Okay, so what does that prove? It proves that one programme can compress a PNG smaller than a GIF.
Quote from PNG Homepage: PNG was designed to be the successor to the once-popular GIF format, which became decidedly less popular right around New Year's Day 1995 when Unisys and CompuServe suddenly announced that programs implementing GIF would require royalties...
Okay so we have some greedy corporate entities that sought to make a fast quid from the so-called "Once popular" GIF format. However when I visited ten popular Australian websites and ten popular US websites I found that GIF was still the overall favourite for the webmasters of every single one of those sites with photos being in JPG format:
NineMSN - GIF
Microsoft - GIF
Google (AU) - GIF
Hotmail - GIF
Yahoo (AU) - GIF
MSN - GIF
Google (Int) - GIF
Yahoo (Int) - GIF
News Corp (AU) - GIF
Commonwealth Bank - JPG
Thanks to Redsheriff's stupid automatic redirection system I can't find the top ten US sites so I'll guess some.
CNN - GIF
MSNBC - GIF
Altavista - GIF
General Motors - GIF
C Net - GIF
US Stock Exchange - GIF
CBS TV Network - JPG
Ford - GIF
RCA - GIF
RIAA - GIF
And the PNG home page has the audacity to call GIF "once popular"?
*Watchdog rolls on the floor laughing.
And how do they explain the claim that GIF became "less popular" due to the royalties slapped on programmes that recognise the GIF format? Quite plainly they can't. Why? Because every imaging editor that I know of, from the ordinary upto the industry standard all recognise and manipulate GIF just as they do PNG, BMP, JPG, TIFF and many others. Why? because that's what people want.
