[bct] Re: Norton Ghost and Nero

  • From: "Ray Foret Jr." <rforetjr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:50:10 -0600

Frankly, I agree; however, I can understand why they do things the way they 
do.  You and I and most others here are doubtless familiar with the Windows 
platform; be it 98, 2000, ME or XP.  However, there does stand the 
possibility that some listener out there may not be as familiar as are we 
with these things; therefore, it's better to err on the side of giving more 
explanations than fewer.  This brings up a question.  Given that there are 
obviously at the very least two ways of doing a review, (the way which 
explains every thing and the way which just seems to rush through the 
"standard stuff") might it be better to offer both types of review?  ON the 
face of it, the answer might seem to obviously be yes; however, this causes 
more work for the reviewer; unless, that is, the reviewer records just one 
version which explains everything and then records a brief summary of the 
standard stuff and drops it in to the file in place of the detailed version. 
What do y'all think about that?

Sincerely yours,
The Constantly Barefoot,
Home phone and fax:
Skype Name:
God bless President George W. Bush!
God bless our troops!
and God bless America
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Debee Norling" <debee@xxxxxxxx>
To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: [bct] Norton Ghost and Nero

I'd personally love to listen to casts on both Nero and Norton Ghost, but
one caveat.

I get borred with those endless software reviews where the screen reading
user takes us through every tab in every dialog box.

I'd much prefer a user to say something like "options has four tabs,
general,  view, settings and preferences. Most of this is standard stuff,
but you actually set your output directory under preferences and other file
related options are curiously enough under    settings."

It is also great if they skip the install step unless there's something
unusual about installing the software. Since Windows is fairly standard, I
like it when reviewers cover everything that is non-standard and skip the


Other related posts: