7 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
7.
 
Re: $1,632 Copy Of Vista.
May 27, 2008, 08:57
7.
Re: $1,632 Copy Of Vista. May 27, 2008, 08:57
May 27, 2008, 08:57
 
people still use "debit cards" to buy things? I never trust debit cards. You have almost ZERO comeback. At least a credit card company can be brought to task or a chargeback initiated.

edit: plus why didnt he just tell teh fraud depatment that it WAS fraud - he only ordered one copy? Surely that would have sorted it?

I had a similar problem where I had been double billed. After getting written confirmation from the company that they were not going to do something I simply informed the credit card company to chargeback the lot (with the evidence I had) voila! I got my money back.

This comment was edited on May 27, 09:01.
Its not the cough that carries you off but the coffin they carry you off in.
6.
 
Re: New MP3
May 26, 2008, 04:38
6.
Re: New MP3 May 26, 2008, 04:38
May 26, 2008, 04:38
 
Guess I should have read the fricken article. Oops. I guess being able to adjust volume on different musical components is a pretty valid reason. I still see a slow adoption rate to a format like this even though it sounds neat.

Not sure a feature like that is enough for a planet based on years of mp3 conversion to suddenly shift over to a new format though.

This comment was edited on May 26, 04:41.
5.
 
Re: $1,632 Copy Of Vista.
May 26, 2008, 04:33
5.
Re: $1,632 Copy Of Vista. May 26, 2008, 04:33
May 26, 2008, 04:33
 
He bought 7 copies, not one. Sell the other 6 on ebay.

So because of Microsoft's mistake he should be made to push their crap OS on other people? I think not.


4.
 
Re: New MP3
May 25, 2008, 23:16
4.
Re: New MP3 May 25, 2008, 23:16
May 25, 2008, 23:16
 
even though it sounds neat.

It does sound neat technologically speaking, but then is it a valid "artist recording" if the user can alter it that way? I don't mean to start a war, but I have the feeling there could be (at least some) musicians who would be up in arms about this. I would be fine with it if the volume levels were reset to their defaults upon closing the file in case the user, say, mutes Axl Rose in his efforts to sing "Welcome to the Jungle".

Apart from that, also agreed that it would have to top mp3's quality/small file size/drm-lessness.

Dan =0)
Avatar 21181
3.
 
$1,632 Copy Of Vista.
May 25, 2008, 19:12
3.
$1,632 Copy Of Vista. May 25, 2008, 19:12
May 25, 2008, 19:12
 
He bought 7 copies, not one. Sell the other 6 on ebay.

Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
2.
 
Re: New MP3
May 25, 2008, 18:24
2.
Re: New MP3 May 25, 2008, 18:24
May 25, 2008, 18:24
 
Agreed. This new format would have to sound better than mp3 and be a substantially smaller file size and encode fast or faster than mp3 and be drm free.

Mp3 will never die. There are too many collections out there and without a valid reason people won't just convert their collections to .mt9 format.

EDIT

Guess I should have read the fricken article. Oops. I guess being able to adjust volume on different musical components is a pretty valid reason. I still see a slow adoption rate to a format like this even though it sounds neat.

This comment was edited on May 25, 18:33.
Avatar 9616
1.
 
New MP3
May 25, 2008, 18:01
1.
New MP3 May 25, 2008, 18:01
May 25, 2008, 18:01
 
The new format, which has a file extension format of MT9 and a commercial title of Music 2.0, is poised to replace the popular MP3 file format as the de facto standard of the digital music source, its inventors say.
Why am I thinking that they are a bit presumptuous with that statement? If the average user can't convert their CDs or current MP3s into that format easily, then I think they aren't going to have the success that they seem to think they're going to have.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
7 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older