Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

24x DVD Burners Hit the Market

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the break-the-news-gently-to-your-cd-r-drive dept.

Data Storage 140

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."

cancel ×

140 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

what's not surprising (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27115689)

is that you fags enjoy eating out my asshole. fp bitches!

So last century! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27115707)

Plz lower the cost of Blu-ray writers & media. Kthxbai!

Re:So last century! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27115755)

Plz lower the cost of Blu-ray writers & media. Kthxbai!

Pricewatch lists a 2x BDRE 25GB 15 Disc Spindle @ ~$115.00.

15 * 25 = 375 GB
Price per Gigabyte = $/GB = 115/375 = $0.30 per GB.

Nothing to write home about yet, but at least it's coming down.

Re:So last century! (2, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116287)

Ouch, still higher than HDDs.

Re:So last century! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116317)

We'll see the same thing we saw with CDs ... price goes through the floor, speed goes up and up, and then they simply become obsolete.

Same happened with zip drives ..

Same happened with floppy drives ...

Same is happening with DVD drives and, to a certain extent, with hard drives ...

Re:So last century! (5, Informative)

meatmanek (1062562) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117281)

When CD-ROMs were new, most people's hard drives were a fraction of what could be held on a CD. The first computer my family had with a CD drive had a 250 meg hard drive. When you could start burning CDs for realistic prices, the average hard drive was probably a few gigabytes; you could back up all your data on two or three CDs.
When DVD burners became available, hard drives were usually a few dozen GB; it took somewhere around 10 DVDs to back up all of your data.
When Blu-ray burners became available, it wasn't uncommon for hard drives to be 500 GB, so 20 Blu-rays to back up your data.

Yes, Blu-ray burners will become cheaper, and yes, blu-ray discs will become cheaper, but by the time they do, we'll be seeing 2 and 3TB hard drives for $100. The $/GB of Blu-ray might drop below hard drives for a while.

Then, hard drives will continue to advance with Moore's law, and by the time the next generation of optical discs come out (which will probably be 150 GB/layer, based on the ~5x ratio of each disc type to the previous), you'll be able to buy 2-digit terabyte hard drives for $100.

Conclusion: Blu-ray is already obsolete, at least for data archival. Hard drives are going to win for the next few years.

Re:So last century! (2, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117631)

Exactly. You can already get an external 1.5 TB hd for $130.00 - between hard drives and solid-state devices, conventional rotating optical media are caught between a rock and a hard place. Time to switch to 3D encoding, or forget about it entirely.

Re:So last century! (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119695)

There are only really two reasons left to use optical media: playback on stand-alone players and archival.

Playback is becoming less of an issue as network/usb capable players become available, but for a lot of people the simplicity of just inserting the relevant disc makes it worth the effort to burn one.

Archival is less clear. In theory good quality DVD media stored properly should be readable in 10 or 20 years time. The problem is that no-one really knows for sure. HDDs might actually be a better option. I have HDDs from 20+ years ago that still work, although of course modern HDDs use very different technology so again it's largely an unknown. At least Seagate offer a 5 year warranty, so you can probably rely on a couple of offline mirrored HDDs for at least that long.

Re:So last century! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27117387)

Um, OK. Except I can buy an external hard drive for about $0.10/GB. Blu-ray will never be a decent option for data backup.

Moore's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27115757)

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?

Re:Moore's Law (4, Informative)

doi (584455) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115793)

Because the disks fragment above a certain rotational speed. That's why you don't see 72x CD drives anymore. Go check Youtube you'll find plenty of examples.

Re:Moore's Law (3, Interesting)

Crookdotter (1297179) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115857)

I thought they would have a cool multi laser burner by now to up the write speed, or move the laser instead of the disc? You can build the laser stronger and rotate it at 10,000 rpm if you like.

Re:Moore's Law (4, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115987)

I thought they would have a cool multi laser burner by now to up the write speed

Not likely. It's tricky enough having one laser doing "burn-free" and picking up where it left off... It's not going to happen with multiple laser, let alone improve speeds.

or move the laser instead of the disc? You can build the laser stronger and rotate it at 10,000 rpm if you like.

