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)

Brian J November 23rd 04 09:19 AM

Dual layer dvd rw
 
Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
drive? Thanks....



Tom Scales November 23rd 04 11:25 AM

Two layers.

Dual layer drives have double the capacity
"Brian J" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
drive? Thanks....




tellme November 23rd 04 08:53 PM

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:[email protected]
Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
drive? Thanks....




Tweek November 23rd 04 11:16 PM

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:[email protected]
Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
drive? Thanks....






Eddie Aftandilian November 24th 04 03:27 AM

"Tweek" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
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.



Sparky November 24th 04 08:07 AM

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

Sparky November 24th 04 08:07 AM

Eddie Aftandilian wrote:

"Tweek" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

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.


Tom Scales November 24th 04 11:21 AM

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




LaVacheQuiRit November 24th 04 12:39 PM

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

LaVacheQuiRit November 24th 04 12:46 PM

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

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 07:09 PM.

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