Plextor First With A 12x DVD+R Drive

Hmm... by seanmcelroy · 2004-05-09 12:07 · Score: 1

Interesting that the DVD-R write speed is lower than +R

--
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey

Re:Hmm... by atlantis191 · 2004-05-09 12:12 · Score: 3, Informative

No its not. Thats almost always the case. Several burners already on the market burn slower to a DVD-R than a DVD+R. TDK and Sony both sell burners that burn at 8x for DVD+R but only 4x for DVD-R. I fail to see your point.
Re:Hmm... by DaHat · 2004-05-09 12:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the underlying question is 'why'?

Saying that others already do similar things does not answer the Q.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re:Hmm... by cynical+kane · 2004-05-09 12:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Because R=2, clearly.
Re:Hmm... by The+Vulture · 2004-05-09 13:48 · Score: 3, Informative

I'd say most likely because 8x hasn't been officially approved as a DVD-R format (last I heard, anyway). Last time I tried to check out the DVD-R forum website (I'm pretty sure it was the official one), I couldn't get any information without a username/password, which cost money.

It's that main point that has had me waiting for 8x to be approved until I buy a new DVD-R drive (my current drive is a Pioneer DVR-A04). When I checked out the media list for the Pioneer DVR-A07, I noticed that they're playing the same tricks as they did for 2x on the A03 and A04 - certain firmwares, certain media brands, must go through Pioneer certification, blah, blah, blah. Although there's a bunch of drives that are claimed to be 8x compatible, I believe that many of them (not all) are OEM Pioneer drives.

Now, if they could ratify 8x -R as a standard and get a good dual-layer drive out, I'd pay a good chunk of change for it.

-- Joe
Re:Hmm... by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2004-05-10 02:26 · Score: 1

I wish I could provide you with the link, but there is a site (maybe www.firmware.com ?) that has the hacked firmwares for the DVR-A04 which lets you burn any media at the speed of your choosing... and guess what... they all work!

I was VERY disappointed to find that Pioneer wanted to hold my hand and make sure I didn't burn any coasters by not allowing me to burn my choice of brands at my choice of speeds. If I buy a spindle of blanks and the first couple attempts at high speed fail, then I'm smart enough to drop back to a slower speed for the rest of that spindle... However, if the first few all burn flawlessly at high speed then I shouldn't have to wait for Pioneer to get around to releasing a new firmware that supports that brand so I can burn them at the speed I want to. Since upgrading I've only found one brand of DVD-Rs that didn't work well at 2x and had to be burned at 1x, but all of the others (and I've burned over 500 DVD-R discs in the past 2 years) have burned without problems.

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Re:Hmm... by HTH+NE1 · 2004-05-10 04:41 · Score: 1

Well when I go to burn a DVD-R in my DVD-R,-RAM drive, Roxio Toast offers me a burn speed of 64x!

Unfortunately I don't have any media capable of recording at that speed nor withstanding the stresses of spinning that fast. And I can only get it to offer that speed on a Mac (on which it is unsupported) as a supported system like Windows XP locks up shortly after startup if it is connected.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:Hmm... by The+Vulture · 2004-05-10 04:49 · Score: 1

I'm well aware of the hacked firmwares, I used a few of them on my DVR-A04 (and a good link is here). While those firmwares are pretty good, what you're forgetting is that the way that they manage the overburn (because that's really what it is, in the case of the DVR-A04, you were basically overclocking the burn, it's just that Pioneer did some testing and found that certain media didn't have any problems with it), they use a "default" write strategy for the overburn. This doesn't necessarily work very well (especially for some 4x discs, it seems). Luckily 2x wasn't a part of the official standard, so how 2x is done doesn't matter, but 8x is part of the standard, so it does matter.

And yes, I have your strategy, buy a few blanks of a type, and then see how well they overburn. Of course, I'm now running into some problems on some of my media, because it wasn't designed to overburn, but that's my fault. Also, don't forget that some manufacturers change who makes their discs, so it's possible to get one batch that works great, and one batch that doesn't.

What I'm sick of is these drive manufacturer's coming out with a drive, saying it's "8x", but then when you read the fine print, it says that 8x isn't approved by the standards body yet. So, if the standard changes and the drive can't be patched to meet it, then you're SOL when it takes effect, and it becomes difficult to buy your special media.

At this point, I refuse to buy an 8x (-R) burner, until there is an announcement stating that 8x (-R) is an official standard and that there is firmware for the drive that supports it. I got burned on the 2x thing before (that burner cost me $500), I'm not getting burned again.

Also, let's not forget that companies like Pioneer that do this are keeping the cost of the higher speed media high. The reason for this is that all of that testing for a media to get (specifically Pioneer) 8x certified costs money to the media manufacturer, and that cost gets passed on to the consumer. But, from Pioneer's take, if they didn't do it, they wouldn't be able to sell drives (because their speed would be less than +R).

-- Joe
Re:Hmm... by Bombcar · 2004-05-10 07:05 · Score: 1

I got burned on the 2x thing before (that burner cost me $500), I'm not getting burned again.

So you bought a burner and got burned.... what did you expect?

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week!

--
Fellowship 9/11

I'd never buy one of these! by Eric+Smith · 2004-05-09 12:08 · Score: 5, Funny

If they can't keep their web page from blinking, I'm not going to trust the product. That's incredibly obnoxious!

[I've used other Plextor products and been happy with them.]

Re:I'd never buy one of these! by challahc · 2004-05-09 12:17 · Score: 1

Looks like it doesn't blink in IE. Try it in firefox for blinking action.

I guess this is one way to see who is really using open source.

--
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100101
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by radoni · 2004-05-09 12:21 · Score: 2, Funny

class="blink"

with drives so fast, you might miss the burn process if you blink

--
SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by eddy · 2004-05-09 12:21 · Score: 1

>I guess this is one way to see who is really using open source.

Not really, it's blinking in Opera too. Looks really screwed up.

Ah, the joy of non-validating markup.

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by Juanvaldes · 2004-05-09 12:33 · Score: 1

wow that's nasty. Does not hit Omniweb so I assume the rest of KHTML is not effected.
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by Doppler00 · 2004-05-09 12:37 · Score: 1

someone needs to learn HTML.... .blink {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 11px;
line-height: 14px;
color: #333333;
text-decoration: blink;
}

text-decoration: blink. hmm... what else could blink possibly do? I guess Internet explorer ignored that CSS property for some reason, but it's ugly on Mozilla. Fix your website plextor!
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by zurab · 2004-05-09 12:37 · Score: 1

I guess this is one way to see who is really using open source.
It's not blinking in Konqueror either and Konqueror is definitely open source.
The drive is reasonably priced, I think. A lot of people still pay about $200 for quality brand names for 4x DVD±RW at retail stores.
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by Bill_Royle · 2004-05-09 12:43 · Score: 2, Funny

They may be good at making burners, but their web developer needs to be thrown a good beating.

Perhaps though, that's the problem. Maybe they locked him in a closet 5-6 years ago, and are too cheap to buy him new training materials?
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by nazh · 2004-05-09 13:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

After a quick look at the standards, one can tell that the browsers are not required to support blink

quote w3c.org:
Text blinks (alternates between visible and invisible). Conforming user agents are not required to support this value. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/text.html#lining-strikin g-props

looks like its being maintained like this in css3 http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-text-20030514/#t ext-blink
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by croddy · 2004-05-09 13:03 · Score: 5, Informative

open the URL 'about:config'
filter for 'blink'
browser.blink_allowed : set to "false"
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by AsmordeanX · 2004-05-09 14:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Holy goddamn. I thought I had seen the last of the blink tag when 1997 left us. Seriously it has been 5+ years since I've ever found a page with a blink tag on it.