You can rotate the laser, but then you have MANY problems to address. Highly precise hinged wire harnesses, an extremely heavy rotating mount that can keep the laser perfectly steady, and continual centripetal compensation as the laser lens moves to focus the beam.

It's possible, but very difficult.

And no, you can't just rotate it at 10,000 RPMs. The laser mechanism won't take the force any better than the discs do. It's technically possible, but would be ludicrously expensive.

And all for what? So you can buy one slightly faster disc burner, rather than hundreds of slightly slower disc burners, running in parallel.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

Bozzio (183974) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117247)

How about just tilting a mirror?

Re:Moore's Law (1)

Eric Smith (4379) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118605)

It's technically possible, but would be ludicrously expensive.

It's not clear that it's even technically possible. Maybe if the mechanism was in a vacuum.

Ludicrous speed! Go!

Re:Moore's Law (2, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116043)

They tried that with CD readers long ago; I believe it was Kenwood CD-ROMs that had multiple lasers so different tracks could be read in parallel, allowing a higher bandwidth without having to rotate the disc any faster.

It died after a while. It probably simply cost too much, and people just weren't willing to pay that much so they could read CDs faster, when dirt-cheap 24x drives are available.

Re:Moore's Law (5, Interesting)

udif (32355) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118749)

Actually, it was a single laser that was split into multiple beams.

The technology behind the Kenwood drives was developed by an Israeli startup called Zen Research (they had their logo on the drive).

The drive ended up more expensive than it had to, because they ended up using separate ICs for each beam due to a bug in their ASIC, preventing using the ASIC's internal logic that was supposed to do the same. They were already very late so they didn't respin the ASIC.

They worked on the same logic for a DVD writer, but they were so late that the company went belly-up.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118679)

You mean move the laser? Why not create an optical device to deflect the beam? I am out of practice, but it seems this would be far easier. Maybe there is some reason mfgrs don't do this (my guess would be a patent holder wants huge fees), but I am sure you could achieve much higher speeds than physically spinning the disc or laser.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

kristinuk21 (1416695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118827)

ooo..but there is... check this http://www.storextechnologies.com/index.html [storextechnologies.com] i wanted this slashdoted from some time now...maybe they will release something.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119509)

A little shame that 10,000 RPM would result in a 20x burner.

A 52x burner spins at 26,000 RPM.

For the record, I have had a new disc shatter while reading. It was a 52x reader, it managed to puncture a hole through the side of my aluminium CoolerMaster case.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119641)

It might work for reading, but would be almost impossible for writing. The problem is that CDs were designed for playing music, not for storing data, and DVDs picked up this stupidity. Tracks on hard (and floppy) disks are concentric circles, meaning that you can skip to the correct one easily because you know the exact distance from the center. Tracks in CDs are spirals. Writing two sets of concentric circles independently is easy. Writing two parts of a spiral independently is incredibly hard. You might have noticed that seek times on DVDs are horrendous compared to hard disks at similar rotation rates (by around three orders of magnitude, sometimes four). This is a result of the same thing; that you have to guess roughly where the track will be and then scan ahead until you find a track and follow it until you find the one you actually wanted.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

Gregory Arenius (1105327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118239)

I was always under the impression that the 72x CD drives managed the feat not by spinning it faster but by reading multiple tracks concurently. Here is a bit from on review on the drive:

"Enter the technology developed by Zen. Instead of rotating the disc above and beyond the physical limits by some act of magic, they have devised a means to read seven tracks concurrently. Those seven streams of data flow through a specially designed RISC chip and to your computer with no additional CPU-load."

Thats from:http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=339&page=2/ [pcstats.com]

They didn't use multiple lasers though they used some sort of prism to split one beam I believe. However they did it it wasn't very reliable and the Kenwood 72x drivers were notoriously unreliable as well as incompatible with many types of DRM. I believe Kenwood was the only manufacturer of CD drives of that speed and I believe they patented the technology. I think thats why no one else made drives that fast.

