DVD Burner Problem

Ok. Sounds like a driver bug or a driver installation bug then. If
you have been swapping drives and cables around then that could
contribute.

Alas, from your other posts it sounds like you have it working.

Didn't the custom to use "signed" drivers start in win2k? Signed
meaning: thoroughly tested by more parties than just the code writer.
I dunno, maybe signed drivers started with winxp. Personally I would
not install unsigned drivers on my machine.

I hear in windows vista (code named longhorn) that *only* signed
drivers may be installed. It will no longer be a user option.

Forrest

Motherboard Help By HAL web site:
http://home.comcast.net/~mobo.help/


On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:15:16 GMT, Edward Diener No Spam
wrote:

snip

But my Zip drive is on the secondary IDE channel where the settings are as above
just for the Master device on that channel ( there is no slave device on that
channel ) while my two DVD drives are on the primary IDE channel, and set to
normal DMA. Doesn't that make a difference.

snip

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

Baxter Tocher (Pipsqueak) squeaked:

Most of us are fed up with the ess-emm-aitch's pathetic squealing.

"Most"? No ****ing ****! How did you come by that, ****wart?

BTW, Mikey did not respond to this. Care to respond, ****wart?

----------------------------------------------
Mikey's Cockamamie Mumbo Jumbo on C1/C2 Errors
----------------------------------------------

=============================================
From: Noik
Date: 8/13/05

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

James Perrett wrote:


if I'm seeing C2 errors then there MUST, by definition,
be C1 errors on the disc - in fact, every disc will
have a few C1 errors.

You are assuming a correlation between C1 and C2 errors
which is stronger than reality.

They are different measures and while they do have a gross
correlation, it is not the sort you are expecting.

I still feel that C1 and C2 errors are substantially different.

I think that a C2 error is a C1 error(s) that couldn't be corrected
with the C1 error correction capabilities. They're not independant,
they're basically the same thing except for which level of error
correction can correct the error. You're using a program that just
doesn't report C1 errors, as indicated by the fact that the "C1 error"
part in your screenshot is greyed out.

Now I know why you can create disks that have no C1 errors.
=============================================

-------------------------------
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?)

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/6eldj

(No Mikey S-lickers have been able to prove ANY of the above is a LIBEL)
( -- despite Mikey claimed to have proof of misquotes !! )

Baxter Tocher (Mikey S-licker) slurped:

snip slurps

No slurping on this, ****wart?

---------------------------------------------
Mike Richter, where's the Beef (Error Rates)?
---------------------------------------------

======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Frggin Asshole)
Date: 11/2/01

Brendan R. Wehrung (Schmuck) squeaked:

the 200 pack Prime Paripherals blanks...wasn't bad.

Obviously, YMMV, but after I got my rebate and the discs were
essentially free, I determined that they're not worth the price.

Given the high error rates those discs delivered on each of my drives

They are marginal if you burn no more than 60 minutes per disc

- or if you just don't care about the error rates.
======================

Did you indeed get high error rates with your drives, not dug out of
your assholes?

And Mikey cares about the error rates! But see below.

======================
From: RK
Date: 11/3/01

Just wondering if something is wrong with your burner as i have
burned over 400 of them and they are one of the best disks i ever
used so far. Never had a single error on even one disk
======================
======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Frggin Asshole)
Date: 11/3/01

There are three burners on which I've tried them with equivalent
results. All are Plextor SCSI and all deliver excellent results on
good media: 1210, 820 and 412.
======================

There's no way you could have gotten the error rates with those drives.
Why not? Because those drives do not report C1 errors, despite they
are Plextors and SCSI.

Are you sure you did not dig them out of your assholes?

======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Frggin Asshole)
Date: 11/3/01

I burned a PP 80 in my Ricoh 6201s at its maximum write speed - 2x.

The result is much the same as it was at higher speeds

and I've posted
the report of a quick scan (sufficient in this case)

The software is CD-R Inspector, big brother to CD-R Diagnostic
======================

Guess you had no choice but to burn at 2x, that being the max speed,
isn't that right, Slimey? But why didn't you use Plextor 1210 and burn
at 12x? After all you were supposed to have gotten the high error rates
with Plextors, not Ricoh.

And much the same result at 2x and 12x? Doesn't it then give one more
reason why you should have posted the result of Plextor 12x?

Maybe this post of yours has something to do with why you used Ricoh 2x
instead of Plextor 12x? Couldn't even get soft/hard errors with Plextor
12x?

----------------------
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin SOB)
Date: 10/9/03

There is an optimum burn speed for any medium in any writer.
In general, a rating for a higher speed is optimized for
higher-speed writers.

For example, 12x media seldom write well below 4x.
----------------------

Did the Quick scan report the error rates? No? Would the Complete scan
have reported the error rates? No? No report of error rates, but
sufficient? Didn't you care about the error rates??!!

Wonder who's the asshole that spewed this?

