Slashdot Mirror


First 16x DVD+R Recording Tests Available

An anonymous reader submits "CD Freaks.com has made a first preview of 16x DVD recording. Many people wondered if 16x DVD recording would be too fast and data could not be delivered by the hard disk. The first tests show that this is not a real problem. 16x DVD recording means that a DVD disk is written in about 6 minutes . The test drive, a BenQ DW1600, also supports dual layer writing and writing at 16x to 8x media."

21 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. Ahem by The-Bus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've already overclocked my DVD burner. It now burns stuff I haven't even downloaded yet.

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  2. Yes, but.... by ikkonoishi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I doubt I could play UT while burning to a DVD at 16x.

    You would need basically a dedicated machine for DVD burning at that speed.

    1. Re:Yes, but.... by damiangerous · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or you could, you know, maybe stop playing UT for the six minutes it takes to burn a DVD at that speed.

    2. Re:Yes, but.... by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good Lord man! The average person will pass out after only two minutes of not playing UT and it takes years of training to go as long as five.

      Expecting the average Joe to stop for six is simply absurd.

      KFG

  3. Good for them by huber · · Score: 5, Interesting

    they had an SATA raid 0 array. What about us people whos boxen still only has a single ata 100 or 133?

    1. Re:Good for them by _generica · · Score: 5, Informative

      /bok'sn/ pl.n. [very common; by analogy with VAXen]
      Fanciful plural of box often encountered in the phrase `Unix boxen', used to describe commodity Unix hardware. The connotation is that any two Unix boxen are interchangeable.

      ph34r

    2. Re:Good for them by forkazoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, first off, "boxen have" .. "a box has." But, I'm not a grammar nazi. :)

      Only ATA 133? I work at a computer store, and I get plenty of people with PII's and low spec PIII's coming in all the time who want to make DVD's. The salesman five years ago told them that the computer was very fast, so they typically accuse me of being just a damned liar when I tell them it may not work very well. Oh, and most home users have HP Pavillions and E-Machines and shit like that. You ever benchmark the drives in the super-cheap consumer systems? The drive diagnostic program we use at the shop can usually get ~5 MB/sec out of an E-machines. That's going to RAM, not another drive.

      A lot of people won't be able to use the 16 X features of this drive. OTOH, it probably has a larger buffer than a cheap 2.4x drive, so it will probably burn better at 1x than the old drives.

    3. Re:Good for them by eht · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's retard for plural of box.

  4. Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My porn backups will be able to keep up with my downloads...

  5. Re:8x vs 16x by Crazy_MYKL · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's mostly marketing, those are rated speeds, so if you burn above those and bad things happen, the company isn't responsible. But it SHOULD work with lower rated discs.

    --


    <jedi> There is something funny here. You laugh. </jedi>
  6. Re:Do DVDs work like CDs by ahaning · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heh. Things have progressed a bit since the 2x CD-R days. What probably happened was that your drive just wasn't able to distinguish the pits in the CD your friend burned.

    I have an older (5-6 years old) laptop whose CD-ROM drive can't read all the discs I burn. It can read most any silver that I give it, though. I'm guessing it's just that the laser isn't able to "see" the pits my CDRW burns (it's an 8x4x32, so it's rather old, too.)

    BTW, if you burn audio discs at 16x, do they play at that speed? ;-)

    --
    Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
  7. Data from HD no problem.... With Raid 0 by CtrlPhreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on guys, not everyone has raid with two fast drives, last I'd checked a lot of consumer pcs still ship with 5400 drives. This bottleneck may indeed be a problem with burning 16x dvds on the average system.

    --
    WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
  8. Physical limits of the medium a factor. by cascino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With CDs having reached (essentially) the physical limits of the media at 52x burning speed - it is my understanding the discs will destruct at higher RPM's - has the speed of DVD burning neared its physical limit as well?
    A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation tells me that DVDs shouldn't be burnable much faster than 16x... does anyone know anything more about this? Maybe DVDs are more durable than CDs?

