Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bartleyd

  • Rank
  1. bartleyd

    EMC 9 blows up Windows

    Ok, I'll admit to letting one more hook get me. Since a couple of you seem to cherish what is viewed as direct let me respond in kind. I hijacked nothing, I responded directly to the content of a post previous to mine. If someone hijacked, it was that poster who took it to another topic. So, basically, you can stuff the arrogant attitude. As far as the "prove it, I don't see that anywhere today" garbage, you all know websites are dynamic and change over time to meet the current status. I bought EMC 8 when it was new, BEFORE there was an update, so get a clue Dick Tracy. Again, stuff it. There are a great many more user community forums dealing with Nero than there are Roxio. That is what this is supposed to cover for. Additionally, when I've emailed Nero support I have received an answer within 24 hours, everytime! That can not be said here. None the less, I still supported and liked Roxio, until I came to these forums. When I did a search for Roxio forums I came back with 2, one of them being this one. When I did a search for Nero forums the first 3 pages were different forums, both regional and widespread. Again, stuff it. Lastly, I had another one of the 2-3 of you who relish belittling others with your mastery chastize me in another thread for their perception that I was saying they could not "editorialize". I never said that, but I can't help but wonder where is that person now with that high ideal to chastize you for tasking me for editorializing. Is there a common pattern here? Hmmm. In closing, too darn bad if you don't like having your Guruness questioned. Your communication skllls are less than helpful in many posts. Thanks for confirming exactly why I did not want to post my question previously. BTW, I did have someone talk with me in PM, they were very helpful and I gained a lot from it. That is how I expected it to work, not this kind of rubbish. Another one discussed our disagreement on approach with helping in a PM, I respect that. I have seen many other helpful posts here. My issue is with a very small clique that seems to post just for the sake of posting and proving their Guruness over the rest of the peaens. As far as I am concerned this discussion is over, those who I was referring to are clearly beyond seeing the point and it further detracts from the purpose here. For Roxio's eyes, and I know they have seen others say this for the same reason, you have lost me as a Roxio customer, solely due to the attitude of a small but high quantity posting few here in the forums. Unfortunately, my options are limited for seeking help in a forum setting with Roxio and this location is my only real choice for help. You might want to re-evaluate. It's a shame, I like many features of your software, but not being able to get or give useful help without risking getting bashed at to such a frequent degree is not worth those features.
  2. bartleyd

    EMC 9 blows up Windows

    Actually, the term I used was "towering over' and it was a reference to an unfortunate tendancy by a very small number of people in these forums to talk to others like they are idiots. However, on the flip side I originally came here looking for some answers, searched and found some so no need to post. Had one that I could not find, wanted to post the question, not for Roxio support, but for other users who might have an answer. I hesitated for a week, specifically because I debated whether I wanted to risk getting talked down to by that small number of people simply for asking a question of the community. This relates to posts that are not designed to help with a question, but seem designed solely to put someone down for asking the question or for expressing frustration at trying to get something to work. I wondered why someone would post in response to a question without even offering the slightest answer to the question, just a general "You are stupid for doing that" type of response. Clearly the forums here are not serving their purpose for a great many people or there would not be so many arguments about attitude going on in them. I apologize to all for allowing myself to get sucked in to someone else's muck and mire. I just wanted to ask a question originally and this was the outcome. Roxio, you might want to revisit your forums and see what needs to be done to get them back on track. Personally, I will just butt out as there is no real benefit to any of this for me or anyone else. Back to Nero where I can get answers when needed without getting drawn in to this kind of nonsense.
  3. bartleyd

    EMC 9 blows up Windows

    You must remember, what it says now and what it said then are not necessarily the same. Vista is a good example of this concept. BTW - It was the software, that I downloaded, itself in the start window that said there was an update available, do you wish to update? That update was 8.05, my version was 8.00. I said yes. The fact that they now offer the updated version for download is not a surprise, that would be the correct thing to do since it is easily chaged, unlike printing CDs.
  4. bartleyd