"if you just don't care about the error rates"

Anyhow, how did you get the error rates when the Plextors did not report
C1 errors and CD-R Inspector/Diagnostic never supported error rates?

Did you dig them out of your assholes?
'
-------------------------------
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?)

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/6eldj

(No Mikey S-lickers have been able to prove ANY of the above is a LIBEL)
( -- despite Mikey claimed to have proof of misquotes !! )

Baxter Tocher (Mikey S-licker) slurped:

snip slurps

No slurping on this, ****wart?

---------------------------------------------
Mike Richter, where's the Beef (Error Rates)? (ii)
---------------------------------------------

======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Frggin Asshole)
Date: 11/2/01

Brendan R. Wehrung (Schmuck) squeaked:

the 200 pack Prime Paripherals blanks...wasn't bad.

Obviously, YMMV, but after I got my rebate and the discs were
essentially free, I determined that they're not worth the price.

Given the high error rates those discs delivered on each of my drives

They are marginal if you burn no more than 60 minutes per disc

- or if you just don't care about the error rates.
======================

Did you indeed get high error rates with your drives, not dug out of
your assholes?

And Mikey cares about the error rates! But see below.

======================
From: RK
Date: 11/3/01

Just wondering if something is wrong with your burner as i have
burned over 400 of them and they are one of the best disks i ever
used so far. Never had a single error on even one disk
======================
======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Frggin Asshole)
Date: 11/3/01

There are three burners on which I've tried them with equivalent
results. All are Plextor SCSI and all deliver excellent results on
good media: 1210, 820 and 412.
======================

There's no way you could have gotten the error rates with those drives.
Why not? Because those drives do not report C1 errors, despite they
are Plextors and SCSI.

Are you sure you did not dig them out of your assholes?

======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Frggin Asshole)
Date: 11/3/01

I burned a PP 80 in my Ricoh 6201s at its maximum write speed - 2x.

The result is much the same as it was at higher speeds

and I've posted
the report of a quick scan (sufficient in this case)

The software is CD-R Inspector, big brother to CD-R Diagnostic
======================

Guess you had no choice but to burn at 2x, that being the max speed,
isn't that right, Slimey? But why didn't you use Plextor 1210 and burn
at 12x? After all you were supposed to have gotten the high error rates
with Plextors, not Ricoh.

And much the same result at 2x and 12x? Doesn't it then give one more
reason why you should have posted the result of Plextor 12x?

Maybe this post of yours has something to do with why you used Ricoh 2x
instead of Plextor 12x? Couldn't even get soft/hard errors with Plextor
12x?

----------------------
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin ****)
Date: 8/19/01

My Ricoh 6201s will write high-speed media, but the (recoverable)
error rate is significantly higher than when I feed it the blanks
it was designed to take.

The media I prefer are rated to 16x. In any of my drives, they
perform superbly from 4x-12x but show significant recoverable
errors at 2x
----------------------

Did the Quick scan report the error rates? No? Would the Complete scan
have reported the error rates? No? No report of error rates, but
sufficient? Didn't you care about the error rates??!!

Wonder who's the asshole that spewed this?

"if you just don't care about the error rates"

Anyhow, how did you get the error rates when the Plextors did not report
C1 errors and CD-R Inspector/Diagnostic never supported error rates?

Did you dig them out of your assholes?
'
-------------------------------
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?)

OK. This is a long thread and it's some days old. I've checked all of it
and understandably nowhere has anyone suggested trying a 40 wire cable.
Recently I had a similar experence with a client who'd installed a new and
relatively expensive Plextor DVD-RW drive. We tried new drivers, setting
the drive jumpers to master and ensuring it was the only device on the cable
and also we tried a known good Pioneer DVD drive to check against the
Plextor. The results were similar to those obtained with the Plextor - i.e.
unreliable.

The customer had used an 80 wire IDE cable, but according to Plextor whom he
phoned, he should have used a 40 wire cable. Hey presto! when a 40 wire
cable was installed, all his problems went away and he can now reliably burn
DVDs. Their reasoning was that the 80 wire cable actually caused more
interference (crosstalk), which is the complete opposite of what I
understood 80 wire cables were for (i.e. to reduce crosstalk). Whatever,
although it sounds stupid and contradicts what we 'know', it worked.

"NickM" wrote in message ...
OK. This is a long thread and it's some days old. I've checked all of it
and understandably nowhere has anyone suggested trying a 40 wire cable.
Recently I had a similar experence with a client who'd installed a new and
relatively expensive Plextor DVD-RW drive. We tried new drivers, setting
the drive jumpers to master and ensuring it was the only device on the cable
and also we tried a known good Pioneer DVD drive to check against the
Plextor. The results were similar to those obtained with the Plextor - i.e.
unreliable.

The customer had used an 80 wire IDE cable, but according to Plextor whom he
phoned, he should have used a 40 wire cable. Hey presto! when a 40 wire
cable was installed, all his problems went away and he can now reliably burn
DVDs. Their reasoning was that the 80 wire cable actually caused more
interference (crosstalk), which is the complete opposite of what I
understood 80 wire cables were for (i.e. to reduce crosstalk). Whatever,
although it sounds stupid and contradicts what we 'know', it worked.

