Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wobbley]

Here's what CNET had to say (main page comments only):

This ambitious all-in-one media program--while an excellent idea--is too buggy for prime time.

The Good: Useful organizational tool; records live TV; handles a range of media files; helpful album view for browsing music.

The bad: Difficult interface; crashed several times during our testing; tech support limited to online forums; media editor handles only sound files; no Mac version.

By Troy Dreier, June 30, 2003

Don't let the name throw you: this is actually the first iteration of Media Center. The all-in-one program is meant to pick up where JRiver's popular jukebox software, Media Jukebox 8.0, leaves off. It adds multimedia controls to Media Jukebox's robust set of audio features so that you can manage all your entertainment with just one application. While we like the idea, Media Center 9.0 is bloated, buggy, and badly in need of a trip back to the drawing board.

I'd like to know what forum members and J River team think about this review...

Wobbley

[NoCodeUK]

I am not sure what version they were revieig but there comments hardly tie in with what I am seeing here and some of them are just plain ludicrous...Media Editor only edits audio files?  Were they expecting Premiere to be built in as well?  Difficult Interface?  Have they used MMJB? No Mac Version?  Its Windows soiftware...I don't think there is a law that all Windows software has to be ported to the Mac.  This just proves why i never listen to reviews I always make my own judgement on something.  Cause in this case the review is blatantly talking sh1te.

Adam

[Wobbley]

Adam,

I do agree with you.  I have almost always found CNET reviews to be erroneous.  Just wanted to a concensus from the primary forum users...you know the ones who really "know" MC.

As a side note, what part of the UK are you from?

I'm in the states and my roommate is from Birmingham.

Wobbley

[NoCodeUK]

Well whaddya know!! I am in Warwick which is just South of Birmingham.  He would probably have heard of it...just up the road from Stratford upon Avon where Shakespeare was born!!

Adam

[Bartabedian]

Ever see "The Simpsons" in which Homer becomes a food critic? He gives great reviews to everything until the other reviewers at the newspaper convince him he is supposed to be more malicious with his comments.

Well, I think Troy Dreier did anyway...

[Mysticeti]

I think the "badly in need of a trip back to the drawing board" comment was uncalled-for.  I also think that to understand the lackluster rating you have to look at things from CNET's perspective...

• they're reviewing a product for their readers who may have never heard of Media Jukebox or J River before (people familiar with MJ are likely to simply stress the audio features of MC which are for the most part excellent -- indeed the review says this).
  
• the product is billed as "Media Center" so expectation are higher that it will do a lot with many types of media (but I doubt anyone expects MC to compete with $500+ Adobe Premiere).   Should you be able to do simple image scaling, cropping, and rotation in MC?  Perhaps.  How about triming comercials out of recorded shows?  Sounds simple but it's probably a lot of work for J River.
  
• They used a release from May, right?  Look at all the postings here about bugs reported and bugs fixed since early May.  I'd be hard pressed to argue that MC quality is above average.
  
• I suspect their audience covers the lower to middle range of computer usage expertise.  This class of user probably isn't aware of or comfortable with reporting bugs in a forum.  Applying daily or weekly updates in hopes their particular problem is fixed isn't appealing to them as it might be to a power user/enthusiast.
  
• Computer systems used for CNET reviews I would hope are wiped clean before installing the software to be reviewed.  If they have problems in this environment perhaps they extrapolate that the average user (who's system may have lots of odd and crusty software) will have considerably more problems?
  

I am somewhat surprised the review make no mention of any of the cool connectivity features of MC such as Media Server and TiVo HMO.  Perhaps this shows a lack in their understanding of the product as a whole.  Perhaps J River needs to beef up the documentation and marketing?  Or perhaps these features are just too esoteric?

Another thing that irks me is the lack of specs describing the review machine.  Was it a P4 3GHz with 1GB RAM running XP Pro?  Or a P2-450 with 128MB RAM running Win98SE?   What self-respecting power user would accept such a review?

[Wobbley]

Mysticeti,

I couldn't agree with you more.  Let's just hope other, prospective non-MC users see it that way as well.

Wobbley

[Ken Brookings]

My tough love two cents worth:  I love MC and chose it a while back after doing serious testing of its competitors.  I haven't regreted my choice; I like the product, the company and the online forum gang.

