Nero vs ImgBurn: Why is ImgBurn preferred?

[usually_quiet]

Ever since ImgBurn was released, members here have been praising it, and saying it is better for burning DVD video than Nero, but I have yet to hear an explanation as to why this is so.

I have been using Nero for a couple of years, and have had good results, as long as I used quality media. I have used ImgBurn too, and it's fine, but I haven't found anything I like more about it, other than the additional choices available for burn speed. Just curious as to what the other reasons its fans have for preferring ImgBurn.

Then continue using Nero. Why would one want to pay for burning when its free? Nero is full of crapware and lost the simple things like just burning.

The version of Nero I was using was not only provided to me for free with my burner, but was also a stripped-down older version, not the latest full version, and was not particularly bloated.

Anybody else wishing to discuss the faults and merits of these applications can start his own thread. This thread served its purpose 3 years ago as far as I am concerned and I'm asking the mods to close it.

[redwudz]

I think this thread has run it's course. Closed.

Moderator redwudz