    EMC 9 blows up Windows

    You are incorrect. I bought the download version for EMC8 and about 6 weeks later had to download the update for 8.05. Still have both archived to CD. "I guess you didn't know that, huh?" There are 3 of you who really need to step back, take a deep breath and stop towering over the users who post here.
  5. Then you most certainly have my apologies for making an incorrect assumption. I am replying privately to the rest of your post so as to let that particular topic end in the forum. I did want the apology to be seen by all.
  6. No, the second link is not a dead link, it is probably just an asp or php redirected link. It is the first item in the frequent link section of the home page of the AskRox tool. I won't comment on your first line, I have more than sufficiently made my point and it does not serve the prupose of these forums to continue to argue it any longer.
  7. http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/creator/...quirements.html Is a link where it says that IE6 "or later" is required, as we now know it was IE7, which is later than IE6, that was the culprit. That should be amended same as the following link was since so many people have posted from XP with IE7 on it. http://kb.roxio.com/content/kb/Creator/000084CR is where it used to say what I quoted above, but now says "*Vista compatibility is based on final released versions of Vista, and cannot be guaranteed for pre-release versions, such as RC1." More specifically, it stated that compatibility was tested with the current available test version of Vista (which was 5 days after RC1 was released). It also originally stated that a patch may be necessary for compatibility with the final release version of Vista to continue working. They have quite correctly ammended the original statement, and before you start any "See you have no proof", rigamaroll, dozens of people who have posted here saw the same thing I quoted on initial release, including some of the helpful Digital Masters here, and have already acknowledged it said that. They had no choice but to change it, and I am glad they did. It was the right thing to do and that is what I have come to expect from Roxio over the years. So if your intent was to try and demean me, knowing that they made a change, save it for someone else. If that was not your intent, then you have my apologies for suggesting it. I say this this way because you have been one of the more demeaning posters to people here, ignored my statement that I did not want to continue being argumentative on the issue, ignored that I was just looking for input on some specific questions and am assuming that may be where you are trying go with me. As I said before, I do not wish to continue this thread in this manner, please don't bother replying if it is just to argue or demean. I am looking for help from other users and experts, not Roxio support, to see if I can use the software yet. I am trying to avoid upgrading to RC2 unnecessarily because of the streaming to 360 issues and not wanting kids to ask for the DVDs. I could just install and see for myself, I just thought I would ask based on another statement in another thread first before deciding. The streaming mpeg2 is more important to maintain for me at the moment than EMC9 in a beta OS, that would change though if MS has fixed the IE7 issues and then having a more stable and faster beta OS would be better. I can live with either one, I am not bashing Roxio over that question or demanding they make a decision for me. I can live with the initial frustration of the reason for my purchase decision at that particular time. In other words, this is not an attack on Roxio, it just a peer input request.
  8. Check the MS site. It was downloaded and installed by hundreds of thousands of everyday people. That is probably why there were so many posts in the forums about it. People sought support because Roxio made a public declaration that it worked in the current test build at that time-which was RC1. I have found your posts to be very helpful. I was only venting frustration at a very small number of people who are blaming the consumer for, in effect, believing what they read on a company's web site. I am one of those geeks though, and I also had some actual practical reasons for wanting to do Vista (I explained in a different post). However, being one of those geeks, that is why I never posted complaints about the non-compatibility. I just trolled the forums to see if anyone found work aorunds, which partially turned out to be the case. However I was still frustrated that something the company said turned out to not be accurate and that inaccurate statement was a key factor in my purchasing decision. Being a long time user of Roxio though, I trusted that it was being addressed and eventually a solution would be forthcoming from either Roxio or MS. My frustration has been exacerbated though when I see average users being talked to as though they are stupid when all they did was base a purchasing decision on a company's web site statement. Not exactly an unheard of consumer practice, nor is being frustrated or angry when that statement turns out to be wrong-not interpretation wrong, just outright wrong. I believe Roxio deserves to recover from this, they have always shown a desire for quality, so this was clearly a blunder, not a company practice. Unfortunately the lion's share of how to deal with this in the best way falls to the poor people in support on the phone and in these forums, who were probably blind sided by this if my experience with Call Centers in other tech companies is any indication. All I am saying is that Roxio did not get to the top tier of this type of software by not caring about the comnsumer experience, they need to rely on that carring about the consumer approach to recover from this effectively, saying it is the consumer's fault in a case like this does not give that message. In my opinion Roxio should openly ackowledge the mistake and assure their customers they are working very hard with MS to resolve the issue (which I know they are) and will provide information as soon as it is available and reliable and not turn away any inquiries about it, in the forums or on the phone, just give the previous statement as the scripted response. The last thing they should do on this specific issue is refuse to discuss it or put people down over it (although I have not seen anyone from Roxio engage in any consumer bashing as some "Masters" have, but I have seen refusals to discuss it out of frustration). Wasn't it you that said something about 57xx builds having the IE7 problem fixed? If so, is that your experience and was RC2 in that testing? Just asking for input, not certification, I clearly understand that the decision to try it is mine and so are the consequences. This is not a sought after opinion in the same vein as a marketing statement on a web site. I understand, especially after the initial EMC9 release fiasco, that official compatibility (quite rightly) will not be certified until Vista release. Thanks for any help.
