user57

it would be possible to instead of the gpu doing that decompression maybe "gpu acceleration" to create a own decoder the decoder is very less cpu intense but it would for me only for the h.265 codec, then the others still would be missing (what actually is a big disadvantage) not to say that the code then has to done the way so its fits into that mpc-hc player the reason why a lot of these use SSE2 is that SSE2 has a huge range of CPU´s that can use that, its like a common available hardware acceleration some can understand this when using that "windows xp heic" en/decoder the decoder is like instand the encoder can take severial minutes only using x86 commands the encoder using mmx-avx512 can speed to this like 20-100 times faster a other big problem even if you have windows 8 the decompression might not be available still because the grafic card dont support that then it would be a GTX700+ to have the "gpu hardware acceleration", probaly why some have choosen SSE2 instead - relativ compatible - many cpu´s that can do that - significant speed boost so going for a "all codec solution" end up in making a own video player (and all the codecs) ... thats some work to do FFMPEG can be used also as video player - that raise exactly this question FranceBB actually know about this since he is doing things in that direction, but he hasnt said anything here yet

well might be a idea, do 3.5.2 + has useful changes ?

well it wont be that simple with just a why question but what we can hear is that already 3 things are there that xp actually dont have dx10/11 was called out/dxva2 lav dll´s where called out (that actually use vista functions) srw locks (vista api´s) (probaly not the last ones, makes already 3 why´s) this is the "engine problem" i described they take in those engines all the time one being that LAV engine that should solve the things like "here is your mpg file do it" that actually dont decode a codec it use a engine to do so lets say that LAV is not public it already ends here - because if its not published you dont have insight a very common problem of this "engine, script like, copy/paste like coding" problem if LAV is public we had some luck the other alternativ would be to copy a real decoder (that actually has to be applied to that MPC-HC player) that LAV "engine" seems to work to some extend on vista the hardware acceleration can either come from a certain engine too like DX or SSL/other variant of that registers that x265 can do a lot more registers then SSL i dont think MPC-HC is self sufficient if it has to call engines that requie certain operating systems going a such way often end up in "now not being supported" what we certainly actually can say is that the MPC-HC player is not very self independent special with the mpc-hc author decided to choose to use engines having the source code published certainly makes possible to find the related problems it´s a entire player but, something to read and then collectiong all of its problems but here your question is also answered - mpc-hc is not very self independent it was luck that the mpc-hc "engines" still worked on vista what they do not on already on xp it might dont use that win10 engine - probaly it vista dont have the heic image format - but it do use engines

well it might be a guess the problem might resides in that LAV files (what are again something like a engine) (those seem to use vista functions) (actually to find the precise answer i would need to read the entire code of this programm) i did say quite the opsite i said that this "codec engine" is split up into windows 10 (through severial engines/dll´s (what actually made it hard to split it from windows)) not that the math and logic cant work on xp / nor vista i saided the oposite here - and thats what i did with the winxp heic en/decoder a cpu might can take a software calculation hardware based (in fact that is very common because software solutions are useally not that fast the 4:2:0 transfer for example is made via hardware it also can be done by software) the directx (d3d12.dll) or (opengl) do also hardware processing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm-nGCXRZqI as we can see the pixels also look different those GPU can make a billinear upsampling (but this also can be done via software and via that SSE registers) with SSE registers we have to dig a little before there used to be like 90-120 opcodes what solved all kind of possible math questions what you actually could do instead of c / cpp ect.you could write your code in assembly that speeded up code like at least 2 times up to 50 times (and smaller file sizes) the second idea was a new technolegy for speed those then because extra registers and firstly where called MMX MMX up to AVX512 are the same thing but they are extra registers called the XMM0-ZMM31 registers SSE and AVX where just extensions and MMX got named to SSE those are made for speed and have different hardware logic and progress a lot faster (and actually windows 10/11 try to make use of these because the win10/11 engine is very slow) and even tho this are far faster registers win10/11 is still very slow a other thing we should not forget is that vista is a child of win10 there was a big change from kernel version 5.2 to 6.0 (win7 is 6.1), win 8.1 (rather 6.2 (maybe 6.201), and win10 is 8.1 maybe a few new functions and at least in my opinion spyware components vista has those SRW locks win10 still use them , they are often a gap between xp and win10 why the "win10 programm" actually not work win7 was the only win version that tryed to make something better - probaly made its success