Cheers,
Greg

Re:Moore's Law (2, Informative)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118413)

Well, in theory we could have 72x CD drives or even DVD drives, it's just that they're too expensive to make.

A few years ago there was a company called Zen Research who invented a tehnology called TrueX which used 7 read heads to read the disc and it reconstructed the data from all seven read heads in the drive's cache.

An actual CD-ROM drive that implemented this was Kenwood 72x (http://www.tweak3d.net/reviews/kenwood/72x/) but they chose to reduce the rotational speed instead of higher throughput (perhaps the processor that gathered data from those 7 heads was also too slow to allow faster speed).

Nowadays, someone could probably license that technology and use it on DVD drives but the margins are so low already they wouldn't make a profit.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118537)

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=339&page=2 [pcstats.com]

Enter the technology developed by Zen. Instead of rotating the disc above and beyond the physical limits by some act of magic, they have devised a means to read seven tracks concurrently. Those seven streams of data flow through a specially designed RISC chip and to your computer with no additional CPU-load.

The 72x CD drive is a lie. It's probably spinning at 40x speeds(or lower) - although as the sandra benchmarks show, if you have to read 7 tracks at once, it's way faster than any other drives out at the time.

Re:Moore's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27115803)

For one thing, the drive can only spin the disc so fast...

Re:Moore's Law (5, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115811)

Why does Moore's Law not apply here?

Because every time you double the rotation speed, you increase the force on the DVD by a factor of four; which means that before long the disk simply tears itself apart.

In fact, I thought that was supposed to happen not much above 16x, so I'm surprised they've got it working this fast.

Re:Moore's Law (2, Informative)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116163)

Because every time you double the rotation speed, you increase the force on the DVD by a factor of four; which means that before long the disk simply tears itself apart.

I vaguely remember a Mythbusters episode on that. The CD literally exploded, and the shrapnel left a big freaking dent in the aluminium casing they put it in.

Re:Moore's Law (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116363)

I've had a couple of CDs "explode" in 52x CD burners - one started to fail, so I forcibly ejected it w. a paperclip while it was still rotating - then quickly wished I hadn't. The next time one failed, I let it take the drive with it. Sounded like a mutant hamster running their exercise wheel to death.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116739)

Why not just power down?

Re:Moore's Law (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117059)

Once it starts to go, it goes FAST. We're talking just a couple of seconds. Once a disk starts to fragment into pieces, by the time you hit the big red power button it's probably already taken out the laser. The first one had a chunk out of one side missing, and lots of stress fractures radiating from the center hole. $100 later, new CD burner ... a year later, another disk from the same batch went while I was out of the room. Scratch another burner. Fortunately, by then DVD drives had dropped in price, so it was a good excuse to upgrade.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117943)

They give no warning they are going to shatter. All you get time for is the loud bang. You briefly wonder WTF it was. Look around, do a perfunctory check to see if your hamster is still in its wheel, and then discover your optical drive had some trouble.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

Haley's Comet (897242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119157)

Holy shit, I just swallowed my chewing tobacco!

Re:Moore's Law (2, Interesting)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116955)

The shrapnel also buried itself 1" into the gelatin dummy (who had the same resistance to penetration [gotta be a better term for this but you get the point] as human flesh).

IIRC, this occurred at ~300x.
I think GP is a little wrong on the 16x thing. The limitation has been making a high enough powered laser to heat the bits to 200C in the split second the bit is being written.

Re:Moore's Law (2, Interesting)

PyroMosh (287149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119315)

If I remember correctly, Mythbusters had to use rotational speeds that were several times what a real drive will do. 300x or so?

One night my girlfriend were sitting at our PCs, which were right next to each other. We heard a very loud, very sudden bang or pop noise out of nowhere. Looked at each other, and looked around the room and couldn't figure out what that noise was.

When we couldn't figure out what that loud noise was, we forgot about it, and figured that if it was important, we'd find it eventually. So we went back to what we were doing.

