WinFF Epic failure

[b8375629]

Well folks, I can safely say that I will be abandoning this software for good.

After asking another question as politely as possible from Matt, I get a response like this...


> Whty go through a fit about my software when you can just
> use another like handbrake or media coder that both give you
> lots of options for each individual file?
>
> Well, Stop using winff, stay out my forums.
>
> **** OFF, *******!
>
> Matt
>

With this level of immaturity, I'd think twice about using it.

[bat999]

Did you ask your question on the winff forum?

[pepegot1]

Works just fine for me!!

[filmboss80]

Yeah, it's kind of difficult to understand what the gripe is. For what it's designed to do, WinFF is a very simple, fast encoder, without bloatware. Countless people here use it without a hitch.

But there are always some folks who want the software to do something it was never designed to do, then gripe like little babies when they can't have their way.

This is freeware, created out of goodwill, without ulterior motives (like loading spyware). Evidently, some parent never taught the OP the meaning of the word "gratitude."

BiggMatt has earned his credibility. Whatever the issue, I get a sense that the problem isn't with him.

[hech54]

With this level of immaturity, I'd think twice about using it.

You do realize that you are being an a$$h0le over FREEWARE don't you? What do you do for
an encore?

[b8375629]

With this level of immaturity, I'd think twice about using it.

You do realize that you are being an a$$h0le over FREEWARE don't you? What do you do for
an encore?

What Do I do? Well I can also call you a rude a$$hole for one thing. How's that.

I think any of the points I made about it were genuine and made in good faith without any name calling. I don't take too kindly to that.

Plus the guy decided to take any criticism of his program personally by responding to me that way. I can do that too if I want, but he doesn't have to worry. I won't waste any more time with his sh!tty software anymore, considering I now know what I'm dealing with.

Oh and while you're at it, tell Matt to go on a diet. He's really beginning to look like a blimp.

Now, want more encores?

[b8375629]

Yeah, it's kind of difficult to understand what the gripe is.

I dunno. Why don't you ask him.

But there are always some folks who want the software to do something it was never designed to do, then gripe like little babies when they can't have their way.

I fully agree with you. Which is why you should tell him to grow up. He comes across as a bit of a spoiled brat who's never handled criticism before.

This is freeware, created out of goodwill, without ulterior motives (like loading spyware). Evidently, some parent never taught the OP the meaning of the word "gratitude."

Hmmm, free doesn't necessarily mean "good". There's great free software out there, and there's great paid software out there. Wise up.

BiggMatt has earned his credibility. Whatever the issue, I get a sense that the problem isn't with him.

Hmmm, could it be because you're an idiotic fanboy who thinks anything that doesn't have spyware and is free is good?

It's gonna have to have more than that before I give it an endorsement.

[bat999]

Did you ask your question on the winff forum?

..

[Baldrick]

Moving you to our video conversion section as this is not any videohelp feedback.

[b8375629]

Did you ask your question on the winff forum?

..

On Matt's forum? Oh most definitely. Never heard back from him.

Then I got sent that nasty email from out of nowhere, not expecting the immature rage that came with it.

Then he banned me from his forum because I listed some of his program's shortcomings in the Videohelp's Video Tools evaluation center. A couple of jerks there couldn't come up with an constructive response to my points so they instead spout off about what a "great program" it is without offering any kind of help. They acted like a couple of slavering fanboys.

That's really sad. Pathetic, even.

[chowmein]

Publish here what you wrote to warrant Matt's reply.

[b8375629]

Publish here what you wrote to warrant Matt's reply.

I can't. He deleted my account at his forum. I have no access to it now.

[filmboss80]

Yeah, it's kind of difficult to understand what the gripe is.

I dunno. Why don't you ask him.

But there are always some folks who want the software to do something it was never designed to do, then gripe like little babies when they can't have their way.

I fully agree with you. Which is why you should tell him to grow up. He comes across as a bit of a spoiled brat who's never handled criticism before.