well a problem todays programmers follow is that they use engines, very script like code, very much of copy paste often multiple engines like a engine for a engine and a next engine having weird names like "STD" or "dwrite" or "grafic engine" when i looked that hevc (h.265) public code i reconized like countless engines and scripts and this weird c++ 17 c++20 c++23 (that in reality do nothing useful like at all) then you see them copying these codes all around later on i actually saw that h.265 not even use a own encoder/decoder it loads external functions and dll´s via a script like "erm do me C:\123.mpg to C:\123.hevc" that was actually the reason why xp cant decode/encode that codec it is slit up into a windows engine from at least win10 ? maybe 7 i dont care and this dll what also is a engine (that calls a next dll -> and that 1 is doing the real codec) so after seeing that you have like 5 script engines before even 1 things happens (and those trigger like 100 of unneccesary functions older os´s dont have) so digging deeper into the rabit hole what do the real codec is not windows either or ffmpeg its that x265 codec that is doing the real codec the entire real math, logic is there https://x265.readthedocs.io/en/master/releasenotes.html#version-3-5 the math algo functions are in plain c - and in fact dont care about about some weird windows functions that not being done the heic encoder/decoder i made dont need anything of these files - because it do what a encoder should do it use the en/decoder relativ directly a illness we hopefully dont face too much

the forgotten chipset cooler question ? it either go for "chipset cooler" "southbridge cooler" "northbridge cooler" HB-802 Northbriddge Noctua NC-U6 Swiftech BC-MCX159CU Enzotech SLF-40mm https://www.amazon.in/Heatpipes-Radiator-Motherboard-Northbridge-Southbridge/dp/B08NBCFJPT https://de.aliexpress.com/item/4001133383805.html it seems quite hard to find these today, ebay gave very bad search results i think the chipset cooler got quite forgotten, Saxon made a good point if the chipset is getting to hot just get a chipset cooler as Saxon mentioned there are chipsets that can handle more then 1333 mhz/FSB like 1600 or even higher , a 1600 mhz/FSB chipset clocked to 1333 is running underclocked - what actually means it should keep cool

well i looked around his (Intel Pentium E6800 @ 3.33GHz) has a benchmark of: - 1151 your old motherboard was a intel LGA/Socket 775 MB this is a relativ complete list of the 4 core cpus for LGA/Socket 775: arranged by performance test from cpubenchmark.net: for the prices i have looked ebay: Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.00GHz (45 nm) - 2456 - price ~ 33 € Intel Core2 Extreme X9650 @ 3.00GHz (45 nm) - 2394 - price ~ 75 € Intel Core2 Extreme X9750 @ 3.16GHz (?) - 2348 - price ? Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz (45 nm) - 2333 - price ~ 15 € Intel Core2 Extreme X9770 @ 3.20GHz (45 nm) - 2312 - price ? Intel Core2 Extreme Q6850 @ 3.00GHz (65 nm) - 2304 - price ~ 49 € Intel Core2 Quad Q9500 @ 2.83GHz (45 nm) - 2215 - price ~ 15 € Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz (45 nm) - 2178 - price ~ 24 € Intel Core2 Extreme Q6800 @ 2.93GHz (65 nm) - 2145 - price ~ 85 € Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 @ 2.66GHz (45 nm) - 2111 - price ~ 22 € Intel Core2 Quad Q6700 @ 2.66GHz (65 nm) - 2097 - price ~ 6 € Intel Core2 Quad Q9505 @ 2.83GHz (45 nm) - 2084 - price ~ 21 € Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66GHz (45 nm) - 2076 - price ~ 6 € Intel Core2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.50GHz (45 nm) - 1965 - price ~ 6 € Intel Core2 Quad Q8300 @ 2.50GHz (45 nm) - 1885 - price ~ 4 € Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (65 nm) - 1811 - price ~ 8 € Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz (45 nm) - 1774 - price ~ 3 € Intel Pentium E6800 @ 3.33GHz (his) (45 nm) - 1151 - price ~ 12 € unknown charts, but they should be similiar to the the chart list above Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Core 2 Quad Q9700 Core 2 Quad Q6400 Core 2 Quad Q8200s Core 2 Quad Q9450S Core 2 Quad Q9505s Core 2 Quad Q9550s the gap between these cpu´s is not that big and they are cheap to get and have higher benchmarks then yours even in cheap range of 3-33 € ----------------------------------------------- for a grafic card he should go to: https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ and look for a cpu you want to have for the right money then you should take a look if for that card is a working windows xp or not this is done here: https://www.nvidia.com/download/index.aspx --- coolers i already gave a nice list before - "socket 775" --- ram for those Core 2 Quad CPU´s useally are 1333 mhz (the most ram can underclock to this speed) if he keeps that old cpu (Intel Pentium E6800 @ 3.33GHz) he can upgrade his ram speed (he runs underclocked) the right terms is : DDR2-1066 PC2-8500, DDR2 1066, PC2-8500 for ddr3 right term is : DDR3 PC 1066 the most DDR3 rams can be underclocked to 1333 MHZ (PC 1333) im 1066 can make problems in this case he can buy any DDR3 ram speed what is above 1333 mhz