She was starting up a game of StarCraft, and finally noticed that the game had failed to load, giving an error message about being unable to read the CD.

She tried again. It was then that it dawned on me what that noise might had been. I had certainly *heard* of optical discs exploding, but had not had it happen to me, nor anyone I personally knew.

Here's what was left, when I removed her drive:

http://pyromosh.org/images/misc/Broodwar_CD_explosion/ [pyromosh.org]

The drive was indeed hosed, as you might expect. But no shrapnel ever escaped the drive, nor even made a visible impact on the drive casing.

Re:Moore's Law (2, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115949)

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?"

Re:Moore's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27117257)

"Why does Moore's Law not apply to cars?"

It does if you apply a car analogy to electronics.

Re:Moore's Law (4, Interesting)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116213)

The faster the disc spins, the stronger the laser has to be. The lasers in DVD burners are already powerful enough to do real damage. There's probably some reluctance on manufacturers' part to hand out class-IV lasers for $29.99 with mail-in rebate.

Re:Moore's Law (5, Insightful)

scientus (1357317) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116817)

people dont understand that all moore's law said is that every 18 months the number of transistors would double. It did not say anything more. It has been widely overblown into an entire economic concept of technological markets and commodities that progress in exponential/logarithmic ways.

Also, these things cannot suspend the laws of physics.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

penginkun (585807) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117491)

Also, these things cannot suspend the laws of physics.

Where's Scotty when we need?

Re:Moore's Law (1)

penginkun (585807) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118047)

Him. Where's Scotty when we need HIM.

*sigh*

Re:Moore's Law (2, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118253)

Scattered over Puget Sound.

Re:Moore's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27118889)

WIN.

Re:Moore's Law (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119667)

Actually, Moore's paper proposed a complex relationship between time, cost, and number of transistors. You can use it in both dimensions, to predict the cost of a certain number of transistors in a given year.

Standards do that... (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115787)

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.

Re:Standards do that... (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116411)

DVDs have enough storage for just about everything

They're obsolete. If a stack of DVDs are good enough to back up your full hard drive, your hard drive is either also obsolete, almost empty, or it's a flash drive.

Nobody's going to burn almost dvds to back up a $90 1 TB hard drive.

Re:Standards do that... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116485)

I have found there is little use for full drive backups for a few reasons. A) All of my music is transfered to my iPod so already there is double redundancy B) All my pictures are also on various memory cards C) I use Linux so restoring all my OS minus the data that is already backed up is trivial D) A home directory backup is all that is ever necessary. And so yes, all that other stuff does fit within 4 gigs of space, perhaps I just don't have a lot of files, but also most of the people who I have done computer work for have similarly few files.

Re:Standards do that... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116561)

Installing the OS isn't the problem with linux, it's all the updates, which isn't so trivial.

Also, you forgot to back up /etc, /srv, and /var, as well as /usr/local. Hope you weren't running any databases, local copies of web apps, an svn repository, etc.

Re:Standards do that... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116593)

Actually, as I do none of the above, no data would have been lost. And while it is true about the updates, as I use Ubuntu there is a new version every 6 months, meaning that at most I have to install about 5 months worth of updates which isn't so bad considering my HDs don't fail every 6 months.

Re:Standards do that... (1)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119399)

My home directory is currently just over 170 gigs. And that's only because I regularly purge old records.

Re:Standards do that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119419)

Nobody's going to burn almost dvds to back up a $90 1 TB hard drive.

I think you accidentally a word.

DVDs are here to stay (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115831)

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.

Re:DVDs are here to stay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27115915)

And it will be long before a USB flash becomes a metaphor for saving.

Woah, I had totally filtered that out. I had to go and check to confirm that it actually still is a floppy disk... that's crazy. Are there any alternatives that have worked?

Re:DVDs are here to stay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27116055)

I had filtered it out as well, but it makes sense, after all, USB flash drives don't have a standard look, and those more or less plain ones (like the usual kingston ones) aren't particularly easy to identify if the shape is simplified.

Re:DVDs are here to stay (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119721)

Flash memory might actually be a much better format than even BluRay for both movies and backup/archival.