However, I think there is some truth in the critique.  MC has tried to become all things to all things media and seems to have perhaps lost a little focus.  This may have seemed, and may really be, the best commercial decision; but not if the result generates too many reviews like the CNET one.

Further, I think its possible that the MC design team listens to us folks using the forum a bit too much.  I personally seem to be at the very bottom on the forum users regarding technical skill, so many of you are database and software folks.  I think the design teams works too hard to give the forum folks all they want in unique features and optimal flexibility at the expense of ease of use for us simpletons.  

Maybe its MC's design goal to build a tool for the hobbyist set rather than a product for the masses and the review was written for the masses.

However I think there may be some value in thinking out why this CNET review had the mixed perception of this product we all love.   Making great products is a journey in which the final destination is never really known.  Choices in direction and style of travel should always be open to change and all input is valid whether fact based or perception based, and should be considered.

Ken

[gkerber]

What is the url of the CNET review?  

[Charlemagne 8]

While it's true that Media Center has features that are extremely complex, seemingly ever-changing and require a "power user" to master some of the esoteric features, Media Center can also be used very satisfactorily "right out of the box" (I know there's no box ... it's a metaphor, OK?) by even the most inexperienced user.

OK, maybe not the MOST inexperienced user but most of us came here by way of MusicMatch and/or RealPlayer and already are familiar with the basics of importing and playing MP3's.
That's really all the foreknowledge necessary to begin your use of MC. All the other stuff just keeps you from getting bored as you slowly discover all of the wondrousness of Media Center. (Shameless plug ... gratis)

It's like a game with Easter Eggs (OK, now I'm using an analogy ... analogeous to metaphors) ... you don't have to know or care about them to use the game but they're really cool to find once you've mastered the basic game.

I'm done.

CVIII

[Ken Brookings]

URL for first page of review is
http://reviews.cnet.com/4505-3514_7-21235776.html

[gkerber]

Thanks for the link, my thoughts.

The review was way too harsh, but there is some truth in everything they say.

v9.0 is buggy, and development has stopped on v9.0 and is now concentrating on 9.1 and a huge interface change.  I do fear that when 9.1 is released, that it too, will be buggy and will never be fixed before the next 9.2 is started.  The details matter.

I have set up a friend with MC, she likes it, but could never use it without my help.  She had trouble just paying for the program and regestering her copy (we got it done).  To succeed in the market place, novices must be able to figure things out, I don't think they can.

I work in software develpoment, I am a senior developer myself.  I handle the details, I get them right, and I have a reputation at my company for quality.  I wish MC had that reputation, but from the CNET article, they don't, and that article will hurt their sales, which is too bad, since I want MC to succeed and to succeed that takes a constant revenue stream from sales. and bad reviews don't help that.  If I had read that review before actually using MC, I would NEVER have even downloaded it.  There must be many people who will read that article and never try MC.  We all lose, MC loses, and the rest of the users lose too.

I hope JRiver takes this as a wake up call.  The details matter, stability matters, reviews matter.

So maybe, can we get the cd burner in v9.0 fixed so I can re-arrange the burn order....  How about the non-standard scroll bars in 9.0? (they are right in 9.1).  Windows people expect programs to follow Windows standards, 9.0 does not.

I know the developers have the talent, I think they don't have the time to finish things, before they go on to the next huge interface change.

I remember dbase4 when it was released.  It got horrible reviews, it crashed and hogged memory.  Foxpro was waiting in the wings and took significant market share.  Has anyone seen dbase for sale lately?  dbase was the market leader, now they don't exist.  

I really really like MC and have never found anything as useful to me, warts and all.  It takes a commitment to switch from cd players to a computer based system.  The program needs to be easier to use, and more stable to convince the average person to do it.  Useful and accurate help would go a long way towards helping novices.  There are features in MC that I still don't understand, and I've read the help and I work in IT.

Has anyone tried Adobe PhotoAlbum?  I have, and I deleted it already.  I use ThumbsPlus for my photo collection.  It is miles better than MC and Adobe PhotoAlbum.  Adobe PhotoAlbum tried to make things way too easy that I can't use it, THEY GOT RID OF THE TREE!  Something to think about.

[nameless]

I do agree with you.  I have almost always found CNET reviews to be erroneous.  Just wanted to a concensus from the primary forum users...you know the ones who really "know" MC.