well: aeroadmin but actually i think we have to understand something very important in the past there where a mp3 player called winamp it made like countless upgrades said to make everything better - but actually it was always the same quality of sound at the very best a few bug fixed where needed and for misc maybe a nice gui (what is not neccesary requied its just a view question) what we have to consider if that "new versions" even brought some useful new functions (what they often do not - often even they decrease in quality like more cpu useage and such) it always like "here is a new version we must have this" - what actually might not be needed - it can be needed - but not always and on the other hand we should consider that we might dont have benefits or less benefits (such as just a new grafic interface) if we could we might should ask teamviewer why they even do this like that - they dont seems to have benefits to me just getting their software less compatible (what actually means less possible customers)

Zalmann copper coolers they are pretty good "CNPS9000" "CNPS9500" "CNPS9700" "ZF1125BTH" "CNPS10X" maybe the "zalman ZM-CS1" but for this one you may look if that one fits to the MB others: "ACV Napoleon Socket 775" "Deepcool LGA 775" "Arctic Freezer 13 Co - socket 775" "Sunbeam Core-Contact Freezer LGA 775" " COOLER MASTER Hyper TX2 LGA 775" "Arctic Cooling AC Freezer 7 LGA 775" the "Zalman CNPS9900" i do not recommend, the 9900 is not copper

looks actually very good on reddit they say sometimes it can get laggy - maybe also the reason for this is that xp users useally dont have a fast cpu anymore youtube has changed their codec a bit too, the code got bigger, probaly less efficient too the hardware acceleration might plays a role that screenshot is from a dual core ? we might give xp a chance with similiar hardware a problem of high languages is that they trigger a "common code" such as the SDT too what result in more and more code - that then results in needed more cpu power the SDT is for example only there to provide an easier way to solve programming but that being said - that always leaded to "script like code" and as we know script languages are useally not very fast the more it goes at that direction of a script the less efficient the code get

