Gail wrote:
> 
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
> news:490adb53@news.povray.org...
> 
>> I do recall spending 4 days trying to get a codec called "cinepak" to 
>> work well - and when I mentioned it online, somebody said "OMG, do you 
>> have *any idea* how ancient that thing is? Get rid of it!" I guess I 
>> assumed that DivX must be similar, so I didn't spent too many hours 
>> trying to fix it.
> 
> You seem to often make assumptions based on insufficient information. 
> Don't. Investigate, verify, confirm for yourself. The tools needed are 
> there, it's not hard.
> You do your reputation no good if you make an assumption that 2 min or 
> less with google will show to be completely false.

You look at your PC. You have half a dozen codecs available. Which ones 
are you going to spend most time investigating? The ones you've never 
heard of? Or the ones you've heard about that are supposed to be good? 
Where are you going to spend the most effort?

Also... You make it sound like Google is some magical Oracle that will 
instantly answer any possible question. This is not actually the case. 
Google works very well for certain questions, and drastically less well 
for certain other questions. Sometimes it can take hours of hunting to 
get a useful answer out of Google. (Though probably not for the specific 
case in question.)

Post a reply to this message