But the average user who downloads MC9 won't "know MC", wheras most people who read this thread (i.e. the regulars) spend 16 hours a day fiddling with it and discussing it.

[nameless]

v9.0 is buggy, and development has stopped on v9.0 and is now concentrating on 9.1 and a huge interface change.  I do fear that when 9.1 is released, that it too, will be buggy and will never be fixed before the next 9.2 is started.  The details matter.

I hope JRiver takes this as a wake up call.  The details matter, stability matters, reviews matter.

I know the developers have the talent, I think they don't have the time to finish things, before they go on to the next huge interface change.

This was an extremely significant post.  JRiver has taken the lead of Microsoft, where one release is still riddled with problems, yet the development focus is only on the next release, rather than on fixing the existing problems.  Make it work, then move on!

[Kharma]

Although a bit harsh, in principle I agree with the review.

I had noticed these user reviews for MJ at MP3.com as well.  Not stellar either.

While perhaps not completely unstable, it is certainly not polished either.  My experience certainly wasn't "run it out of the box".  ASIO still crashes my system, though the ASIO plugin for WinAmp works fine, as does my Cubase setup.  There are numerous other quirks that subtract from a 100% positive experience as well.

...Media Editor only edits audio files?  Were they expecting Premiere to be built in as well?...

I don't think anyone really expects MC to have Adobe Premiere editing abilites, but it does try to sell itself as the Mother Of All Media Utilities, so I could understand some expectation of video editing.MC does use the term "Media Editor" not "Audio Editor" on it's comparison page...

I agree with the sentiment to refine the existing application before adding new features.

Just my 2c.

[sangs]

How can anyone be offended by this review?

I bought MC9 based on other users' reviews and it (knock wood) works seemlessly with my new Ipod. I also enjoy tinkering with it and find new things routinely.

However, this forum is filled to the brim with threads about known issues and bugs. The reviewer wasn't incorrect in stating that. Don't let your loyalty to the product cloud your judgement. There are bugs, it's documented.

And as a previous poster stated, it's very bad practice to follow the Microsoft lead of focusing on the next release and leaving the buggy one as is. Nobody should be happy about that when the product isn't free.

[Jaguu]

And that's why Beta Releases should be kept separate from the current release, as many bugs and issues are just with the Beta release. Interact should really be split, as it is the only source of support for new users!

It took J River a long time to produce a 9.0 release that was quite stable and I am sure that there were only few bugs left there. At least, as long as I used it, it never crashed and never gave any problems.

But if you lookup this forum, you get a totally different impression. This is not good!

[modelmaker]

While I also found the review somewhat harsh, several of his points hit home. When it comes to these computers I am still only an advanced tenderfoot. When I first tried out MC9 (coming from MMJB), I had never chatted on line and never participated in one of these forums, so trying to figure out how to get technical support took several days and help from a more experienced friend.That time was very frustrating. Once I learned how the help was very forth coming from all of you. But I have a good idea what it's like for other novices. The learning curve is steep.

I totally agree about fixing the bugs in 9.0, many of them are quite annoying and I have to waste a lot of time working around them.

I also agree that MC is more suited to the hobbiest. I was in the audio/video biz in another life and amassed a large collection of music (LPs,RtR,Cass-no 8trk!) and videotape and the main reason for even buying a computer was to digitize my collection before all that tape disintegrated and turned into a big pile of rust. MC is well suited for organizing and to some extent proccessing large collections, but it is not the end-all program - I also use 4 or 5 other programs the products of which are funnelled into MC.

If you want a jukebox get MJ8 (or even MMJB!), if you want a serious media device MC is an excellent way to go - even with the bugs! In time I am hopeful J River will take a break from 9.1 and polish up 9.0.

Keep  up the good work!

[nameless]

If you want a jukebox get MJ8.

This leads me to an excellent point.  The whole reason I even began using MC9 was due to "bug fix chasing".  I was a user of MJ8, and was dealing with several serious bugs.  The bugs eventually got fixed, but not until they had removed TV functionality from MJ8 (which I think was an immoral choice).

So, I had a choice: * Keep putting up with the bugs in MJ8, which would prevent me from using MJ8 as it was designed; * Upgrade MJ8, get the bugs fixed, but lose TV functionality, which was understood to be part of the product when I purchased it; * Or upgrade all the way to MC9.