Mental note - don't buy Plextor until they learn that 'cool' HTML tricks from 1995 are not a good idea.
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by Bilestoad · 2004-05-09 14:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not the drive that kills you, it's the media. Without 12x media (+R) or 8x media (-R) it's no better than drives at half the price. I thought I was lucky having a 4x drive until I saw the price of the media compared to 1x - for that much money, I'm happy to wait.
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by Bobulusman · 2004-05-09 15:08 · Score: 1

I'm a little bit leary, as my current plextor dvd burner has been giving me trouble. Out of the box, it was defective (could burn, but could not read, either CD or DVD). Sent it in, got a replacement. It's been four months, and I'm already seening signs that this one is acting up. There's a data dvd that it can't read (that my ancient 1x dvd drive can) and a DVD+RW that THIS DRIVE burned a month ago isn't readable now. I'm wondering if the model has some defects.

--
Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by Doomrat · 2004-05-09 18:18 · Score: 2

You don't know what bastardize means. That's pretty funny.
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by zurab · 2004-05-09 19:16 · Score: 1

I am assuming you can still burn at 1x, 2x and 4x speeds with it. The burner is a longer term investment compared to the media. You buy slower media until the prices come down on faster ones. Whereas with the burner, you are not going to upgrade every few months depending on the media price.
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by Yer+Mom · 2004-05-09 22:38 · Score: 1

about:config
Set browser.blink_allowed to false.
Job done.

--
Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by datadriven · 2004-05-10 00:08 · Score: 1

Sweet, thanks for the tip

--
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by MoonBuggy · 2004-05-10 04:26 · Score: 1

Look at Costco, they've managed to make entire paragraphs blink using 1337 CSS skills, not just your old blink tags.
Re:I'd never buy one of these! by Meski · 2004-05-10 17:25 · Score: 1

Heh. Proper markup language for a marked up product, hmmm? When most html is already bastardised for MS 'extensions', expecting tasteful websites is somewhat of a joke.

The good old days by LordoftheFrings · 2004-05-09 12:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Remember the good old days when you could list your optical drive specs with only 3 numbers? For example, "I just got a new CD Burner! It's 32x16x8" Now, it's what? 48x12x8x8x8x32x32x48. Just freaking perfect. This is what multiple standards do to us.

--
Canadian Cynic, canadian politics is less boring than you

Re:The good old days by PacoTaco · 2004-05-09 12:30 · Score: 4, Funny

I just got a new CD Burner! It's 32x16x8
That's the "old days?" I've got a 1x CD burner in my closet. We're talking 1x read and 1x write with a sweet proprietary controller. 150 KB/s is all you really need anyway.
Re:The good old days by York+the+Mysterious · 2004-05-09 12:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Let me guess $1500 too right? Damn those old burners burned more than just coasters. They burned a sweet hole in your wallet.

--

Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
Re:The good old days by bn557 · 2004-05-09 12:43 · Score: 1

I recall having a drive that was a 1x cd-reader and rather than a tray or a caddie, the whole drive popped out and opened clam shell style.

P

--
Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
Re:The good old days by rspress · 2004-05-09 14:52 · Score: 2, Funny

You guys are all too young! In 1978 I was saving my programs to cassette tape! Speedy read times ran from 5 minutes for a small program to 30 minutes or more for larger ones. Write times were longer of course.

Now I get pissed when it takes more than 5 seconds for a program to launch.
Re:The good old days by IdleTime · 2004-05-09 15:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Cassette tape? Hah! Noob!
I used paper tape and punch cards, I even knew how to read the paper tape we used on a teletype terminal connected via an acoustic coupler to the computer.
Cassette tape... That's so 80's!

--
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Re:The good old days by nomadic · 2004-05-09 17:24 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that "I just got a new CD burner!" is information enough. Very few people really need the burn speeds listed.
Re:The good old days by jred · 2004-05-09 18:20 · Score: 1

That's not necessarily the case. The optimal speed for *all* burning uses is instantaneous. Pop the disc in & it immediately pops back out, copy completed.

--

jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
Re:The good old days by TheSimkin · 2004-05-09 21:03 · Score: 1

Multiple standards keeps competition alive and kicking and gives us options. Options are good unless you're a consumer who doesn't want to make educated decisions.
Re:The good old days by logic-gate · 2004-05-09 23:17 · Score: 1

I've got a 1x CD burner in my closet.
You call that the old days?? I remember the day when we had to trudge through 5 miles of snow with no shoes and rags for clothes just to buy a 360k 5 1/4" floppy disk to burn for heat.
Re:The good old days by rspress · 2004-05-10 00:46 · Score: 1

Ever here of an abacus? Paper tape is so 20th century. When I grew up we did not even have zero yet.

Actually back to the CD topic. My first burner was a pinnacle micro 1X CD burner. It could be had for the bargain price of 2000 bucks.

While the DVD +-R's are getting fast what really is catching my eye are the new dual layer burners that should be hitting the stores very shortly. Speed is nice but it often gets to the point that the next jump in speed does not really matter that much. For most people the difference between burning a CD in 3.5 minutes is not much difference than burning it in 5 minutes. Making a complete backup of a DVD on one disc instead of two or more is very nice. Over 9 gigs on a single disc is also great for backup purposes.

My next drive won't be a faster one but a dual layer drive.
Re:The good old days by ckaminski · 2004-05-10 02:21 · Score: 1

4x Plextor SCSI CD drive, with a dozen caddies that I hoard like diamonds... worthless, but so pretty, and functional when you need them...
Re:The good old days by Wolfrider · 2004-05-10 17:01 · Score: 1

--You had an ABACUS? Luxury! When I had to count to anything over 20, I had to roust friends and family out of the fields!

--Oh wait, that never happened. Nevermind. :) (I did hafta walk both ways to school tho.)

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:The good old days by Wolfrider · 2004-05-10 17:03 · Score: 1

--You had HEAT? Bwaah, back in my day we had to cut open the family Tauntaun with a rusty nail and climb inside -- and we LIKED it!!

:b

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:The good old days by rspress · 2004-05-11 01:21 · Score: 1

I could count to 21.....23 if it were really cold! ;-)

If only ... by TheGavster · 2004-05-09 12:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now if only I had 4GB of something to burn to disc that fast ... For critical files, I'm going to run at low speeds for safety, for less critical stuff I'll probably be on a CD, if for no reason other than media costs.

--
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".

Re:If only ... by Soporific · 2004-05-09 12:19 · Score: 1

I remember reading somewhere that when you are burning a disc, using the lowest speeds is more corruptive than the highest, at least for CD's. YMMV.

~S
Re:If only ... by James_G · 2004-05-09 12:24 · Score: 4, Informative

less critical stuff I'll probably be on a CD, if for no reason other than media costs.
Media costs? Well let's see..
25 4X DVD+R for $31
100 52X CD-R for $31

So that's.. 25*4700MB[*] / 31 = 3.7GB/$ for DVDs
And.. 100*700MB / 31 = 2.2GB/$ for CDs.
Add in the fact that, to burn 4.7GB in CDs takes 7x700MB CDs, so you're doing a lot more disc swapping.. I can't see any reason to use CDs. Especially not for media cost reasons. Yeah, you can get cheaper media than that, but if you want good quality stuff, this is the range you're looking at.
[*] DVDs are 4700MB, not 4.7GB (4812MB)
Re:If only ... by FlipmodePlaya · 2004-05-09 12:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

DVD drives are not yet as ubiquitous as CD drives. For a backup of critical data, I'd want to be able to read it at as many places as possible. For that, I'd say a CD is your best bet. That doesn't always matter, though.
Re:If only ... by Noehre · 2004-05-09 12:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

They're actually 4.3GB/4400MB.

