A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Cdr
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DVD+R vs. DVD-R



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 27th 05, 11:32 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.cdr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVD+R vs. DVD-R

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:53:21 -0800, Mike Richter
wrote:

J. Yazel wrote:
Is DVD+R better than DVD-R and if not why not?

I'm asking because there are certain economic advantages to go with
the +R but I don't have a clear picture of the pros and cons.

Thanks for any help .

Jack

While most modern drives will read +R and -R equally well, I've found
that European systems are more likely to be happy with +R, American ones
with -R. (I have too few data from other areas to generalize.) For most
purposes, they are equivalent but it may be relevant that most true
premium media on the market are -R.

Mike

===================

Thanks for the info.

I would also be interested in what specifically would cause DVD to
be unreliable (from your other message).

Jack

  #12  
Old December 28th 05, 06:57 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.cdr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVD+R vs. DVD-R

Mike Richter ) writes:
Drew wrote:
Is all the information about -R carry over for -RW?


The only carryover is that +RW and -RW are functionally equivalent for
most users. Neither is to be trusted for extended storage. They have
proved so far to be as unreliable if not quite as fragile as CD-RW.

Mike
--

http://www.mrichter.com/



RW had it's place. and saved my hide more than once with file transfers
of Corel files that could not be accessed from read-only meadia. It was
that or floppies, which sometimes didn't have the capacity. Now I'm got
the option of archiving to flash drives, which I hope have some sort of
longevity.

Brendan
  #13  
Old December 28th 05, 08:36 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.cdr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVD+R vs. DVD-R

Drew wrote:
Can you explain... does RW (CD and DVD) media scratch more easily? What
makes them not as dependable?


There's a whole lot of history on this. Briefly, the original CD-RW
media (supporting only 2x record) were quite reliable and remain so -
but of course they're impossible to find and hard to record these days
thanks to the 'need' for speed.

1-4x were not bad, 4x-10x (High Speed) were worse and Ultra Speed is
said to be worse still. (I only comment on what I know and I've never
written an Ultra Speed disc.) The problem is that they become forgetful
- a well-written disc develops errors over months of storage even if
unplayed and becomes unreadable (typically) in a year or two. Each erase
cycle makes its memory even worse. In my experience, even for test
purposes a High Speed disc becomes unusable after so few cycles that
it's not worth bothering to use it.

I wish that DVD erasables were better, but all indications are that they
are not. I frequently want to pull a short DVD for temporary use, but
Jerry's tests at Media Sciences and my limited experience say that they
are just as vulnerable as erasable CDs.

Mike
--

http://www.mrichter.com/
  #14  
Old December 28th 05, 11:31 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.cdr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default DVD+R vs. DVD-R (HS)

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****) crapped:

Drew wrote:
Can you explain... does RW (CD and DVD) media scratch more easily? What
makes them not as dependable?


There's a whole lot of history on this. Briefly, the original CD-RW
media (supporting only 2x record) were quite reliable and remain so -

1-4x were not bad, 4x-10x (High Speed) were worse


Even when you get 'reasonable reliability' with HS, but non-HS "forget"
more quickly?

======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin SOB)
Date: 8/27/01

the non-HS disc is written correctly in an HS drive, but that
the information is less durable even than usual. That is,

I've been getting reasonable reliability on HS blanks in an HS
drive when stored for a few months, but non-HS discs seem to
"forget" more quickly.
======================

and Ultra Speed is said to be worse still.
(I only comment on what I know and I've
never written an Ultra Speed disc.)


Shouldn't you then even talk about Ultra Speed media?
Anyhow, how then did you know this?

======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****)
Date: 10/18/04

24x erasables are Ultra Speed;
they should be written only in an Ultra Speed drive
======================

-------------------------------
Wow! What a slimy friggin SOB!
-------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
(Mike Richter, any Material Connection w/ Roxio?)
  #15  
Old December 28th 05, 09:51 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.cdr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike Richter & Asshole Digging (ii)

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

"J. Yazel" wrote:

Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****) crapped:

The only carryover is that +RW and -RW are functionally equivalent
for most users. Neither is to be trusted for extended storage. They
have proved so far to be as unreliable if not quite as fragile as
CD-RW.


I would also be interested in what specifically would cause DVD to
be unreliable


================================================== ==
From: smh
Date: 7/17/04

Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****) crapped (7/16/04):

Note that results so far suggest that DVD-RW and DVD+RW are
no more reliable than CD-RW.


Thus, DVD-+RW is unreliable, I presume?

Anyhow, what results are those? What's the source? Did you just
dig that out of your asshole?

Is CD-RW unreliable, Mikey?

Once upon a time the supposedly flaky, fragile, forgetful,
unreliable CD-RW media was good enough for BACKUP, of all things,
even when combined with the supposedly flaky, fragile, faulty,
unreliable packet "format" -- according to none other than Mikey:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (Acraptec ****)
Date: 9/1/99
Subject: A note on Take Two

You may back up ...to a DCD-formatted erasable.
=====================


I strongly recommend using write-once discs if
jetjock hopes to have the backup readable later.


Why is that Mikey? Have you established that DVD_RW are
unreliable? All you presented -- without substantiation,
only on your say so -- is that DVD_RW are no more reliable
than CD-RW.

