You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Just made a couple of DVD/RW's with the latest DriverPacks and had problems with freezing during install or missing files.
Have used these in the past and they worked OK, yes I did a format (quick)
Put the same ISO's onto DVD+R and they worked flawlessly. I think I am willing to spend 20 cents every time and know it works.
Your opinions-reactions on this would be welcome.
the rewritable media are not as reliable as WORM media. That is not unusual.
Never put backups or info you wish to store for long periods on rewritable.
True.
Last week I lost my first CDRW to dye breakdown. Granted, the disc was about 5 years old.
I have a half-dozen DVD-R/W discs that I use for testing. I don't keep anything important on them. For archival purposes, I use DVD-R (I hear that +R is better for longevity).
I know for a fact that you get better burn quality at lower burn speeds. If you're not in a hurry, always burn at the slowest possible speeds.
Good to know about the slowest speed idea, I will try over the weekend.
These RW's are about 3 years old and were unused until a couple of weeks ago and have only been used maybe 6-7 times and are dropping data.
May try doing a full format and try again.
Thanks for the input.
rewriteables use a more malleable metalic surface and it is suseptable to deforming or not holding the imprint as well or for as long.
This characteristic must exist in order to make it eraseable.
It also makes it harder to get a good write and less likely to hold for long periods.
the surface tends to flatten itself over time especialy if not kept cool.
Ever microwave a cd for a couple of seconds? - [not good for the microwave, but fun to watch]
Last edited by OverFlow (2007-05-05 04:06:36)
the rewritable media are not as reliable as WORM media. That is not unusual.
Never put backups or info you wish to store for long periods on rewritable.
While I personally have made only good experiences with anything but ultra-low-priced cheapo RWs (why you would want to get these is a mystery anyway because, seeing as they are reusable, you may just get some more expensive ones...), this probabaly holds true.
Still, yet, this should not trick you into believing your data is save on a WORM medium.
Quite the contrary, I have had a lot of older CD-Rs dissolve over time although they are stored dry and away from light (maybe not that cool though, but I don't have any free space in the refridgerator! 
).
If you want to do backups, I can only STRONGLY advice using either opto-magnetical media, tapes or DVD-RAMs.
Using ordinary CDs/DVDs is just asking for trouble, IMO.
HDDs aren't much better.
Even if the data is still well-preserved, seeing as the controller is "on-board", if that one is to fail, your data is gone as well (unless you pay a restore company big bucks for retaining it...).
True.
Last week I lost my first CDRW to dye breakdown. Granted, the disc was about 5 years old.
Any idea on the re-write cycles it had to sustain so far?
Just curious.
Personally, I'd consider 5 years a well-paid-off lifetime for such a media, moreso seeing as they don't cost that much more than a WORM edition 
I have a half-dozen DVD-R/W discs that I use for testing. I don't keep anything important on them.
Me neither, but in any case, if you use NERO, make sure to use its Verify Disc After Burning feature, very, very handy!
For archival purposes, I use DVD-R (I hear that +R is better for longevity).
Dunno, but I'm using DVD+R out of principle (-Rs have already burnt-in crippled CSS sectors whereas +Rs haven't, if you own a special burner (very expensive!), you could copy CSS protected media, as the CSS sectors are writable )
I know for a fact that you get better burn quality at lower burn speeds. If you're not in a hurry, always burn at the slowest possible speeds.
Generally, you would think so, unfortunately, this does not always hold ture.
Modern media that is veryfied for 16x writing ususally works best at exactly that speed.
Burning them slower (either because the device can't do it faster or out of purpose) can actually get you worse results than burning on the certified speed.
Strange, but nonetheless true...
rewriteables use a more malleable metalic surface and it is suseptable to deforming or not holding the imprint as well or for as long.
Actually, going a bit technical here, RWs use the fact that metals can either take a crystal or an amorph shape.
The crystal will reflect the light in a given angle (just as a mirror), whereas in the amorph shape the light reflection will be diffuse, not reflecting the light into a given direction but rather all.
This state can be changed simply by heating the metal to somewhere close to the melting point, then cooling it down either quickly or slowly.
Generally, this process is infinitively reversible, however, obviously heating will accelerate any oxidation of the metal or other reactions.
I'm not too keen on how exactly this works in an RW medium, but that is the principle at least
This characteristic must exist in order to make it eraseable.
It also makes it harder to get a good write and less likely to hold for long periods.
Indeed, the writing method differs quite a lot from the ordinary WORM media.
Also, as you may have noticed, some standalone CDDA players will have problems properly reading a CDDA-RW, whereas a CDDA-R will work flawlessley.
