Windows Vista: ultimate confusing mess edition?

#1 kizzaaa on 10 Aug 2006 - 08:25

That sounds dissappointing.

(5 replies) #2 Jugalator on 10 Aug 2006 - 08:25

First, Vista already supports sorting files in the ways of traditional operating systems, by type, modification date, etc, so nothing is "lost" with Vista. Similarly, index-supported searching can search on a number of automated attributes.

What this author complains about seem to be that if you want to use the new powerful metadata searches, you need to specify metadata and can't just throw the files into directories. While I agree that can be a chore, I'm not sure how else it would work. He talks about auto-identified faces in pictures, but how is that going to help me if I have application screenshots and want to find them? There are no faces there. What if I'm making a website of food recipes? There are food stuff there, but no faces to identify here either. Is he now also asking it to identify different sorts of food, and different kinds of software products in screenshots?

Seriously, this get quite ridiculous fast. And then we're only talking pictures -- what about HTML documents? RAR archives? CAD drawings? While we're lucky to have automated id3 tagging tools that are reasonably accurate, along with EXIF-tagged JPEG images, I can't really see many other generic ways of solving this problem in Vista than letting the user do it. *Or* writing an application to tag things accurately and automatically, and I guess the article author could start with that image recognition tool, and we'll see how successful he is. :-p

When talking metadata, I'm more concerned about how persistent it will be? Will archive tools support it, like WinRAR, 7-zip, and the likes? If I mail a picture to someone, will the metadata stick on the receiving end?

Last edited by Jugalator on 10 Aug 2006 - 08:34

#2.1 Ideas Man on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:11

Mate, this is APC, if you've never read it, it's always a load of BS. I wouldn't believe anything they write about, because frankly, they know nothing and this article clearly shows it. With their attitude, they most probably think that Microsoft Word should also write their kid's essays and everything for them, automatically.

#2.2 Daffy_Duck on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:32

Jugulator,

Well said! I'm actually impressed by Vista's implementation of metadata (one of the few instances). So far, it seems to prioritize portability. If I am going to spend hours tagging the photos I take (and many have no faces in them) then I want to make sure that information is around as long as the photos are. The only way to be sure is if that information is stored within the file itself.

Unfortunately, Apple has not figured this out....yet. I have high hopes for Leopard. Currently, Tiger's Spotlight can index files with embedded metadata but OS X provides no way of embedding metadata. "Spotlight Comments" that can be added to any file only live in the Spotlight index and that information is not even available in iPhoto, let alone after the file is copied to a Windows server with SMB sharing. Preview.app can be used to tag photos but that information is only stored in the Spotlight index. iPhoto keywords added to files are similarly stored into an index, accessible only by iPhoto.

Currently, adding metadata in OS X is a complete waste of time as far as I am concerned. No 3rd party developers have done what is clearly possible...create an OS X compatible application that allows easy addition of embedded metadata. I know because I have searched long and hard for such a program. The only thing I have managed to find is a command line program that's too cumbersome and expensive.

So now, if I want to keyword my photos while using my MacBook Pro, my only option is to run Picasa in Windows XP with Parallels Desktop.

#2.3 Jugalator on 10 Aug 2006 - 19:00

@Ideas Man: Thanks for the comment on APC; I wasn't aware of that. I'll keep an eye open for them in the future then.

And maybe not waste as much time on them.

@Daffy_Duck: The reason I'm a bit concerned about this is because I don't actually think Vista embeds metadata in the files themselves. I think it uses NTFS "streams" (or "alternate data streams", or ADS) as the foundation for it, something Windows 2000 and XP actually supports too, but doesn't exploit nearly as well. On Mac's, the corresponding technology is apparently called "resource forks". It's the same thing -- data associated to a file. If it works like this, I wonder if the applications won't have to explicitly support these things.

I checked up WinRAR and I see it supports those anyway.

#2.4 Daffy_Duck on 11 Aug 2006 - 02:09

Quote - Jugalator said @ #2.3

@Ideas Man: Thanks for the comment on APC; I wasn't aware of that. I'll keep an eye open for them in the future then.

And maybe not waste as much time on them.