I upgraded to MC9 (fortunately, the upgrade was free of charge), but now I'm still chasing bug fixes.  And with MC9, I had a whole new set of bugs to deal with, including an inability to burn CDs.  (The loss of toolbar text in MC9 still drives me nuts, too.)  So, I had the same essential choice again: Put up with not being able to burn CDs in MC9, or upgrade to MC9.1, and potentially deal with still other bugs.

It's totally ridiculous.  When does it end?

[zevele10]

-=-=-=-=-=If you want a jukebox get MJ8-=-=-=-

There is a lot of MUSIC ONLY features in MC9 not inMJ8.
So ,this does not make sense
I WANT A MJ9 JukeBox , this look better to say.

I do not think the Cnet article says things that are not.
But the person put on the top of it a very nasty style  , like when you want to be really unpleasant to someone.
I run 9 , not 9.1
I do not have problem with MC , but it is the ONLY ONE program who crash from time to time of all the programs i run.

Out of IE6 of cause who from time to time does not crash for more than one hour...

[Kharma]

That is also why I use MC9... ASIO, Album art etc.

I ask in MJ forum if they plan on MJ9 before I get MC, but they do not give answer.  One moderator say they have plans, but not sure... don't know why they could not say yes or no, seems like easy question.  So I get MC9 even though I do not need all these extra things that slow down my system because I do not want to buy MJ8 then must pay extra later for upgrade anyway.

[DocLotus]

This all goes back to a topic that was on-going many months ago about how many versions of MJ/MC there should be.

I think the conclusion was something like there should be 2 or 3 versions..

* Basic.
* Intermediate.
* Advanced User.

--- OR ---

One versions with three levels of user selectable interfaces such as...

* Basic.
* Intermediate.
* Advanced User.

I also agree that MC is a little buggy...

* It crashes unexpectably
* Some functions were still not completed even on the final GOLD release 9.0.169 back in May 05 2003 which I think is the one CNet used for the review.

On a side note... some of those bugs STILL are not fixed but JRiver has found the time to implement a whole new radical interface on 9.1.

This is getting to be just like the American automotive industry... don't bother fixing the current cars on the road, just come out with a "NEW" model that is somehow going to make everything right again.

Maybe that's why the Japanese cars now rule the road in sales... people want realiability first & foremost, then style second.

JRiver... are you listening ?

[Kharma]

* Some functions were still not completed even on the final GOLD release 9.0.169 back in May 05 2003 which I think is the one CNet used for the review.

On a side note... some of those bugs STILL are not fixed but JRiver has found the time to implement a whole new radical interface on 9.1.

I was also going to comment on this...  I do not think CNET would do review on beta version, so MC should have been working correct then, not xx bug fixes later - that is why you have beta time.

They are probably working on ver 10 as we speak.

[gkerber]

There is a common thought in this tread, that we would all like the current set of features fixed and working before doing a radical interface change.

We all don't like CNET trashing our favorite program, just like I won't want anyone trashing my sister, but I'll pick on her....

We've all somehow learned to work around the v9 bugs, but novices and reviewers, don't have the patience.

[Mysticeti]

"not polished" has come up a few times and I have to agree.

• MJ/MC *has* to get better about changing the cursor to an hourglass when it's going anything that might longer than a split second.  Novices are going to say "hey, I clicked and nothing happened".  Then they click on something else and the crap hits the fan.
  
• modal dialog boxes - sometimes dialog boxes sometimes pop up at odd times and/or end up behind another window. It's happened to me and I've seen it mentioned here.
  

"little" stuff like this can make a big difference in the perception of the product.

[kwake]

Snipp...

Maybe that's why the Japanese cars now rule the road in sales... people want realiability first & foremost, then style second.

JRiver... are you listening ?

Personally I go for style first, and hope for reliability second - and I actually find I have both with Media Center 9.1.  

Style is the reason I chose Media Center, then after downloading, installing and using it I found it to be reliable too (for what I use it for, which is listening to music and organizing/viewing my pictures). So I bought it.

I'm a little surprised at all the negative posts to be honest...I've never been so happy with a piece of software - even if the Developers don't always (ever) go with a suggestion I make. (A-B Looping and support for generic Serial Remotes) ;-)

Kwake

[nila]

A-B looping is something I've wanted for ages too

I dont think it's so much negative posts as hopefully more constructive critism.