If DVD_RW are indeed unreliable, why don't you dig it out of
your asshole and explicitly say so?
================================================== =========
'

-------------------------------
Wow! What a slimy friggin SOB!
-------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
(Mike Richter, any Material Connection w/ Roxio?)
  #16  
Old December 29th 05, 02:45 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.cdr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike Richter & Asshole Digging (Media Sciences)

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****) crapped:

Drew wrote:
Can you explain... does RW (CD and DVD) media scratch more easily? What
makes them not as dependable?


I wish that DVD erasables were better, but all indications are that they
are not. I frequently want to pull a short DVD for temporary use, but
Jerry's tests at Media Sciences


Only the slimiest friggin SOB palms off such a lie.

Media Sciences did not even test CD-RW quality, let alone longevity.
They tested only CD-R:
http://www.mscience.com/test.html
http://www.mscience.com/test.html#CDR
http://www.mscience.com/longev.html

And Media Sciences tested only DVD_R, not DVD_RW, and the tests are only
on quality:
http://www.mscience.com/test.html#DVD

and my limited experience say that they
are just as vulnerable as erasable CDs.


Dug out from your asshole, asshole?

-------------------------------
Wow! What a slimy friggin SOB!
-------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
(Mike Richter, any Material Connection w/ Roxio?)
  #17  
Old December 29th 05, 11:29 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.cdr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike Richter & Asshole Digging (forgetful)

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****) crapped:

Can you explain... does RW (CD and DVD) media scratch more easily?
What makes them not as dependable?


The problem is that they become forgetful - a well-written disc
develops errors over months of storage even if unplayed and
becomes unreadable (typically) in a year or two.


Did you get all that from your so-called "extensive" experience -- that
has no body of experience ??!!

======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin SOB)
Date: 11/28/02

I have had extensive experience with erasable media.

======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****)
Date: 5/12/04

the fragility of erasables means that I use them only for test,
so I don't have a body of experience to report.
======================

The above was for CD-RW. Do you also have comparable so-called
"extensive" experience -- that has no body of experience -- with
DVD_RW? No? Just dug that out of your asshole, asshole?

-------------------------------
Wow! What a slimy friggin SOB!
-------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
(Mike Richter, any Material Connection w/ Roxio?)
  #18  
Old December 29th 05, 10:15 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.cdr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike Richter & Asshole Digging (unreadable)

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****) crapped:

Drew wrote:
Can you explain... does RW (CD and DVD) media scratch more easily? What
makes them not as dependable?



The problem is that they become forgetful
- a well-written disc develops errors over months of storage even if
unplayed and becomes unreadable (typically) in a year or two.


No kidding! Wonder then how could DirectCD read unreadable as you
crapped here?

======================
From: Mike Richter (The Slimiest Friggin SOB)
Date: 2/28/04
Subject: Keeping Old Data Disks Readable

I've used every version of DCD from the beta of 1 through that
in ECDC 5.

There has been no compatibility problem reading an earlier
version in a later one - backward compatibility is preserved.

Fixed-length packets create the least reliable, most fragile
format available for writing CDs.

However, they can still be read
if written to the standard (as DCD always has).
======================

Did you dig the above out of your asshole, asshole?
'

-------------------------------
Wow! What a slimy friggin SOB!
-------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
(Mike Richter, any Material Connection w/ Roxio?)
  #19  
Old December 30th 05, 04:21 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.cdr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike Richter & Asshole Digging (self erase)

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****) crapped:

Drew wrote:
Can you explain... does RW (CD and DVD) media scratch more easily? What
makes them not as dependable?



The problem is that they become forgetful - a well-written disc
develops errors over months of storage even if unplayed
and becomes unreadable (typically) in a year or two.


Unreadable in a year or two?! That long time?!

That must have come from the freshest crap you just dug out of asshole:

======================
From: Mike Richter (The Slimiest Friggin SOB)
Date: 8/17/04

I want to know if I use a blank CD-RW to burn an exact copy
of the CD-ROM disc, will that CD-RW be able to be erased in
the future and re-used?


You can erase it. If you wait long enough (some months),
it will begin to erase itself.
======================
'
-------------------------------
Wow! What a slimy friggin SOB!
-------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
(Mike Richter, any Material Connection w/ Roxio?)
  #20  
Old December 31st 05, 04:48 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.cdr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike Richter & Asshole Digging (2x)(unreliable)

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****) crapped:

Drew wrote:
Can you explain... does RW (CD and DVD) media scratch more easily? What
makes them not as dependable?


There's a whole lot of history on this. Briefly, the original CD-RW
media (supporting only 2x record) were quite reliable and remain so -


Any reason then why 2x cd-rw could not be used for archival purposes?
Perhaps you were talking about 1x-4x when 1x-4x were not available?

======================
From: Mike Richter (The Slimiest Friggin SOB)
Date: 1/7/1999

Erasable media have many uses, but I do not recommend that
they be relied on for archival purposes or for other critical
applications.
======================
'

-------------------------------
Wow! What a slimy friggin SOB!
-------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
(Mike Richter, any Material Connection w/ Roxio?)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.