×

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!

DVD-Rs go 8x

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the thats-a-lotta-x dept.

Hardware 237

DiZASTiX writes "It seems that the next speed level for DVD Writers is here. "The race for Xs is still on and Plextor has gone into the lead with the PX-708A, what Plextor claims is the first commercialized 8X DVD recorder. At this speed, a 4.5 GB DVD+R takes under 9 minutes to record. That is about the same as a CD in just over a minute. What we wanted to know was whether the reliability and compatibility of blank supports suffer from this breakneck speed...""

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

237 comments

I dunno but... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541682)

Most DVD-R's struggle to work reliably at 4x...

Re:I dunno but... (1)

swfranklin (578324) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541783)

I wish Tom's would get it straight, that "DVD-R" != "DVD+R". They keep interchanging the terms.

Re:I dunno but... (2, Informative)

The_Bad_Bob (691779) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541813)

I have a small 1 to 2 DVD duplicator that I never use at anything above 1x. Why? Because even at 1x, every dozen times or so it makes a couple of $1.79 drink costers. At 2x, it does that every other time! Sure, the drives are about 6 months old, but they shouldn't be failing so soon. That is, unless they are tring to boost DVD-R drive sales.

Re:I dunno but... (2, Insightful)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541905)

I have a small 1 to 2 DVD duplicator that I never use at anything above 1x. Why? Because even at 1x, every dozen times or so it makes a couple of $1.79 drink costers.

That's one of the reasons I've been leery of even buying a DVD-R burner at all. CDs have proved decently reliable, but the technology is over 20 years old. DVDs seem too new to trust my data to. When faced with backing up my PVR's video collection I am torn between trying to back up 4-5 hours per DVD in DivX format or going the more expensive route and buying a decent LTO tape drive. Somebody in the backup business needs to get their heads out of their asses and get a backup medium that can backup our largest hard drives on a single tape or disc while having the media cost less than 10% of the cost of the disk itself. 100GB tapes are easily $80 a piece. I could just buy a spare hard drive for that much!

Re:I dunno but... (2, Informative)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542158)

DVDs seem too new to trust my data to.

The current crop of DVD+/-R(W) drives are indeed about as mature as the first bunch of CD-R(W) drives were at this point. They're a bit sensitive as to which media you use and the planets have to be aligned properly. For DVD media, I only buy the major brands (Imation sells a 25-disc spindle at around $50) and I've had *mostly* good luck. Lately the drive was failing (lots of coasters even at 1x) but then I rebuilt the box and the drive suddenly became reliable again.

As to the data integrity issue... I usually burn around 3.0-3.5 Gb of data onto the DVD and fill the rest with parity data using QuickPar [sourceforge.net] . Gives me an easy way to check the disc for errors that are more then the underlying RS encoding can handle and lets me possibly still recover the files.

Re:I dunno but... (1)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542161)

Maybe some company could create a cradle that you could fit into a CDROM/Floppy drive bay that you could just slide a 3.5in HD into (I'm guessing there would need to be an adaptor for different drives as the IO and power connector placements would differ slightly).

The cradle would include a system that checked for the existance of a drive at power-up, and if the device wasn't present, the power connector would be disabled until the next power cycle. This way the IDE disk could be inserted at any time safely. A solenoid or something could prevent removal while the power was on. ... or just make a cheap kit to turn an IDE into a USB drive (cheapo plastic case, minimal electronics) ;-)

Re:I dunno but... (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542134)

hehehe you're worried about 1.79? Lemme tell you when CD-Rs first came out they cost around 25$ a piece and the CD Burners were *very* unreliable (atleast mine was). I remember my buddy and I got some Maxell CD-Rs for about 6$ a piece from one of those rebate sales at Staples, we burned all our MOD files and thought we'd practically robbed a bank :)

Re:I dunno but... (2, Informative)

littleRedFriend (456491) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541842)

I bought the Plextor px708a last week, and I must say that it's amazingly fast. Plextor has a list of supported media [plextor.be] on their site. More media to follow as they still update the firmware.

I tried it with two different kinds of Verbatim DVD+R 4x (43231,43211). It works at 8 speed (under 9 minutes to burn "backups" of your DVD collection). Burned over 20 disks, zero toasters up until now.

The PX708a has some Plextor specific goodies to make sure speed of burning is optimized for the media (bad media will slow down the burning).

Needless to say that the px708a is also one of the best & fastests CDR burners around at the moment (under 3 minutes to burn a 700 Mb ISO).

Re:I dunno but... (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542124)

A lot of hard drives would probably struggle to push the buffer to the drive at 8x too...

