1 |
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:01:07 -0400 |
3 |
> Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Alan McKinnon |
6 |
>> <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
7 |
>> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:12:04 -0400 |
8 |
>> > Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
9 |
>> > |
10 |
>> >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Alan McKinnon |
11 |
>> >> <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
12 |
>> >> > [1] .avi files are notorious for this shit. It's what happens |
13 |
>> >> > when you are Microsoft and you release any old crappy format |
14 |
>> >> > without consulting the other experts out there (who will always |
15 |
>> >> > outnumber you) |
16 |
>> >> |
17 |
>> >> Which better container formats were available at the time AVI was |
18 |
>> >> released (1992)? The only contemporary container format I'm aware |
19 |
>> >> of is RIFF, which came out in 1988. MPEG-1 didn't come out until |
20 |
>> >> 1993, which was the same year the Ogg project started. Real's |
21 |
>> >> stuff didn't come out until 1995. Matroska was announced a decade |
22 |
>> >> later, in 2005. |
23 |
>> >> |
24 |
>> >> Matroska, MP4 and even OGG are nicer container formats, sure, but |
25 |
>> >> they weren't around yet. And even with any of them, it's perfectly |
26 |
>> >> possible to accidentally get A/V desync or stuttering if you don't |
27 |
>> >> mux your streams properly. |
28 |
>> >> |
29 |
>> >> (This post draws heavily on Wikipedia for date information, and |
30 |
>> >> dates may be considered only as accurate as Wikipedia...) |
31 |
>> >> |
32 |
>> > |
33 |
>> > You missed the essence of my post entirely. |
34 |
>> |
35 |
>> Anti-Microsoft snark? I thought I was calling you on it. |
36 |
>> |
37 |
> |
38 |
> I said .avi is a crappy format, and it is, that much is obvious to |
39 |
> anyone who understands the simple basics of what a container should do. |
40 |
|
41 |
The MPEG group had only been formed four years prior to AVI's release, |
42 |
and didn't release their first standard until a year later. Meanwhile, |
43 |
Microsoft needed a video file format that: |
44 |
|
45 |
1) Was a file format that sat on disk |
46 |
2) Synchronized audio and video |
47 |
3) Integrated cleanly with their being-developed operating system (AVI |
48 |
is very closely related to the Video for Windows API. It's worth |
49 |
noting that WMF, another Microsoft format from this time, is |
50 |
essentially a serialized form of their drawing primitives.) |
51 |
4) Ran smoothly on an 80386 at 33MHz with a 16-bit, 8MHz data bus |
52 |
between the CPU and persistent storage. |
53 |
|
54 |
With the exception of perhaps (3), those are the "basics." Consider |
55 |
that this was released in 1992, and then consider that it had probably |
56 |
been under development for at least a couple years prior. |
57 |
|
58 |
I won't disagree that AVI is a crappy format by today's standards, and |
59 |
that it should be avoided where possible, but what you consider simple |
60 |
and obvious today was *new* at the time, and so not simple and |
61 |
obvious. |
62 |
|
63 |
> It would have been obvious to the .avi developers then. And yet it |
64 |
> somehow made it's way to market and got used extensively |
65 |
> |
66 |
> You asked what alternatives were available. That is not a question I |
67 |
> asked. It matters nothing that the public used .avi so much (they had |
68 |
> precious little in the way of choice). So whether they had |
69 |
> alternatives or not is irrelevant. |
70 |
|
71 |
It's entirely relevant if you want to consider whether not the |
72 |
expertise to come up with a 2012-modern format *existed* in the |
73 |
lead-up time to 1992. |
74 |
|
75 |
> |
76 |
> The entire gist of my post was about how .avi as it stands is crappy |
77 |
> and should never have been released by an entity with the engineering |
78 |
> clout of Microsoft as they don't have the excuse of being one dude in |
79 |
> Mom's basement who didn't know better. They really should have known |
80 |
> better. |
81 |
|
82 |
Seriously, why? Why do you think that the entire engineering clout of |
83 |
a company which hadn't yet taken over the desktop market(!) would be |
84 |
focused on perfecting AVI, one piece of a large, |
85 |
already-late-to-market product? They had a bunch of difficult things |
86 |
to pay attention to, such as mixing protected-mode and real-mode |
87 |
applications on hardware in a task-switching environment, and working |
88 |
around compatibility for programs whose developers still assumed they |
89 |
had full run of the system. On a 386. |
90 |
|
91 |
-- |
92 |
:wq |