Posts tagged `Microsoft`

rev. 15 April 2009; get the PDF

The laws that protect the creation of content are manifold and complicated—even byzantine. America has copyright protection, which applies to concrete expressions of information, trademark protection, which protects distinctive symbols or verbiage associated with a legal entity, and patent protection, which protects “(1) processes, (2) machines, (3) manufactures or (4) compositions of matter” and is perhaps the least understood of all the various kinds of intellectual property protection (Guntersdorfer, 2003).

The explosion of the Internet in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has thrown into stark relief both the legal problems associated with protecting content in a digital age as well as the ethical issues inherent in the existing process for acquiring official intellectual property protection and the rights afforded involved parties in a redress of grievances. Copyright law specifically has come into public consciousness primarily due to the popularity of filesharing: for all intents and purposes, the advent of modern filesharing was the 1999 arrival of Napster, a program which allowed anyone to exchange digital copies of music online, for free. Legal problems eventually forced Napster to shut down (Ante, Brull, Herman , & France, 2000), but its legacy leaves not only alternative modes of filesharing, but a whole host of new web-based content creation engines that toe the lines of fair use.

Read more…

§3801 · April 21, 2009 · (No comments) · Tags: , , , ,

FLAC is a cross-platform codec, but when it comes to Windows, one has a pretty wide range of compiles. Some are more optimized than others.

I first got the idea for this benchmark when I stumbled upon a native 64-bit FLAC executable for Windows. Curious, I did a quick and dirty test against the canonical build for Windows and found that while encoding times were similar, decoding times were considerably faster.

To figure out why this is so (the 64-bitness or something else), I quickly pulled some some additional compiles and benchmarked them against a few different samples.

Read more…

§3477 · December 21, 2008 · 3 comments · Tags: , , , , ,

Windows XP SP3

Eh. It’s good, I suppose, and I’m sure its much-vaunted performance is there, but this is very much a service pack dealing with O/S guts, and not a massive feature pack a la SP2. I can’t immediately tell any difference.

In other news, Hardy Heron is released! And its software is already out of date.

§2050 · April 29, 2008 · 2 comments · Tags: , , , ,

Just a few days ago, I compared the relative sizes of Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) and OASIS’s OpenDocument format (ODF). I noticed that while OOXML was smaller for smaller amounts of text, ODF was smaller for larger documents. I was curious as to the turning point for this curve, which I hypothesize has to do with the complexity of OOXML’s markup.

I ran a brief test using generated Lorem Ipsum text in approximate amounts (the leftmost column), and recorded its size (in bytes) when pasted into Notepad, and then as OpenDocument Text (OpenOffice.org 2.3.1), and then as OOXML (Office 2007 SP1).

After the data table is a graphical representation of the results. It’s clear that ODF slips below OOXML somewhere between 300Kb and 400Kb of raw textual data.

Comparison of file format sizes
Size Text OOXML ODF
5k 5030 12209 29408
25k 25158 14173 29715
50k 50318 15116 30039
100k 100638 18020 30616
200k 201276 24901 31670
300k 301918 31238 32676
400k 402558 37594 33634
800k 805118 61805 37418
1600k 1610238 110468 44881

file sizes


A while ago, as OpenOffice.org 2.0 approached completion, I compared the file sizes of Microsoft Office’s binary format against OpenOffice’s new OpenDocument format. Recall that OpenDocument is an XML-based storage formatted that is ultimate compressed into a zip file, creating smaller file sizes. Microsoft’s new Office Open XML is essentially the same thing, but with a totally different XML schema.

I decided to revisit this kind of test, and had four test files:

  1. The text of Ulysses, in HTML format. I chose HTML format to test the extra markup, as it should theoretically create a more complex document.
  2. A very large generated Lorem Ipsum block (205’000+ characters), which is pseudo-random, but with a lot of redundancy.
  3. A one-page block of Lorem Ipsum text, in order to test the handling of small files
  4. A randomly generated CSV with multiple kinds of text and 5’000 records. Converted used in OpenOffice Calc and Microsoft Excel.

Read on for the data table on observations.

Read more…

§1977 · February 12, 2008 · 3 comments · Tags: , , , , ,