Most of the people posting like MC and use it daily. They're just trying to be object and give reviews to hopefully help MC stay as the king.

[bc]

Hi--

I've been using MJ 8 for over a year. Before finding and settling on MJ 8 I used WMP, Creative, Winamp and dbPowerAmp.

I use Nero to burn--EAC to rip. I'm not interested in any MJ/MC features other than audio playback and audio library management. No TV, DVD, Tivo, photo album, photo editor, word processor, spread sheet, page layout or other applications.

I still consider myself a novice user--maybe an advanced novice at this point. I'm retired. I never worked in IT. My seminal computer skills are entirely self-taught and acquired rather late in life.

I am eligible to upgrade to MC9 at no cost. I downloaded the program about 6 weeks ago and wrestled with it for +/- 30 days. I was overwhelmed. Too many features. Too confusing.

So I switched back to MJ8. Frankly I'm disappointed and frustrated. It's becoming clear that MJ8 is an orphan product. Questions in the MJ 8 forum go unanswered even unread for days on end. Clearly all development energy is now focused on MC.

There are still things in MJ 8 I don't fully understand though I've been using it daily for over a year. The documentation, manual, and FAQ are neither current nor well organized for both MJ and MC. The user has no choice but to look to the forum for help. And MC is now the active forum.

I am not looking forward to having to migrate to MC but it looks like I will have to. The alternative I suppose is to find some other audio software--maybe iTunes when they offer a Windows version.

MJ has been a struggle all along--a steep learning curve--which looks even more intimidating in MC I'm sorry to say even with a year's experience with MJ.

Somebody else mentioned the possibility of a bare bones version for the IT challenged. That's music to my ears.

Listening to: 'Boogie Woogie Bossa Nova' from 'The Best Of Eddie Harris' by 'Eddie Harris' on Media Jukebox

[nila]

BC,

Install MC 9.1 (dont do v9 as v9.1 has a LOT of changes from it and so later if u want to upgrade again u'll have another huge learning curve).

Set it up on your computer then work out what u want to do but dont know how,
come here and post a thread with all your questions, comments etc. and I'll try answer as many of your questions as I can.

It's definitely a very complex program which is one of it's good points to some extent - U only ever have to use it to the extent u need but can always go further - the downside is there is a HUGE learning curve and it's not always particularly intuitive.

If u post a thread with all your v9.1 qu's though I'll be happy to try answer as many as I can, the other members will answer the others.

[LonWar]

The BIG thing that this software has going for it more then ANY program I have used is it's dev's and community.

I have asked some good and stupid questions and I have had them all answered by either the community or JRiver itself.

I have used alot of programs, and have NEVER had the support that I get with this.... I hope this keeps up!

[nila]

They give us what we want (eventually with a bit of nagging ) so we give them free support  

[dnrobertson]

BC,

I am with you.  I use MC9 for Audio playback only.

I bought it only because it supports (well half supports) multi-zone playback of audio.

I don't need CD ripping - I have EAC.
I don't need DVD           - I have PowerDVD, WinDVD, Zoomplayer.
I don't need TV              - I have a big box in the corner.
I don't need all the other features.

My wish would be that ALL the different features of MC9 become plug-ins, so we could disable completely those we don't need or use.

My wish would be that all the current features WORK and be documented and have unique commands so I can access them via a Remote Control.

I have been in the computer industry for nearly 20 years, been playing with PC's since before the Apple ][ and I have had a hard time coming to grips with some of the features and behaviour of MC9.  And I don't give up easily!

David

[KingSparta]

I have been working with computers before 1970 and really have not had any problems with MC9.

My wish would be that ALL the different features of MC9 become plug-ins, so we could disable completely those we don't need or use.

I sugested that 2 versions ago.

basicly you create a Media Player And It Is A Shell That Will Allow Plugins To Be Added To Enhance The Program.

I Think The Program Is Way Beyond That And Would Take Allot Of Time To Convert To That Type Of Program.

[nila]

Then dont go to that extent.

Just people can buy different versions.
The program checks to see what version serial it has and hides features (tv, etc) depending on the serial type entered.

Basically u just remove them from the tree and make each function check the serial type before starting so that if someone gets to it without the tree then its just disabled anyway

[Doof]

So basically you'd add bloat in an attempt to hide bloat?

