With so many options user preference has a lot to do with a person's selection of software. If you like a program and it makes you happy, then by all means use it. Recode requires an external program to bypass copy protection. When opening a disc it works the same as DVD Shrink using quick analysis. Both have the deep analysis feature. Once Shrink opens up, the files are in front of the user in Full Disc, whick is the only option with Recode in full DVD mode. I realize there's the quick movie only mode, but Shrink has Reauthor that can handle that. Noticable is the Disable feature in Recode. That's simply the Still Image feature in Shrink's Compression settings. Is it looking like Recode is still something of a Shrink clone? There's the same language selections to uncheck. Next in Recode is like using Backup in Shrink. So far I've seen nothing better or significantly different. We have to realize it's pretty much the same program by the same author. Once in Nero's burn settings the Shrink user would be right at home. For Quality Settings Nero has Advanced Analysis (deep analysis) and High Quality Mode (Adaptive Error Compensation). Only in Nero there's no adjusting the settings for Quality Mode without going into the Nero setup file. Shrink has those settings up front. Set the burn speed and enter Burn. That's pretty much what is done with Shrink. That pretty much covers all that Nero Recode does in comparison to Shrink. One doesn't seem to be any faster than the other, in the transcoding Recode may be faster. Someone can time doing the same files with both Recode and Shrink and report back. Shrink has features not included in Recode. It has it's editing section, not just the Disable (Still Image) feature. Though not a full editing program like DVDReMake, Reauthor can do quite a bit. The decryption software is weak in Shrink, but it has some. It does a lot of movies and only the newer movies with the heavier copy protections stop it. Then decryptions programs come into use the same as Recode needs all the time. Using RipIt4Me a person can tell which movies to jump to Shrink with or go through processing before using in the transcoder. It has to be preference, because I see little or no difference between Shrink 3.2 and Recode. Recode may have a prettier interface, but that's in the eye of the beholder as well. Both can burn with Nero, Recode is captive. Shrink has other options as well. Remove user preference and the fact that Shrink is free, can anyone give a legitimate reason for using one over the other? LOL But free counts for a lot when the rest of the factors stack up even or possibly a bit in favor of the freeware. I mentioned rebuilder which can put both Shrink and Recode to shame. Transcoders such as these two remove frames and compress to shrink the video to fit. Encoders go through the entire video and reallocate bitrate as necessary while shrinking the video, which transcoders can't. Under high compression that means a noticably better picture and far fewer compression induced errors. Transcoders are faster, but they lack the quality of an encoder. On low to moderate compression videos the difference may be negligible. Also screen size can play a factor. The larger the screen the more an error is likely to be seen. I view my movies on a 60" screen. I've got a friend who has a projection TV who has had to go back and redo a bunch of backups using Rebuilder for use in his home theatre. Recode, Shrink, and the other transcoders left the picture lacking, except at very low compression. As you so aptly put, "I use what I use because I like it, not something else because you like it!". Many people have their preferences and they may not always be the same. To each his own.