They use the lovely base-10 gigabyte.
Re:If only ... by James_G · 2004-05-09 12:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Ah, good point. I took this into account for the GB calculation, but not MB and KB.. so it's actually..
4700000000 bytes = 4589843KB = 4482MB = 4.37GB.
Going back to my original calculation..
25*4.37GB / 31 = 3.5GB/$ for DVDs
So, still considerably cheaper.
Re:If only ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-09 12:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

In my eyes, your post lost all credibility when it incorrectly stated that DVDs were indeed 4700MB. Hard to trust someone who has never even used the media before.

And not to mention your calculations are based on wild assumptions. CDRs are on sale all the time at the local stores, I know because I have gotten some name brand media ranging from 12.99-16.99. On the other hand, I rarely see DVDR media on sale.

As a final note, please note that most of the time if someone wants to back something up, he does *not* have exactly 4.3 gigs to backup. Anything less then that would be a waste of a DVDR, and would better go on some CDRs.
Re:If only ... by Noehre · 2004-05-09 13:21 · Score: 1

I was off by a bit myself.

Ahh, can't think during finals week.
Re:If only ... by criordan · 2004-05-09 13:41 · Score: 1

Usually I pay $0 after rebate for my CDs, or if I'm lucky -$0.01. Hard to beat that.

--
http://www.aaplblog.com/ - News about Apple Inc.
Re:If only ... by Gadzinka · 2004-05-09 13:41 · Score: 1

[*] DVDs are 4700MB, not 4.7GB (4812MB)

Actually no. DVDs are 4700 mln bytes, which is around 4472MB AFAIR.

Robert

PS Well, most DVDs I use are 4,706,000,000 bytes or so.

--
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Re:If only ... by sunspot42 · 2004-05-09 13:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

>DVD drives are not yet as ubiquitous as CD drives.
>For a backup of critical data, I'd want to be able
>to read it at as many places as possible.

Huh?? How on earth did this post get modded "insightful"? I've had a DVD drive in my PC since 1999. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a home PC that *didn't* have a DVD drive. Personally, I haven't seen one in several years now.

Corporate PC's might be another matter, but then, you've got the network and LOTS of PC's to choose from in that environment. I'm sure one of the hundreds of machines at the typical corporate site will have a DVD drive.

And since vanilla DVD-ROM drives can be had for around $30 or so, it's not like they're some exotic technology nobody could afford to add to a machine, in the unlikely event they're somehow stuck with DVD backup discs they can't read because some PC dinosaur doesn't have a DVD-ROM drive.

If you're so worried about being compatible with "as many places as possible", backup to 3.5" floppies. They're ubiquitous. At 1.44MB a pop though, be prepared to deal with 1,000+ discs to backup today's average PC hard drive.
Re:If only ... by complete+loony · 2004-05-09 14:10 · Score: 1

Hey, I've only just started thinking about buying one, up till now I haven't had the money to waste and no real reason to buy one, and I'm still not sure I need one. you insensitive clod.

--
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Re:If only ... by Simonetta · 2004-05-09 14:16 · Score: 1

I can't see any reason to use CDs.

Everybody in the world except perhaps for Osama Bin Laden's dishwasher has a CD-ROM drive on their PC. When you burn a CD for a stranger, then you know that they will be able to read it.

Not so with DVD. Market acceptance of DVD-ROMs is still low and will probably not catch on like CDs did in the mid 1990s because of the huge number of DVD movie players being sold cheaply.

When the media cost of DVD (on an average) falls to about 50% that of CD-ROM for the same storage capacity, then there will probably be a surge of buying of DVD ROM to maybe 50% of PCs having a DVD ROM reader. But since few people have the need for vast storage requirements, the primary use for DVD writers will be to back-up and trade DVD movies.
When DVD disk media reaches 50 cents US per blank disk, people will become very uninclined to spend several hours converting a DVD movie to DivX and that might lead to a significant decline of the number of DivX titles available for download on P2P channels.

In any event, cheap DVD reproduction hopefully will lead to film fans to finally be able to see the vast number of great foreign and independent films like Sundance that now never make it to wide distribution. Sure if you live in NYC you can always go down to Black Turtleneck Video and score the latest Win Wenders directly from the Berlin Film Festival. But if you're in Beaverton, Oregon, fat chance. There you get what Hollywood Video has or you get whatever's available from the shelve at the local library. And the library gets its stuff from donations from Hollywood Video.
Cheap DVD will allow great films, like great marijuana, to circulate through grass-roots channels from person-to-person. At 50 cents a disk, you can copy your favorite film and give it to a friend. If they like it then they can copy it for themselves and/or pass the disk to someone else. It will be similar to what Kazaa does with music but more oriented towards physical media exchange because of the enormous bandwidth requirements of film and big-brother monitoring of the P2P channels.

In this way, really great films (like El Topo or Dossier 51) won't disappear due to above ground legal and distribution hassles and masterpieces will get a chance to be seen even if they never make it to the local octoplex popcorn shop.
Re:If only ... by Simonetta · 2004-05-09 14:21 · Score: 1

That's Wim... Wim....

Wake up, girl! Remember the preview is not just for coming attractions.
Re:If only ... by Dever · 2004-05-09 14:26 · Score: 1

acually, it seems that since newer(ish) drives are made to burn at faster speeds, they (those that design the firmware i suppose) assume users wil l therefore burn at faster speeds and the quality of low speed burning is not quite the 'safety standard' many assume it to be.

--
- I'd prefer not to.
Re:If only ... by Trejkaz · 2004-05-09 14:39 · Score: 1

4700MB is actually 4700 million bytes. You're supposed to use MiB for 2^20 bytes and MB for 10^6 bytes. Not that anyone cares though because it seems the storage manufacturers are the only ones who use it (gee, I wonder why.)

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:If only ... by TravisWatkins · 2004-05-09 15:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually your more likely to be able to use a CD than a floppy. New systems from Dell don't have have floppy drives in the default config.

--

"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
Re:If only ... by calethix · 2004-05-09 15:42 · Score: 1

Me too. In fact I bought my first one last week.

I can think of plenty of other people that don't have a DVD drive either.

Granted, that's not going to stop me from backing stuff up to DVD. If my computer blew up, I think I could scrounge up the money to buy another DVD drive.
Re:If only ... by N1KO · 2004-05-09 15:47 · Score: 1

I don't have a DVD drive mainly because I'd have no use for it other than movies and I'd rather watch movies on my TV.

I might get a DL burner for backups but that would be the only use I would have for it.
Re:If only ... by rebelcool · 2004-05-09 18:42 · Score: 1

I don't. I had one for about a year and a half, and then it broke. I just replaced it with a cheaper cd burner. What do I need a dvd drive on my pc for when I prefer to watch movies on my much larger tv?

There aren't exactly alot of software out there only on dvd...

--
-
Re:If only ... by sunspot42 · 2004-05-09 20:14 · Score: 1

That's a good point, but it's true only on some of the very latest systems.

But then, most newer system also come with a device that will at least play, if not record, DVD's.
Re:If only ... by sunspot42 · 2004-05-09 20:26 · Score: 1

>There aren't exactly alot of software out there only on dvd...

That's the odd thing, too. You'd think that by now, somebody somewhere would have released a "killer app" that took advantage of the increased storage space afforded by DVD.
Re:If only ... by erpbridge · 2004-05-09 23:38 · Score: 1

Reason why (and I can tell you this, having just fought tooth and nail with my boss, who was buying about 75 new computers for a mid-size K12 district):

People (the layperson) associate DVD with video. When they hear they have a DVD drive in their computer, they instantly think "Oh, I watch Blockbuster movies on my computer at work? Can't have my subordinates, or the students, doing that, there's lost productivity." Instead, they go buy the (less money required, so it's cheaper) 52x CD.

They also look at numbers. "Hey, look, a 12x DVD is slower than a 52x CD-ROM, right?" No, two totally different speed scales.

