Thanks for the information, civileme! For anybody that's interested in testing CD-Roms after burning, I started this page/project:
http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Wikilearn/Md5sumsAfterBurning If you test some CD-Roms after downloading and burning, please add your results to this TWiki page. (Register at http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/TWikiRegistration -- make up a wikiname (like RandyKramer), a password, and tell what country you're from, IIRC.) Don't worry too much about formatting -- if it looks out of wack I'll fix it up next time I review the page. I'd echo what civileme says about high speed and variable speed drives -- for me they tend to be unreliable and slower than a good 8, 10, 12, or 16x. Randy Kramer civileme wrote: > "BAD" and "GOOD" images from home burners is starting to be a pet peeve. > > I have three burners, none Plextor or Yamaha, (which are > top-of-the-line), and CDs I produce with them _may_ work on all my > readers. The slower the burn speed, the more likely this is, in most > cases, though I have had some burned at 12 x from one burner read by a > CD Drive that would not read 4x. > > It is NOT logical to assume that the burned media is OK just because it > reads with a single drive (and especially not if it is with the drive > that burned it). Sorry, but eccentricities do creep in in a product > which is mostly a numbers game. > > On one of my old sites, I went through the calculations to show than an > 8x CD always spun up was faster in almost all cases than a 52X CD which > has to spin down to save noise, power, and wear and tear on the media. > The cases where a 52X are faster are basically on a long load (NOT an > install of relatively small packages in succession) which might be > experienced 5-6 times during install or when using CD-based movies for > game shots. > > So why do we drive a chunk of plastic with sleeve bearings to such > outrageous extremes? I would call it marketing. Obviously, a 70x is > better than a 56X which is better than a 52X which is better than a 40x > which is better than.... > > Anyway, real results for real people: > > 48 CDs burned on one drive under conditions identical as possible and > read on 7 other drives, two of which were burners. > > Drive 1--44 failures--> retired to reserve for duplicating bad drive errors > (Creative 24X about 3 years old) > Drive 2--3 failures--> ONE of those read fine on drive 1 > (Wearnes 4x4x24 Burner) > Drive 3--0 failures > (NEC PD drive 6x) > Drive 4 - One failure--And it read on every other drive! > (Mitsumi DVD about 5 years old-2xDVD or about 10X CD) > Drive 5-7 failures-->all of those that failed on drives other than Drive > 1 also failed here > (OEM for IBM about 4 years old, 8X) > Drive 6-No Failures > (Black faced no name 12 X about 4 years in storage before surplusing) > Drive 7-5 Failures > (Acer 4x2x32 Burner) > Tested later---> > Drive 8 (The drive that burned them)--2 failures, both at 2x burns > (12x8x40 Burner with no discernible brand) > > From these results alone, I would advise a _LOT_ of caution before > concluding a CD is OK because it reads on one system. I would also > advise anyone buying new equipment to try for the good stuff because it > will save in time (a non-renewable resource) what is spent in money (a > renewable resource). > > Civileme > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