Many BluRay players have a USB port now, and 16GB flash drives are in the sub 4000 yen ($40?) range now. For backup, flash seems like it's probably quite a reliant format (largely immune to thinks like magnetic fields, temperature, water etc) and although many manufacturers list a 10 year data retention time, that is without re-writing the data which "refreshes" it.

24x is nice but... (1, Funny)

VampireByte (447578) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115853)

... the question isn't whether the LiteOn or Sony is first but will either run on Vista?

Sorry, it just had to be asked.

make bad discs faster (5, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115865)

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.

Re:make bad discs faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27116667)

Er... I've been using a 12x Creative writer for at least 8 years now, and I've never had a single problem. I'm pretty sure you can try upping your write speed.

Re:make bad discs faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27116715)

Read other comments and you'll find that his experience isn't unique. Of course he can look for the right combination of drive and discs and make test runs to find the highest reliable speed. What for? It's a fragile system: When the drive breaks, he probably can't get the same model as a replacement. When the disc brand changes the manufacturer or the manufacturer changes the process (both happens frequently), the consumer would have to detect that and rerun the tests. 4x speed is the highest reliable speed which works pretty much regardless of drive and disc. Everything else is marketing and pushing one's luck.

Re:make bad discs faster (2, Interesting)

adolf (21054) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117837)

Luck?

Back in the day (a decade or so ago), I was the first kid on the block with an 8x Plextor SCSI CD burner. It was the fastest available at the time, aside from one released by Smart and Friendly just a few weeks earlier.

In the beginning, media was indeed a problem. A lot of blanks were still branded for 2x, most of them were 4x, and only a few were actually rated at 8x. Some had real issues, others seemed to work ok. After a semi-intensive study of different media, I found that silver (yes, silver - not aluminum) TDK Certified+ seemed to work the best in general. I had the impression at the time that such trial-and-error sessions were common at the time.

As time moved on, media improved, as did the firmware on the drive. Eventually, within a year or two of folks improving their CD-R chemistry and Plextor improving the firmware, the situation improved enough that I was able to buy whatever blanks were cheapest at Wal-Mart. Things always worked very well, and I never bothered much with burning below 8x.

Now: I can go back and read these decade-old disks, and they still work fine. I don't bother very often (after all, who wants to use an old backup of 98SE, or OS/2 Warp Connect Blue?), but whenever I do, things are good.

I'm really not sure what the problem is.

Re:make bad discs faster (2, Interesting)

mesterha (110796) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118205)

I've also never had a problem with CDs, but the issue is with DVDs. DVDs are much worse, presumably because of the higher data density.

Re:make bad discs faster (2, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119755)

It isn't as simple as higher speed = poorer burn quality.

Check out CD Freaks, they have a lot of data on this sort of thing. For example, my Pioneer 16x DVD drive only burns 12x on most media, but a 12x burn is always better quality than an 8x burn. The method the drive uses to get 12x is simply better than the one it uses to get 8x, so on that drive burning at 12x is best.

This is quite often the case, as manufacturers tend to spend more time improving the maximum burn speeds for common media, rather than worrying about how well the 8x burn speed that no-one uses does. Chances are the 8x mode is inherited from older drives, and not state of the art like the 12x mode.

Re:make bad discs faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27117173)

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.

This sentence gave me a headache.

these sentences, not this sentence (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117437)

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?

Re:make bad discs faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119009)

I had an internal PATA Sony DRU-500AX and a few models after that, I'm now on a USB LG GSA-E40L. I currently burn at 12x and do a verify on all burns. The very few coasters I've had were due to visible problems with the media. I can do 16x if I'm not doing anything else, but if I can burn thousands (not joking) of DVDs at 12X on USB, i think you're ok.

Who cares? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27115897)

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.

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115925)

Precisely. There are already 22x burners on the market. Hell, most DVD-R discs don't go above 16x anyway. What a yawn of a story.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118993)

I suppose it's worth it if you're burning discs all day for your job, just like you might find it worth your while to choose one computer over another because its CPU is 10% faster.

