Nero, which version? Is 9 worth it?

vbimport

#1

9.0.9.4b
8.3.6.0
8.3.2.1
7.11.10.0
7.7.5.1
7.5.9.0

These are the versions I have. Which should I use. I’ve had trouble with 8. Slow and burnt a few coasters. First time, in a long while and I don’t like it. I used to use 7.5.9.0 it never gave me trouble expect with dual layer. I don’t care about the other crap it comes with. I just care about the Burning software and discspeed. I am wondering if the version even effects the burn quality and compatibility. With 8.3.6.0 50% of my dvd-r’s failed with a write error. Anyone care to give me the heads up? version 8 has got me bummed, so should I try version 9?


#2

I use the latest version of Nero 8 (8.3.6.0) and I have no problems. That doesn’t mean others might not have discovered issues. For me and my situation, that version works, it meets my needs and I love it.

If you go through Nero’s Forum, reports are that Nero 9 is terrible and is so similar to 8 that there is little reason, if any, to upgrade. With all the flaws, upgrading is foolish.

http://forum.my.nero.com/index.php?showforum=2

[B]Update: [/B] I read through your post again. What media are you using as a failure rate of 50% is not right? There are many factors which can lead to a failed burn but something is definitely wrong and I can’t believe that the high failure rate is attributable to 8.3.6.0


#3

I was planning on posting on this same topic when I found this thread. I’m using the next to final version of Nero 6 (6.6.1.5) which I’ve used for years with little problem. I mostly use the burning rom component; I also use Nerovision, Showtime & Nero Media Player. The 1st 2 are the most important to me.

I briefly played with an early version of 7 when it was released, & felt is was a step backwards.

My question is, would I find 8 or 9 to be a significant upgrade over 6?


#4

If what you are using meets your needs, why upgrade? One reason could be Vista compatability, otherwise, save the money.


#5

[QUOTE=jeff53404;2172796]If what you are using meets your needs, why upgrade? One reason could be Vista compatability, otherwise, save the money.[/QUOTE]

New features?


#6

[QUOTE=MooMooMooMoo;2172834]New features?[/QUOTE]

Begs the question will you use it and the new feature be enough to justify the purchase??? Also the O/S platform would determine the version you get as Nero 6 won’t work on Vista as others have mentioned.


#7

[QUOTE=coolcolors;2172953]Begs the question will you use it and the new feature be enough to justify the purchase??? Also the O/S platform would determine the version you get as Nero 6 won’t work on Vista as others have mentioned.[/QUOTE]

I’m running XP on 2 boxes & 98 on 1. I know anything over 6 won’t run on 98.


#8

[QUOTE=jeff53404;2172796]If what you are using meets your needs, why upgrade? One reason could be Vista compatability, otherwise, save the money.[/QUOTE]

Vista run Nero6 just fine.


#9

What useful features (IF ANY) does 8 &/or 9 have in the burning rom & Nero Vision components that are not in 6?


#10

[QUOTE=MooMooMooMoo;2174846]What useful features (IF ANY) does 8 &/or 9 have in the burning rom & Nero Vision components that are not in 6?[/QUOTE]

I came to this thread for the same reason looking for upgrade advice. I have been using Nero 6 for a few years, but my burning needs have changed to a focus of burning downloaded AVIs to DVD so I can watch them on TV. It seems that the Nero Vision 3 add on can not accomplish this. I have Nero 7 with Vision 4 at work and it does a fine job. I installed Nero 9 on my friend’s computer and found the install terribly slow and annoying, but the AVI to DVD conversion was fine. So I am wondering if I should upgrade to 7, 8, or 9 or just stick with 6 and use a third party (ConvertXtoDVD)?


#11

You could try Dvd Flick, FAVC, (free) or ConvertXtoDvd to convert & then use ImgBurn, (free) to burn to Dvd.


#12

I would say go with Convertxtodvd 3 plus why are you using imgburn to burn when convertxtodvd will do it all in one process is besides me??? Keep you old Nero 6 as that from most part is the best version so far and I have nero 6.6.1.15a and will keep it going. If 6 still works keep it and go with ConvertXtoDVD 3 for your avi to dvd conversion. Plus what I don’t get is the word ConvertXtoDVD says it all what it is suppose to do although it’s a paid program you get what you paid for and it is a well worth program.


#13

I have versions 6 and 8 (I am planning to bypass v. 9) and I can say that Nero 6 is still very competitive.

Nero 8 provides new features like working with High Def content (extra plugins = extra $€), or LightScribe. Some drives and/or disks works faster with it too (Nero 6, of course, has not been updated in a while).

But if you don’t need the above, stick to Nero 6.


#14

While they update very infrequently I also like Winaviconvertor for authoring dvd’s from avi. Oddly, I’ve found some avi files do better with convertxtodvd, while others do better with winavi.


#15

Oh to reply to the first question from jeff53404. I use Sony16D1 DVD-R 16x. Normally I burn at 16x or 8x depending on importance. I’ve NEVER EVER had a failed burn from that media before. But after 4 fail disks; the sonys and some dual layered Memorex ones, I decided to revert back to version 7 and things returned to normal :confused: It doesn’t make sense to me either.

Ah to merlin666, if you think 9 runs slow avoid 8 at all costs it was much slower than 9. I’ve never had version 6 because I’ve always wanted the features from later 7. I can’t tell you if you guys would tolerate it over 6 but it beats the hell out of 8 or 9. Not to mention 7 shouldn’t cost much at all new.

Tattenbach 7 has the lightscribe feature. I am not sure what video stuff it has I never got into that much.


#16

[QUOTE=Matthew12222;2180342]…

Tattenbach 7 has the lightscribe feature. I am not sure what video stuff it has I never got into that much.[/QUOTE]

Well thanks for the tip but I already knew about it. I upgraded from 7 to 8.

Version 8, perhaps wrong appreciation from my side, seemed faster than 7. It also supported one of the BD plug-ins (If not wrong it could record to a BD disk)

I have not tried 9 because of the negative reviews and because basically does not offer anything new compared to v. 8. Perhaps speed as you said …


#17

Tattenbach, it may run faster on vista, but it certainly is awful on a 32bit system. I assume that 85% of people are using a 32bit os. But nine for sure is a bad, for any cost; just like 8 but a bit faster.