And finally, they look at the amount of current usage of non-video programs on DVD in the market. Since they see none now, they don't need one, right? Only thing they don't realize is that they're keeping the same computer for the next 7 years , with no upgrading of internal components (they may think at the time of purchase that they can upgrade internals later on... but when it comes time for us to suggest it, they always refuse to budge, saying the current POS works well enough (until 2 years after it really doesn't, which is too late to perform miracles.)

And yes, K12 education is that bad... I just got hired in about 6 months ago, and they're replacing a whole bunch of Pentium 75-133's, and Powermac 5200/75's. They think anything newer (166's, /120's) are good enough to last "a couple more years." Ow.
Re:If only ... by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · 2004-05-10 00:32 · Score: 1

Yes, but when you have moron users like me that can't figure out how to zip their 1.5 MB Powerpoint presentation and have to have it on removable media, CDs are a damn sight less wasteful than DVD.

Eh, no big by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-09 12:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

An 8x burner is pretty fast, so 12x isn't really that big of a deal. This like the 48x burners vs. the 32x burners. We're talking only a couple minutes difference. The next big leap is the dual layer drivers.

Re:Eh, no big by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-09 12:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

More importantly when and are you going to find reasonably priced 12X media? 8X media isn't even common everywhere. This drive doesn' have much going for it over current 8X burners or the new DL burners that are just coming out.
Re:Eh, no big by demonbug · 2004-05-09 15:08 · Score: 1

The next big leap is the dual layer drivers.

Don't know if drivers was a typo, but what you said may be more true than you realize - the switch to writing to DL (dual layer) DVDs is looking like it might be accomplished with a simple firmware upgrade, at least for some drives. Check this out for a little more info (basically, a new DL writer appears to use exactly the same controller as a single layer writer, so it looks like the difference is largely a firmware thing).
Re:Eh, no big by Wesley+Felter · 2004-05-09 15:11 · Score: 1

It's worse than that: There is no 12x media. You either have to overclock some 8x media or wait for the 16x discs to come on the market.
Re:Eh, no big by ozzmosis · 2004-05-09 19:31 · Score: 1

I burnt many 4x dvds at 8x and never had a problem with any on a pioneer 107d.

Some drives may or may not work with 4x dvds.
Re:Eh, no big by thogard · 2004-05-09 22:53 · Score: 1

an 8x burning CD's is slow. I didn't realize just how slow the new DVD burner would be burning CDs.

please explain. by j3ll0 · 2004-05-09 12:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Black CD tray minimizes jitter

Can anyone with a bit of know-how explain why the colour of the tray would minimse Jitter?

Re:please explain. by Planky · 2004-05-09 12:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Just like Red makes cars go faster, black must stablize it. ----- Your everyday 4x2
Re:please explain. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-09 12:23 · Score: 1, Interesting

Because black is darker and absorbs more light there are less reflections of the 650nm blue laser which writes the data to the disc. therefor the beam is more exact and the data's more secure.
Re:please explain. by Planky · 2004-05-09 12:24 · Score: 5, Funny

*Changes Windows appearance to black*
Re:please explain. by grepistan · 2004-05-09 12:42 · Score: 1

The tray is coated with revolutionary JitterPrufe© paint that absorbs incoming UVB radiation and stores it in a quantum gyroscopic fluxer for maximal stabilizing redeployment based on a dynamic proactive self-monitoring device.
At least that's what the manual says.

--
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Re:please explain. by Ignorant+Aardvark · 2004-05-09 13:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Because black is darker and absorbs more light there are less reflections of the 650nm blue laser which writes the data to the disc. therefor the beam is more exact and the data's more secure.

I hate to break it to you, but 650nm is RED, not blue. Blue is 450nm. And anyways, current DVD technology doesn't use blue lasers anyway ... they use red lasers. Blue lasers are coming with that "Blu-Ray" technology.

--
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Re:please explain. by aled · 2004-05-09 13:40 · Score: 1

Now I understand that blue screen of death...

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"
Re:please explain. by Atmchicago · 2004-05-09 14:32 · Score: 1

*Changes Java look to red*

--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Re:please explain. by ktulu1115 · 2004-05-09 17:05 · Score: 1

And I wonder what Star Trek episode they pulled that line from...

--
# fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
#
Re:please explain. by grepistan · 2004-05-09 21:14 · Score: 1

it would appear that something ate my tag :)

--
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

A friendlier link by Spad · 2004-05-09 12:14 · Score: 5, Informative

European Page sans-flashing.

You'll also note that us lucky non-US customers get a 2-year On-Site collect and return warranty. Woo!

Re:A friendlier link by risings0n · 2004-05-09 12:39 · Score: 1

Thank you, I thought i was alone with Firefox for a second....
Re:A friendlier link by TechniMyoko · 2004-05-09 13:10 · Score: 1

oh you are
Re:A friendlier link by Saib0t · 2004-05-09 20:01 · Score: 1

Personally, I'd rather live in the US and not get the warranty.
Really? Why is that? Seriously, I'm curious why would anyone chose to live in the US. I can understand people staying there because their family/friends/jobs are there, but other than that...

--

One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence

Speedy. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-09 12:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

1385KB/s * 12 = 16620KB/s, or in other words: the buffer will empty in half a second if the stream dries up. Good thing we have linking.

(I assume it's zoned so the real numbers will probably be slightly less)

Re:Speedy. by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · 2004-05-09 12:47 · Score: 1

Memory is fairly cheap these days; why doesn't a manufacturer slap 32 or 64MB on there?
Re:Speedy. by sexecutioner · 2004-05-09 12:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Unfortunately it's not just the memory that would need to be increased, all the controller systems need to be lengthened to handle the larger address space.
Re:Speedy. by achurch · 2004-05-09 18:08 · Score: 1

1385KB/s * 12 = 16620KB/s
And now the question becomes, can you pump out the data that fast? My system at home can only do about 14MB/s from the (encrypted) hard drive, so there wouldn't be much point in getting a 16MB/s DVD writer . . .

Sweet by SavedLinuXgeeK · 2004-05-09 12:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

That definately will decrease backup time, I mean with dual layer coming out, and if the speeds keep increasing for drives, this could become a viable realtime backup solution, especially using a disc changer. Im not saying it will be blazing, but for smaller companies, it could definately help cut costs. Just seems very cool.

--
je suis parce que j'aime

8Mb buffer? by reality-bytes · 2004-05-09 12:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Knowing the data-rates that can be involved with DVDs I would have thought that 8Mb is only maybe a seconds worth of 'incident' time during a write.

As it is, I've already reached a happy medium where I only burn at 12x on my CDR because I know that no matter how shoddy the media I use in the drive is, i've got a 99% chance of a sucessful burn.

I imagine, that if I was to buy a DVD writer I'd end up in the same 'middle-ground' - I don't even know if I can find a use for all this 'speed' when writing sessions are usually relegated to coffee breaks and lunchtimes anyway.

--
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.

Re:8Mb buffer? by DiscoOnTheSide · 2004-05-09 12:42 · Score: 1

well, considering that BurnProof is more or less in every single drive, and that most of the older DVD Burners (going off memory) only have a 2MB buffer, a 4x larger buffer is not something I'm going to be complaining about. It helps HDs, why not DVD-RW drives?

--
Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
Re:8Mb buffer? by NerveGas · 2004-05-09 12:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

12X to get a 99% chance? Wow.

I use a Sony 40x burner with buffer underrun, and choose the "optimal" setting. If I'm burning a large ISO, by the end of the disk, it'll be sustaining 34x to 38x, and out of many hundreds of disks, I've got a *100%* success rate.

steve

--
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Re:8Mb buffer? by reality-bytes · 2004-05-09 12:49 · Score: 1

The general point I was making is that I always buy 'bargain' disks - some of which may be visably faulty before they've even been in the drive.