most things have been said maybe search words "socket 775" and "sata" on an shop your cpu might be underclocked the term "DDR2-800" means 800 mhz FSB FSB is the speed to the RAM your CPU says it works with 1066 mhz (your ram use only 800 mhz of this) there are also DDR2 rams with 1066 mhz, useing DDR2-1066 mhz might be a idea as said DDR3 ram is useally cheaper now then DDR2 since socket 775 is kinda old i think all of that motherboards actually work with xp just look the motherboard description / or look what the driver(s) that are given support as motherboard drivers they useally have a list "win10/winxp/win7/winvista socket 775 is a intel cpu socket there like many cheap 4core/4 thread cpus for cheap prices (your cpu is a 2 core/2 thread) just to make an example here is a Intel Core 2 Quad - v Q6700 for only 6 € https://www.ebay.de/itm/276146665900?hash=item404b9fb9ac:g:7XYAAOSwUQllRsuk&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA8D4emZzQFyg7ESoT4jkFIfMFtXZJBVQIXhF%2BXWjHPjTYD1TCBn4JwKfLg1usJAvF3JYsFSy7wyt1LECip2qzdRsi8gxtCk10q50KZKs%2Fx%2BcZPYgxNEKB39MDQUnZfGkr7LQCaey2c95xTgAWPuVEzIO0Itxx4Sb54760rxHFogZHjUU56mh4iZA0W98dY3PTOBFn5kOe219DLz32FZFdE46hzh8eVcpl0wXWPUQt4j1R8s3m6L38PxRWiA49IBkg1ok%2BOJAfTWk17IhzxUu%2F5wE77Tozlgybvwr5XB%2BT9zx0RdVq4uLTPTxCwA9imwczxA%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR-KBt5SKYw list with 4 core - socket 775 cpu´s: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Intel-Core-Prozessoren#Core_2_Quad RAM: "DDR2-1066 PC2-8500" 20 € for 4 GB RAM https://www.ebay.de/itm/116000436163?epid=113317048&hash=item1b022a2fc3:g:Z~oAAOSwIF9lbllM&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAAwIfSpqcPpBK2Nx4X9I5rtBqAjHL6guqCKQ8LuyWVdJWm43SnYoiYNpMtYUzIyM%2BIbboikCtj2rEvjYee4%2FWR6qLxLRStIaig2dhaFAN7ML7p0MJcGKkJYh7q7lTSJSsNWFeiK8g95etTe5tfrpc%2B%2BURK8XJBmEqI2NcEV1Ekrp9PbF7I6hFV2sLj5ygWz29i8zr%2FR%2F91z7pz%2BqDim0EatMh34FmfujqyRh9sRe9STrjooVYrEh0geGUfkwa8k09Jdg%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR_Tn65SKYw 7 € (but need 4 slots - some boards only have 2) https://www.ebay.de/itm/115984941065?hash=item1b013dc009:g:LtEAAOSwxI1lXM10&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4HZKG2TS64bjlKH0w8RMhWA1AXE5iqSLmHZmpWoYC82D%2B288ObEDsvNzEI0DJ%2F6kwECccmjiljypvy0lY5xde%2F6bfrxEodV0mS7xUPz8LRSWaVZt6gwTUZf7GstpF9qWlBR4Fn%2B8QP9ZXsY%2FvdTRk3hGb4%2FE4GX48Ct1kKRj8QMjxt8P7LV6ZgBTh2hca44Zpjx4oXTlyzeyf8EEjvM517rvvXpQz9AL4JvMFxhRvlRm6Jm5KZXdNgDBWv3VeIusVa5pBTilfGaG0NFUZxJR%2BstrvEz01uC6mRWkgGbMTqhF%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR7jKu5WKYw DDR3 is 9 € for 4 GB ram https://www.ebay.de/itm/362559898619?hash=item546a4103fb%3Ag%3AoBMAAOSwby9gC15q&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4LY3lKP0w0WooietvXE%2BOht58Xt0DNnW9GkZvNS0e2WUfOEL6kDGUQftKOholDnoiqKkrWwZw0OnZkY523mWXLS3gmfru6J%2F%2BfimURg0lvormJuPEHx55R4zQ8rV%2FKZs0plJ69BKhTsommBD7%2BHq3Dv0gK8plTjB0IdaWaPDRa9R7dCACSDByiyfb6nEtUEJLUO%2Fx0KkvvLyegpYrHkfi0%2B8mCIkRy8NkfMLMKe5tWA4cD2Dg5tWgViZ2e%2Fko7ovC%2BHiE9VPtaCY86KPQ5to%2BxROaFVKxE8bbLlnZlghB5nI%7Ctkp%3ABFBMwK2RlYpj&LH_BIN=1 useally it is also possible to underclock the RAM like 1333 mhz ram useally can run at 1066 mhz (that sometimes can have problems but you better be certain to get the intel before) grafic card: nvidia grafic card hard to say but look that a driver for windows xp is available that is done here: https://www.nvidia.com/download/index.aspx the second thing you have to look at is what slot your motherboard has (AGP/PCIE - some have only AGP some only PCIe , some even have AGP and PCIe)

well i was trying those who actually say they work in windows xp i tryed (chasys draw ies converter) 1: checking dependencies (heif/avif/avci) 2: video codec not found HEIC, common (avif, and av1) when doing the convert it dont create the file (it created an empty folder) prgramm (pixillion) calls up http://www.nch.com.au/components/libheif.exe i had to download that one, because IE6 in xp cant download that file but after that i installed libheif.exe but the converter just hangs up do i make something wrong ? both of these opened in windows xp but and installed