  9. 1) Thanks for the input. I am a tester since Win95, so I clearly understand about changes during the development cycle. Things do not change in a current build, they change in later builds. So, if it works in RC2 that means that won't change in RC2. It may stop working in a later build, I understood that from the beginning. The problem was a publicly posted statement that it worked in a build that it in fact did not work in-not even partially without manual workarounds. If a statement is made that something works in RC1, then that won't change either in the RC1 build, it might change in later builds, hence the statement that a patch may be needed for the release version. 2) If you are not willing to confirm whether the frustration with a public web site statement is true or not, then should you really be editorializing on it? 3) The workarounds are fine, except they don't allow for activation so things like the mpeg2 decoder never work. That is not Roxio's fault, it is just the nature of the beast. 4) I never said anyone could not editorialize, I said "Masters" taking consumers to task for basing a decision on what was posted on a company's web site is not the way to deal with it. As far as the small number of "Masters" doing this, I can't say what all the motivations are, but it is definitely not helping Roxio recover from a Marketing mistake. I did not say anything about people with fewer CDs under their name bacause it is exclusively a small number of people with many CDs under their name that are doing this specific blaming of the consumer for basing their purchase on a company's web site statement, further increasing their frustration. This translates for most people in to "It is your fault for believing what you read", which further translates in to "Don't believe what you read from the company's web site". Not a very positive marketing approach for a successful and quality oriented company like Roxio. I am quite confortable in saying, since I have used this software since it was still Adaptec, that is not what they intended to get out of this. I just wanted to clarify my statements, I do not desire to continue this thread in this fasion, so please let's not argue those points any longer. The issues I am trying to resolve: I do a lot of streaming to XBox 360s (I have kids who think new DVDs are carpet decorations). I also run a Domain in my house to control Internet and computer use by kids. MCE2005 was not a good solution at the time because of domain restrictions with it. Vista Ultimate provided a solution to this that I knowingly went in to as a test model. I did not do it until I saw the blurb about EMC9 on the web site, which would provide me with conversion options. Now it is an even bigger issue for me as MS managed to break mpeg2 streaming to the x360 client in post RC1 builds. I currently store all my movies in mpeg2 format for streaming (to preserve the DD 6 channel and to use them with a very good MCE addin for movie management called MyMovies-it only supports mpeg2 and wmv for streaming to an extender without transcoding). I need to convert them to wmv before I can upgrade without loosing functionality. I can not use a transcoder like Transcode360 with AVIs because it converts the stream to mpeg2, which is broken now. EMC9 does this conversion to wmv very well (from the testing I did using the workarounds with RC1). But I tested with AVIs, and since I can not activate anything in RC1-EMC9 combo I could not use mpeg2. Yes, betas can break things, and you hope to find a workaround. In this case it seems EMC9 will be my solution for something else broken in later Vista test builds, but only if the earlier issue affecting registration and activation is resolved. That is why I am asking about RC2 based on a post from another helpful "Digital Master". I have tried numerous other wmv converters and none of them produced the same quality as EMC9 did when I briefly tested it with AVI-WMV conversion. In all the testing I also managed to mess up the AC3 filter which prevents things like WME9 from working on the 6 channel audio stream in the mpeg2s. In the end I have to reinstall to get everything back to "normal" anyway, such is the way with betas. I would just rather re-install to a much leaner and stable version of Vista if at all possible.
  10. Statements like this do NOT help Roxio recover their reputation from what was clearly a Marketing mistake. It is not the fault of the support folks here and I do not envy the nightmare this has created for them. Personally, I would terminate or demote whoever the person in "testing" certified to Marketing that they could publish that statement. I have been a Roxio user since it was still Adaptec. I too bought EMC9 when I did specifically because of what was posted in the marketing blurb about Vista, with a clear understanding that I might need a patch to continue after Vista release or a later build. EMC9 does NOT work in Vista RC1 as was stated at the time it was released. It may be Vista IE7 code that is causing the problem, but Roxio still owns the statement on their web site at the time and would garner more trust by acknowledging this instead of depending on "Masters" to blame the users for basing a decision on what was posted on a public web site or locking or deleting threads about it. I apologize for being argumentative, I am just a little frustrated with the small handful of "Masters" blaming the consumers for Roxio's marketing mistake. You do them a dis-service by blindly supporting them in this fashion. I will not return my purchase, I know it will work at some point. I know there are people at Roxio working closely with MS to resolve the issues. I know they want to remain a good competitor and do not take this lightly.
  11. I absolutely don't intend to start a flame war, but I wish this poster and other multiple CD under their name posters would stop these type of comments. First off Roxio had on their page for EMC9 that it was tested and worked under the "current test build" of Vista, which was RC1 at the time that page went up. They also had that Vista was a reuired component in the system requirements sections. Many people are testing Vista and were looking for Nero or Roxio to have an update so good buring and conversion software could be used. I was one of those who bought EMC9 when I did specifically because of what Roxio had posted in their marketing blurb for EMC9. I understand the nightmare for the poor support folks here, as obviously quality control did a lousy job of "testing with the current build" before reporting that a statement like that could be publicly posted, but that is not the user's fault. I came to the forum looking for solutions, not "masters" talking down to me becaue I based a purchasing decision on what was posted on a company's web site. Remember, you were once a new or confused user too. With that in mind, another Digital Master posted in another thread that it now works in 57xx builds as MS corrected the code causing the problem. Can someone confirm that it is resolved for registration and activation in RC2? I am holding off on upgrading to RC2 because MS broke mpeg2 support for the x360 client streaming in MCE and I want to wait until I have a suitable solution for converting media to wmv, like EMC9 can do. Thanks for any helpful input.
  12. THANK YOU!! That allows it to start for me now on RC1. The main reaon I bought the upgrade was for Vista support. Does this affect it for running going forward or will it stop due to not registering?