So if you have something, oh let's say a computer, that you paid a couple of thousand dollars (or whatever currency you use),
and you have a chance to upgrade it, to add new features, or buy a new one to have access to better features that your old computer doesn't have like faster AGP, P4 processor, USB 2.0, faster memory bus or whatever you'll just stick to what you have
because that makes more sense right?
So what if you can't play the latest version of quake on your current computer because you don't have the latest video or sound card, you'll stick with your old computer because that is more "logical."
Let me ask you another question. If a friend asked you which version of windows they should install on a computer they're building which version would you recommend: Windows 95, Windows 98 or Windows Xp? They're all basically the same program right? But each version is slightly better than the next right? Each version has more features than the next right? Why do you think Bill Gates made improvements to WIN95? Why did he make improvements to WIN98? Because as good as those products were they weren't good enough and people asked for improvements. Bill Gates could have ignored his customers (some people say he did anyway) and watch all his customers convert into mac users or he could listen and try to incorporate as many improvements as he could.
But spending less than $100 to buy another piece of software that does a better job (hypothetically) than the software I'm using now doesn't make sense?
As for ReneB I'm not attacking him and "The Incantation" referred to him in a way as to suggest he is author. I think WHOEVER the author is, has done a wonderful job with DVD2one but there's always room for improvement. If there wasn't we'd all still be using commodore 64s.