All in all, I think it'll be a while before I'm using 8x dvd burners...

I know I don't need that insane speed. 4x, 20 mins for 4.5 gigs...These days, that's perfectly servicable.

*Pats his pioneer A06*

When does this quote get old... (5, Funny)

c_oflynn (649487) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541683)

Thought this was kinda funny:

from this breakneck speed...

Kinda like when the blazing fast 166 MHz pentiums come out, you know in a year people will be scoffing at 8x DVD speed ;-)

Re:When does this quote get old... (1, Insightful)

yerricde (125198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541727)

True, but materials engineers estimate that we're well within a power of ten of the limit of how fast DVD media can spin without breaking.

Re:When does this quote get old... (2, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542019)

Power of 10 nothing, CD-R's break apart at roughly the equivilant of 100-150X CDROM which would only be ~20-30X DVD drives. 60-100K RPM is the hard numbers, which is for an undamaged disk, damaged disk can go at slightly over 25K RPM's which is the speed of a 48X CDROM or an 8X DVD player.

Breakneck speeds? (1, Offtopic)

1600 (102055) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541687)

That description is just begging for someone to read this post a few years down the road and get a good chuckle. Back in the day, 8X CD burners were thought to move at breakneck speeds as well...

Re:Breakneck speeds? (1, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541715)

Whichever way you shake it, burning a DVD+R at 11 MB/second is pretty damn zippy. Though if you think about it, they don't have that much faster to go since the fastest DVD readers top out at 16x.

Re:Breakneck speeds? (1)

Shaklee39 (694496) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542013)

What does the read speed have to do with the write speed? Once the disk is written, the readers can do whatever they want with it. If you burn a dvd at 8x it can still be read in a 1x player.

Re:Breakneck speeds? (1)

SophtwareSlump (595371) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542037)

I think he may be pointing to the fact that if the fastest DVD-ROM you have is 16x, the faster burner you can have is 16x. This is assuming you're copying on the fly...

speed is not a concern (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541690)

Who cares about speed? When will we see DVD-9 DVDs, so we can backup copies perfectly, isntead of having to resort to "shrinking" them to fit on a DVD-5? Is it even theoretically possible to burn multi-layer on a consumer device?

In about three months (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541717)

Both the minus and the plus consortiums have announced such players, and have them in demo versions.

Philips intends to release to oem's its dual layer writer around about the same time it releases its 12X drive - which is sometime in febuary. Expect them on the shelves in March.

(The dual layer writer will only go at 2.4X at first though - and when you're burning a single disc and it takes two hours, you will care about speed.)

Re:speed is not a concern (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541726)

Wow, doesn't anybody read DVD sites around here? Phillips has already demoed a 16X and in RPMs that's roughly equivalent to a 48X CDR, so it's not all that amazing.
And as for the dual layers, that's a known quantity as well. The 8.5 dual layer 8 speed drives are supposed to be hitting the shelves before March 04. As for the price on the dual layer media, well that's another issue. Personally, I'm watiting for it though. No hurry. When the media is good and cheap I'll be good and ready.
And BTW, DVD media production costs for 8X media are currently around US0.30 cents a disc. So, if you're paying fifty cents or more consider how much markup you're forking over.

Re:speed is not a concern (1)

wulfhound (614369) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541763)

Who cares about DVD-9? Blu-Ray (17GB+) burners are already shipping in Japan... admittedly they cost several thousand dollars apiece right now.

Advertising (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541693)

The present media won't stand it. I've yet to see a 4X writer, standalone or SuperDrive in a Mac, that will be 100% reliable at 4X. And if it's not the media, it's the writing technology.

This would be a major breakthrough if it works. IF. I'm skeptical.

Discs (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541730)

You just need to by the right media.

We've (philips) gotten our drives to >99.9% reliability on all branded 4X media that we have been able to find. 8x media is a lot harder to find right now - you *can* burn at 8x on some 4x media (we used verbatim) but it is, as you say, less reliable.
The branded 8x media (there are really only two manufacturers, branded by multiple people) are reliable for 8x writing, but you will probvably want to find which of the two works better for your particular drive.

12x and 16x are going to be really quite evil, since we are having to develop on 8x media and just kinda hope that the 12x / 16x stuff will come along and still work.