This is freeware, created out of goodwill, without ulterior motives (like loading spyware). Evidently, some parent never taught the OP the meaning of the word "gratitude."

Hmmm, free doesn't necessarily mean "good". There's great free software out there, and there's great paid software out there. Wise up.

BiggMatt has earned his credibility. Whatever the issue, I get a sense that the problem isn't with him.

Hmmm, could it be because you're an idiotic fanboy who thinks anything that doesn't have spyware and is free is good?

It's gonna have to have more than that before I give it an endorsement.

B8375629: I was wondering what YOUR gripe was about; not BiggMatt's. You posted here without a single explanation about what your problem is with WinFF. When I spoke of people acting like babies, it was in reference to YOUR behavior. Criticisms are fine; what is the basis of yours? It is nowhere in this thread. I don't know your exact age, but I'm guessing you're one of these "entitlement generation" kiddos who think the world owes you something. When people develop software that actually WORKS (at least for everyone except you), without demanding anything in return, what makes you think you can make demands of them?

No one ever asked you to endorse or praise the software. If it doesn't meet your unrealistic expectations, simply move on. There is no need to childishly attack the developer. Those of us whose work has been aided by useful free software tools are merely being appreciative; it is not because we are "idiotic fanboys." (And it's not that we are dreamy-eyed about that particular software. But it does what it claims to do. So, what was your problem?)

The way I see it, the Epic Failure here is your parents' job of teaching you manners. It's really rich of you to tell others to wise up. Start with yourself.

[lordsmurf]

I listed some of his program's shortcomings in the Videohelp's Video Tools evaluation center.

This tool isn't very good and support for it is lacking, at best.
- For one thing, just to convert a simple .avi to an MPEG-4 takes hours.
- The auto shutdown doesn't work. I left it ticked in the menu and when I came back a few hours later, my machine was still on after the encoding process had completed.
- Try inserting an .srt file into the advanced command line so it will be embedded in the finished product. I had no clue how to do it and when I went to the guy's forum for help, he wasn't around. A simple path directing it to where the .srt located in it's file folder would do. As it is, there's no guide out there on how to do it.
- How about a progress bar or an timer letting us know how long it's going to take.
Hey it's free, so I shouldn't expect much, huh? Well you get what you pay for which in this case, is close to zero

AVI to MPEG-4 can take hours. It depends on the quality of the hardware, the files, file settings, and the software's encoding robustness. In this case, it appears to just be a front-end for FFMPEG, so don't think WinFF is at fault.

Auto shutdown often doesn't work -- on anything. I'd say this is a fair gripe. I gripe about this on other software, too.

If you read some of my posts criticizing Avisynth recently, you'll notice I'm not a fan of software that comes with no documentation. If you can write the program, surely you can explain how it works? Fair criticism. This assumes there really is no documentation on this task.

A progress bar is a must, or I won't even use it. I don't want to guess whether it's going to take 5 minutes or 5 days. Again, I think this is fair criticism. But again, is this because FFMPEG is at fault, or WinFF?

Just because something is freeware doesn't mean it's exempt from receiving criticism. At the same time, be sure that you're being constructive, and that your criticism is based on fact or science.

I've never used WinFF.
I use real encoders -- MainConcept Reference, Procoder, TMPGEnc Plus, etc.

[b8375629]

B8375629: I was wondering what YOUR gripe was about; not BiggMatt's.

Oh I know what you were doing. You were being a patronizing a$$hole. So I directed the conversation precisely where it should be.

You posted here without a single explanation about what your problem is with WinFF.

I think we're past that point by now. I don't appreciate getting emails like that and I wanted people to know what a dick your hero Matt could be.

When I spoke of people acting like babies, it was in reference to YOUR behavior.

Uh, my behavior is a reaction to what was directed at me. Nobody asked you to post in this thread if you can't handle it.