@Daffy_Duck: The reason I'm a bit concerned about this is because I don't actually think Vista embeds metadata in the files themselves. I think it uses NTFS "streams" (or "alternate data streams", or ADS) as the foundation for it, something Windows 2000 and XP actually supports too, but doesn't exploit nearly as well. On Mac's, the corresponding technology is apparently called "resource forks". It's the same thing -- data associated to a file. If it works like this, I wonder if the applications won't have to explicitly support these things.

I checked up WinRAR and I see it supports those anyway.

I tested a older beta of Vista briefly (very briefly, it didn't like my computer) and I added a couple of keywords to a photo in explorer. I copied the file over to my Mac and indeed, the tags were still available. I'm not sure if it still works that way but I did read not too long ago a message from a MS developer stating they are emphasizing storing metadata within the files. He was talking about the digital photo program similar to iphoto (not sure what it's called) and he stated when you add metadata in that program, it is written to a database much like iphoto but in the background, it also writes the metadata directly to the file. I am not sure if they are supporting the IPTC Core standard though. That would be ideal.

By the way Jugalator, there is a very interesting discussion I just found on this topic here: http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/01/02...o-act-together/

Last edited by Daffy_Duck on 11 Aug 2006 - 02:15

#2.5 Jelly2003 on 11 Aug 2006 - 04:39

Quote - Ideas Man said @ #2.1

Mate, this is APC, if you've never read it, it's always a load of BS. I wouldn't believe anything they write about, because frankly, they know nothing and this article clearly shows it. With their attitude, they most probably think that Microsoft Word should also write their kid's essays and everything for them, automatically.

Yeah I stopped reading APC a long time ago now (a was subscribed for many years previously) but I found that they started going too sensational, and their articles seemed to turn to junk.

I read PC Authority now, and I will probably continue to do so till they go the same way as APC.

(1 reply) #3 XerXis on 10 Aug 2006 - 08:42

Quote -

Meanwhile, startups like Riya are out-innovating Microsoft with useful file search technologies like facial recognition on photos that allow useful searching of images without copious user tagging.

lmao, that one really made me laugh out loud, voice recognotion is already difficult enough

#3.1 Julius Caro on 10 Aug 2006 - 13:11

While it sounds impressive, I wonder what would you use as search words. Another picture probably? Or you have to put your mum on the webcam if you want to look for her pics?

#4 dangel on 10 Aug 2006 - 09:29

So basically if you put garbage into the metadata you get garbage back out when searching? How on earth is that shocking? Talk about a pointless article.

#5 markukcouk on 10 Aug 2006 - 09:44

GIGO.... yummy

#6 mrmckeb on 10 Aug 2006 - 10:22

"Meanwhile, startups like Riya are out-innovating Microsoft with useful file search technologies like facial recognition on photos that allow useful searching of images without copious user tagging."... Yeah I guess photo-synth doesn't exist then??? Stupid idiot pretend journalists.

(1 reply) #7 neufuse on 10 Aug 2006 - 11:16

microsoft already has the tech riya is talking about, just not part of windows yet! look at Microsoft research's website ugh... stupid people trying to make a buck on microsoft

#7.1 theyarecomingforyou on 10 Aug 2006 - 12:14

Indeed, I was going to mention the same thing. Perhaps they should do a little more research in future.

(4 replies) #8 icecaveman on 10 Aug 2006 - 12:13

That article just makes me mad. Hope you send him some flame mail I won't bother.

#8.1 markjensen on 10 Aug 2006 - 12:25

Why "mad"? It seems to be a very factual article.

#8.2 XerXis on 10 Aug 2006 - 12:48

Quote - markjensen said @ #8.1

Why "mad"? It seems to be a very factual article.

from markjensen I usually expect more well thought posts, hopefully you'll read the article again because it's one of the most pointless pieces of journalism ever

Last edited by XerXis on 10 Aug 2006 - 13:12

#8.3 markjensen on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:47

I read the article once. There isn't a lot to it, besides pointing out that a metadata sort feature is potentially useless for most average users, and that Microsoft provides a group of files pre-set to make the feature look wonderful (and it is, if every single photo/file has several metadata items set). The common user, dumping a set of vacation photos isn't likely to these attributes to state which particular location, who is in the photo, etc. They will be presented with "Sort by unspecified".