  9. Ewww, BenQ by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 4, Informative

    Horrible 'brand'. Once worked in a computer store for a while. We sold about 20 of their TFTs before we figured out that the three we had on display were showing serious signs of wear. After being on display for just two months. That, coupled with the two we already sent back for replacement, ( One simply didn't work, another one auto-adjusted the screen about 15cm too far to the right. ) make me glad I wasn't working there anymore when all those BenQ monitors started to fail on our customers.

    Anyways, let BenQ take the brunt of a new tech. If I'd want a 16x dvd+-rw drive so badly, I'd wait for very good quality ( Plextor ) or a good medium between quality and price. ( NEC ) And yes, those of you who are interested can take that as a hint.

  10. Re:The need for speed by FlipmodePlaya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I jumped on the CDR bandwagon a bit early, and god burned by it. The drive I bought ruined discs far too often, in the days where they weren't $.20 a piece. Yet there was no hope for a return, because that was the 'nature of CD burning'. I won't make the same mistake with DVD burners, I advise all to wait a year or two.

  11. just a question by louden+obscure · · Score: 5, Funny

    am i gonna need a kevlar blanket to drape over my damn box just in case a faulty disc explodes?

    --
    Serenity now, insanity later.
  12. a summary by vmircea · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Basically to give a little summary for people who like having information condensed into a readable form... of things you should know about this technology...

    1. Unless you have a smoking hard drive you're not gonna see 16X speeds (ATA hard drive? you wish)

    2. Unless your PC is relatively fast as well, in addition to a good deal of RAM (as in their test system) it's also not going to happen.

    3. And an IMPORTANT note: Don't get caught up in the craze of getting the newest thing, this will probably cost an unholy amount when it comes out, and the requirements will be really high, which will add to the price as well. I have a 4X DVDRW and although it isn't anywhere near as fast, I don't need godly system specs to use it. And neither do I need to drop anything else I'm doing. Also note that on a lesser system that they tested it with you will see significantly slower writing.

    Hope you found this helpful.

  13. Grandparent is *not* an isolated incident. by The+Darkness · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No, and CDs don't work like that either.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but they most certainly do.

    It most certainly could be that an old drive can't read discs burned by newer, faster drives. The older drives may be less fault tolerant. Pre-pressed discs could be ok but a disc burned too fast could have pits just slightly too close together or too far apart that confuse the older drive.

    I have seen this happen with CDs on more than one occasion. Slowing down the burn speed made a disc usable by the older drive. Think PSX backups.

    In fact, there should be no..

    Should being the key word.
    A Wise man whose name I can't remember once said: In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those that need closure
  14. Re:The need for speed by mblase · · Score: 4, Funny

    I jumped on the CDR bandwagon a bit early, and god burned by it.

    Perhaps if you hadn't been stealing music or archiving pr0n, God wouldn't have felt it necessary to smite you with fire for your actions.

  15. DVDs aren't more durable, but... by drewhearle · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The physical limits of CD burning (the speeds that often cause shattering) aren't because CDs are easily breakable. It's because CDs are imperfectly manufactured, and therefore imbalanced - a CD spinning at 52x that isn't perfectly round will be wobbling with an incredible amount of force.

    So... for DVDs to be able to spin at faster speeds, the discs (and drives) will have to be manufactured to very high specs. Very slight variations in the roundness of the disc would cause enough vibration to break the disc. A non-round or off-center hole in the middle would also cause this problem.

    --
    -- If you can read this, you are too close to my signature.
  16. Re:8x vs 16x by Pooua · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As I understand it, the main difference in writing speeds between various types of optical media is the dye formulation used in the media.

    "To achieve 2.4x high-speed writing, Verbatim DVD+R utilises a patented Metal Azo dye as the recording layer."

    Verbatim: Verbatim Announces 4.7GB DVD+R Discs

    --
    Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)