Burning at 12 speed on a 2 year old drive pretty much guarantees success

And as I said, when you do burning in the time that the system would otherwise be unused, you get 100% resource dedication to the operation.

--
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.

Ooo... by daishin · 2004-05-09 12:22 · Score: 2, Funny

This is great, now the bootleggers over here will be able to produce more dvds!

--
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. Add Bunny to your signature
(> <) to help him achieve world domination.

I'd never buy one of these!-Buy one! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-09 12:23 · Score: 1, Interesting

Blink or no blink. I would buy Plextor in a heartbeat. The only bad thing is that it doesn't come in SCSI, but I'd be more than happy with an external with Firewire. BTW the black minimizes jitter by reducing backscatter. Remember the CD surface is reflective to a certain degree.

Re:I'd never buy one of these!-Buy one! by kardar · 2004-05-10 00:43 · Score: 1

I had an interesting experience. I have one of those motherboards that had the VIA bug - 686B or something like that (it's a slightly older motherboard)- but anyway, using their ATA 100 interface, with an ATA66 disk, and an 8x CD-R burner, the machine would basically slow to a crawl, basically to the point where it just wasn't usable at all, it didn't crash, but it was so slow that you could see it in the mouse, and text wouldn't show up while you were typing, etc.. - while the CD was burning. Horrible.

Anyway, I re-did the computer with a SCSI disk and controller just recently, and I still haven't replaced that 8x CD-R with anything, but with the SCSI disk, you would never even know you were burning a CD-R. I often forget, until the CD ejects. I can totally burn a CD in the background, whereas before, doing anything else was impossible when the CD was burning. The SCSI disk is an 80 MB/s drive, so it's not that much faster than the ATA66, but it's just a world of difference.

If you can't get a SCSI CD, you can always get a SCSI PCI card and a SCSI hard drive. Unbelievable - I haven't put a faster CD-R in the drive, but that is of course the next thing. I may have to try out a DVD-R on the now almost completely empty (except for a CD-R drive) ATA100 buses that came with the motherboard.

I am also curious if maybe this kind of performance improvement could be had by purchasing one of those SATA controllers and hanging an SATA drive off of it.

I think there are also measurable improvements in many other areas that you can get by using a SCSI drive; and now that you don't need the scsi emulation anymore, you can probably set those jumpers on the CD burners to do ATA33, a newer Plextor 52x one I have has those jumpers, but I was under the impression they don't work with SCSI emulation, but seeing as how SCSI emulation is not necessary anymore in the newer software, I will have to try them out now.

Considering that SCSI hardware is more expensive, I would definitely opt for a disk, with which you will have noticable improvement in many, many areas, as opposed to a CD or DVD drive, where the improvements will not be as many, and good performance could be had with the burner devices on your now freed-up onboard ATA buses.

Even a newer ATA motherboard I have shows a little bit of a slowdown when burning a CD (one onboard ATA bus to another). It's still quite usable though, even while it's burning at 52x. And it's done pretty quick as well, so it's not a really big deal. With a SCSI disk, there is absolutely no noticable performace difference when burning the CD. It's an incredible sense of freedom. 8x is no big deal, I just does it in the background - who cares how long it takes, it doesn't interfere with anything you do, no coasters, even when opening up apps Burning a CD and opening up OpenOffice, for instance, at the same time used to require some planning ahead - not anymore, at least on this computer. Open Office opens up just as fast - I don't know if it's the SCSI, or the fact that it's a PCI non-onboard controller and if SATA would give the same results, but it's definitely a really great sense of freedom, that's for sure.

Re:DVD-++-+-RRWR- by dastrike · 2004-05-09 12:26 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.videohelp.com/dvd

--
while true; do eject; eject -t; done

Psshht! by AssProphet · 2004-05-09 12:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Optical storage is for wimps.
Real nerds memorize their data!

Re:Psshht! by aled · 2004-05-09 13:44 · Score: 1

You must be a wimp. Real nerds extrapolate their data!

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"
Re:Psshht! by Quasar1999 · 2004-05-09 14:04 · Score: 3, Funny

Optical storage is for wimps.
Real nerds memorize their data!

Hmm... so since I store my passwords on a post-it note on my monitor, I use must be using optical storage then?

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

So... by JessLeah · 2004-05-09 12:28 · Score: 2, Funny

How many DVD burners is that the "equivalent" of? ;)

--
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin

Re:So... by Shadwell · 2004-05-09 14:20 · Score: 1

Seven.

Re:Does it run on GNU/Linux? by niko9 · 2004-05-09 12:31 · Score: 5, Informative

Are these devices standard? Can i just put it in my box and use it?

yes. And with the 2.6 kernels, you don't even need SCSI emulation any longer.

enjoy

Dead Technology! by Lord+Apathy · 2004-05-09 12:33 · Score: 5, Informative

12x speed is very nice but this is still a single layer dvd writer. The first of the dual layers will be out in a few weeks. Sony is sceduled to be out the 16th. You can already preorder it. The specs this beast are nice but its dead on the floor. Wait till the dual layer is here then they will be giving them away.

--

Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

Re:Dead Technology! by Quarters · 2004-05-09 12:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not really. Dual Layer is nice, but, from what I've heard, it's slow. A fast 4.7GB single layer DVD burner can be useful to a large number of people who aren't, "It's new therefore I must have it and deride everything else and the people that buy those lesser devices" geeks.
Re:Dead Technology! by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2004-05-09 13:21 · Score: 1

2.4X dual layer really isn't too bad of a speed for dual layer, which is the initial speed available for dual layer.

I don't think there is a point in buying a 12x single layer-only drive. I think having a drive that writes 8x single layer and 2.4x double layer is far more useful than one that writes 12x single layer and double layer not at all.
Re:Dead Technology! by doormat · 2004-05-09 13:30 · Score: 2, Informative

A recent article showed that the DL write speeds at 2.4x. So you can spend 45mins burning 1 DL DVD, or 2x 15min burning two DVDs at 8x.

--
The Doormat

If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Re:Dead Technology! by Trejkaz · 2004-05-09 14:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or alternatively, they might upgrade the firmware to support dual layer so you can burn some disks at high speed and dual layer disks at a lower speed.

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:Dead Technology! by dbretton · 2004-05-09 14:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

A recent article [anandtech.com] showed that the DL write speeds at 2.4x. So you can spend 45mins burning 1 DL DVD, or 2x 15min burning two DVDs at 8x.

Yup, but, if I am backing up a DL DVD, then here are my options:
1) Dual Layer option:
backup + burn (~ 1 hr)
2) Single Layer option 1: (shrink)
strip + requantize + burn (~2hrs)
3) Single Layer option 2: (shrink)
strip + reencode + burn (~12-20 hrs)
4) Single Layer option 3: (2 DVD-R's)
backup, separate, edit IFO files + reauthor + burn + burn (~2 - 3 hrs, most of it interactive)

I'll take the slow DL burn over the fast SL burn.
Re:Dead Technology! by Lord+Apathy · 2004-05-09 15:22 · Score: 3, Informative

From what I've read its not quite that bad. The first layer is burned at 8x. It's the second layer that is burned at 2.4x. That I can live with. Most of us are going to use this to back up movies that we have bought that are dual layered. Most dual layered dvds are between 5 and 7 GB long. So basiclly you will be writing between 1 and 3 GB to the second layer at 2.4x. Not bad, not good, but not bad.

--
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Re:Dead Technology! by doormat · 2004-05-09 16:38 · Score: 1

I'm not thinking about "backing up" movies, I'm speaking to large data backups.

