| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 60835 | 2005-08-14 12:49:00 | Microsoft Patents iPod | vinref (6194) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 381130 | 2005-08-15 12:15:00 | I'd be keen to see some good thorough reviews between Flac, mp3, Ogg and Aac! Ive been doing a bit of reading, and it appears as though Ogg sounds better until about 160kbps, then Aac wins?! |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 381131 | 2005-08-15 23:06:00 | Ah.. format wars... Personally I am going to stick with MP3. Becase MP3 has one quality that none of the other formats available do. They work with *anything*. If it plays music it will play MP3 + (others) and I switch gadgets too much to bother with other formats that get stuck on one platform. -Qyiet |
qyiet (6730) | ||
| 381132 | 2005-08-15 23:08:00 | Ah.. format wars... Personally I am going to stick with MP3. Becase MP3 has one quality that none of the other formats available do. They work with *anything*. If it plays music it will play MP3 + (others) and I switch gadgets too much to bother with other formats that get stuck on one platform. -Qyiet and honestly, do many of else have audio gear that we can truely hear th difference on? |
plod (107) | ||
| 381133 | 2005-08-15 23:27:00 | ....and honestly, do many of else have audio gear that we can truely hear th difference on?Possably not, but i cant pick fault with .oggs, but i can only compare to the mp3s i've downloaded. I do feed flaptop into largish sound systems (5KW rms +) at pubs for larger audiances than a home system might expect so quality is important, even if most of the audiance has been drinking. Good quality .oggs do seem to take less HDD space than the equivelant mp3. That's my experiance, which is all i feel i can speak from. :D |
personthingy (1670) | ||
| 381134 | 2005-08-16 00:32:00 | Did you hear how MS were so eager to patent everything under the sun that they mistakenly patented an edible apple. The USA patent system is beyond aa joke. | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 381135 | 2005-08-16 06:09:00 | Possably not, but i cant pick fault with .oggs, but i can only compare to the mp3s i've downloaded. I do feed flaptop into largish sound systems (5KW rms +) at pubs for larger audiances than a home system might expect so quality is important, even if most of the audiance has been drinking. Good quality .oggs do seem to take less HDD space than the equivelant mp3. That's my experiance, which is all i feel i can speak from. :D Not try to start an argument, but you cant compare an mp3 that you have downloaded, and I'm guessing from a P2P network, to be a reliable bit rate, I have tested this myself with cd's I have imported and the same songs off p2p at the same bit rate and 9 time's out of 10 the one I have imported has been mush better quality... |
plod (107) | ||
| 381136 | 2005-08-16 13:50:00 | Not try to start an argument, but you cant compare an mp3 that you have downloaded, and I'm guessing from a P2P network, to be a reliable bit rate, I have tested this myself with cd's I have imported and the same songs off p2p at the same bit rate and 9 time's out of 10 the one I have imported has been mush better quality...I fully agree.. What i need to do to give conclusive results is encode the same songs as mp3 and ogg and then compare... maybe later once i've slept i'll do just that. | personthingy (1670) | ||
| 381137 | 2005-08-17 04:03:00 | Good one, Vinny. I like this part... Apple won't take the matter lying down. "Apple invented and publicly released the iPod interface before the Microsoft patent application cited by the (patent) examiner was filed," said an Apple spokesperson in a statement. Apple also noted that the firm has received other patents for technology relating to the iPod and in addition has other patents pending on the iPod. The documents in the Patent Office do not mention the iPod by name. The documents describe a "portable, pocked-sized multimedia asset player" that can manipulate MP3 music files. Apple has the case that they announced and released the specifications of the iPod before Microsoft patented it. It may even have been released before the patent application was filed by Microsoft. In which case, the patent is invalid. Still, it will enrich a lot of lawyers at no benefit to anyone, not least the consumers who will always wear the cost of litigation. Microsoft, and other parasites of the patent system (including Apple itself), need to be punished. I would love to see a consumer wiki that lists these companies and informaton about their misdeeds, so that they can be selectively boycotted until they resolve not to play any more dirty tricks. And it is misdeeds like these that the open source movement fear will happen if software patents were universally adopted. |
vinref (6194) | ||
| 381138 | 2005-08-17 04:13:00 | Apple has the case that they announced and released the specifications of the iPod before Microsoft patented it. It may even have been released before the patent application was filed by Microsoft. In which case, the patent is invalid. Still, it will enrich a lot of lawyers at no benefit to anyone, not least the consumers who will always wear the cost of litigation.I'm not sure of the details of this case. However it is worth pointing out you are not comparing apples with apples here. (pun not intended) Apple did release the ipod before MS filed their patent. But, that is not the same as saying that apple invented the ipod before MS invented whatever they patented that conflicted with apples ipod. Short version: Invention Date != Fileing Date. But whatever happens it will be the lawyers clash of the titans. -Qyiet |
qyiet (6730) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||