Something good can come from Microsoft (10 Viewers)

[Chxta]

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Windows or Bill Gates apoloist, as a matter of fact, I dislike the bugger for the fact that he has ripped all of us off.

But their WMA format is actually great for storing music, I must say better than mp3s.

Subsequent to my appeal
here, I found and bought a nice little piecce of software called Audio Conversin Wizard.

I then converted my entire library of mp3s to WMAs at 80 kbps (no mean feat). I went ahead with the conversion only after I had experimented with 10 different files of varying genres.

Suffice to say, I have no regrets because for the last 4 days listening to the songs, I haven't had any loss of quality to speak of, and best of all, my Hard Drive has magically recovered almost 24 GB of space!

Thankk you WMA!

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

Personally I don't have a problem with harddisk space. If you recouped 24GBs your music library must be of mammoth proportion. I can tell you however that the wmv video format is a frickin nuisance and I hate it as much as I do realvideo.

 

[Chxta]

Well, I hardly keep videos, and when I do, I tend to stick to good old DivX format.
And yes, my music library used to be the largest West of the Niger when I was still a student. I'd have to get down there to find out if it still is, but then again, that would be an unnecessary pissing contest.

 

[ADP Timers]

Ive got about 69 Gb between 14,000 files.
Wonder how much Id save if they all were in WMA format.

 

[Chxta]

++ [ originally posted by ADP Timers ] ++
Ive got about 69 Gb between 14,000 files.
Wonder how much Id save if they all were in WMA format.

 

[Chxta]

And I used to make a lot of noise about my tiny 9000 files!

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

me too about my 2000

 

[Henry]

me too about my 10.....not

my laptop doesn't even have 24 GB :LOL::LOL:

 

[Alucard Belmont]

try reencode your mp3 at 80 kbps, and if you're not very sensitive, you won't notice any loss of quality.

 

[Chxta]

I tried all formats before settling on WMA. They are definitely smaller, and in all honesty, better at smaller bit rates.

 

[Alucard Belmont]

oh well, that's your choice. ^^
for me , wma is just another pathetic attempt from microsoft who doesn't like universal format not coming from their company.

 

[Chxta]

Granted that they don't, and they are real priks, but let's accept something nice when we see it.

 

[Tom]

WMA is a joke of a format, incompatible with most devices that I come across. Long live MP3.

 

[Elnur_E65]

++ [ originally posted by Paolo_Montero ] ++
WMA is a joke of a format, incompatible with most devices that I come across. Long live MP3.

I totally agree.

Now, the quality is the same at 80 kb/s? How is that possible? My ear rejects anything below 192.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

isnt .ogg better ? martin ? anyone ?

 

[Martin]

++ [ originally posted by Don Bes ] ++
isnt .ogg better ? martin ? anyone ?

The thing is that there is something to be said for the amount of data lost with all of these compression algorithms. It's basically a question of having too much stuff in your house when you move, what stuff can you leave behind and be okay with it? All of the formats involve lossy compression and while you can debate about what data is okay to lose and what's the vital part, it comes down to a subjective assessment in the end. When mp3 was new and hot, a lot of people were complaining that at 128kbps they could hear a distinct difference between the original cd and the mp3. To me there never was that difference, I get by with mp3 just fine. But if you're not satisfied, just turn up the bitrate enough to make you happy.

I read a long and thorough study about various formats and surprise surprise it was somewhat inconclusive. In fact the only thing I remember is that ogg is supposed to be best at low bitrates (64kbps). But at 128 and up there isn't that much of a difference. I just wouldn't use wma because it's a Microsoft format, they own it and control it and it's a drag to get special plugins to handle it. Id3 tags are also non-standard (as always with Microsoft), so that's another problem.

And is wma better for filesize? I don't care. mp3 was a breakthrough giving 11x time decrease of filesize over raw wav. I don't care about an extra 30%, 50% or 100% diskspace on mp3s when it makes them harder to use.

Not to mention that every lossy compression algorithm decreases the quality of your media so re-encoding your entirely library to me is both pointless and very time consuming.

 

[Chxta]

Microsoft showed its interest in stopping spyware by buying Giant Antispyware, then releasing the software under its own brand. Now, the company announced it will make the next generation of its browser less vulnerable to drive-by spyware downloads. Internet Explorer 7 (IE7) will not allow the kinds of stealth installs via Web site that many spyware vendors have come to depend on. Unfortunately, this more secure version of IE7 will only be available in Longhorn, Microsoft's next operating system. When Microsoft takes Longhorn to market, it will truthfully be able to say that Longhorn is more secure than prior versions of Windows. Of course, some people contend that the lack of security in IE has contributed greatly to the spyware problem, so it's about time Microsoft clamped down.

On another subject, I've written about the Illinois class-action lawsuit against DirectRevenue before. Spyware Warrior posted DirectRevenue's response, which insists it's never done a stealth install. If you've ever gotten DirectRevenue on your computer, and had know idea where it came from, Spyware Warrior provides a link where you can tell your story. If DirectRevenue's response can be shown as false, its defense will suffer a serious blow.


Hmm, someone has finally realised how crappy IE is...

 

[Martin]

++ [ originally posted by chxta ] ++
Microsoft showed its interest in stopping spyware by buying Giant Antispyware, then releasing the software under its own brand.

Spyware never would have existed if it wasn't for Microsoft.

 

[Dan]

Actually, a question for the computer guys here.

Are viruses really created by just internet people who have nothing better to do then to cause havok? Who makes viruses and spyware, and adware?

I was thinking that it would be a great buisness idea to create a need for something, in essence and your own market. Perhaps all these viruses are made by the anti virus companies themselves, thus creating their own market for their own goods?

Even if they arent, who wants to go into a buisness with me where we do that and get rich?

 

[Chxta]

If I remember correctly there was a scandal in the 90s implicating Norton's then biggest competitor Dr. Solomon in virus creation.