--
The Doormat

If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Re:Dead Technology! by Lord+Apathy · 2004-05-09 17:18 · Score: 1

Well you're covered there too. The Sony model will write to a single layered + or - dvdr at 8x speed. Which is kind of nice because you have a slow dual layer dvd write if you need to "back up" a movie dvd. Trust me, if you have kids you do. Plus you have a nice fast 8x writer for doing large data back ups to a single layer dvd. The sony puppy also is a 4x RW write also. Very nice in my option.

--
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Re:Dead Technology! by bonhomme_de_neige · 2004-05-09 18:37 · Score: 1

A recent article [anandtech.com] showed that the DL write speeds at 2.4x. So you can spend 45mins burning 1 DL DVD, or 2x 15min burning two DVDs at 8x.
15 min at 8x? In my experience, 4x ~= 13-14 mins, 6x ~= 10 mins (8x = too unstable on my cheap blanks ;p)
4) Single Layer option 3: (2 DVD-R's) backup, separate, edit IFO files + reauthor + burn + burn (~2 - 3 hrs, most of it interactive)
I assume you meant to say "select split point in CloneDVD2, click "go", come back 25 mins later to swap discs, and another 10 mins later to collect the second DVD". That's about 35 mins in total, but let's round up and say 40. Compared to ~1hr for DL option by your own calculations.

All that remains to compare is whether the price difference between an 8x SL and a DL burner is more than the cost of a license for CloneDVD2 (IIRC about USD30, and a bargain at twice the price ;p) ... so when DL burner becomes cheaper and/or faster than (SL burner + CloneDVD2), it will be viable.

--
"Why are you watching the washing machine?"
"I love entertainment, as long as it's clean"
Re:Dead Technology! by Libraryman · 2004-05-09 19:08 · Score: 1

Most of us are going to use this to back up movies that we have bought that are dual layered.
I think you meant "Most of us are going to use this to back up movies that we have RENTED that are dual layered." I like to think of it as time-shifting a la Blockbuster.
Re:Dead Technology! by ShavenYak · 2004-05-10 03:02 · Score: 1

Actually, I think both layers have to have the same amount of data, so the head doesn't have to move when switching layers at the end of the disk. But still, half the disk at 8X and half at 2.4X gives you an average speed of 5.2X. Still not bad, considering most of us are stuck at 4X now and only get one layer to work with.

--

Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!

Oh stop it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-09 12:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

There's really 2 standards, + and -.

However:

a) once written, either is usable in any drive
b) All writers these days work with both types

Therefore this issue disappeared about 9 months ago. Try to keep up

Re:Oh stop it by Trejkaz · 2004-05-09 14:43 · Score: 1

So if all drives work with both types, why don't they just stop making writers which support -R and -RW? Wouldn't that clear up the confusion?

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!

I'll take it by Tmurder · 2004-05-09 12:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

This will inevitably drive the price of the other plextor dvd burners(708a, 504a, etc) and subsequently other 8x burners down, i'll take that. Can't beat plextor quality especially when the price will drop a bit. I'll be perfectly happy with a 8x burner.

Re:I'll take it by orangepeel · 2004-05-09 13:51 · Score: 1

Ok, I'll add my 2 cents.

I'm not impressed by Plextor anymore. I've had two of their SCSI CD units die on me within the past couple of years. One was a plain Plextor SCSI CD-ROM drive, which experienced only light use, and died after about a year and a half after purchase. I was so annoyed I never bothered to send it back under warranty. The other, which finally died yesterday after months of intermittent hardware errors, was a SCSI CD-RW (Plexwriter 4/12/32) drive. Again, it had only experienced light use. Both were insanely expensive. I had hoped that, given the alleged quality of Plextor units, and given how little use they were going to get, that I'd have to replace them with different optical technology before I had to replace them due to failure. It didn't turn out that way.

Sorry, but based on my personal experience I think Plextor is relying more on its name these days, rather than maintaining its once high level of reliability. I really don't view them as anything special now. Except perhaps as overpriced - because people are still willing to pay for the name.

--
Whoever designed level 61 in Frozen Bubble is a sadistic bastard.
Re:I'll take it by Milican · 2004-05-09 16:23 · Score: 1

My Plextor burner died twice. Once within 3 years, another refurb within a year. My roommates died within 3 years, my sister's died in less than a year brand new. Not buying their stuff anymore.

JOhn

--
Campaign for Liberty

Stupid comment by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-09 12:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

" It seems to me that DVD burners this fast would only be used for DVD piracy."

How dumb is this statement?

I have a 250GB HD, and I need to back about 200G of it up.

Each DVD+/-R holds, for the sake of this argument, 5G. That's 40 DVD's to back things up completely. Now then, each DVD at 2.4x takes 1/2 hour, so this is 20 hours to back things up. That means it takes me about 3-4 days since I don't spend every waking hour backing up.

If I can go to a 12 speed drive, then my time drops to a fraction, and I don't have to spend days backing up.

Is this clear now? Will you stop being a fucking shill of the MPAA and imagine other people do things *LEGALLY* that you aren't familiar with?

Seriously.

Re:Stupid comment by Spad · 2004-05-09 13:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Exactly, how are we supposed to back up our hundreds of gigs of warez quickly and efficiently without faster DVD burners?

Blah, blah, source code, blah, blah, Linux images, blah, blah, porn, and soforth :)
Re:Stupid comment by silentbozo · 2004-05-09 14:46 · Score: 2, Informative

I work in MR imaging. We recently bought a set of 160gb drives to upgrade our workstations (they shipped with 80gb drives.) Within a week we had filled all of the new drives about 60% full with new in-process data from our MR scanners (we do research, and pull data from multiple scanners on campus.)

Aside from driving the local network admin nuts ("We need to buy ANOTHER multi-terabyte raid to do local backups?!?"), the data we pull needs to be backed up. We used to burn CDs, and only recently have we started burning DVDs. It make a big difference when you can burn one single data set to one disc, instead of splitting it into pieces, or having to zip them. My only worry is that DVDs may not be able to last - we lost a bunch of data that were stored on 1gb Jaz cartridges when the carts went bad, and unfortunately, they hadn't made backup copies.

Although we do research in my group, the SOP for the MR/CT scanners for clinical patients is to burn CDs for archiving patient data. Keep that in mind if the MPAA/RIAA manages to put through ANOTHER tax on recordable media. If your insurance costs go up, you'll know who to blame.

Yeah but no double Layer support by ArcticCelt · 2004-05-09 12:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Double layer support (8.5 GB) is the hot thing to come for DVD's and without this, there is no way this thing will be a success.

--

Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove

Re:Yeah but no double Layer support by Deraj+DeZine · 2004-05-09 12:52 · Score: 1

Because everyone buys the latest and greatest technology, right? I want to burn DVDs to play them in a regular DVD player hooked up to a TV so I don't need double layer support.

Also, the release of double layer DVDs could drive down the price of the older stuff. I think I'll probably want to get a DVD burner in a few weeks.

--
True story.
Re:Yeah but no double Layer support by ArcticCelt · 2004-05-09 13:13 · Score: 1

Because everyone buys the latest and greatest technology, right?

Well that's your point of view but for my part I see many useful utilities for 8.5 GB.

First I want to be able to fit a "Norton Ghost" backups of my operating system on a single DVD. The actual capacity is not big enough and other solutions are to expensive. The double layer 8.5GB seams to be the perfect solution.

I am also right now transferring old 8mm family films to digital and been able to fit everything in half the amount of DVD's is not a bad thing.

--

Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Re:Yeah but no double Layer support by Exiler · 2004-05-09 13:17 · Score: 1

"First I want to be able to fit a "Norton Ghost" backups of my operating system on a single DVD."

Dear lord, what operating system are you using that a normal DVD doesn't have enough capacity to back up?

--
Banaaaana!

Nice, but by dbretton · 2004-05-09 12:41 · Score: 4, Funny

If it's not Dual Layer, then it's just not cutting edge for the "/." crowd.

