Customizer XP v1.7.9 Final
Posted by Steven Parker on 10 April 2002 - 18:50 · 4 comments & 387 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by s1zeRo on 10 Apr 2002 - 19:40
- didnt this come out some time ago??
ahh the last one was 1.7.9 build 1000
this one is 1.7.9 final
Last edited by 3122 on 10 Apr 2002 - 19:43
-
#2 Posted by SlowNeasy on 10 Apr 2002 - 20:37
- Time for v1.8 build 0001. Man I'm looking forward to all those new features!
-
#3 Posted by mariusu on 11 Apr 2002 - 09:42
- customizer xp is a great program...
-
#4 Posted by DJ^TuRKiYe on 12 Apr 2002 - 10:33
- yea its not bad, but where da hell do i put my reg info
[edit] w00t w00t 300th post 
[/edit]
Last edited by 3830 on 12 Apr 2002 - 10:35
What's new in version 1.7.9 Final?
MPEG-4 is the successor to MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, technologies behind the MP3 audio explosion. Like its predecessors, MPEG-4 comprises audio and video technologies that condense large digital files into smaller ones that can be easily transferred via the Web.
On2 and a raft of media companies have been arguing against a controversial licensing plan for MPEG-4 proposed by a licensing body called MPEG LA, which represents 18 patent holders. The plan would require licensees to pay 25 cents for each MPEG-4 product such as an encoder or decoder, with fees capped at $1 million a year. It also suggests charging a per-minute use fee equivalent to 2 cents for each hour encoded in the format, including content on DVDs.
On2's attack comes as the company seeks endorsements for its own competing format. Two months ago, the company proposed that the Internet Streaming Media Alliance (ISMA)--a standards body made up of tech heavyweights including Apple Computer and Cisco Systems--make its video-compression technology an alternative to MPEG-4.
On2 is "concerned that if MPEG-4 becomes a universally adopted format that might freeze (the company) out of the market," said Ross Rubin, senior analyst at Jupiter Media Metrix.
According to On2's paper to the Justice Department, the company is worried about the legal issues surrounding MPEG-4 rather than the technology itself. The company said it believes that for MPEG-4 to become a standard, MPEG LA will need approval by the Justice Department for its patent pool.
"The Justice Department has never granted MPEG-4 any right to pool patents, and therefore MPEG-LA has no legal right to charge licenses of this patent," said On2 Chief Executive Douglas McIntyre. "We are not saying the patents are invalid (or the companies that own the patents) shouldn't be able to license patents. We're just simply saying that (MPEG LA) shouldn't be able to do this as a group. It's fine if they want to license this stuff individually."
MPEG LA, however, disputes On2's claims, saying the company is "wrong on both the facts and the law." Larry Horn, vice president of licensing and business development at MPEG LA, said a licensing program has not been finalized and that the group is working with companies in the industry to develop it. Horn added that a business review letter is not required by the Justice Department.
"The (position) paper continues to demonstrate that On2 knows very little about what's happening with MPEG-4," Horn said. "It shows they know very little about the antitrust laws, and they are way off base."
The use of patented technology to create a standard has raised controversy in the past.
Last year, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)--a group mainly including technology companies, researchers and government organizations--introduced a proposal that would let companies enforce patents and charge royalties for technologies used in W3C standards. Web developers and supporters of open-source software development criticized the proposal, saying it would be an obstacle to innovation and would create legal challenges for developers.