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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|