Now, if the drive was DL AND 12x DVD+R AND could perform a 34 priority crawl of the internet for Natalie Portman pics AND burn them to media automatically, then, AND ONLY THEN, would it be a "/."-worty article.

Re:Nice, but by 403Forbidden · 2004-05-09 12:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Error! The comment you have submitted is too packed with stereotypical superlatives. Please hang yourself and try again later.

SATA version too by stubear · 2004-05-09 12:44 · Score: 4, Informative

They have a Serial ATA version as well. I'm looking at getting this one now that I'm addicted to SATA. It's super fast and easy to hook up drives, what more coudl you want?

Re:SATA version too by sharkey · 2004-05-09 14:27 · Score: 4, Funny

It's super fast and easy to hook up drives, what more coudl you want?
A pony.

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:SATA version too by 1310nm · 2004-05-09 18:02 · Score: 1

IDE cables were difficult to maneuver?

Yes by mrsev · 2004-05-09 12:53 · Score: 1

One million *IAA burners. ...What!.. why does nobody tell me these things! ..One billion *IAA burners

SCSI is dead. by DigiShaman · 2004-05-09 12:54 · Score: 1

It's to bad really. Plextor made the best SCSI drives on the market. Now, they don't make any SCSI drives anymore. In fact, I think Toshiba is the only one that makes a SCSI DVD drive.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:SCSI is dead. by base_chakra · 2004-05-09 13:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Since Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) is supposedly bridgable to SATA, I'm hoping that SAS marks a resurgance in SCSI popularity among home users.
Re:SCSI is dead. by StillAnonymous · 2004-05-09 14:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

SCSI has never been "popular" with home users, except when it was the only choice available, like with early Macs and Amigas.

The minor performance increase a home user might realise with SCSI is far outweighed by the exhorbitant price premium they charge.
Re:SCSI is dead. by aonifer · 2004-05-09 17:58 · Score: 1

I think you need a surgence before you can have a resurgence.
Re:SCSI is dead. by alex_tibbles · 2004-05-09 20:39 · Score: 1

yeah - I have an 8x SCSI Plextor cd writer in the computer across the room from me. I can't remember it having made a coaster. damned good drive.

--
Posters recognized by their sig,
Re:SCSI is dead. by base_chakra · 2004-05-10 01:57 · Score: 1

But most users don't "choose" EIDE either. To that end, popularity among vendors is tantamount to popularity on the desktop, as in the case with nearly all Macintosh generations; Macs had SCSI through the G3 line, albeit sometimes alongside ATA hosts.

As you rightfully observe, the price point has historically been the prohibitive factor. Generally, SCSI's TCO is higher, and relatively few home computers are SCSI-ready, but it looks like SAS will bring a lower price point and a lower TCO.

An inexpensively bridgable bus type could help diminish the perception of SCSI as a niche market, since any SATA-equipped computer can accomodate SAS with less expense and expertise than was previously necessary to add a SCSI chain to an ATA-based PC.

By eliminating the cable/adapter insanity, not only would SAS make SCSI easier to support and less complex, it also foregoes many of the expenses and availability problems associated with SCSI. Most popular retail chains offer either no SCSI products, or only a handful of products at incredibly exhorbitant prices.

Hopefully these factors will prompt OEMs to crank out higher production volumes, resulting in lower prices and more unit sales for desktops.

Also, remember that many technologies once associated only with servers and high-end workstations have since been realized on the desktop--affordably. SMP will soon be de facto on the desktop, we've had high-capacity removable storage for years, HP already offers competitively-priced 64-bit notebooks, and my $70 mainboard has onboard SATA RAID; so maybe it wouldn't be so weird for SAS to open up SCSI to the masses.
Re:SCSI is dead. by whereiswaldo · 2004-05-23 08:10 · Score: 1

The minor performance increase a home user might realise with SCSI is far outweighed by the exhorbitant price premium they charge.

I've seen a lot more IDE drives die than SCSI drives, and I've dealth with at least 50% SCSI drives. SCSI drives seem to be a lot more reliable than IDE.

Units by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2004-05-09 12:54 · Score: 1

8Mb is one megabyte
8MB is eight megabytes

The case of the 'b' is very important, although I suppose not as imortant as the "m", as lower case is milli, and upper case is mega.

At 12x write, I guess an 8MB buffer would be data that is exhausted in less than a tenth of a second. It is still useful for keeping things going smoothly because BURNPROOF slows things down a lot when the drive runs out of data. Many drives still have 2MB.

It is a bit of a concern as EAC says it prefers to not have any buffers at all to get the most accurate extraction, so having 4x as much of a buffer might be a problem.

Re:Units by reality-bytes · 2004-05-09 13:04 · Score: 1

Yes, you guessed correctly that I was trying to imply 8 Megabytes buffer which I thought was a very small ammount considering the rate at which it could be exhausted.

Of course, it would be interesting to know if that same 8MB buffer is available for all write modes including CDR which could be quite useful as it is a reasonable ammount.

--
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.

My G4 burns 4xDVD-R at 1x - ouch by Basehart · 2004-05-09 12:58 · Score: 5, Informative

My G4 is writing 2 minute videos to 4xDVD-R's as I write this and it turns out the recent firmware "update" to the Pioneer superdrive means that 4x disks now write at 1x, which makes me realize yet again that I MUST READ THE READ ME's before buying a 50 pack of 4x blank DVD-R media.

Hopefully Apple will start making faster DVD burners standard in their G5's very soon now!

Re:My G4 burns 4xDVD-R at 1x - ouch by The+Vulture · 2004-05-09 14:07 · Score: 1

Can't you just swap out the drive? If I recall correctly, the SuperDrive is just a DVR-103 or DVR-104 (both Pioneer OEM drives as you said), depends on the model of SuperDrive, I think.

I do recall some software being able to write only to the SuperDrive, but I thought that was "fixed" somewhere along the line.

However, I have the Pioneer DVR-A04 (in my PC), and I feel your pain. With the newer firmwares, I can't write to a 4x DVD-R at all, it seems. Could be the discs mind you, but I've been hearing rumblings...

-- Joe
Re:My G4 burns 4xDVD-R at 1x - ouch by pjludlow · 2004-05-09 15:55 · Score: 1

So you have a G4 with a superdrive, why do you assume that a newer G5 isnt' able to burn a DVD faster? The G4s shipped with Pioneer DVR-103, 104, or 105s (possibly 106s also). Before the 105 it was 2x, depending on the media you used. If you used a 4x media then it would got to 1x most likely. From the 105 and latter you can burn 4x if you have the right media. Right now the pioneer DVR-107 is being used in the new eMacs, and also seems to be shipping right now in the G5 (supposedly Apple has depleted their supply of 106s). So in response to your statement, yes Apple is shipping faster DVD burners. There are also other DVD burners that have shipped in various macs (some from Sony, and maybe some others), although for the most part Apple has shipped Pioneer drives. There is also nothing stopping you from upgrading your drive. You can buy a DVR-107 IDE for $97 right now. The drivers are preset in the latest version of 10.3, so all you have to do is install it and you can use an 8x burner. Not too difficult. I plan on doing it once I get my new G5 as the Apple store charges around a $200 difference between a Superdrive and a combo drive.

I want one by mj2k · 2004-05-09 13:08 · Score: 1

I want one... donations anyone?

Re:I want one by nucrash · 2004-05-09 15:08 · Score: 1

I have the 8x drive, pretty sweet if you ask me, just wish I had the power to plug it into my system

--
Place something witty here

Ubiquity and space waste to be considered by Roman_(ajvvs) · 2004-05-09 13:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

In my eyes you never had credibility in the first place (being AC and all), but then I'm replying so something you wrote must've made sense.

