Skip to main content
Topic: [USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA? (Read 4066 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Split from here.[/span]

thre are many points to consider against going to it:

1) windows only
2) propietary
3) no hardware support
3) not better than any other that don't have 1/2/3 problems.

why would you use WMA?

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #1
Quote
why would you use WMA?


Quote
Early results have been quite promising to my ears.


No need to get philosofical...

(edit: messed up the quotes)
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #2
Quote
Quote
why would you use WMA?


Quote
Early results have been quite promising to my ears.


No need to get philosofical...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=267430"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

that doesn't means that other option wouldn't sound better to him ... is not filosoficall, is moral

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #3
Quote
thre are many points to consider against going to it:

1) windows only
2) propietary
3) no hardware support
3) not better than any other that don't have 1/2/3 problems.

why would you use WMA?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Unfortunately these are outdated points you've got there. Or alteast they aren't elaborated much.

1) windows only

WMA can be played in Windows, Macintosh (you guys got WMP9 for MacOSX) and also in Linux (you got mplayer). I suggest you to read this article too: Turbolinux Announces First Linux Support for Microsoft Windows Media Format - [a href="http://www.turbolinux.com/news/040427.html]http://www.turbolinux.com/news/040427.html[/url]

2) propietary

Well, not only MS Windows Media but also RealNetworks. So MS is not the only company. Most of the average users are not badly affected by this anyway.

3) no hardware support

I am surprised that you haven't heard of any hardware support for Windows Media.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...re/default.aspx

why would you use WMA?
Personal choice.

There are better points now. Doube blind tests prove that WMA9 is not the best compression method to deliver highest quality for a given bitrate. WMA9PRO - (although it could compete with AAC) still not the best.

Cheers,
McoreD

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #4
Oh, no. Here we go to the same old zealotry wars.

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #5
Quote
Oh, no. Here we go to the same old zealotry wars.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=267550"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Don't worry rjamorim. I am fed up of these too.

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #6
Quote
Don't worry rjamorim. I am fed up of these too.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=267557"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I completely understand your situation.

I bet the thread starter will soon get fed of them too...

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #7
Quote
3) no hardware support

I am surprised that you haven't heard of any hardware support for Windows Media.


The poster was referring to WMA Pro. There is no hardware support for WMA Pro. Only WMA.

Qualified response: I have nothing against WMA. I happen to like their strategy as opposed to Apple's. Let any hardware or software manufacturer use their codec. Too bad their codec (plain old WMA, not the Pro version) just plain stinks. Especially at 128, which is what most music stores sell it at. Even at 160 it is quite bad. I'll stick with Apple's AAC.

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #8
Quote
1) windows only

WMA can be played in Windows, Macintosh (you guys got WMP9 for MacOSX) and also in Linux (you got mplayer). I suggest you to read this article too: Turbolinux Announces First Linux Support for Microsoft Windows Media Format - http://www.turbolinux.com/news/040427.html

can i play it on my amiga? on OS/2? on Solaris? On Gentoo? On Debian?

Quote
2) propietary

Well, not only MS Windows Media but also RealNetworks. So MS is not the only company. Most of the average users are not badly affected by this anyway.

Yes, but not vorbis, and the especifications to AAC are available to look at ... are WMPRO open?

Quote
3) no hardware support

I am surprised that you haven't heard of any hardware support for Windows Media.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...re/default.aspx

how many WMAPro players do you have?

Quote
why would you use WMA?
Personal choice.


What do you think would happen if MS wins the "codecs war" ... let me give you 2 options:

1) it continues to spends millons of dollars trying to improve it even if they have no competition
2) they don't spend a dollar on it, instead, they continue to bloat the Media Player, and ad more DRM restrictions

if you are not sure, just think a little about IE (and DOS at the time) ...

is not zealotry or just plain MS hate, is just that they have done so bad to the IT industry in general (Borland, Lotus, Wordperfect, Netscape, Novell, Digital Research, do i continue?) that for me to choose a MS product is because:

1) is the ONLY solution available
2) if there are other solutions it has to be at least twice as better
3) i have to be mandated by employee

so the points loook still valid from my point of view.