[salsbst1]

The presence and cost of features that I don't use (everything but audio on the hard drive) doesn't bother me.  I just want to be able to make the top level of the hairstyle menus be the audio library.  It is annoying to have to navigate to it every time I want to listen to some music.

Regards,
Stuart

[nila]

It wouldn't be an attempt to hide bloat, these days a 10 meg program isn't that much.

It'd be to allow different pricing schemes depending on features - plugin's as such already built into the program but just released with purchase..

It'd also really help to see who was paying for what features and so therefore see what people considered important.

[Doof]

Well, just imagine how buggy a program that checked your license every time you tried to use a feature would be. And how slow.


Here's the thing about crashes.

Use good hardware.

Don't install every crap piece of software you find on Download.com.

Don't have a system tray that takes up half your screen.

I keep my system running nice and streamlined and MC9.1 NEVER crashes on me. And my system runs 24/7. I don't shut it down unless I'm going away on vacation. If your system experiences crashes more than a couple of times a week, there's more at play than MC. People say that Win95 crashes a lot. I'm sure it does if you have crappy hardware and run your resources into the ground. I never did this and I didn't have nearly the problems others around me were having. Windows has only gotten better with each version. If stuff is crashing on you while runing 2K or XP, you need to take a look at the hardware and the oodles of garbage you have running that's sucking up your resources.

I often wonder what kind of a mess of a system these people who review software must have. Day in and day out, they're installing God-only-knows-what, and uninstalling it. I seriously wonder how often they wipe those things clean and reset them up. Not that a system should need to be formatted every month. I haven't wiped my home system since XP was released and it's sill running flawlessly. I've only wiped my work laptop once, and that's because Dell doesn't have clue one about how to set up a PC.

[sraymond]

I just want to be able to make the top level of the hairstyle menus be the audio library.

I think this is exactly the type of customization that should exist with Hairstyle.  I've brought this up before in some myHTPC discussions - but I haven't heard much more about it.

Haistyle should be as basic as the user can make it.  With the ability to change skins within Hairstyle, it would be a fairly simple matter to change between "types" (i.e. audio, video, photo, etc. "hairstyles").

So...  any chance of adding some XML elements to turn on/off left-hand items?

Scott-

[Doof]

I agree. Hairstyle needs this badly.

Actually... what would be better would be a built in configuration screen to turn certain elements off. Otherwise the end user is always at the whim of the skin developer. Let the skin developer focus on the graphics and the layout of controls. Let the end user handle what components actually are displayed on the screen.

[sraymond]

Actually... what would be better would be a built in configuration screen to turn certain elements off.

So far, there aren't *any* hairstyle configuration elements available from within MC.  I'm not sure this is a bad thing, either.  Why should we break the model now?

For me, it's six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.  So long as I can choose the content and order, I'm happy.

I think one could argue that turning off features is not an every-day event and shouldn't be done by casual users.  Moving the configuration to the skin's main.xml keeps some people from confusing things beyond their own recognition  And I'm not sure this puts the users at the skin designer's mercy.

Maybe it's time to revisit the whole "Hairstyle" thread that got started a while back?

Scott-

[nameless]

Here's the thing about crashes. [snip]

Well, I have had a few MC9 crashes, but it hasn't been that bad.  The 211 build was the only really bad one; it crashed on me very often when I'd close it (212 seems to have resolved the problem).  However, I take issue with the implication that I must be a PC moron to be experiencing crashes at all with MC9.  That's not the case at all.

Here's the thing about your argument.

I could brag all day long that I'm a wonderful driver, just because I never crash into anything.  I could point out that I drive only on deserted streets too.

But really good drivers tend to avoid accidents, even on busy streets.  Just like really good programs tend to not crash, even on systems with a lot of software on them.

[bc]

Nila--

Many thanks for your gracious offer to address my questions on MC 9.1 once I load it. I will probably take you up on that as soon I muster the frustration tolerance to make the switch.

Right now I'm about halfway up the learning curve of yet another difficult application. At this point in my life one monster at a time is about enough.

I must say that this forum is worth the price of admission. Hats off to the JRiver boys/girls(are there any?) Their leadership has created a culture here that is a couple of measures up from most other forums/newsgroups, etc. with their abundant sarcasm, adolescent dissing and irritating flame wars.

Kudos to all those who help.

