Talk:Nero Multimedia Suite

message: IS it safe to have more than one CD Burning Software on the same computer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.244.143 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2005
:Wrong place to ask, but:
::On Windows, not really. There can be big conflicts, particularly with EasyCD Creator and Nero on XPSP2.
::On anything else, yes.
:--Kiand 17:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You sure?  Only problem I have is that one of them occasionally stops working, usually after the other has been updated.  I'm more worried at the bloatness of their updaters. Smoothy 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually find that the CD drive stops working entirely due to conflicting filters installed, but thats just my experience. anyway, wrong place to ask. --Kiand 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: August 2005

message: The current screenshot on the page is of the previous version of Nero, version 6. Could anyone take & submit an updated screenshot of the current version, version 7? —S3BST3R 04:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated screenshot? 

message: Can we get rid of it or replace it with higher quality reviews? Fairly useless as it stands I think.Thadk 06:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nero 7 Review link 

message: Well, I've found references for every detail which was tagged "citation needed", and converted various in-text links to <ref> format. Many of these are from primary sources (mainly the Nero website), but where possible I've found others. In addition, I've cleaned out the external links section – we don't need  links to a dozen difference CD writing apps, the link to List of optical disc authoring software is enough. diff ― GrimRevenant 08:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References + link cleanup 

message: I've added a version history section to list some of the major versions of the software. I've added whatever information I could get. Must be expanded further.
Aeons | Talk 06:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version history 

message: Does anybody know why, when i use nero 6 and try to put a song on in the background it does not work. Even when it says in the capacity info part that i am not even using up to 4GB, a extra coating of light blue occurs at the very start of the capacity info Risteard B 20:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a tech support forum. Ham Pastrami 01:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOVIE ON TO DISK 

message: I made the article and it's already a crappy redirect, it still doesn't expalin what Super Link is, thats a mis use of the redirect feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realg187 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 May 2007
:Well, now it's been deleted – is that better?
:: No, noob is this site was really a wiki then NOTHING WOULD BE DELETED! The purpose of a wiki is to inform, not make crappy redirects or vandalize pages!
:"SuperLink" is just one company's name for their implementation of buffer underrun protection technology for CD/DVD burners. LG calls it SuperLink, Plextor BurnProof, Yamaha SafeBurn, et cetera ad nauseum. What's in a name? —GrimRevenant 13:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Super Link]] 

message: Application          	Latest Version
Nero Home            	2.0.16.0
Nero StartSmart      	3.10.1.0
Nero ProductSetup    	1.6.47.0
Nero Burning ROM     	3.10.1.0
Nero Express         	7.10.1.0
Nero SoundTrax       	2.10.1.0
Nero WaveEditor      	3.10.1.0
Nero BackItUp        	2.10.3.2
Nero CoverDesigner   	2.10.1.1
Nero PhotoSnap       	1.2.0.25
Nero PhotoSnap Viewer	1.2.0.25
Nero Recode          	2.5.5.0
Nero Vision          	4.9.7.2
Nero ShowTime        	3.10.1.0
Nero Mobile          	1.4.0.9
Nero MediaHome       	2.5.16.0
Nero ImageDrive      	3.0.0.12
Nero CD-DVD Speed    	4.7.7.0
Nero DriveSpeed      	3.0.11.1
Nero InfoTool        	4.4.2.0
Nero BurnRights      	2.1.0.10
Nero Scout           	2.0.16.0
Note: The above table was moved from the main article for discussion.
I think that it will be useless to list the components version. They are part of the Nero software suite and should therefore be mentioned only as part of the  main program. For some of the major components, a prose section (with all references!) could be written. Else, this has the possibility of becoming very messy in the long term.
Anyone has other opinions? Aeons | Talk 07:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nero AG article is short, and this could so there to add content there and clean up here, and I guess it belongs there anyways as that article for for all of Nero.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.204.116 (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nero Components 