I 100% stand by my opinion that icecaveman and others have no need to get "mad" over this, and want to flame the author.

#8.4 dangel on 11 Aug 2006 - 08:20

It's upset people simply because it's obviously pointless pretending this is all MS' fault - metadata is only as good as the original input no matter who makes the software - and this is pure sensationalism. Seems like the only one thinking it's a 'factual' article is you reading through the thread..

#9 Septimus on 10 Aug 2006 - 14:03

Usual FUD.

#10 Kirkburn on 10 Aug 2006 - 14:04

I have learnt absolutely nothing from that article, only that the author seems a bit desperate for something to write :/

#11 acrophile on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:08

I agree, this article is pretty worthless.

#12 excalpius on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:22

it generated hits and therefore ad revenue, so it accomplished what they wanted from it...

(3 replies) #13 hardgiant on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:36

Tags are useless if you have hundreds or thousands of photos. People are not going to tag 1000's of photos.

That Riya.com is pretty cool though. I hope a app comes out with that feature.

#13.1 Daffy_Duck on 10 Aug 2006 - 15:46

Of course not everyone is going to do so but those that want to should at least have access to do so. Once it's done, it's a great convenience to be able to almost instantly find any photo you might be thinking about.

#13.2 Jugalator on 10 Aug 2006 - 19:05

If you can highlight and tag multiple files at once (can you?), I don't think tagging 1000's would be too hard. Unless you want *very* specific tags about the photos, like what's shown in them. What I'd do wouldn't be this, but probably tag them by years (also exists in creation dates, but that's a bit of a volatile attribute and can inadvertely be changed), seasons, places, the company with me, etc. That way you can hopefully select ~40 pictures from a photo shoot and set basically all their tags the same.

To me, this seems to only get as problematic as you want it to.

If you decide to tag the smallest details in photos, sure, then you'll get hell.

#13.3 brianshapiro on 10 Aug 2006 - 23:35

youre also thinking of them already having 1000s of photos. if you get the images one at a time, there is no problem with tagging; its only a little longer than entering file names. renaming 1000s of files is a hassle too.

personally im waiting for a flexible metadata system like in winfs. a lot of the files i have need references for example. a lot of the images are pictures of artwork, and i would like to store things like title, artist, medium, size, location, provenance. and attatch metadata relating to the source of the image [ie a book]. a typical home user for typical home purposes probably would not deal with this much detail. but most home users also have their own projects that theyre working on also. a lot of people still dont do much with their computrs but as computers are becoming more and more a part of our society--i think its a mistake to assume all home users will not want more than looking up movie times in their browser, storing pictures of their cat, and keeping reciples--and design operating systems for that type of user.

i DO thing metadata should be in the Save dialog, or at least a textbox to enter tags.

Last edited by brianshapiro on 11 Aug 2006 - 00:17

#14 ZeroXero on 10 Aug 2006 - 18:43

Yes it would be useful to be able to find them instantly, but sorting them into separate folders instead of one generic 'photos' folder is good enough for me. Metadata aint a huge deal, this article is just a lame excuse to bash Microsoft.

#15 i3iz on 10 Aug 2006 - 23:33

not really sure the point of this article. All i know is 10.4 and spotlight really helped me spend less time sorting files and more time working. hopefully Vista will provide that luxury to MS users.

#16 billyea on 11 Aug 2006 - 00:31

This article assumes Vista should be able to read your mind and find exactly what you're looking for.
And if it was able to do that I would imagine all the privacy advocates whining.

(1 reply) #17 zachdms on 11 Aug 2006 - 01:57

How did this post get accepted as Main news? It's a bad article and hideously misleadingly titled.

Boooooo.

#17.1 Sp3ctranova on 11 Aug 2006 - 10:04

Indeed. While I do agree that having so many editions will cause *some* trainwrecks inside people's heads, this article has nothing to do with it.

All that with facial recognition software is a crock. I can understand how it would be possible in theory, but wouldn't you need essentially a mugshot to give the software any chance of recognizing someone? What about different lighting? Different angles? Multiple people? What if, and I say what if, my pictures don't have anyone in them??
Good idea on paper, but kinda silly.

Neowin.net