[nila]

'dissing'? - Are u british per chance old boy


Where's king when u need him to start a good flaming war

[Doof]

However, I take issue with the implication that I must be a PC moron to be experiencing crashes at all with MC9.  That's not the case at all.

I never said you must be a PC moron to experience crashes with MC9. In fact, I don't ever remember using the word moron anywhere in my post. Obviously beta software is bug-ridden and crash-prone. Even I've had crashes of MC when it was in beta. Just not with 9.1

What I did say, was that if your system (the whole system now) crashes more than once a week, then something else is wrong other than just Microsoft's incompetence or MC9. There's something fundamentally flawed with that PC. It has nothing to do with your IQ. It coudl be a bad piece of hardware, or a corrupt system file.

As for your driver metaphor... having a lot of software installed is not a problem. Having a lot of software running all the time is. Your system resources really shouldn't be at 34%. That's a bad thing. Not even the best of programs can run well with less than the necessary resources available to it.

I have no idea if what I've said in this post applies to you. Only you can decide that. Next time you want to be offended by something I say, at least take the time to decide if I'm actually insulting you.

[nameless]

Sorry man, I should have chosen my words more carefully.  I let my general mood affect my posting discretion.

I took the "moron" reference as implied, not explicit.  It's a strong word either way, so it should be left out entirely...

You are 100% correct that on the Win9x platform, resource shortages are a serious pitfall.  Boy do I know from experience!

MC 9.1 has been running quite well for me, so no complaints from this corner.

Sorry again...  No hard feelings, I hope.

[JC]

I often wonder what kind of a mess of a system these people who review software must have.

Although I don't have experience reviewing software, I work for a software company and in order to eliminate the problems you allude to here on our testing machines (5) and training computers (20), I decided to use a drive imaging package.

Nothing beats running a simple command on a PC and come back to a fresh install of the operating system in only 2 minutes. Works wonders and is very good for software verification. Too bad most of the PC software reviewers don't review drive imaging software more frequently, perhaps they would realize how valuable it could be.

[nila]

Doof,
as for the system testers,
I'd imagine that the half reputable ones all just restore their system after trying any major software or at least once a week.

It doesn't take a full format/re-install rather just a copy of Ghost or any other software that will let u do that type of thing.

[Doof]

Sorry man, I should have chosen my words more carefully.  I let my general mood affect my posting discretion.

Yeah, I did too. I was kind of itching for a fight (which my girlfrend promptly gave to me - and won of course), and then later on almost went back and deleted it. Unfortunately I couldn't because SHE took away my computer priveledges.

JC & Nila> Yeah, I know all about Ghost and Driveimage. I use Ghost all the time at work and home. The problem with using it though, is that if you forget to update the image any time you update hardware, then even the newly restored image may not run correctly. Plus I wonder how often even the best software reviewers restore the image... if they've got 5 pieces of software to evaluate that day, do they restore in between each one or just at the end of the day? It's hard to say. I'd go out on a limb and say that even the "experts" don't always know how to set up a system correctly in the first place. In that case their image is useless anyway. Look at the way most consumer level PC's arrive fresh from the factory. I have to spend at least 20 minutes just uninstalling all of the useless crap they throw on there...

[JC]

JC & Nila> Yeah, I know all about Ghost and Driveimage. I use Ghost all the time at work and home. The problem with using it though, is that if you forget to update the image any time you update hardware, then even the newly restored image may not run correctly. Plus I wonder how often even the best software reviewers restore the image... if they've got 5 pieces of software to evaluate that day, do they restore in between each one or just at the end of the day? It's hard to say. I'd go out on a limb and say that even the "experts" don't always know how to set up a system correctly in the first place. In that case their image is useless anyway. Look at the way most consumer level PC's arrive fresh from the factory. I have to spend at least 20 minutes just uninstalling all of the useless crap they throw on there...

I agree with you concerning the reviewers and the factory computers. The very first thing I do when I get a new computer at work is format the drive. Then I install the OS and the programs I want, not all the other garbage that they put on there. What are they even thinking with some of that crap, BTW?

For the drive image scenario, the location that I use it is ideal. I teach classes every month and we have 20 computers that we use for this purpose. The hardware never changes and I always want the same exact configuration at the start of a class. Works really well since there is no need to update the image, but even then, I add what I need to the image, then boot to a floppy that tells the computer to store a new image on the other partition. 2 minutes later, new image is ready and I'm good to go.