Replying to JPG, PNG, BMP.. And Now WMP (Windows Media Photo)

So, now Microsoft makes their own file format instead of actually getting PNG to work in IE?

YES!!! and works

Microsoft is a company that requires profit as a way to survive. Producing a new software doesn't always provide this, and neither does selling hardware. So, to go one step further, they produce things that people use everyday. But why? Because a lot of companies have realised that by producing something that is used everyday, more people are likely to use it, especially if it is cheaper, better and more secure than it's pre-decessors.

The WMP format will more than likely be a growing image format and will more than likely soon take over the spotlight of JPEG2000 and it's entire features (although the WMP format is a while away from that).

As for support of this format, you can tell that it will take some time for Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc to be able to support it.

If you think that this image file type will be exclusive to some kind of MS imaging software, then think like MS. Do we want to make it exclusive at the risk of shooting ourselves in the foot?

PNG support will be improved for IE7. It's lack of support in earlier versions is easily fixed (but not recommended) by using Javascript to fix the Alpha channel (transparency).

Microsoft however have not thought of the implications of the WMP image file type on other platforms. It will take some serious negotiations between Linux distros and other O/S with Microsoft to get the file type cross-platform friendly.

Depending on it's strength and quality, I may find myself using WMP for desktop publishing, however for the web I will stick to GIF, JPG or no images.

But if we were to judge depending on the WMP counterparts, WMA and WMV, we'd have to say it won't be such a huge success. After all, even though WMA and WMV were indeed very nice, they're not that popular.

So I'd say that WMP has a fair chance of being an alternative to JPG. But if Microsoft is hoping for replacing JPG, I think they might be in over their heads.

Either way, we'd have to wait and see. At least until results of Vista Beta-2 are out, as a primary indicator.

A point to note here. The basic reasoning behind WMA & WMV were to restrict change of format and to enable advanced features where copyright may be protected. Also, when dealing with Windows formats, it becomes necessary to utlize appropriate software - most of which is not free.

Now Freedom to do what you want with any item once it's on you computer is what makes say an MP3 file so much more popular than a .wma file. Similarly, if someone sends you a small video - it's pretty likely to be and avi or mpg instead of wmv - because if you want to play around with it - whammo - you're sitting on a bundle of problems from the point of view of applications which will handle it. I mean like I even have come across one wma file where you HAVE to watch the whole movie from start - it disables the jump forward feature by dragging the progress bar forward. I mean like how silly is that? Also try opening a wmp file into VirtualDub if you want to say recompress it into a format you're more comfortable with - that's a no-no.

That is why, windows released formats do not do all that well. I'ts because of the lack of freedom to do what you want with it once t's on your computer. sooner or later it's going to catch up with Microsoft and bite it hard. Because of a person's natural instinct that draws a person to something that is free and versatile instead of being attached to a cost and being restrictive.

Currently, the reason why MS apps are so very popular is because it is restrictive - and the fact that a kitten can begin operating (other than my mother who looks at a computer and just shies away). MS actively encourages corporates to utilize it's products with the extra 'helping hand' of support being only a call away - and the fact that since MS actively encourages schools and educational institutions to teach on it's software, manpower automatically adapts to using MS - and therefore are more acceptable to moving towards MS and specifically Windows formats.

Easier said than done. I try to boycott Windows, but I still have to use it when I absolutely need to, which is whenever I want to play a game.

I can't sacrifice too much for my beliefs.

xboxrulz

Let's hope that neither Mozilla nor Opera adds support for the format to their browsers. And shoot the schmuck who codes a FF extension for it. And boycott camera manufacturers who store files in wmp format. Just let's not let this happen!

So, now Microsoft makes their own file format instead of actually getting PNG to work in IE?

lol, then seriously, what the hell is the point to have WMP, I don't think it'll go too far. This is because 99% of everyone uses JPG as the storage for cameras!

xboxrulz

anyways, what features does it give that others don't?

I reckon no other image format is currently windows-only.

anyways, what features does it give that others don't?

xboxrulz

A new file format by a company, not a standardizing body, is always an attempt to monopolize or at least to make competitors life harder.

In case of images... we'll they won't pull through. But if people are stupid enough to start using it (I can imagine people on MSN trying to send me wmp photos...) and if MS gets a digital camera manufacturer or Nokia to directly support the format then they can cause of lot of damage.

But like I said this will be too much for Microsoft. Granted, people use WMV, but that's mainly because the video codec field had been a bit of loose as no dominant standard has risen. And also, granted that people use WMA, but that's just because they're dumb.