Intellectual Property Rights: A granted patent is valid for a maximum of 20 years, starting on the day after registration.

the EIP is for instructions (instrution pointer) (and useally is connected to a segment called the CS segment (or Code Segment) but a executable is not only made of instructions (buffers for example or just "data", some can see this with a PE editor the .text section is for code) using just 2 segments would already double the amount of memory (the segments in 32 bit proctected mode are 16 bit of in hex FFFF) the other segment is called the DS (or Data Segment) 16 bit means 65536 possible segments (this time including segment 0 or the 0) CS segment + eip = 16 bit * 32 bit = 65536 GB of ram (4 GB * 65536) (4 gb = 4´294´967´295) (4 gb * 65536 = 262144) DS segment + eip = 16 bit * 32 bit = 65536 GB of ram (4 GB * 65536) ES, GS could also be of interests FS is used by MS (but only 2 numbers/vars) (different approach : 4294967296 (32 bit size limit) * 65536 / 8 / 1024 (kb) / 1024 (mb) / 1024 (gb) = gb) 4294967296 * 65536 = 281470681743360 (again thats 1 segment only) 281470681743360 / 8 (byte) / 1024 (kb) / 1024 (mb) / 1024 (gb) = 32767 gb (this one is precise, not skipping some parts of the calculation or bits nor the 0) depending on how we calculate we either can use the / 8 for byte or / 1024 ( next kbit skip) or even the the classical / 1000 steps ------------------------------------------------------------------ an example for 16 bit (segments) that was a common trick in 16 bit 16 bits are FFFF and FFFF is 65535 (without the 0, aka you have to +1 that for the 0) what people might have heared 16 bit can use 1 megabyte of ram instead of 64k/65k ram (speacing k not kbit) thats because in 16 bit segments are used 16 bit have a segment register of 4 bits that makes 20 bit and 20 bit are ? we know 1048575 aka 1 MB (if we include the 0 then +1 = 1048576) thats also why they say "k not kbit" 1 M would be the right term (or it would be / 8 (byte) / 1024 (kb) / 1024 (mb)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte -------------------------------------------- here comes the trick point now we have PDE´s and PTE´s to simplify i will discuss that a bit easier the PTE is a relation to the direct physical memory as you guys might know we have severial executables (or processes running) in windows / in an operating system those used to start at 00400000 (for all processes) but how can it be that the same EIP for every process is 00400000 would that not just execute always the same programm or all at once ? right that dont make sence (if you said has a own address space yes but how can it lead to same memory address?) the reason is the PTE, that PTE holds the relation to a physical page thats why on every process change (the PDBR page directory base register) that PTE´s can address/point to a different memory (also the ones above 4 gb) and haveing all the time the same EIP at 00400000 /start of program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_table the combination of 2 times 10 bits make only 20 bit (PDE and PTE) however here pages are the size of 4096 bit / 1 page (you are right this is 4 GB again (20 bits * 4096 = FFFFF(1048576) * 4096 = 4 GB) but here is the tricky part now the /PSE makes this 4 k (4096 bit) page to a 4 MB page (2 MB for /PAE) t g m k b taking that route for 2 mb (2097150) * FFFFF (20 bit possibilies (1048576) ) = 2´199´019´061´250 and that can be done just by turning the PSE flag on (and therefore point to higher memory then 4 gb) therefore XP / 32 bit can address with simple calculation / 1000 (kb) / 1000 (mb) / 1000 (gb) (often done with harddrives) = 2199 GB the real one however is / 8 / 1024 / 1024 / 1024 = 255 GByte (the non bit calculation or however i should call that) and that´s only per 1 process/executable, and even only 1 segment ! - because again the PDBR can be changed by process/executable using 1 segment already gives 65536 times that 2199 / 255 GB and each process can be addressed with different PTE´s (also the physical pages above 4 gb) thats a win win situation ------------------------------ Chappells reasoning is good in sence of that license detection, we cant see what windows really do here ... he later then explains that the license sets the PAE flag (but here i saw that with that 2 times 9 bit limit on the os wikipedia website) in sence of "hdd" (today ssd)) as ram im chappels meaning , you actually can use a SSD or HDD as memory and thats nothing new even (if memory is not needed unchange that (for example a level of a game)) and just use that ram again .... or store it in the harddrive - also possible in sence of DMA i dont know what chappels know here i cant talk about that i just dont know in sence of MMPFN i also dont know about this, it sounds interesting what chappell write here but maybe that MMPFN (from microsoft) always had the possibility - or maybe just it dont - i really cant tell one more word about /PAE the wiki page says for PAE its 2 times 9 bits that makes 18 bits and having only 2 mb page (that results in less ram what is possible with the normal paging, but more then 4gb still (around 137 gb thats near to chappels 128 gb) /PAE was rather of the NX flag nature (what is a data protection mechanism) if im wrong im happly being corrected https://msfn.org/board/topic/130001-32bit-windows-not-usingseeing-all-4gb-ram/