I can go down to my local supermarket and pick up a DVD-R AND a DVD+R in either single of 5-packs. Standard supermarket "people who buy this really have no clue about tech prices" markup applies, but still... I can get one until 12am if I really need to.

I have to agree with my parent though; There's no point buying more space at a lower cost per MB if you're not going to use it.
There are ways to maximize storage, though. Incremental backups on a single CD, until it fills up, for example. I don't personally like that approach since it puts too many eggs in one basket. It also increases the potential for faulty reads on other DVD readers. heck, I still have trouble getting my multi-session CD-R's to read on all of my CD-ROMS!

--
click-clack, front and back. I'm not moving this car otherwise.

Re:But can you buy the disks? by croddy · 2004-05-09 13:21 · Score: 1

this is what people where saying back when the first 12x CD-RW drives came out. and I'll be damned if I *still* can't find anything better than 8x blanks!

Well for CD-ROMs by Sycraft-fu · 2004-05-09 13:24 · Score: 1

You don't need to worry about it, at least if you have a good drive. New drives have technology that gets called things like SmartLink and BurnProof but what it adds up to is if the datastream is interrrupted and their buffer goes empty, they just wait, then resume burning, no coaster.

Re:Why no SATA support? by Spad · 2004-05-09 13:25 · Score: 2, Informative

SATA Version here.

Due out slightly after the IDE version. Mind you, there's no performance reason to go with SATA, which is probably why the uptake of SATA optical drives is so slow.

Re:The drive might be fast, but the media... by Spad · 2004-05-09 13:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Plextor claims that the drive will write at 12x on its branded 8x media and it's quite possible that it'll do so on other media too if you're lucky.

media problems? by chaos421 · 2004-05-09 13:52 · Score: 1

i'm not the burning guru or anything, but will there be any problems with media compatibility here? has anyone purchased this drive yet to test it out for us?

Re:The drive might be fast, but the media... by bendsley · 2004-05-09 14:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Much of the media out there as DVD+R that says it is 4x media will also burn at 8x. I have the Plextor 708A drive, 8x DVD+R burner, and I buy 4x Memorex media and burn at 8x with no problems. You may want to look at DVDRhelp.com and see what media burns at what. The list covers 25 different media brands and tells exactly how fast they will burn at with what burners, etc.

--
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Never drink & derive.

SCSI SCSI by superpulpsicle · 2004-05-09 14:25 · Score: 1

Seeing how every drive in the market is IDE, plextor in theory can once again capture all of the market's SCSI needs. But they haven't released one DVD drive on SCSI. I am amazed.

Re:Mark this Redundant by UnixRevolution · 2004-05-09 14:31 · Score: 1

Congrats, Tesko.

--
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.

you forgot: by geekoid · 2004-05-09 14:31 · Score: 1

while submerged in grits.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Woohoo by lewko · 2004-05-09 14:55 · Score: 3, Funny

Now I can produce drink coasters even faster!

--
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au

Re:-1 TROLL? by Spad · 2004-05-09 14:57 · Score: 1

Duh, we're geeks, of course we really need all this speed.

It's not it's, it's its. by BorkBorkBork6000 · 2004-05-09 15:08 · Score: 1

Okay, Dan, I'm only gonna sing this one more time.

If you want it to be possessive, it's just "ITS." But if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's "IT-APOSTROPHE-S"

...scalawag!

Plextor drives are good by Doug+Neal · 2004-05-09 15:12 · Score: 3, Informative

Plextor have always had a pretty good reputation for CD and DVD drives.. my dad bought their 8x drive recently and I was extremely impressed with it. Absolutely rock solid performance, extremely fast for reading (best digital audio extraction I've seen, ever) - and the bundled software is cool too. None of the usual buggy useless bloatware crap you get with most hardware, it's a neat unobtrusive tool that sits in the systray, but lets you tweak all aspects of the drive's performance, and lets you burn audio and data CDs/DVDs, even with Ogg Vorbis support for ripping and burning! (that really suprised me)

So yeah, well done Plextor :)

No 8x media either by obsid1an · 2004-05-09 16:56 · Score: 1

I have yet to see 8x media either. All you do is go and see which media can burn better than others. There is a quality scale on media. Makers like Taiyo Yuden are known for making high quality media, and I know personally know that their 4x badged media works fine burned 8x. I have also had cd-r media rated @ 40x on the box burn no faster than 32x. It's all in the maker, not what the box says.

Since I already got mine, Newegg has a 50 pack of Taiyo Yuden badged as Samsung for $60 shipped. This is the exact stuff I currently use and burn at 8x fine.

OEM model??? by pair-a-noyd · 2004-05-09 17:27 · Score: 1

Anyone know a place to get an OEM model of this?
I don't buy retail boxed anything. I have no use for and will not pay for the M$ stuff, cables, manuals or pretty box they force you to pay for.. I just want the bare drive for my Linux box...

Remember buying my first CD-R drive by rushmore27 · 2004-05-09 17:35 · Score: 1

I was at a computer show in Orlando and I bought a 4x CD-R drive (like 1997). The guy working the booth told me it would never get much faster because the burn couldn't be reliable. How funny... Can't wait to get a 12X DVD-R...will probably wait to get a G5 first though.

OMG! Question.. by Chordonblue · 2004-05-09 17:43 · Score: 1

That wouldn't happen to be a 'Wearnes' drive would it? OMG, that was the suck! Proprietary, sorta-IDE interface, slow as dog crap, burned coasters about 2:1 times.

As I remember, when I got my 2X CD-R, a couple buddies and I ended up STOMPING it to death.

--
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."

Nobody tell him... by Kjella · 2004-05-09 18:29 · Score: 1

..,that DVD+R DL and DVD-R DL is coming. Complete with both write and read speeds, I'm sure.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Just remember... by Kjella · 2004-05-09 18:43 · Score: 1

...that the specs of the DL drives I've seen say DL will go at 2,4x. So you'll be able to burn two single-layer discs in less time than 1 DL disc. I think in something like 18 (2*9) vs 45 minutes.

I'd rather have some hotwswap removable SATA disks though, anyone know where you can get such a thing cheaply in Norway (with some spare trays?) newegg seem to be selling something like the Kingwin KF-72 for nothing apiece, but in Europe they seem to want to rob us. (7$ US = 39E on kingwin.nl, both less VAT...)

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Of course... by Kjella · 2004-05-09 18:46 · Score: 1

...don't forget it's the same old doublespeak. 4,7GB = 4,37GiB, 8,5GB = 7,96GiB. Either way it's an 80% increase over current capacity though, which is very nice :).

I wonder how long before we'll see Blue-Ray taking over for DL again. I believe burners are already out in Japan....

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Marketing by Bugmaster · 2004-05-09 19:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Haha I love their marketing. One of the features is,

Black CD tray minimizes jitter

How does it do that, exactly ?

--
>|<*:=

SATA version by jabuzz · 2004-05-09 21:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apart from it not being dual layer capable, so more or less dead in the water, there is also a 712SA version which has a Serial ATA interface. Finally a
computer that does not need parallel ATA is a reality.

correction... by grepistan · 2004-05-09 21:17 · Score: 1

dammit, that's why we have a preview button! That should have read
it would appear that something ate my </irony> tag :)

--
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

Re:Why no SATA support? by Jumpin'+Jon · 2004-05-10 03:24 · Score: 1

I agree that SATA Opticals seem a little obscure, however, I think the 'performance' and 'modding' communities will buy them if not only for the unrestricted airflow offered by SATA cables vs. PATA "air brakes".

I for one would love to be able to dump my last ribbon cable (yes, even rounded ones) for these compact versions. I already abandoned floppy drives partly due to their cables (and the more obvious reasons! ;)

JJ

Slashdot Mirror

Plextor First With A 12x DVD+R Drive

175 of 271 comments (clear)