--- dae3dae3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fifer Wrote:
> > For me, in addition to the obvious SB2 bandwidth advantage, that
> FLAC is
> > open source, free, almost universally supported, non DRM and does
> > everything (aside of DRM I think) that lossless WMA can makes FLAC
> > superior. Does WMA gave any advantages over FLAC?
>
> WMA comes preinstalled on most usersÂ’ computers and is much easier
> for
> the average Joe to rip their music to. Open up Windows Media Player,
> go to "tools" then "options" go the "rip" tab and change the
> dropdown.
> OK your way out of the settings and then hit "rip" and away it goes
> with
> all the tags encoded properly and with the album cover also included.
>
>
> It took me a week of messing around trying rip to FLAC...
I can understand your frustration but you should also know that
the only one who can add FLAC support to Windows Media Player
so that you can rip and tag just as easily is Microsoft, and that
is by their design.
Sure it was easier to pop in your disc and get it to WMA lossless,
but now how do you play it on your Squeezebox? Not as easy
anymore. But it sure is easy with FLAC. On the Squeezebox, FLAC
comes preinstalled and just works.
Once you choose Windows Media Player, nothing but a Microsoft-
only solution is going to be easy. And that's by design. Your
choice. In this case I think the better investment is to spend
a little time up front on something better, then reap the benefits.
Part of the Microsoft lock-in strategy depends on people's
tendency to go for the easy thing first. All MS has to do is
make all non-MS things harder to snag them.
Josh
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
ripping mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
