Slashdot Mirror
24x DVD Burners Hit the Market
KingofGnG writes "There is some uncertainty on which will be the one, between Sony Optiarc and Lite-On, to market the first drive of such kind, but the fact is that DVD burners will once again exceed the maximum write speed limit going from 22x to 24x. Both companies will release the new optical drives between March and May, and though in practice the speed difference isn't amazing at all, the new breakthrough shows that firms continue to invest in a technology with a surprisingly long life."
Plz lower the cost of Blu-ray writers & media. Kthxbai!
Why does Moore's Law not apply here?
If hardware capability doubles every 18-24 months, shouldn't we be able to burn at 512X or some other ridiculously equivalent speed?
the new breakthrough shows that firms continue to invest in a technology with a surprisingly long life."
Hm, you mean that people are surprised that people would continue to invest in a technology that is the only standard* advanced optical disk? With memory capabilities that are good enough for most people (high def movies aside, DVDs have enough storage for just about everything) and the fact that any successors still are too expensive for most people? Wow, so surprising!
*Yes, Blu-Ray is as much of a standard as DVD is, but most computers do not have Blu-Ray and even most newer computers leave off Blu-Ray drives as do all Macs.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Just like CDs they are still popular and relevant. I'm personally not too excited about BD and seems the market is equally not excited.
It took the now cheaper more ubiquitous USB flash to kill floppy disks. I remember them still being in fashion 5 years ago. And it will be long before a USB flash becomes a metaphor for saving.
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
... the question isn't whether the LiteOn or Sony is first but will either run on Vista?
Sorry, it just had to be asked.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
What surprises me is that people still buy into this bad idea. While I really wish that I really could burn quality discs at high speed, I've learned the hard way that the higher the burn speed, the worse the quality of the burn. I don't care how fast a burner will burn a disc, I never burn faster than 4x. It took me a long time to convince myself that there was really any problem with high speed burns, after all, if these knowable manufacturers like Sony and Lite-on make the drives they must be good, right? But I've come to find that just isn't the case. Fortunately for the manufacturers, discs usually contain as much as 20% error recovery data, and this error recovery data can hide marginal burns. But I don't want error recovery information covering up bad burns, I want good burns in the first place, and I want that error recovery information to be available to correct later fine scratches, deteriorating optics, differences in the optics between drives, and just plain old "bit rot". You give that up when you burn at high speed, and in some cases the disk may not work at all, even if it passed a "verification" pass from the burning software.
I wish this wasn't the case, I really do. I've dome thousands of burns and the combined time increase to do those at low speed is not insignificant. But I've seen way too many problems from high speed burns that can be avoided completely by simply doing low speed burns. It is far better to take 15 minutes and get a good burn than to rush the burn in a couple of minutes but maybe have problems with it immediately, but even worse to have problems with it after the original data has been deleted and you find that you can no longer read the high speed burn.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
So this save like, what, 3 seconds burning a disc? Unless you're producing 100 copies of something, this is so inconsequential it's beneath Slashdot to even think about it let alone post it.
that is, if I burn DVDs at all. I could never get reliable burns at higher speeds and the delay just doesn't matter. The computer does it all in the background. Hard disk space is cheaper than DVD space. The only reason for DVDs is that it's safer to keep important data duplicated on different kinds of media.
I really wish they'd start investing in dragging the cost of next-generation media down. Blu-Ray is great if you ignore the DRM aspects.. Which for data backup renders it perfectly adequate.
Though I'd much rather see something with a little more than 50GB of storage... But then, if they spent their R&D money on perfecting/improving the multi-layer technology, we'd all be backing-up to n*25GB discs in no time.
Why waste all the research budget on ageing technology, when it takes a whole spindle of DVD-Rs to back-up my 2TB RAID array?
Even DVD-RAM is not very good, as I found hwen evaluating 6 different media. I have no diea what people use these for, but backup, data storage and data exchange are all very bad ideas in this consumer-trash. Writing trash faster makes in not better at all.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I've yet to see even 22x DVD-R's or DVD+R's. Well, at least on Newegg. And I'll guess the price on it will be 3 times the price of the 16x DVD's.
