Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Jan 2007 20:13 UTC
Windows To avoid having 8573 stories related to Vista atop one another, this item groups some of them. Fortune: "After five years in development, Microsoft's new operating system is finally about to hit the street. Is it a keeper? Fortune's Peter Lewis takes it for a test drive." eWeek: "Some have taken exception with Vista's permission-asking proclivity, but it may be that we've just become too cavalier about making fundamental changes to our systems." eWeek: "We check out the first systems bundling Microsoft's newest OS and tell you what you will, and will not, be getting with Vista." Click read more for, well, more items. This item will probably be updated regularly.
Thread beginning with comment 207112
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: JPEG and NYC
by eggs on Mon 29th Jan 2007 21:49 UTC in reply to "JPEG and NYC"
eggs
Member since:
2006-01-23

GIFs are better for images with large areas with few colors (things like logos) because they can be made insanely small with no distortion.

JPGs are better for pictures and images with gradients and shading.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

RE[2]: JPEG and NYC
by miscz on Mon 29th Jan 2007 21:58 in reply to "RE: JPEG and NYC"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

PNGs can be very small to when compressing pictures with small amount of colours. I've just checked that 1024x768 picture with 5 random colours compressed to 100KB GIF and 150KB PNG. It's probably the best format for application screenshots, preserves detail and compresses big single-colour areas perfectly. It gets pretty big with photos though but that's to be exepected with loseless compression.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[2]: JPEG and NYC
by DigitalAxis on Mon 29th Jan 2007 22:13 in reply to "RE: JPEG and NYC"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

And PNG is better (smaller) than GIF for those same images.

The thing is, PNG transparency wasn't supported by IE until IE7, making it non-viable for most.

The only thing GIF can do that PNG can't is animation, and those GIFs usually appear as animated ads.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[2]: JPEG and NYC
by hal2k1 on Tue 30th Jan 2007 01:13 in reply to "RE: JPEG and NYC"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//GIFs are better for images with large areas with few colors (things like logos) because they can be made insanely small with no distortion. //

I take it you mean small as in file size, as oppsed to small as in area.

For most purposes that suit GIF eg: "images with large areas with few colors (things like logos)", a better option is perhaps SVG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svg

SVG graphics can be scaled, and they can be animated. They can even be interactive.

"SVG allows three types of graphic objects:

* Vector graphic shapes (e.g. paths consisting of straight lines and curves, and areas bounded by them)
* Raster graphics images / digital images
* Text "

"Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) is an XML markup language for describing two-dimensional vector graphics, both static and animated, and either declarative or scripted. Images can contain hyperlinks using outbound simple XLinks."

"SVG drawings can be dynamic and interactive."


The best bit about SVG is that "It is an open standard created by the World Wide Web Consortium."

The disappointing thing is, Vista does not support SVG rendering.

Edited 2007-01-30 01:14

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5