Slashdot Mirror
High Density CDs
goofrider writes "Sanyo introduced a new format called HD-Burn, supported by their new DVD+/-RW chip. It allows the drive to burn up 1.4GB of data using a regular 700MB blank CD-R blank. The resulting HD-Burned CD-R can only be read by supporting DVD/DVD-ROM drives and CD-ROM drives. Most DVD/DVD-ROM drives can support the format via a firmware upgrade. It's unclear how easy and how likely will it be for future drives to support this format. In contrast, Plextor released their new GigaRec technology in their new PlexWriter Premium (read a review here). GigaRec also records on regular blank CD-Rs, allows up to 1GB of data on a 700MB disc. however, the disc can be read on any modern good-quality CD-ROM drives with no firmware upgrades required. So now I can record 2x the data on a CD-R but I still can't have filenames longer than 64 characters. :)"
So, history repeats itself again - higher density on older media.
When do we start punching holes in them and flipping them over?
www.eFax.com are spammers
That's okay. Here on Slashdot, you can't have subjects longer than 50 characters (as you can see above).
This will probably flop, unless it becomes an integrated standard in all DVD +/- RW drives. No one wants to buy a special cdrom drive just to read high-density CDs, especially when better (read: DVD) technology exists.
Well, sortof, with their DD-CDR or whatever, using new tech to get 1.2 gig per disc.
If the two formats were compatible, it might almost be useful. Of course that's doubtful. So I cant really see the usefulness of this.
I thought maybe for archiving or something, but then the cost of the Sony drive is comparable to a DVD-R, so why would I want 1.2 gigs instead of 4.5?
These little fart in a jar techs will no doubt go the way of the zip drive. A day late and a dollar short - unless the industry works together for a standard thats cross compatible, and makes it ubiquitous.
Fuck it, I'll just burn two cds.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
yeah if you keep burning it joliet you don't - feel free to burn in a different format and you can have the longer names.
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
I'm a little unclear as to who the target audience for this is. I can't remember any time I've sat down and thought "Damn, if only I had 300 more megabytes of space I could cram all my pr0n into ten cds instead of fifteen". Add in the firmware bit and you're targeting a non-existent audience.
The Plextor GigaRec sounds similar to the tweek that Sega did to the DreamCast CD-ROM drives to read GD-ROM disks. I was wondering how long it would take for such a tweek to become mainstream.
So now I can record 2x the data on a CD-R but I still can't have filenames longer than 64 characters. :)
:-)
Why not? Don't you have a Macintosh?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The trouble is that since it's not a ubiquitous standard, it's not really all that useful. Compare to old optical media standards - there were plenty of optical medias that you could record to (and even re-record) long before CDR came out. But CDR took off like all crazy because it was standard media you could play back anywhere.
It allows the drive to burn up 1.4GB of data using a regular 700MB blank CD-R blank.
I rewrote my drivers some time ago to provide exactly this level of performance, through the simple but clever technique of only writing 1's to the CD and skipping all the 0's, which the CD drive never reads anyhow.
Well, okay, I rewrote the "write" portion of the code. The "read" portion is still giving me trouble, but I'm confident it's just a matter of time.
ThisIsA64CharacterFilenameBoyIsItLongImSureDespera teToUse65.txt
Yea, i'm worried :)
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
not necessarily...at the moment few people i know use DVD media for back-up storage, since the cost is prohibitive. secondly the average user does not need any more space per CD than what is currently available, because for the average user the largest single file they'll burn on a CD is usually a divx movie, and that doesn't usually exceed 800 megabytes. if an entire back-up of a hard drive is what's needed, most would simply use a few cheap CDs as opposed to a single expensive DVD blank.
another pitfall of using DVD media is the different standards available from different manufacturers, unlike blank CDs and 1.44mb floopies. this is one of the reasons why people still use 1.44mb floppies today.
with this new improvement in the data density of a CD, DVD media might be set to go the way of the MD. it could have been something good, but was never became something more than a novelty due to corporate greed.
but I still can't have filenames longer than 64 characters...
f teenandthirteenseconds.tar.gz'r tyfirsttwothousandthreeelevenfif teenandfourteenseconds.tar.gz'
Yes its such a bitch to pay 20 cents for a CD-R and not be able to name your backups 'thursdayaprilthirtyfirsttwothousandthreeelevenfi
'thursdayaprilthi
Get paid to code OSS
64 characters eh? Back in my day we only had eight. And we didn't have any of your fancy pants lower case letters to fool around with either....Bah!