Re:Who cares? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119693)

Producing 100 copies of something is about the only thing I've used my DVD burners for. My last two laptops have come with them, and I've used them for burning lots of copies of video editing projects for distributing to people, but I've never used them as a mechanism for data transfer. With USB flash drives so cheap and convenient, I doubt I will. If UDF write support had been added to mainstream operating systems sooner, so you could use CDs and DVDs like floppy disks, then it might have been different.

I burn DVDs at 4x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27115907)

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.

Re:I burn DVDs at 4x (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27116339)

Hard disk space is cheaper than DVD space.

Absolutely not true.

1.5 TB hard drive [newegg.com] - $130
300x 4.7 GB DVD-Rs [newegg.com] - $54

Even allowing for an extra 100 pack of DVDs to make up the difference, DVD-Rs are still half the cost/GB of hard drives.

Re:I burn DVDs at 4x (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116443)

Is a 1.5TB drive the fairest comparison? I can't be arsed looking up the figures, but aren't 500GB - 1TB drives still the sweet point in bytes-per-buck? It's only recently that 1.5TB models were at the top end in terms of size (and with the accompanying premium).

Re:I burn DVDs at 4x (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117489)

Prices on 1.5TB have dropped like a rock. They are, in units/dollar, cheaper than .5TB, slightly cheaper than 1TB, and roughly equal to .75TB.

Actually, I just picked up some 1.5TB on sale for 10 bucks over the 1TB cost. Either I'm about to suffer an early warranty replacement, or the incremental cost between the .75, 1 and 1.5 is only due to testing/grading performance like the various CPU/GPU chips that can be downgraded to fit the market demand.

Re:I burn DVDs at 4x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27116599)

It depends on your location. Around here it's 40EUR for 100 DVD+Rs, so I would get about 800GB of DVD space for the price of a 1TB hard disk. Since I don't use DVDs very often (and would find shuffling 300 discs very inconvenient), I don't buy them in those kind of quantities anyway.

Re:I burn DVDs at 4x (2, Insightful)

packeteer (566398) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116983)

Even if a stack of DVDs and a hard drive were the exact same price per gigabyte you would still want to have the hard drive. The hard drive offers considerable more value than a stack of DVDs that cannot the average seek time of any random data is about a minute as you have to find the disc, load the disc, and so on.

As it stands now if you want to backup large chunks of data such as an entire HD then you should not be going with DVDs. If you want to backup DVDs or small files then DVDs are fine.

Re:I burn DVDs at 4x (2, Interesting)

wssddc (450574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117133)

Absolutely not true.

1.5 TB hard drive [newegg.com] - $130
300x 4.7 GB DVD-Rs [newegg.com] - $54

Even allowing for an extra 100 pack of DVDs to make up the difference, DVD-Rs are still half the cost/GB of hard drives.

If you want convenient access to your DVD-Rs, you'll want individual cases. These cost slightly more than the disks. Then you'll need a storage shelf and maybe some labels. Add these costs and DVDs and hards disks are roughly equal.

Re:I burn DVDs at 4x (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117757)

And an automatic disc-changer. If I'm going to be swapping 300+(don't forget coasters) discs any more frequently than once a year, I want a robot to do it for me.

One of my relatives bought one, slightly used, to burn training DVDs and it is awesome(if really damn heavy).

Shameless plug for the pyros, his second DVD on how to make fire [wildernessawareness.org] covers a bunch of usually impractical ways to make fire: the fire plow(a la Castaway), various electrical, lots of chemical, and lenses(including jello & ice).

The first one covers methods of making fire that might actually be useful in the wilderness, but I imagine everyone here already knows them.

Catch-up! (3, Interesting)

tomm3h (1406683) | more than 5 years ago | (#27115939)

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?

Optical disks are unlikely to ever again catch up (1)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116477)

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.

Re:Optical disks are unlikely to ever again catch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27116559)

Youngin'. I remember when my harddrive was half the size of a CD-R. I still have it too. Excellent paperweight.

