Dual layer dvd rw
Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
drive? Thanks.... |
Two layers.
Dual layer drives have double the capacity "Brian J" wrote in message news:0hDod.5499$VG.3001@trndny07... Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer drive? Thanks.... |
The dual layer drive writes on two sides of a cd. You have to purchase
these cds as you can not write on the cds that we are currently using. My experience has been that so far the DL is not totally reliable when writing DVD. The Phillips that comes in the Dell computers are a nightmare. Unless you are going to write with DL cds and do extensive dvd authoring I would get a writer that is more reliable and wait till they perfect these more. Two layers. Dual layer drives have double the capacity "Brian J" wrote in message news:0hDod.5499$VG.3001@trndny07... Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer drive? Thanks.... |
Dual layer does not write on both sides of the disc. Dual layer is just
that, dual-layer on one side. There are two data layers and the laser is basically refocused depending on which layer needs to be written or read. "tellme" wrote in message ... The dual layer drive writes on two sides of a cd. You have to purchase these cds as you can not write on the cds that we are currently using. My experience has been that so far the DL is not totally reliable when writing DVD. The Phillips that comes in the Dell computers are a nightmare. Unless you are going to write with DL cds and do extensive dvd authoring I would get a writer that is more reliable and wait till they perfect these more. Two layers. Dual layer drives have double the capacity "Brian J" wrote in message news:0hDod.5499$VG.3001@trndny07... Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer drive? Thanks.... |
"Tweek" wrote in message
news:1xPod.2633$6m2.1148@trnddc04... Dual layer does not write on both sides of the disc. Dual layer is just that, dual-layer on one side. There are two data layers and the laser is basically refocused depending on which layer needs to be written or read. Also, dual-layer discs are very expensive right now, around $10 per disc. They're really not worth the cost at this point. |
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 |
Eddie Aftandilian wrote:
"Tweek" wrote in message news:1xPod.2633$6m2.1148@trnddc04... Dual layer does not write on both sides of the disc. Dual layer is just that, dual-layer on one side. There are two data layers and the laser is basically refocused depending on which layer needs to be written or read. Also, dual-layer discs are very expensive right now, around $10 per disc. They're really not worth the cost at this point. True, but like all previous media, the price will come down shortly. |
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 |
The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:
Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you? Without a doubt because of your top posting. Top posting is only readible if one reads the whole thread and thus it is only a waste of space to quote the text from the previous posts. -- Hans |
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. I haven't gotten deeper into the technology, so I am unsure if that is a technology maximum or just the maximum of the currently available drives. -- Hans |
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 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. |
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 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. :) |
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) |
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. :) |
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 |
The academic part was tongue-in-cheek since Sparky has an edu domain.
"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast 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 |
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 |
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 07:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com