i alwasy thought mp3 was far better quality? why use wma?

Quote:i alwasy thought mp3 was far better quality? why use wma?
Actually, ogg is better.

PS: I've got to admit WMP had improved with version 9, but I think I'll hold on to Winamp.

Improved probably looks and speed-wise, but it's only going to tell you what you can and can't do with your pc when the DRM patch comes down.
I aint gonna install it. In fact I don't like the way things are progressing with PC's at the moment. You have all this processing power, excellent applications, etc, etc, that let you be creative and entertain you. BUT, soon, you aint gonna be able to do half of what you used to with the new 'breed' of pc and OS. DRM / Palladium are going to severly cripple peoples creativity. I may be a bit astray in some of my comments, but that's just what I get from reading between the lines. I just hope I am even 10% wrong.

You're.. at least 10%
We've still got ogg, it's free (patent-free too) and open
So, things still ain't that bad..

Well, I chose it because the file size is smaller, and it sounds better than 128Kb/S encoded MP3's... Plus I wanted to compare formats for myself. I was thinking of encoding all my CDs to either .WMA (9) or Lame MP3. The filesizes for anyone who is interested, on the above 10 files is only 88MB. Not bad at all for high quality VBR.

My thoughts on DRM are this: Worst case senario, you have to pay for what you use. For those who don't purchase software, there are alternatives, such as open-source. In all honesty, how would you feel if some of your best work was available on P2P networks? While I am not an actor, a music artist or a programmer, I can see how that would be a total slap in the face. And for those that make the fair-use argument, I agree with you, completely. And as of now, we can rip our CDs and DVDs into any format we choose. With DRM, the only difference is that you can't distribute what you rip. Not a big deal, is it?

there will always be some way around it, i hope