j7n is absolutly right that it also degraded actually the orginal file with same size isnt provided by wikipedia but what i still can tell is that even then it degraded a lot lower then the other heic file (even double compressed) because i didnt even have the orginal file, and compressed the entire image to around the same filesize then the image still had more pixels preserved even when 2 compressions happend, even then we can see the improvment and even when put to a higher compression the encoder from msfn still passed the other heic file (for this i actually made a even smaller filesize, what is around compared to the target filesize) the places are: 1 heic from msfn 2 heic from wikipedia heic 3 jxr - preserved the image better then the others 4 jpeg 2000 - yes preserved more pixels then normal jpeg 5 normal jpg - huge losses nowhere near the other compressions it can be seen on the lamp, that window, or from the "tree top left to the white car" the heic from wikipedia has lost that window split, jxr also lost that texture that can be tested by somebody just looking the lamp/or that window at the wikipedia file then testing if that texture was preserved with the msfn heic file (also trying different filesizes can be tryed) many image encoders actually have that "recompression problem", that they transfer to a RGB image and then recompress the image again. sometimes the differens ist not well seen but actually the image itself is not changed like in a RGB image for compression often a other approach is done: it just call the encoder (with the same settings) again ... what useally means again a few losses i wonder why Francebb hasnt answered yet he might actually have a h.266 image

well there are some websites that offer a decoder for that heif format https://strukturag.github.io/libheif/ is that one working for you ? but encoders are rare for now, special a encoder for winxp dont exits, and having hardware acceleration and this encoder use the best settings, best code, and dont go down the road any time to create a .heic file as everybody can see normal jpg, jpeg 2000 and jpeg jxr are beaten up even the heif file from wiki is beaten up

a dark background could actually be for energy saveing, aka it opens the question again if win10/11 is a smartphone software screensavers do use dark parts, because dark parts dont consume power, they simple not emmiting light an exception would be just to block the emmiting light, but that is normally not done lots of dark parts = less emmiting lights lot of bright parts = more emmiting lights actually a grafic interface that is dark could be remade for xp or even back to win95 here is a example of how a different gui style looked in windows 95

well it interhents from hevc (h.265) then the idea seems to be .HEIF (High Efficiency Image File Format) what can store multiple formats (such as jpg2000) but jpg2000 is not a new file format so the new files that are actually encoded with the new encoder are called .heic so .heic is what we want (High Efficiency Image Coding)