Get off my lawn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27116717)

Ah, I used to dream about having a harddrive half the size of a CD-R.

Re:Get off my lawn... (2, Interesting)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116819)

I remember when I had two 40 MB hard drives (this was before CDs). My Dad told me stories about people with 200 MB hard drives, and I wondered what they could possibly do with all that extra space.

Re:Get off my lawn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119709)

My IBM PS/2 had a 20Mb hard disk, 1Mb of RAM and a 6Mhz 286 processor. And get of my lawn.

Re:Get off my lawn... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119719)

My first PC had a 40MB hard disk, and at the time my father's company still had a machine with a full height (i.e. twice as tall as a CD drive) 5.25" hard disk, with a massive 5MB of space, running iRMX. It's a shame RMX never really caught on outside of embedded systems. If IBM had used it instead of DOS then the computing landscape today would be very different.

Re:Optical disks are unlikely to ever again catch (1)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118675)

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!

Re:Catch-up! (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117189)

you cannot ignore the drm in BD. each drive, blank (etc) contains an 'I ok this' vote to sony.

I DO NOT OK THIS!

so I won't buy BD. I don't condone the whole BD double-protection thing and each time you buy, you send the wrong message to sony.

boycott bad standards. I know, you like storage but this isn't the only way to have density.

DVD has Sony patents too (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117461)

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 [wikipedia.org] in the physical layer, and DVD uses a minor improvement on EFM.

Re:DVD has Sony patents too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27119749)

Interesting, also I'd never heard of it's inventor before. Kees A. Schouhamer Immink [wikipedia.org] . That's one impressive dude.

Re:Catch-up! (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118621)

You can get a hard drive and back it up for cheaper and at faster speeds. Plus it is likely (if you go USB) that you will be able to take it with you to any computer without the need to check for blu-ray.

Re:Catch-up! (1)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119013)

Sony and the other Japanese companies will get on this eventually. You can already buy writeable Blu-Ray discs at most Japanese convenience stores for about $9.

Writable DVD is trash anyways (3, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116083)

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.

Re:Writable DVD is trash anyways (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27116263)

If your post is anything to go by, maybe the data wasn't corrupted, maybe you just didn't spell anything write in the first place.

Re:Writable DVD is trash anyways (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116515)

How about DVD-RW and DVD+RW? I would love to use those dual layer types so I can reuse the media like the old disks and CD-RW days.

Re:Writable DVD is trash anyways (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117343)

I don't know what sort of problems that you dealt with, but I haven't had a problem writing DVDs that some people seem to.

But I too am not so concerned about how quickly data can be burned, I usually write at a rate a lot slower than the max the media is rated for. I haven't bought fancy high quality media, but I didn't buy any store brand media either. I haven't had anyone tell me that a disc I give them is unreadable.

I just tried a couple pieces of the oldest DVD writables that I could find, a six year old DVD+RW and five year old DVD-RW and their data is still 100% intact, without errors or rereads.

What about Media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27116271)

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.

Disc error rates (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116565)

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.

Re:Disc error rates (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118635)

This sounds like a computer speed issue... Older computers are not able to keep up with the burns and thus the cache is emptied and you get an error.

Feh (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27116727)

If you need physical media, flash drives are by far superior anyway. I ONLY use dvds for boot devices nowadays.

Re:Feh (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27117503)

If you need physical media, flash drives are by far superior anyway.

Unless you want to play video on someone's SDTV. Then you need either a DVD player and a DVD burner, or a high-end DVD/DivX player with a USB port, or a PC with a $50 S-Video adapter.

Re:Feh (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 5 years ago | (#27118069)

Bah.

I used to have low-end RCA DVD player. It upscaled to 1080i via HDMI, it played random DIVX and MPEG movies from flash, and it worked well with every TV I ever connected it to. Video quality was good -- I kept it around until I got a PS3 and wanted to decrease the number of components next to the TV.

It was $50 at Wal-Mart.

It doesn't have to be high-end.

Kenwood TrueX 72x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27117233)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?