Certified version of EMC 9 versus version that is offered for sale at this time

[scott784]

Several weeks ago, I posted a thread about this subject. I was curious about the fact that the new EMC 9 software for download at this time is called build 9.1.068. However, if you go to the link by Microsoft, you will see that the posted certified version is 9.1.45.

 

Take a look at the following link (move down to Roxio and Sonic Solutions). Here's the link by MS:

https://winqual.microsoft.com/member/softwa...tifiedlist.aspx

 

Our moderator, John, on this forum was going to check into this matter to see why there is a difference and I never heard back from him. Also, my previous post seems to be gone.

 

So is build 9.1.068 also certified in addition to 9.1.45? If it is, why does the MS site only list build 9.1.45? I was just curious about what feedback John has on this matter.

 

P.S. Note-I am not talking about the so called patch here. Whenever that is released, it is presumed that it will take current 9.0 users up to whatever build is the most recent one.

[Martin Dekker]

Hehehe, on my request to Roxio to get the certified version, I got the following answer from a support guy with a lot of humor :

 

The only difference between the "Certified" version of the software and the version you have is that the Certified version comes with the Vista DLA Patch already streamlined into it. If you'd like this patch to apply to your application installed on a non-beta release of Vista you can get it from here:

http://kb.roxio.com/content/kb/MyDVD/000131CR?set-locale=en

 

Either we are all waiting for nothing or this guy is very badly informed.

 

Martin

[Nerus]

Hehehe, on my request to Roxio to get the certified version, I got the following answer from a support guy with a lot of humor :

Either we are all waiting for nothing or this guy is very badly informed.

 

Martin

So, the DLA patch is the "patch"? Interesting.

However, John did state that he'll get back to the forums about which build is the correct certified build.

He might have forgotten.

[who_are_you]

P.S. Note-I am not talking about the so called patch here. Whenever that is released, it is presumed that it will take current 9.0 users up to whatever build is the most recent one.

Regarding the patch:

1) Competitor version 7 - at least one update released to fix problems.

2) Competitor version 11 - available less than one month, R2 and R3 updates released to fix problems

3) Roxio EMC 9.0 - problem known since shortly after Vista release (approximately 4 months ). Roxio's approach to customer satisfaction is "It was some else's fault - Microsoft with a day 0 patch. We will release a patch ""soon"". 4+ months = "soon"? If I was one of those affected by the problem and needed the patch, my response to Roxio would be "I do not give a #$^@ about who's fault it was, that is your problem and immaterial to me. My problem, that is material to me, is YOUR product does not work as expected so when will it be fixed?" In other words, I do not care one iota about the "why", I would be concerned with the "when".

 

I like EMC 9.0 and luckily have not had any problems with it so far. But the Roxio's approach to customer service is causing me to question rather or not I will purchase EMC 10 when it is released. Their approach to resolution of this problem is "if we point fingers long enough and we wait long enough, maybe Microsoft will do something to make EMC 9.0 work or maybe 10.0 will be out and people will buy it". The two competitors listed above did not waste time pointing fingers, they simply fixed the problems and released patches. I submitted a request for assistance for EMC 8.0 in early 2006 and still have not received a reply to it (approximately 1 year ago) so, assuming customer problems would be responded to promptly, does this mean "soon" could be 1+ years?

 

I am a software engineer by profession for a company somewhere in the top 100 of the Fortune 500, I can assure you that functional "bugs" that impacts the users of my intranet based projects/applications are fixed immediately, not "soon", after all my job depends on keeping the users satisified. "Soon" is not acceptable for a functional "bug", it is only acceptable for cosmetic "bugs"

[gi7omy]

"..."Soon" is not acceptable for a functional "bug", it is only acceptable for cosmetic "bugs"..."

 

While I'm not defending the lateness of the update patch - I'd like to ask who are you about the extremely long delay between security breaches being reported to Microsoft, their actually admitting they exist and the further delay before they even do anything about them. Four months in that case is nothing

[fhoss]

So is build 9.1.068 also certified in addition to 9.1.45? If it is, why does the MS site only list build 9.1.45? I was just curious about what feedback John has on this matter

.

 

 

I have been watching this forum for weeks trying to find the answer to this question. Because I was in the process of having my computer significantly upgraded and could wait no longer I called Roxio - in house sales - and told them I wanted to purchase the latest version of EMC9 that would work with Vista. They assured me the 9.1 version they were going to send me [i always get the CD] would work. I have received it and it does say it is a 9.1 version. I guess it will actually have to be loaded to determine the precise build or version. This is going to be done on my new computer immediatley after loading only Vista and Office - I am hoping for the ultimate clean install as there will be nothing else on my drive at that time. Will post the results when all of this has been accomplished.

Frank

[who_are_you]

"..."Soon" is not acceptable for a functional "bug", it is only acceptable for cosmetic "bugs"..."

 

While I'm not defending the lateness of the update patch - I'd like to ask who are you about the extremely long delay between security breaches being reported to Microsoft, their actually admitting they exist and the further delay before they even do anything about them. Four months in that case is nothing

 

I re-read my initial post, I did not see anywhere in it where I said it was acceptable for Microsoft (or any other company) to take four months or longer to correct bugs.

 

I regret that you took "..."Soon" is not acceptable for a functional "bug", it is only acceptable for cosmetic "bugs"..." as being directed towards Roxio only rather than being the generic statement it was meant to be.

 

Keep in mind, I struggled through getting EMC 8.0 working (obtaining much information about how to fix things from these forums) and I still went ahead and bought EMC 9.0. I use it and like it - the only problem I might have had was the DLA business, but by reading these forums I was aware of it and un-installed drag-to-disk as soon as the installation was finished. I think the product is very good but I feel Roxio's customer satisfaction focus is somewhat lacking. I have not used every feature yet, but their lack of response to my one and only request for support approximately a year ago and their lack of response to a problem affecting a number of their customer base makes me question if I can count on Roxio if I do encounter a problem with their software (I am not talking about a problem that may be caused by my hardware, etc, but something that is definitely a functional "bug")

[gi7omy]

As this is a Roxio foprum (albeit inhabited by volunteers and not Roxio) the comment was posted here in regard to Roxio, ergo, it's a valid assumption that is where it is directed.

 

I agree the patch is well overdue and there IS a lot of ill-feeling over that - I'm not defending anyone here but you have to remember that we're all just users and we're ALL looking for that - not just a few.

 

Bugs - certainly bug-fixes are important but, again, in the MS environment of Windows, they take a long time to appear. I dual-boot here with Gentoo Linux and I know that bug-fixes there turn up very fast. The difference, as you well know, is that Linux hackers aren't 9 to 5 guys, but all volunteers who take it as a matter of pride to get things running correctly asap. Commercial staff don't have that motivation so it takes longer (again, Linux hackers don't have an accountant leaning over their shoulder to work out costings).

 

When will the patch be out? When it's out is all anyone can say

 

ps - Scott784: sending John a PM presupposes he'll actually BE here to read it and, as he only drops in from time to time, that won''t get results any faster )