HardwareBanter

HardwareBanter (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/index.php)
-   Dell Computers (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Dual layer dvd rw (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/showthread.php?t=64214)

Sparky November 24th 04 11:24 PM

Tom Scales wrote:

Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
"Sparky" wrote in message
...

Tom Scales wrote:

Two layers.


Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7 GB,
the dual layer ones 9.something


Missed it - perhaps because of top posting not intended as a flame, BTW


Sparky November 24th 04 11:26 PM

LaVacheQuiRit wrote:

The organic entity known as Sparky communicated the following:

Tom Scales wrote:

Two layers.


Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
GB, the dual layer ones 9.something


I think the correct number is something like 8.5 GB.


You're right, I was guessing. From:

http://www.dvdrw.com/press/duallayer.htm

Philips will demonstrate its new dual-layer DVD recordable technology at
the DVD+RW Alliance booth at the CEATEC* JAPAN 2003 exhibition in
Makuhari (Chiba, Japan) from October 7 to 11. Developed by Philips
Research in cooperation with MKM (Mitsubishi Kagaku Media)/Verbatim, the
technology virtually doubles data storage capacity on DVD recordable
discs from 4.7 Gbyte to 8.5 Gbyte while remaining compatible with
existing DVD Video players and DVD-ROM drives.

Tom Scales November 25th 04 12:32 AM

Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.

Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it. Most
seem to be academicly related.


"Sparky" wrote in message
...
Tom Scales wrote:

Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
"Sparky" wrote in message
...

Tom Scales wrote:

Two layers.

Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
GB, the dual layer ones 9.something


Missed it - perhaps because of top posting not intended as a flame, BTW




Sparky November 25th 04 02:08 AM

Tom Scales wrote:
Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.

Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it. Most
seem to be academicly related.


Now that *does* sound like a flame. :)

brane_ded November 25th 04 04:10 AM

FYI

I installed a Lite-On LDW-451S in my 4550 (a basic 4X) and with the
help at this website:
http://www.cdfreaks.com/

I changed the firmware and made it a SOHW-832S (which is an 8X
dual-layer recorder)

Lite-On is an inexpensive...but very good drive.

Burning DVDs is rewarding...but takes quite a bit of study and
research to fathom.
(compared with burning cds)

Tom Scales November 25th 04 12:38 PM

Sarcasm, sarcasm.

The original poke about top-posting was a flame :)

s
"Sparky" wrote in message
...
Tom Scales wrote:
Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.

Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it.
Most seem to be academicly related.


Now that *does* sound like a flame. :)




Paul Schilter November 25th 04 01:43 PM

Tom,
I agree with you, except the academically part. :-) Nothing more
frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line reply.
Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point rebuttal to
a long post.
Paul

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.

Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it. Most
seem to be academicly related.


"Sparky" wrote in message
...
Tom Scales wrote:

Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
"Sparky" wrote in message
...

Tom Scales wrote:

Two layers.

Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
GB, the dual layer ones 9.something


Missed it - perhaps because of top posting not intended as a flame, BTW






Tom Scales November 25th 04 02:39 PM

The academic part was tongue-in-cheek since Sparky has an edu domain.



"Paul Schilter" [email protected] dot net wrote in message
...
Tom,
I agree with you, except the academically part. :-) Nothing more
frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line
reply. Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point
rebuttal to a long post.
Paul

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.

Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it.
Most seem to be academicly related.


"Sparky" wrote in message
...
Tom Scales wrote:

Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
"Sparky" wrote in message
...

Tom Scales wrote:

Two layers.

Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
GB, the dual layer ones 9.something

Missed it - perhaps because of top posting not intended as a flame,
BTW








LaVacheQuiRit November 25th 04 05:12 PM

The organic entity known as Paul Schilter communicated the following:

Tom,
I agree with you, except the academically part. :-) Nothing more
frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line
reply. Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point
rebuttal to a long post.


Scrolling? Why not just use the "skip quoted text" button?

--
Hans

Tom Scales November 25th 04 05:49 PM

Why should I have to click a button to get to the bottom when the right way
to post is top-post?
"LaVacheQuiRit" wrote in message
...
The organic entity known as Paul Schilter communicated the following:

Tom,
I agree with you, except the academically part. :-) Nothing more
frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line
reply. Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point
rebuttal to a long post.


Scrolling? Why not just use the "skip quoted text" button?

--
Hans





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com