It is nowhere in this thread. I don't know your exact age, but I'm guessing you're one of these "entitlement generation" kiddos who think the world owes you something.

Now you're getting personal again. Did you follow what I said up above? EVERYTHING?

Well here's a clue for ya, cluetard. - - - > VideoHelp.com - Lists - Tools - WinFF.

I hope you can follow menus. Go there.

When people develop software that actually WORKS (at least for everyone except you), without demanding anything in return, what makes you think you can make demands of them?

That's your opinion. You're not everyone and everybody on this forum isn't everyone, either.

No one ever asked you to endorse or praise the software. If it doesn't meet your unrealistic expectations, simply move on. There is no need to childishly attack the developer.

Well why don't you follow your own advice and do the same instead of going around telling others how to behave like a hypocrite.

Those of us whose work has been aided by useful free software tools are merely being appreciative;

No, you're being uncritical by not offering any solutions and just telling me "it's great software" doesn't cut it.

(And it's not that we are dreamy-eyed about that particular software. But it does what it claims to do. So, what was your problem?)

I seriously doubt that. I made it as impersonal as I could by saying what I thought about it, and then I get attacked personally for it. Well I'll respond to that. I won't be bullied.

The way I see it, the Epic Failure here is your parents' job of teaching you manners. It's really rich of you to tell others to wise up. Start with yourself.

What are you? Some kind of old schoolmarm or something?

The epic failure is you can even follow your own advice and move on yourself. I suggest you start looking in your own backyard before you start finger-wagging others.

[filmboss80]

Eh, so the gripe was under the tool's evaluation comments. Would've been nice if they were repeated here at the start of this thread. Nevertheless, as I surmised, some expectations were unrealistic. (Want faster encoding? Get a faster computer.)

I've never used WinFF.
I use real encoders -- MainConcept Reference, Procoder, TMPGEnc Plus, etc.

Yes, Smurfy, but you PAY for those tools. If no one is paying you for the bells and whistles...and manuals...for the software, there isn't much incentive to slave over a task excessively, to great personal expense. I'm guessing the WinFF developer has a real job somewhere, and that he's doing this task for fun and sharing. Critiques of his limited GUI are perfectly fine. (And because of the limitations, I tend to use some of the other tools you mentioned.) I just gets my goat when people freely share the somewhat successful fruits of their labor and get shat upon for it by ill-mannered whiners.

EDIT: As for the OP's latest slam (posted while I was writing this), his words reveal his character.

[b8375629]

Well I appreciate the help, lordsmurf. Finally, somebody gets it.

Now if Matt (or filmboss80 and some others...) could've just responded to me like you did, I wouldn't be having the conversation that I am now.

[lordsmurf]

Well filmboss, I have to disagree. I don't think pay has any relationship to the documentation.

Example 1: I don't pay for Avisynth, and I think it's completely bullshit that so much is undocumented. (The filters, mostly.) If you can't explain what something does, then maybe don't bother making something nobody knows how to use?

Example 2: Procoder 2 has a lot of problems with the encoder, whether it's softness compared to version 1, or certain color issues with certain types of inputs. None of that is really documented either. Even having paid for the software, nothing has ever been done to address it by Canopus.

If problems are reported, either address them or face the consequences of criticism. For free or for pay. There's obviously no expectation with freeware, other than your reputation. Of course, the same can be said of payware. Buying the software tends to be as-is, there's really no requirement that a company give you anything extra beyond that. And few do. Support sucks, documentation is Engrish, and the product is full of bugs. Just think about Pinnacle Studio, and it's level of respect (zilch).

Yeah, b8375629 seems to be a tad too aggressive. But I'm looking more at the act of criticizing freeware in general, and then the specific complaints against WinFF. I'm not worrying about anybody that may be acting immature, be it the user or the programmer.

Again, I've never used WinFF, have nothing for it or against it.