Another hack that is too little too late. I already have my DVD burner, and it already burns 4.7 GB discs.
No thanks!
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
I remember systems such as the Dreamcast had their discs designed to hold more than 700MB specifically so people pirating them couldn't do a perfect job, requiring audio tracks and cutscenes to be surgically removed from the game to fit on a normal CD. I know some PS2 games are just out of reach for CD pirates due to their > 700MB size as well. It seems to me it's quite possible for a soldering iron based firmware upgrade to put those games within reach for pirates now.
:).
Pirates are always the early adopters of these kind of technologies
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
Now, punching the high-density hole on a DD floppy- that was risky. Sometimes the manufacturer's DD media was good enough to hold HD tracks, but often not. Usually you found out a few months down the line when your "HD on the cheap" floppies started having data errors.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Eventhough a novelty, it did allow me to personalize CDRs like business cards.
The new Plextor mentioned in the article sounds interesting. I wonder if I can access that feature on a Mac?
I know there's this program for OS X to overburn Firestarter - I use it often.
Hopefully, Roxio will make it availible in the next version of Toast.
As a note, firmware on optical drives, especially DVDs is risky due to region coding. If the firmware goes slightly wrong your region could get messed up. I know on the Mac you just reset open firmware and that usually takes care of that.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
mp3s. I don't really want to have to abbreviate "Ray Stevens - Jeremiah Peabody's Poly Unsaturated Quick Dissolving Fast Acting Pleasant Tasting Green And Purple Pills" just because if an inadequacy in the filesystem.
Sanyo's technology shouldn't stand a chance in surviving, much like Iomega's 250MB disks/drives. I would bet that most people (excluding techno-elitist) who are still using Zip drives regardless of their drive capacity, use only 100MB disks, since sharing them utilizes the much wider installed base of 100MB drives. Since CDR and CDRW has replace much of Iomega's usefulness, 250MB drives are pretty useless, especially in a cost/size comparison.
Likewise, why would anyone bother to use a technology with a very limited install base to double the capacity of a CD when DVD's are getting cheaper, hold even more data, and the installed base is much more prevalent.
However, plextor's solution should be more ideal despite the smaller 'overburn' rate. Since people can use it right away on the existing install base without worrying too much about compatibility when they go to share their media.
"at the moment few people i know use DVD media for back-up storage, since the cost is prohibitive."
Prohibitive? $/MB cost is more or less comparable to CD, I'd think.
"with this new improvement in the data density of a CD, DVD media might be set to go the way of the MD. it could have been something good, but was never became something more than a novelty due to corporate greed."
MD is *big* in Japan (no pun intended). In fact I'm a bit surprised that it never caught on here, perhaps it's due to the few problems they had at first. MD was (and still is) perfect for portable audio, offering long play times and low power comsumption in a small and convenient form factor, long before MP3 players became commonplace. I have a portable MD player that I'm very happy with.
I think DVD's will be replaced with improved technology such a blue-laser optical storage, not with a technology that'll let you squeeze a bit of extra data on existing CDs.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. On pricewatch I find prices to be the following:
- DVD-R: $76 for one hundred 4.7GB discs, or 16 cents per gigabyte
- CD-R: $17 for one hundred 700MB discs, or 23 cents per gigabyte
So, media-wise, DVD-R is actually cheaper than CD-R.for the average user the largest single file they'll burn on a CD is usually a divx movie, and that doesn't usually exceed 800 megabytes.
You've got the relationship backwards. Divx filesizes are being held back to under 800 megabytes by the constraints in CD capacity. I no longer limit myself to 800 MB divx files now that I have a DVD burner.