as promised .heic is brought to windows xp closing the gap for xp having a very new image encoder and decoder (and nothing using any other modules, engines or weird operating system dependencys) the resulting image is even better then the one on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format reason behind this i only choosed the best options, better internal code, better decisions, and disregarded code that decreases image quality ----- APP "WinXP HEVC/HEIF/H265 Image En/Decoder explained" The Encoder: Encode By Filename: allow you to select a file this heic encoder supports : .jpg, .png, .tif and .y4m (raw YUV format) the encoder make a .heic file from the choosen file Encoder By Folder: this read "Encode By Folder Searched Format Ending" if you have choosen jpg then it will search all .jpg files in the choosen folder actual chooses: png, jpg, tif or y4m if the entry was jpg then the encoder will encode all .jpg files in that folder to .heic this by folder was made so you can encode many files instead of always 1 file, while going to drink some coffee Encoder Complexity: "placebo" is the best setting here i actually dont see any reason to choose a different setting that actually only results in less image quality (best: 1: placebo, 2: veryslow, 3: slower, 4: slow, 5: medium, 6: fast , 7: faster, 8: veryfast, 9: superfast, 10 ultrafast) why we should we set a setting that decreases image quality? (basicly i not even wanted to have this box) (1 word about this, placebo use the best compressions tricks therefore the time is longer(more code = more time), the others try to speed up this (and leave out some functions, tricks, try to end the encoder before it really was done), it might not always increase the image - but you can be certain you got the best option (and the highest amount of pixels possible) also it can happen that that your image might not challenged the encoder for its maximum, then a "faster" setting dont have that much difference, still it can result in less amount of pixels, with placebo you are certain to get the maximum it really raise questions to use the others, you can make a big jpg file and you may dont see the image difference that much - but why ? are we making a jpg or are we making a high efficienty image encoder ?) Hardware Acceleration: makes use of hardware registers such as MMX, SSE and AVX this speed up encoding time a lot since the encoder is very complex image encoding can take time hardware acceleration makes encoding a lot faster notice: depending on your cpu power since the encoder is complex can take some time (if so keep a look "Encoded Image Files") (MMX, SSE and AVX are speed hardware registers they are between 64 and 512 bits wide, depending what one is available (yes in 32 bit)) Quality: controls the filesize of your .heic file, the lower this number the smaller your .heic file lossless: that option is not very useful as the real question is how well the pixels was preserved making a compression (we actually dont make a raw format - we make a compression) so better set this option to 0 (it dont make a real compression) Tuner: this increases the image quality even further good settings are psnr and ssim - the other settings only decrease image quality the tuner increased the amount of pixels, as said before its a extra function to improve more pixels more code = more time - this makes a good example - if you leave out many of good possible tricks you might end up in a less fancy picture ----- The Decoder: you have to choose a output image format for your .heic file (we have png, tif, jpg, and y4m) png compression level (0-9): png compression level -1 actually represents png compression 6 i actually dont see a well reason to have -1 as option, since -1 just represent compression 6 (you can try this out by looking at the filesize of the resulting .png file (try -1 and 6 they are the same) -1 actually is called png_default_compression what then is defined as 6 0 means no compression (this is good to make a compare how well your .heic file was preserved) increasing values make higher compressions losing more pixels (again 6 is equal to -1) 0 is the best png compression regarding pixels going from 0 to higher numbers decreasing image quality (higher numbers create smaller file sizes) (and make a compromise about pixels and compression) png is said to be lossless, but i only know for certain if option 0 is selected that it is a lossless copy. (what makes a 1:1 copy of the .heic file as it exits) jpg compression (1-100): nothing much to say here the higher this value the better the resulting jpg image notice higher values also cause bigger filze sizes 90 seems to be a good choice Decode By Filename: this button actually reads out "Decode In Format" why ? because if you select a .heic file the decoder has to know the decompression format valid formats are: png , jpg , y4m, tif Decode By Folder: reads out "Decode In Format" then the selected folder is searched for .heic files and then the decoder decodes all .heic files into the image format you set in "Decode In Format" Multi-pass: this makes a second image and compare the result with the first image - according to information this also improves image quality a bit (the h.266 says for example 1-3 % in average, then something about maybe sometimes more) Create A Subfolder: this allow you to put a folder where the WinXP HEIC en/decoder put its files it trys to create that folder, but you also can create that folder yourself this also avoid the name problem when controlling with "By Folder" ------ rumors say .heic is the best image encoder at the moment as we know .heic passes jpg, jpg2000 and jxr (jpeg xr) what we can see in the wikipedia site for heic maybe .heic also other jpg formats like the jxs format (what is rather speed orientated then quality orientated) there are some (jpeg xt, jpeg xs, jpeg ls, jpeg xe, jpeg xl) (https://jpeg.org) if someone wants to makes the compares the h.266 by frauenhofer or jxl would be candidates to try or even the others ... i actually never seen a h.266 frauenhofer image yet (updated the links): https://www.file-upload.net/download-15405155/WinXP_HEIC.zip.html https://www.mediafire.com/file/g9t94vi3dr4gycl/WinXP_HEIC.zip/file