[b8375629]

Eh, so the gripe was under the tool's evaluation comments. Would've been nice if they were repeated here at the start of this thread. Nevertheless, as I surmised, some expectations were unrealistic. (Want faster encoding? Get a faster computer.)

I don't need a faster computer. I need a faster program.

My computer does just fine for my current needs. Maybe his program should utilize multiple core processors better than it does.

Yes, Smurfy, but you PAY for those tools. If no one is paying you for the bells and whistles...and manuals...for the software, there isn't much incentive to slave over a task excessively, to great personal expense.

Well in this particular case, you get what you pay for which isn't much here.

I'm guessing the WinFF developer has a real job somewhere, and that he's doing this task for fun and sharing.

Which is partially the problem. He doesn't take it too seriously since he hardly ever show up in his own forums to begin with.

But I should've known this was part-time fanboy software in the first place. My bad.

I just gets my goat when people freely share the somewhat successful fruits of their labor and get shat upon for it by ill-mannered whiners.

Well it gets my goat getting sh!tty emails like that in the first place. I react to people the way they act towards me.

If you're so worried about "ill-mannered" then maybe you should shoot Matt an email and ask him about his manners.

EDIT: As for the OP's latest slam (posted while I was writing this), his words reveal his character.

Translation: I don't take any sh!t. From anybody.

[b8375629]

AVI to MPEG-4 can take hours. It depends on the quality of the hardware, the files, file settings, and the software's encoding robustness. In this case, it appears to just be a front-end for FFMPEG, so don't think WinFF is at fault.

Fair enough.

Auto shutdown often doesn't work -- on anything. I'd say this is a fair gripe. I gripe about this on other software, too.

I haven't really had any problem with DVD Shirink, ConvXtoDVD 4 or Nero doing this. If it doesn't work, then maybe he shouldn't have that option in his menu.

If you read some of my posts criticizing Avisynth recently, you'll notice I'm not a fan of software that comes with no documentation. If you can write the program, surely you can explain how it works? Fair criticism. This assumes there really is no documentation on this task.

In all due fairness, he does have some basic documentation for it, but anything more advanced like how to use command line switches and advanced features with his program, is sorely lacking.

A progress bar is a must, or I won't even use it. I don't want to guess whether it's going to take 5 minutes or 5 days. Again, I think this is fair criticism. But again, is this because FFMPEG is at fault, or WinFF?

Yeah, you're blind in the dark without it. Lol... Having something like that is essential as far as I'm concerned.

Just because something is freeware doesn't mean it's exempt from receiving criticism. At the same time, be sure that you're being constructive, and that your criticism is based on fact or science.

That's also fair enough. I don't say anything about this without using the program beforehand. What I didn't expect was all the knee-jerk, fanboy reaction.

I use real encoders -- MainConcept Reference, Procoder, TMPGEnc Plus, etc.

And I'm perfectly willing to pay for software if it does the job well and I have a chance to try it out or get my money back. I don't know why there's this obsession with having everything "free" all the time. If "free" doesn't work then try something else, which is what I'm going to do with your suggestions up above.

[lordsmurf]

What I didn't expect was all the knee-jerk, fanboy reaction.

That's what I got when I criticized Avisynth. The things fanboys don't understand is we're criticizing because we want to use them, we want them to be better tools. This is feedback.

[b8375629]

What I didn't expect was all the knee-jerk, fanboy reaction.

That's what I got when I criticized Avisynth. The things fanboys don't understand is we're criticizing because we want to use them, we want them to be better tools. This is feedback.

Yeah you got that right. Is feedback only supposed to consist of praise or what?

I was perfectly willing to give WinFF a chance, but if this is what surrounds that negative ecosystem, then who needs it. Blah.

I've also started using XMedia Recode and so far it looks promising.

[lordsmurf]

Is feedback only supposed to consist of praise or what?