YOU ARE ALL FILTHY GOAT FUCKERS!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541696)

#include <windows.h>

int main(void)
{
SetConsoleTitle("YOU ARE ALL FILTHY GOAT FUCKERS!!!");
Sleep(100000);
return 0;
}

DVD++R (5, Informative)

gmania (687303) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541697)

Actually ...

its DVD+R at 8x and DVD-R at 4x

DVD+R-R++R etc... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541712)

If you're getting lost, check out this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD

DVD-Rs go 8x (2, Interesting)

Pingular (670773) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541698)

I still don't understand removable media such as DVDs. You might be able to burn a DVD at 8x, but you can write to a hard-disk many, many times faster than that, and with removable hard-drives you can carry them around much as you would do with a DVD, at less cost. Does anyone know of any reasons why this technology is any better?

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541714)

There's this device called a "DVD player" that allows you to conveniently watch movies, or listen to audio, from these DVD-R discs. Much more convenient than lugging a HDD around, don't you think?

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541824)

An iPod is a HD and it weighs only 5.6 ounces. And you can store pics, music, video, any kind of file on it. What will you say when you can hook your iPod into your TV and watch movies from it? The parent is dead on: removable media is obsolete and outdated.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (4, Insightful)

general_re (8883) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541836)

What will you say when you can hook your iPod into your TV and watch movies from it? The parent is dead on: removable media is obsolete and outdated.

So when I want to send my mother a video of her grandson's birthday party, I'll just drop my iPod in the mail for her? Don't think so...

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541993)

iPods are great products, but I have over 200 Gigs of data that I just backed up this summer and it was a hell of a lot cheaper per MB to buy CD-Rs and DVD-Rs then to buy the equivilent space in iPods or mini external HDDs

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (2, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541718)

DVD/CD's are generally more resistant to being transported. Recall that hard disks have moving parts inside [hmm: make a harddrive system where you only carry the platters around and the motor/controller stay in the computer? Damn patent that idea!].

CD/DVD's are horribly weak [-8 defense!] against scratches [cost 18HP!, hehehe]. My laptop for instance has a hard time with most scratches where a desktop cdrom usually has no problem. It's a pain in the ass ...

Tom

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (3, Funny)

MrDolby (303452) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541740)

"[hmm: make a harddrive system where you only carry the platters around and the motor/controller stay in the computer? Damn patent that idea!]."

Wouldn't that be called a floppy disk.

30$ Beverage Support Device (0)

Beardydog (716221) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541807)

*glances at the aging, crippled SyQuest disk he's using as a coaster*

Re:30$ Beverage Support Device (1)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542003)

Aging and crippled? Hell I still use mine to boot my old computers when I want to use a different operating system. And for the record, it is a pain in the ass to get MkLinux (circa 1998 or so) running on a PowerMac 5400/180 when the disk you are installing to is a SCSI SyQuest drive.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

MShook (526815) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541839)

[hmm: make a harddrive system where you only carry the platters around and the motor/controller stay in the computer? Damn patent that idea!]

It's called a Jaz drive...

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

Jobby (135237) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541972)

[hmm: make a harddrive system where you only carry the platters around and the motor/controller stay in the computer? Damn patent that idea!].

Check out the iDVR [ivdr.org] consortium...

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

m_c_rose (102215) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541719)

The idea of removable media is archival, not short term as you would use a hard drive for. There will always be a need for long term storage media, and the faster you can get it to disk the more valuable the platform is. Also removable media is more portable than a disk drive. Just my $.02

Sig, you can't handle my Sig.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

azzy (86427) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541820)

Keep on giving me your $.02 ... eventually I'll be able to afford one of these faster dvd burners.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (2, Insightful)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541956)

The idea of removable media is archival, not short term as you would use a hard drive for. There will always be a need for long term storage media, and the faster you can get it to disk the more valuable the platform is.

The problem is, how reliable ARE these DVD-R discs? Initial reports seem to say they're getting less than 3-5 years of storage life when stored in a cool place. To me that's not archival, but short term backup. Hard drives last longer than that! I want guarenteed DVD-R archival life of at least 15 years and then I'd consider trusting my data to it. Until then I'll stick with CDs and/or keeping my data on multiple systems for redundancy on spinning magnetic disks.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (2, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541722)

I would use something like that as a more portable alternative to tape backup. You obviously can't backup whole hard drives that way, but for most home-user stuff, the few gigs that gives you is more then enough.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (2, Insightful)

Seek_1 (639070) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541725)

Because its cheaper, especially for archiving.

A 50-disc(50*4.5G = 225G) spindle of DVDrs retails for around $65(Cdn). Buying that same capacity from harddrives will easily set you back at least $200, nevermind having to factor in the cost of a USB 2.0 enclosure for the drive.

