Reviews of FireBurner for Windows

1. 
   lilmegz

   Reviewing 2.2.0 (May 25, 2003)

   FireBurner 2.2.0 sucks for making music CDs, it screwed up TWO of my music CDs I made. I give this a 1 star rating for the 2.2.0 version, all other previous versions get a 5 star!
2. 
   Pr0peLLer

   Reviewing 2.2.0 (May 18, 2003)

   whats new in this version?
   
   best image burn tool
3. 
   Scorched Earth

   Reviewing 2.2.0 (May 17, 2003)

   I think I'd recommend this to my less computer literate friends. Well, ones that are just interested in burning audio. There's no need for Nero if that's all you want to do, because chances are you'll forget to remove the friggin worthless 2 seconds between audio tracks. I've never used FB for burning images, so I don't know what to say about that feature. Anyway, this version is neater than the previous one. However, I don't like how it uses 100% of my CPU when converting audio tracks, the last version didn't do this.
4. 
   MrPeanut

   Reviewing 2.1.7 (Feb 7, 2002)

   wd40 & ShafuyZ
   
   Go ahead and use Nero if it suits you, but for many people, FireBurner fits the bill quite nicely. It is small, reliable, and doesn't require you to install proprietary ASPI drivers. Please keep your shallow criticisms to yourself, especially if you need INSTRUCTIONS, god forbid, to use a piece of software. Nero does have additional features, and it's great software. But I like FireBurner better. Thanks IgD!!!
5. 
   ShafuyZ

   Reviewing 2.1.7 (Feb 7, 2002)

   wd40 - my sentiments PRECISELY. FB used to have a reason to exist when Nero didn't support BIN, and burning ISO's wasn't that straight forward (you needed INSTRUCTIONS to do it right). This was valid just two-three months ago. No more. Today, FB is useless. I, just like wd40, use only Nero. Moves much faster than Easy, and doesn't like to freeze/produce coasters during the first min like Easy likes to do (on multiple burners and PC's).

Discuss FireBurner for Windows

No comments yet