Just look at sites like About.com or CNET.com and read any of the reviews. They're all fluffy bullshit, nothing is ever negative, not even on defective products. It's all overly glowing positives ("outstanding!"), and maybe 1-2 glossed-over negatives ("could work better"). It's in the style guides of About.com to avoid negatives when possible.

I'd much rather see "it works" and "awful!" -- at least those are obviously honest. (Although it needs to be correct. I see lots of negative reviews where the person is the fault, not the product.)

In recent years, it's like criticism has become politically incorrect, even in publications that are expected to criticize. Consumer Reports, for example. It's gotten better in recent issues, I think, but for several years there it was a waste of dead trees.

[AlanHK]

Well folks, I can safely say that I will be abandoning this software for good.

After asking another question as politely as possible from Matt, I get a response like this...

You posted three nasty "reviews" with low ratings on the WinFF software page here. That is abusive; the instructions when you write a comment are:

Please don't post questions, this is NO support or discussion list. Use our forum for that.

You should have started a discussion thread here if that's what you wanted, not downrating the program THREE TIMES out of spite.

And in general, WinFF is just a tool to create command lines for ffmpeg.
If you understood that you'd know why most of your demands are impractical.
But worse than that is your attitude and trying to take revenge on the author.

Well filmboss, I have to disagree. I don't think pay has any relationship to the documentation.

Example 1: I don't pay for Avisynth, and I think it's completely bullshit that so much is undocumented. (The filters, mostly.) If you can't explain what something does, then maybe don't bother making something nobody knows how to use?.

You continue to be intentionally obtuse about this.

And the filters you bitch about -- ALL FREE BY THE WAY -- are not part of the program.

Those that are, the "Internal filters" are documented exhaustively: http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/Internal_filters

Any idiot, even me, can write a filter script or even a compiled one (dll) and if they feel it might be useful to others, make it available on their own website, post it in a forum, or in the Avisynth Wiki. There are no barriers to anyone creating and publishing. That's the whole idea and one reason why it's so useful and powerful.

You just have to use your own judgement about whether a particular filter suits your purpose or can be adapted to it.

It takes about ONE MINUTE to install a plugin and give it a try. If it doesn't work as you want, delete it. If you can't work out how it should be used, either invest the time to READ THE CODE AND LEARN SOMETHING, or post in a forum like Doom 9 and ask a question, or just delete it and try another.

If you can't wrap your brain around the concept, than just stick with expensive prepackaged corporate-approved solutions with technical support you can pay through the nose for.

What I didn't expect was all the knee-jerk, fanboy reaction.

That's what I got when I criticized Avisynth. The things fanboys don't understand is we're criticizing because we want to use them, we want them to be better tools. This is feedback.

You fail to even try to understand how it works.
You ignore helpful advice and just keep spitting out abuse.

Even though you claim to have "used it for nine years" you remain totally clueless, you don't know (or worse, pretend not to know to make your point) things I worked out in the first week, and will remain so because you insist it must work the way you think it should.

[AlanHK]

Is feedback only supposed to consist of praise or what?

One bad review is feedback, three times is abuse.

And starting this thread on top of that is just vindictive.

I've also started using XMedia Recode and so far it looks promising.

My daughter uses that for converting media for her phone and it is very capable and reliable. However, there is no forum or any way to contact the author of that, whereas Matt does respond on his site; though not as obsequiously as you would like.

The major difference between XmediaRecode and WinFF is that WinFF uses the command line ffmpeg.exe; whereas XMR uses the dll. So it can wrap it in a GUI to take the sharp corners off it. They each have their virtues. You can take the command line from WinFF and use them in your own batch scripts.

[AlanHK]

Is feedback only supposed to consist of praise or what?

Just look at sites like About.com or CNET.com and read any of the reviews. They're all fluffy bullshit, nothing is ever negative, not even on defective products. It's all overly glowing positives ("outstanding!"), and maybe 1-2 glossed-over negatives ("could work better"). It's in the style guides of About.com to avoid negatives when possible.

