivially easy to see when a format is *certainly*
    > >> not suitable as archival format.  Even if the year was 1992.
    > >> PowerPoint is a prime example.  Red flags everywhere.

    > > Except that it only became evident as a problem six (6) years later,
    > > when Microsoft dropped their backwards-compatibility to their earlier
    > > file format without any particularly overt notification to their
    > > customers.

    >
    > It's like speeding with no seatbelt and no airbag.  It'll get
    > you, even if it takes a couple years.  Anyone with eyes can
    > see that.


    Except that even with seatbelts and airbags today, people still die.
    All you've done is change the risks; they've not been eliminated.



    > >> > Had one asked me back
    > >> > in ~1980 the future direction of computer memory, I very well may have
    > >> > predicted the bubble memory that Texas Instrument was using on their
    > >> > "Silent 700" terminals.  Whoops.
    > >> And what does bubble memory (or any other physical storage format
    > >> that can store any sort of file formats) have to do with a file
    > >> format's suitability for archival?

    > > It merely serves as YA example for how trying to predict the future
    > > isn't an 'exact science'.

    >
    > No, it's an example how *YOU* have been wrong about the future.
    > Not about people in general or 'exact science'.


    YA insult attempt.

    For an example of the general use case, simply go walk through a
    contemporary business office. The reality is that the vast majority
    uses Microsoft products (including Powerpoint) and after a document's
    creation/use, there's no effort made 99.99% of the time to save it
    into a different format to be an "Archival" record for posterity: to
    do so costs time & money. At best, you'll find that some may have
    been PDF'ed, but the motivation was not archiving: it typically is
    for some other business-centric motivation, such as to create a file
    small enough for transmission by email.


    > > The uncertainty of the future is what has
    > > prevented archiving from being a trivial & easy activity.

    >
    > Ah ... no.


    Sorry, but the facts of the matter are that everyone has incurred data
    loss somewhere, even you, through a variety of mechanisms.


    As I said, if you want to continue to claim that I'm an idiot and that
    this data file has been irrecoverably lost, then please be willing to
    back up your assertion with a bet, specifically one of sufficient
    magnitude that it will easily cover the expenses of mailing you a
    hardcopy.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Nov 26, 2012
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    314
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  2. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    329
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  3. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    341
    nospam
    Aug 26, 2012
  4. tony cooper

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    tony cooper, Aug 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    109
    Views:
    1,308
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 31, 2012
  5. nospam

    Re: What makes a mac better?

    nospam, Aug 27, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    299
    nospam
    Aug 27, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page