There's also the fact that it's much easier to justify redundancy costs with disposable media as opposed to physical drives. (Spending an extra $120 for a redundant drive is quite expensive, whereas spending $30 more to burn everything twice is a little easier on the pocket...

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541973)

A 50-disc(50*4.5G = 225G) spindle of DVDrs retails for around $65(Cdn). Buying that same capacity from harddrives will easily set you back at least $200, nevermind having to factor in the cost of a USB 2.0 enclosure for the drive.

But then we're back to the old floppy disk method of backup. Swap in disc 34 of 50 please... I have 400 gigs of data I need to back up and I have to consider whether to back it up on 100 DVDs that may fail within 2 years at normal cool storage temperatures due to crappy media or to just buy two 200GB hard drives and store it on that. Which is worth more to me? My time swapping out 100 DVDs and waiting for them to burn or $400? I'd say my time personally. How long does a DVD-R take to burn at 4x? 10 minutes? 20 minutes? Multiply that by 100 and you can see you're wasting a huge amount of time. Why aren't there DVD-R libraries more commonly available at low prices?

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

7r3v0r (726394) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541729)

A DVD is what? 2-3mm thick. From starin' at a DVD it looks about a 5 inch circumference. Now a hd on the other hand weighs more and is very bulky.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

Single GNU Theory (8597) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541849)

They're 120mm in diameter, and pi * 120mm in circumference.

You don't work on Mars probes for NASA by any chance, do you? :-)

DVD players (2, Insightful)

yerricde (125198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541735)

You can't connect a removable hard drive to a TV nearly as cheaply as you can put a DVD Video Recordable disc in a DVD player.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (5, Insightful)

RonBurk (543988) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541771)

  1. price: the cost per GB of DVD-R crossed hard disk prices recently, though they are still very close.
  2. durability: DVD is not as susceptible to physical shock and magnetic fields as a hard drive.
  3. movability: more PCs can read a DVD-R than have a slot for inserting a removable IDE drive.
  4. size: when what you want to store fits fine in 4.7GB, a DVD is a much nicer form factor than an IDE hard drive (so far). (e.g., daily incremental backups extending back for a full month.)
  5. movies: I can't create a movie on a hard drive and then stick it in my consumer DVD player (so far).
However, DVD+RW and DVD-RW would certainly be more attractive for general data use if the operating system actually supported them as random access devices. Don't know about *nix, but Windows does not support such access until the next version (XP supports drag and drop, but simply copies files to a temp area, and then waits for you to tell it to do the One Big Burn).

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

D4MO (78537) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541774)

Yes. It doesn't suffer from mechanical failure, a lot lighter, and don't require a power source.

A hard drive is an expensive place to archive stuff.

As someone who uses both, I use portable harddrives for data that changes often (backups..) and have a short life (files around a project for instance). If I want to keep something and expect to access it rarely and / or be confident that it will work in 5 years time, I use DVD's.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541784)

I don't think the statement of cost is accurate. The media itself costs about $1 a gigabyte, I have seen prices as low as $.30 a gigabyte. The amortized cost of the burner would quickly become very much less than $1 a gigabyte. OTOH hard disk generally cost $1 a gigabyte, and the tiny ones often cost at least $5 a gigabyte.

But I think the real reason to use DVDs is the same reason we use floppy disks and CDs. There has to be a way to easily and cheaply temporarily back up or transport or give away reasonable amounts of data. In the past reasonable amounts of data were a few KB. Then they were a few MB. Now they are in the GB range. For the first time if I want to back up certain of my directories I need over a GB of storage, which would involve multiple CDs. A DVD burner would be nice for such a purpose.

In addition, I can give away a CD or DVD without any significant loss. I am not rich enough to give away micro hard disks.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

jsse (254124) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541785)

I still don't understand removable media such as DVDs.

It sounds like a COMP-101 question. :)

Removable harddisk is faster but not cheaper than removable media. A normal 2x 4.3GB DVD-R only costs at US$1, you can't really find this bargain for hd, in terms of MB/$. Also, removable hd is not really portable. Portability not only refers to its size, it's also refers to the ease of reading those media across different platforms. Even when you say iPod like devices(USB, flash, etc.) could be served as a movable storage, but carrying a large amount of data with these things is still very inconvenient.