While I have no brief for CNet, just yesterday I was looking up a device there and found, AS USUAL, a mixed bag of reviews.

http://reviews.cnet.com/adapters-nics/dwl-g650-airplus-xtreme/4505-3380_7-20817314.html
Most helpful user review
Showing number 1 of 87 reviews
5 of 5 users found this review helpful
2.5 stars
"card=8 software=0"
by wetcrankymonkey on 2005-06-24 13:28:12.0
Pros: good connection and signal
Cons: software was worthless, tech support worse...

There is no shortage of negative reviews on CNet.

[lordsmurf]

Not the user reviews. The CNET reviews.

Do you really not know the difference between some random yahoo leaving a comment, and the editorial written up by staff at the publication?

Sorry AlanHK, you've entered the realm of "Avisynth fanboy". And third-party plugins are what my gripe is about. I don't think you even read my posts. You simply want to defend the honor of the software, as if anybody really cares about that.

[AlanHK]

Not the user reviews. The CNET reviews.

Do you really not know the difference between some random yahoo leaving a comment, and the editorial written up by staff at the publication?
.

Yes, I do. However, they're both "reviews". You said " read any of the reviews". And this was brought up in the context of b8375629's bitching, i.e., a "random yahoo".

Sorry AlanHK, you've entered the realm of "Avisynth fanboy". And third-party plugins are what my gripe is about. I don't think you even read my posts. You simply want to defend the honor of the software, as if anybody really cares about that.

No, you've entered the realm of obsession. You jump into a thread on a software you've never used (WinFF) to use it as a platform to rant about another software.

I don't care about "honour" of software. I just know that I use Avisynth every day, and that your complaints about it are ill founded.
I have explained in detail why, you ignore that and just keep personalising the discussion.
No one can have a different opinion to you without you attacking them as a "fanboy" or "loser" or worse.

You don't like someone's FREE plugin?
1) Don't use it. &/or
2) Write your own &&
3) STFU.

There are plenty of scripts and plugins that I read about and think might be useful, but need too big an investment of time to get working. So I just put them aside and use something easier.

[hech54]

With this level of immaturity, I'd think twice about using it.

You do realize that you are being an a$$h0le over FREEWARE don't you? What do you do for
an encore?

What Do I do? Well I can also call you a rude a$$hole for one thing. How's that.

I think any of the points I made about it were genuine and made in good faith without any name calling. I don't take too kindly to that.

Plus the guy decided to take any criticism of his program personally by responding to me that way. I can do that too if I want, but he doesn't have to worry. I won't waste any more time with his sh!tty software anymore, considering I now know what I'm dealing with.

Oh and while you're at it, tell Matt to go on a diet. He's really beginning to look like a blimp.

Now, want more encores?

What part of IT'S FREE SOFTWARE didn't sink into that thick head of yours moron?
What does WinFF do actually?.....I have no freakin' clue cause I don't use it....never have.
All I see is some A§§H0LE being a drama queen crybaby over FREEWARE.

[Calidore]

Couple things for b8375629:

1) Speed: WinFF is only a frontend for ffmpeg; that's what does the conversion and what you have to tweak for the speed. Under WinFF's "Additional Command Lines" tab at the bottom, add --threads=x, where x=your cores. I'm running an i7, so I have threads=8.

2) The WinFF/Docs folder has a PDF with pretty complete documentation for the program, and also a link on the last page to the ffmpeg command-line reference at ffmpeg.org. What were you looking for that you weren't getting?

3) When ffmpeg runs, among all the information it shows is the duration of the video it's converting, and it's constantly updating where it's currently at. It's not as at-a-glance as a progress bar, but ffmpeg does clearly indicate its progress. WinFF's job is simply to make it easier to set up the conversion; once ffmpeg has been called, it stays out of the way.

4) Why is everyone who likes the software and defends it automatically a fanboy? Does your not liking it automatically make you a hater?

Best,

Calidore