This is also based on the different writing technique and the resulting less-than-perfect readability (not so good contrast between the pits and lands).
the surface tends to flatten itself over time especialy if not kept cool.
Not sure about that, I would rather suspect that a higher temperature could mean the metal recrystalizes itself (I'm pretty sure it won't re-amorph, though ), and be it due to auto-dispersion.
Ever microwave a cd for a couple of seconds? - [not good for the microwave, but fun to watch]
Oh yes, especially for the kids!
mr_smartepants wrote:True.
Last week I lost my first CDRW to dye breakdown. Granted, the disc was about 5 years old.Any idea on the re-write cycles it had to sustain so far?
Just curious.
Personally, I'd consider 5 years a well-paid-off lifetime for such a media, moreso seeing as they don't cost that much more than a WORM edition
I'm not sure of the cycles. I didn't use them all that often until about two years ago (blame nlite, ryanvm and Bâshrat the Sneaky) 
I'm guessing I averaged one burn a week for about two years...maybe 100-150 cycles? You're right, it served with honor and died peacefully.
mr_smartepants wrote:I know for a fact that you get better burn quality at lower burn speeds. If you're not in a hurry, always burn at the slowest possible speeds.
Modern media that is veryfied for 16x writing ususally works best at exactly that speed.
Burning them slower (either because the device can't do it faster or out of purpose) can actually get you worse results than burning on the certified speed.
Strange, but nonetheless true...
OK, I'm going to have to disagree with you there...
I proved this to myself about a year ago with my new 16x Plextor ($$$) burner. I bought about 4 different brands of 16x media and tried burning the same DVD at different speeds to try to pick out the most compatible media for my burner. I burnt at 16x, 12x, 8x, 4x for all brands and I found that on my DVD player, the 16x burned media would only play the first 5 min of the movie then stall. The 12x burned movie was better but stalled out halfway through. The 8x burned movies played all the way through but didn't last that long (10 playbacks max) and the 4x burned movies are still going strong.
YMMV.
Helmi wrote:mr_smartepants wrote:I know for a fact that you get better burn quality at lower burn speeds. If you're not in a hurry, always burn at the slowest possible speeds.
Modern media that is veryfied for 16x writing ususally works best at exactly that speed.
Burning them slower (either because the device can't do it faster or out of purpose) can actually get you worse results than burning on the certified speed.
Strange, but nonetheless true...OK, I'm going to have to disagree with you there...
Well, ok, but I guess it's not so much a metter of opinions but rather of different HW constellations
Also, this wasn't my first-hand experience but rather something I read in a reputaded PC tech magazine.
I proved this to myself about a year ago with my new 16x Plextor ($$$) burner. I bought about 4 different brands of 16x media and tried burning the same DVD at different speeds to try to pick out the most compatible media for my burner. I burnt at 16x, 12x, 8x, 4x for all brands and I found that on my DVD player, the 16x burned media would only play the first 5 min of the movie then stall. The 12x burned movie was better but stalled out halfway through. The 8x burned movies played all the way through but didn't last that long (10 playbacks max) and the 4x burned movies are still going strong.
YMMV.
It definately depends on what brands of media used on what device model.
Unfortunately, you cannot give a universal advise as to what medium is the best or what burner is.
So for, I seem to run fine with Verbatim DVD+R 16x media on my new LG, however, they wouldn't work in the older Sony.
The previous 8x DVD+Rs I used (same company, same brand, same look just different speed) worked perfectly in the Sony (with 4x speed, mind you, because it couldn't do faster), however, the 16x (couldn't get the 8x anymore, and 4x have long been gone!) gave me horrible results.
I have yet to try burning the 16x at both 18x (which my new device is capable of and shows these blanks are, too...) or a lower-than-given speed.
It's a YMMV story, indeed, and even your own results can vary between your own results... *grrr*
Using the latest firmware certainly helps a lot, but my old Sony had no newer one to be found.
It's four years old by now, but still going strong apart from that.
A shame really, that you have to replace HW just because of that.
Well, at least now my testing bed PC got a DVD drive so I can finally leave the CDs behind
you forgot to mention that the surface of cheap cdrw and dvdrw can delaminate as a result of the type and quality of the varnish that is used on the upper surface.
I'm glad you guys had so much fun with this thread.
@helmi - I deliberately did not get technical on this subject, but i'm glad you did =P
Last edited by OverFlow (2007-05-11 08:42:26)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
[ Generated in 0.035 seconds, 9 queries executed ]