Just because current CD burners limit you to 800 MB doesn't mean you should be so short sighted as to assume that the 800 MB limit is actually desirable.
another pitfall of using DVD media is the different standards available from different manufacturers, unlike blank CDs
You are correct that the DVD standards war is very damaging to DVD. But then in the next paragraph you advocate using nonstandard double data density CDs!
If you're gonna troll, at least try to keep your position consistent.
You forget why region codes were introduced in the first place
No, you just haven't realized that it's an excuse, not a reason.
There's no reason movie studios can't release movies simultaneously in all regions.
This can lead to a situation where a movie is available stateside on DVD before it has even been shown in Europe.
If international distribution is really the reason region codes exist, why are movies like Jaws (1975), Gone With the Wind (1939), or The Maltese Falcon (1941) region-coded? Are you suggesting that these movies have yet to be released in Europe?
I can imagine lines of people, somewhere in $EUROPEAN_CITY, desparately waiting in line to see Lee Marvin in The Dirty Dozen, 35 years after it was released in the US.
Region Coding is simply a way for movie studios to create artifical boundaries, to practice predatory pricing.
Because the extra data is there for a reason. Regular data is burned in "Mode 1", which takes 2048 bytes of data per sector. It then pads this out to 2352 bytes (or something close to that; I forget) with error-correcting information.
VCDs are burned in "Mode 2", which uses all 2352 bytes per sector. If there's some kind of chip or scratch, you're SOL. With VCDs, which use MPEG-1, this isn't a problem. But if you're putting programs or even DivX movies on a CD, believe me, you want that error-correcting information.
Here's an article that's not up, but the Google cache is still working.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Sounds like it'll work, but make a more disk...
--
T
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
Couldn't you use the "1 only" write technology
to further compress the 32 4-byte number(32 bits)?
It would then only take 5 bits.
You could then just memorize the number and you wouldn't need a CD at all.
Because people want to name files what they want to name them, and not think about the filesystem.
True story:
Back in my days of tech support for DOS-based academics, I was trying to help a user recover some files after a crash. The file naming scheme seemed really weird, so I asked her about it. She explained she was really frustrated by only getting 8 + 3 charachters for a filename, and then she discovered you could make filenames as long as you wanted, you just had to put a back-slash afer every eight charachters. I did not attempt to explain directories.
I can't believe I'm feeding the trolls today, but this one really got my goat. Macs are great. Macs are expensive. Just accept that both are true, and quit arguing over it. PCs are also great. PCs are cheaper. PCs are less stylish and poorly integrated.
I'm not sure where you pulled your PC price numbers, but the box I'm using cost less than $900 last year, and has an XP2000+, Radeon 9500 Pro, 512MB RAM, 5.1 sound, 2x80GB RAID, 8 USB, 3 Firewire, 40X CD-RW, 3COM LAN, and a DVD-ROM. Adding the DVD burner would add $180. IF the software is truly $500, we're still WAAAAAAY ahead. Windows XP Pro is far cheaper if purchased OEM, and I paid a whopping $50 for it via a MS promotion. Even $300 machines come with windows, though, so unless it's a homebuild, you get it "free". $400 *PCI* (!?) video cards and $200 sound cards are not the norm. A 9500 Pro runs about $180, and an Audigy 2 can be had for $80.
That was me building from parts. If you want to look at what's available today, Dell has a P4 2.2GHz desktop w/17" monitor, DVD writer, XP, and all your basic other stuff for a whopping $480 shipped free. Add whatever you want to that, and I guarantee it beats any mac price.
Now, that said, the mac is prettier, comes all in one box ready-to-go, and has very well-integrated software. And you pay for it. Whether it's worth it is up to each person, and does not need to be the subject of massive back-and-forth flame-o-ramas.
So, to reiterate: Macs are nice for some people, PCs are nice for some people, and despite the poster's noble cross-platform efforts, he paid too much for his PC parts.
This from the Blu-ray Disc License Site:
This sounds like 1 gig on a CD would be very passé if it ever takes off.