If you have 2 TB you need to back up, then optical media is not the right solution. You need another array of disks (or a single disk), and rsync (or something similar). Optical media might be a good solution for you to back up only your more important files. If they are all more important, then it just won't work well. I remember when CDs were almost as big as my hard drive, but those days are over.
Youngin'. I remember when my harddrive was half the size of a CD-R. I still have it too. Excellent paperweight.
Maybe with new 24x drives we may finally be able to burn a disk at more than 4x speed and get a disc that works.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Ah, I used to dream about having a harddrive half the size of a CD-R.
If you need physical media, flash drives are by far superior anyway. I ONLY use dvds for boot devices nowadays.
In 2000 we had a Kenwood 72x TrueX cd-rom. It had multiple beams. I think it was $130 new, the 52x one was about $80, I think this is back when a normal 52x cd-rom would put you out of $40.
I have the 52x version sitting on a shelf. When it worked it was fast, but it was limited by the medium as any problems encountered would send it in to 1x read speeds, which happened quite a bit. This was with retail CDs too. With burned disks, assuming it recognized them, it actually took more time to read than a regular cd-rom.
It was a neat idea though.
This sentence gave me a headache.
You quoted two sentences, not one. Are you trying to make things look worse than they are? Is a compound sentence really that hard for your brain?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
you cannot ignore the drm in BD. each drive, blank (etc) contains an 'I ok this' vote to sony.
So did Compact Disc (at least until the patents ran out). CD uses EFM encoding in the physical layer, and DVD uses a minor improvement on EFM.
When I had a 400MB hard disk, I had a tape drive and a 512MB tape to back up the entire hard disk. The system also had a (read only) CD drive, which made two removable media options for me that had larger capacity than my actual hard disk could contain.
How times have changed!
If you watch burn process in Roxio Toast, you will be even more surprised. If you set it to max speed like 16x, it hits 16x only at certain parts (I guess the end) of DVD-R, not the entire process is 16x. It shows the live speed of burning, I guess Windows Nero does too.
If this thing mentioned requires special disks, they will be expensive as hell just like DVD-R DL, it really hurts to see DVD dual layer price while all your drives are dual layer capable and you have files/movies to burn.
They should have invested in Dual Layer technology, making it cheaper and reliable as the problem is NOT the burning speed, it is the obsolete DVD-R with 6-7 GB single files wondering around. What about Blu-Ray you may ask... Well, with that idiot Sony managed to make even Apple, the World famous early adopter afraid from adding it. When you buy DVD enabled computer, you expect it to play commercial movies. It is not the case in OS X BluRay scene. So, Apple won't put it and handle all the swearing, trolling etc. and they certainly won't make OS X like Vista, DRM checking whole chain all the time just in case DVD Jon codes decss for blu-ray.
I guess people are making seriously hardcore DVDs with this thing. I mean, most of my DVDs are just three X's, which is plenty for my needs...
Bow-ties are cool.
Because Moore's law applies only to electronics (specifically, transistors) and not things with moving parts?
That's not totally unlike asking "Why does Moore's Law not apply to cars?"
Probably there was a time when cars followed a similar pattern of growth...
Moore's Law seems to work specifically because it's applied to a field that presently has a lot of untapped potential. Processes can continue to be refined, the market for the devices continues to grow, and as yet the limits on either haven't quite been hit.
Bow-ties are cool.
Is it just me, or is it impossible to find a dvd drive that reads faster than 16x? How is it that these things can burn at 22-24, but I'm lucky to read at 16?
Or you can use a PC that already supports s-video, like every pc I've owned in the past decade, including laptops.
But the PC at the location may not be one that you've owned in the past decade. Case in point: I went in an Office Depot a couple months ago, and zero desktop PCs for sale came with S-Video output. And if you know the owner of the TV has a DVD player (more likely than an HTPC), it's still a lot less work to lug around a burned DVD in a keep case than an entire desktop PC. Even on laptops, S-Video isn't universal; neither my ASUS Eee PC 900 nor my cousin's Acer Aspire one has it.