That's absurd. If Plextor is telling people that, they seriously
need some new tech support trainers.

If your client's drive is spec'd to run at UDMA mode 2 speed
(33MB/s, which is common for DVD-RW drives), an 80-pin
cable is not only recommended -- it is REQUIRED.

The likely explanation for what Plextor is saying is that on some
systems, because of DMA implementation (or whatever else),
UDMA may not be reliable. A 40-pin cable will fail at these
higher speeds, and during initialization the IDE controller will
test the bus and lower the speed to assure reliability.

Your client's 40-pin cable may be working, but certainly not
at the drive's maximum rated speed.

Hi Peter

OK. That's what I think too in terms of an 80 wire cable should work better
than a 40 wire cable in theory because it's designed to cut down
'interference' or crosstalk between the data lines. But the fact of the
matter is that the tech support rep from Plextor gave out the advice to my
client to use the supplied 40 wire cable and when used it worked properly at
the drive's full rated speed, which it will as UDMA 2 (33MB/s) actually
requires only a 40 wire cable. See he
http://www.hitachigst.com/hddt/knowt...7?OpenDocument.
80 wire cables arrived on the scene with UDMA 66 and are compatible with
UDMA100 and UDMA133 as well as being backward-compatible.

Quite a few CD-RW and DVD-RW manufacturers supply 40 wire cables with non
OEM products, I now presume to avoid such problems with certain
motherboards. Hadn't really given it much thought before. Personally, I
would have stayed away from the Plextor drive in the first place, but as the
problem still exhibited itself with my loaned Pioneer drive it made a case
for the Plextor being in correct working order.

Regards

Nick

"NickM" wrote in message ...
Hi Peter

OK. That's what I think too in terms of an 80 wire cable should work better
than a 40 wire cable in theory because it's designed to cut down
'interference' or crosstalk between the data lines. But the fact of the
matter is that the tech support rep from Plextor gave out the advice to my
client to use the supplied 40 wire cable and when used it worked properly at
the drive's full rated speed

How are you verifying this? Is Windows showing the IDE channel
as being in PIO or Ultra DMA mode?

, which it will as UDMA 2 (33MB/s) actually
requires only a 40 wire cable. See he
http://www.hitachigst.com/hddt/knowt...7?OpenDocument.
80 wire cables arrived on the scene with UDMA 66 and are compatible with
UDMA100 and UDMA133 as well as being backward-compatible.

Ok, the 80-pin cable is optional with UDMA33. But that still doesn't
explain how a 40-pin cable would be preferable, unless of course the
80-pin is flaky.

Quite a few CD-RW and DVD-RW manufacturers supply 40 wire cables with non
OEM products, I now presume to avoid such problems with certain
motherboards. Hadn't really given it much thought before. Personally, I
would have stayed away from the Plextor drive in the first place, but as the
problem still exhibited itself with my loaned Pioneer drive it made a case
for the Plextor being in correct working order.

Regards

Nick

Hi Peter

Windows shows UDMA Mode 2.

There was nothing wrong with his 80 wire cable. Several others were tried
before he was given the advice by Plextor and some were known to be good.

The chipset on his board which isn't Abit is ATI based which could well have
something to do with it. ATI are better known obviously for their expertise
in graphics chip sets. Maybe there is something flaky there, I wouldn't
know. The fact that a 40 wire cable was recommended suggests that Plextor
suggest forcing a maximum of UDMA2. Agreed, providing the ground wires in
an 80 wire cable are properly grounded at the both ends of an 80 wire cable
I cannot see why more noise would be generated. Like you I would have
expected just the opposite.

Nick

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:24:57 +0100, "NickM" wrote:

Hi Peter

Windows shows UDMA Mode 2.

There was nothing wrong with his 80 wire cable. Several others were tried
before he was given the advice by Plextor and some were known to be good.

The chipset on his board which isn't Abit is ATI based which could well have
something to do with it. ATI are better known obviously for their expertise
in graphics chip sets. Maybe there is something flaky there, I wouldn't
know. The fact that a 40 wire cable was recommended suggests that Plextor
suggest forcing a maximum of UDMA2. Agreed, providing the ground wires in
an 80 wire cable are properly grounded at the both ends of an 80 wire cable
I cannot see why more noise would be generated. Like you I would have
expected just the opposite.

Nick


A while ago I was having trouble with a mobo that disk drive transfers
weren't working too well on (no, nothing to do with PCI Latency,
although it was a VIA chipset).

Anyway, one thing I noticed then was that flat 'ribbon' type 80 wire
cables seemed to give greater reliability than rounded ones. I have
no idea why.

Perhaps these 80 wire cable problems are with rounded cables - might
be interesting to see if things are any better with flat ones? Which
was your client using?

Patrick

- take five to email me...