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #9
Quote
thre are many points to consider against going to it:

1) windows only
2) propietary
3) no hardware support
3) not better than any other that don't have 1/2/3 problems.

why would you use WMA?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=267336"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The original poster didn't asked for advice or opinion about WMApro, but for practical solutions. Your post is totally useless, and sounds like pure trolling.

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #10
Quote
What do you think would happen if MS wins the "codecs war" ... let me give you 2 options:

What makes you think Microsoft will ever win the codecs "war"? Is there even such a thing? Don't exaggerate needlessly. On the video front both AVC (MPEG) and VC-1 (MS) both are standardized for HD-DVD and Blu-ray IIRC. So if there was a competition its a draw. Not unimaginable something similar will happen for audio. And that is even if people ever get tired of MP3.

That you even dare to use the word "war" for something silly like this, only shows that you are seeing things completely out of proportion. WW1 and 2 , that were wars. Please dont be stupid.

Quote
so the points loook still valid from my point of view.


You never had a point. The guy was asking for ways to do batch-encodes with WMA. Not for everyones personal opinion about Microsoft and WMA. How did you contribute to helping him with that? Not at all, I'd say.

Not everyone cares about how "great" OS software is or how "great" open-standards are. If you have trouble understanding that, then maybe you should just close your eyes when you see such a thread.

(edit: spelling)
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #11
Quote from: stephanV,Jan 24 2005, 11:00 AM

What makes you think Microsoft will ever win the codecs "war"? Is there even such a thing? Don't exaggerate needlessly. On the video front both AVC (MPEG) and VC-1 (MS) both are standardized for HD-DVD and Blu-ray IIRC. So if there was a competition its a draw. Not unimaginable something similar will happen for audio. And that is even if people ever get tired of MP3.

i'm using the term "codecs war", paraphrasing the "browsers war" ... and how can they win them? because user ignorance. i have started to see many people that just use WMP to rip, and they don't even diferentiate MP3 from WMA ... they even call them mp3 ... also, how do you thin microsoft has won most of their battles?

Quote from: stephanV,Jan 24 2005, 11:00 AM

That you even dare to use the word "war" for something silly like this, only shows that you are seeing things completely out of proportion. WW1 and 2 , that were wars. Please dont be stupid.

stupid is a very ofensive word, and very paradoxical from a person that didn't find out why i was using the term "codecs war".

Quote from: stephanV,Jan 24 2005, 11:00 AM

You never had a point. The guy was asking for ways to do batch-encodes with WMA. Not for everyones personal opinion about Microsoft and WMA. How did you contribute to helping him with that? Not at all, I'd say.
Quote from: stephanV,Jan 24 2005, 11:00 AM

yeah, right ... this is how microchot won the browser wars ... "friends don't let friends use evil products".


Quote from: stephanV,Jan 24 2005, 11:00 AM

Not everyone cares about how "great" OS software is or how "great" open-standards are. If you have trouble understanding that, then maybe you should just close your eyes when you see such a thread.

you probably don't. and on the same way, you should shut your mouth when you see responces like mine.

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #12
I think this BS should be slum dunked in the recycle bin.

 

[USELESS/FLAME] Why would you use WMA?

Reply #13
Quote
i'm using the term "codecs war", paraphrasing the "browsers war" ... and how can they win them? because user ignorance. i have started to see many people that just use WMP to rip, and they don't even diferentiate MP3 from WMA ... they even call them mp3 ... also, how do you thin microsoft has won most of their battles?

Quote
stupid is a very ofensive word, and very paradoxical from a person that didn't find out why i was using the term "codecs war".


I dont need to find out why or what your reasons were. The use of the word is completely unappropiate.

Quote
yeah, right ... this is how microchot won the browser wars ... "friends don't let friends use evil products".

ahaha, now it is "evil". you have serious issues. its just audio, there are bigger things in life to get that worked up about. so again, i ask you: how did you help him in doing what he wants?

Quote
you probably don't. and on the same way, you should shut your mouth when you see responces like mine.

No i should not... maybe i want to know know how to do this too, but then i find you cluttering the thread with silly, irrelevant opinions. Since there is no ban on discussing how to use WMA on this forum, I strongly suggest you discuss Microsoft business tactics or the "evilness" of WMA in appropiate threads. Not when someone asks a question HOW to use it. You already lost the "battle" then anyway.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019