message: I think we should move to Nero (computer software) only because Nero Buring ROM was an old name and now it's simply called Nero  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippy deluxe (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pity nobody noticed this request and the page has been moved. The reason provided above is unsourced and blatantly false. Here is the source: a list of "applications" that currently belong to Nero 8 Ultra Edition "suite". The fifth entry of the list is "Nero Burning ROM 8 – Expert CD and DVD Burning". As this article clearly DOES NOT, and should not, cover the whole suite (which includes about 25 applications, including PhotoSnap or WaveEditor), I propose to move it back to old name. --Kubanczyk 11:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter. It is indeed computer software and the page name needs to be as descriptive as possible. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your argument, don't even know if you are opposing or supporting the move. --Kubanczyk 06:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the article named "Nero Buring ROM" is confusing. I didn't even know that it was a software before reading it. It's best to name it "Nero (computer software)" and then specify it's precise name in the article itself, so that it doesn't confuse new readers but still lets those familiar with the software understand. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is about 25 very different programs now that all are "Nero something". I understand that for you Nero is a  WP:COMMONNAME for Nero Buring ROM and maybe Nero Express. I would agree two years ago, but now I don't. Let's wait for a third opinion then. I'll add temporary explanation to the article. --Kubanczyk 15:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What about "Nero Buring ROM (computer software)? Wikidudeman (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Nero! 

message: For a short time (ca 2002~2004), Nero produced a Macintosh version called NeroMAX. It was only available in OEM bundles. All links to information about NeroMAX at ahead.de or nero.com have been redirected to the main page. The last version I know about is 1.68. Try digging up http://www.nero.com/en/neromax_yamaha.htm with the web archive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nero for Macintosh

message: :Image:Nero7 big256.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nero7 big256.png

message: :Image:NeroLinux3.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NeroLinux3.png

message: 82.36.215.64 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nero OEM

message: Greetings, everyone.
As I'm writing this, the "Criticism" section of this article suffers from the following issues and requires your attention:
1. This section uses weasel words. Example:
A large installer contains many features perceived as unnecessary by many experienced users
Who are these "experienced users"? How "experienced" are they? How do they "perceive" so? Do non-"experienced" users not perceive so? If not, is it because of their ignorance or difference of preferences? Above all, which source says so?
2. This section contains unverifiable claims about Nero suite that are not covered by its sources. Example:
One of the factors that produces even more criticism is the fact that the latest Nero 9 needs .NET Framework 3.0 to run.
No source is provided to support this allegation. (Also note another example of use weasel words.)
3. This section contains POV statements. While it's main source is only a mild article titled "Nero Lite" and "Nero Micro": smaller sometimes is better, this section virtually claims that the whole world is accusing Nero of software bloat:
Nero AG has been accused of software bloat due to its slow evolution from a simple, efficient burning program to an oversized home entertainment package.
Contrary to such allegations, the aforementioned article explicitly states:
...some people -prestigious and influential pundits, indeed- claim that software bloat doesn't exist and some go as far as to say that feature bloat is a myth...
Although the author quotes another user who have accused Nero of software bloat, expresses disagreement with these "influential pundits" and suggests Nero Lite and Nero Micro, he does not mention anything about anyone else having the same idea. (Please note two more issues in this statement: (1) Use of weasel word and (2) Unverifiable allegations.)
4. The structure and tone of this section is unacceptable. For example:
While many components can be removed using the official installer, its large size and the inability to remove all undesired components via its interface make these alternatives desirable. A valid Nero license key is still required for all installations.
As you can see, the sentences talking about different subjects are written in mixed fashion. One sentence is criticizing Nero (without adequate sources, and using weasel words) and the other is giving seemingly-unrelated information about Nero Micro and Nero Lite, as if it is advertising them or trying to justify something. (Please note another issue: Lack of source for the first sentence.)
I'm tagging this section appropriately. Fleet Command (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then; Nobody wishes to take action? No? Then, I'm deleting this section. Fleet Command (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: I have updated the article to reflect that ImageDrive was removed from version 9. Could someone verify what versions it was actually present in? It would probably be useful to provide that information in the article.BcRIPster (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. Actually, Nero ImageDrive is not included in the source, so no further verification for its non-inclusion in Nero 9 is not necessary. However, we need a source that actually says this tool was present. Fleet Command (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ImageDrive 

message: Hi, everyone.
As of this writing, this article is outdated. Nero is no longer releasing a Nero software suite. It is now releasing two products instead: Nero Multimedia Suite 10 and Nero Burning ROM 10.
An update is required.
Fleet Command (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated as of May 2010 

message: The article says "Nero Vision has been renamed Nero Video by Nero 11,The product is available separately video editing software tool capable of mixing video clips and authoring DVDs."
This wording has been in the article for a while. I don't know if it was an accident resulting from good faith editing or vandalism.  Assuming the first comma should be a period then 
* What is "Nero Vision?"  It's never mentioned in the article other than this fragment.
* Who or what is "Nero 11?"
For now, I removed this fragment from the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence fragment