when vc++ 2022 and windows 11 SDK is reached, and even win10 stuff isnt working anymore that means windtows xp passed to that win11 time in sence of compiler however why i have doubts if it was worth to spend the time for this project according to dibya no one actually used it it took many time to fix all of the problems and also i lost many time related to the hevc encoder, by now (everybody wants something from me, however there is not that much space for a different code on such very big projects) i really hope it was worth that dibya had a different idea how this work, something "super simple" "something super fast", i always told him no it is not that simple to add all these codes, it are 173 projects and such, and we need more of compiles ect. still however i fully explainded how to add the code now, i think he should be able to add the code by himself now at least he brought the requied patience once he realized what has to be done

francebb is back ? i thought last time he left us and said he should not look back anymore well if there is a limit set that should be able to be changed by the way we recently talked about francebb and that this might solve his problem, he wasnt there to see whats going on: https://github.com/reactos/reactos/commit/66dead68ec780a4a40c5b7d31f57e3646979a402 its from reactos just look this line: /* The forced speed, 10Mb, 100Mb, gigabit, 2.5Gb, 10GbE. */

i can not join the project fully yet - i have a long route to go still in the past i set the .heic picture encoder as main next needed target according to information around its probaly the best image encoder available at the moment, only other candidates are the frauenhofer h266 and jxl (the other jpg like JPEG XT, JPEG XS), dont have maximum image quality as their target goal but belive me the settings and how i made the code should be very competitiv even with those (edit deleting old links) this a pre type not released but it can convert a jpg or png to .heic (dont use other formats for now) the best is to use a lossless .png file (made from a raw file or lossless bitmap) .png is said to compress an image lossless (without losing any pixels) when compression level is set to lossless (aka 0 ) compression_level = -1 means default_png_compression level (PNG_Z_DEFAULT_COMPRESSION) what is the same as png_compression_level 6 so the compression levels go from 0-9 (0 is lossless) increasing that value set higher compressions (aka more losses in pixels) -1 actually dont exits it is just equal to 6, -1 dont mean a better compression then 0 would be the first choose if no pixel losses are wanted https://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libpng12.png.set.compression.level.1.html 1 picture of setting png compression levels in other programms (here 9): https://i.stack.imgur.com/NLfvP.png 0 being lossless for png and 9 being png highest compression aka smallest filesize the heic encoder settings : placebo = for best image quality (faster settings mean less image quality) tuner = something to tune quality even more PSNR and SSIM are good quality = control filesize of your .heic file lossless = lossless but not very useful - dont use this one (actually we want a good compression for a raw file, not a raw file itself - and its about how many pixels remained in the compression) hardware acceleration = make use of hardware registers such as mmx, sse, and avx (choose by filename) select a .jpg or .png file and the encoder encodes a single file to .heic (choose by folder) checks the ending in (format ending) in the selected folder and compress all files that have that ending for .jpg it is a good idea to make a big jpg file , big file size jpg means more pixels we like that

oh yes the idea of removing the SSE instructions by intel is a such thing intel probaly knows that SSE is a good competitor that actally can solve the compressions fast to get rid of those and programming their AVX512 they can force you to a new computer/cpu and those intel 12 gen + are spywares - and benefits systems or mechnism that support such idea´s they just make certain the computer is safe against you - for microsoft thats the idea - intel and microsoft seems to be brothers in arms in this question if SSE would stay there would be a valid good solution for intense compression it it also backwards compatible what avx512 is not microsoft creating a new monopoly ? microsoft is well known for lawsuits in that direction only one of many many many cases: https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/12/microsoft-faces-private-antitrust-lawsuit-over-68-7b-purchase-of-activision-blizzard/ there had to be something wrong with the "deal"

exactly and people always said: that will not happen intel will never support a such mechanism they dont just change their policies / terms of use to something more bad -> even more is possible now intel even removes SSE commands they removed the 16 and 32 bit modes too - what is wrong using a old hardware with a new cpu ? or also "security is always good" yes against yourself - and making the software secure against you for microsoft - security against you - security for microsoft and thats also why they stopped the support for this version there was nothing wrong with it

well here is the v16.0.5 https://www.file-upload.net/download-15158304/LLVM_XP_v16.zip.html it contains also some screenshots