I'd rather think of the comparison of DVD+-RW with traditional tapes media. DVD+-RW could really replace tapes in many cases(not all, though), and a tape driver is still very expensive, while the cheapest DVD+-RW drive could be lower than $200 per set nowaday. :)

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (1)

kaden (535652) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541793)

Blank DVDR =~ $2 200gb Hard Drive = $200 200 DVDs can hold much more data than 200gb. DVDs can also be played instantly in a lot more places (including places where there isn't even a computer) while a USB hard drive can be a pain to connect sometimes.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541871)

You have to handle hdd's still with more care? CD's are MUCH cheaper and you don't have to care if your DVD "is" IDE or SCSI.

Re:DVD-Rs go 8x (3, Funny)

fiddlesticks (457600) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541909)

Because I tried to insert my HD (internal and external, mind you!) into my friend's DVD player

It wouldn't fit, so I got really mad, and hammered it in. It still didn't work.

Then my friend came back from his vacation, and he wasn't happy. So now I'm looking at these DVD-R things.

reading (2, Interesting)

m_c_rose (102215) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541700)

I find that unencoding takes much longer than burning. While packet writing with a 2.4x seems to be more than fast enough. With the prices of 4x drives as low as they are geting the price point for 8x just wont be worth it for now.

Sig, You can't handle my Sig

buffer (5, Insightful)

iamthemoog (410374) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541704)

8x is a pretty damn fast write speed for a 2MB buffer. I know Plextor have introduced a whole bunch of buffer under-run stuff, but I for one would be happier with a bit more. (especially since my hard drive is so horribly fragmented....)

8MB wouldn't (shouldn't?) be out of the question for a top of the line product such as this.

Re:buffer (2, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541768)

8x is a pretty damn fast write speed for a 2MB buffer.

Agreed... It really surprises me they'd go with a buffer that small. At 8x (just over 11MB/s), the buffer needs to completely refill every 182ms, 5.5 times per second. Considering how often computers seem to "hiccup", just freezing for half a second every now and then, I would not want to trust more expensive 8x media to the odds that one of those random events won't occur during a burn.

Especially considering the price of these drives, does it seem like so much to ask to put in a decent sized buffer? +5 for first to market with the new burning speed, but -100 for lack of forethought about how many coasters people really need around the house.

Re:buffer (1)

Enonu (129798) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541845)

I don't get the 2mb buffer either. Memory is so cheap, that one 32mb chip is probably something like $5. Why keep the 2mb? Even 8mb seems pitiful.

Re:buffer (1)

Wolfrider (856) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542196)

--I noticed that too. Thankfully, with cdrecord you can specify a much larger buffer if you want.

Same "in" longer? (1, Interesting)

Angram (517383) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541716)

"That is about the same as a CD in just over a minute."

Well that certainly clears things up.

I'm guessing what you meant to say was that it takes about a minute longer than a CD to burn, but I don't know how that involves the words "same" or "in."

Re:Same "in" longer? (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541737)

I'm guessing what you meant to say was that it takes about a minute longer than a CD to burn

I think it means "it's the same as burning a CD in just over a minute" (i.e. a 60x CD burner).

Re:Same "in" longer? (3, Informative)

Pupp3tM (182264) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541742)

I'm guessing what you meant to say was that it takes about a minute longer than a CD to burn, but I don't know how that involves the words "same" or "in."

He means it takes just over a minute for the DVD writer to write 700 MB. 4.5 GB in 9 minutes means 700 MB in about 80 seconds, on average.
Hell, if my 52x burner took 8 minutes to burn a CD, I would be pissed.

Re:Same "in" longer? (1)

Angram (517383) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541758)

Sorry, I parsed the sentence incorrectly. It would have been better written as
"That's equivalent to burning a CD per minute (700MB/min)."

Re:Same "in" longer? (1)

rizawbone (577492) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541751)

Well that certainly clears things up.

I'm guessing what you meant to say was that it takes about a minute longer than a CD to burn, but I don't know how that involves the words "same" or "in."

the speed it burns the dvd is fast.

if a cd writer had this writing speed of data per second, it could burn a full cd in just over a minute.

Re:Same "in" longer? (2, Informative)

dirkdidit (550955) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541762)

I think he meant that the burn rate is about the same as a CD that could be burned in one minute.

Remember 1x in regular CD's equals something around 150KB/s while in DVD's it's around 1.35MB/s. Those speeds are for typical CD and DVD readers/writers while DVD+R/RW has an even different definition of the speed of 1x.

the slowdown in writing is dirty media (4, Funny)

Selecter (677480) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541720)

If you get any fingerprints, scratches, etc on yer disks they are not going to burn anywheres close to the rated drive speed anyways. Most poeple dont get the benefit of higher speed burns becuase they are slobbish :)

Id like to see two ratings for burnable media. Something like 8X when new and clean, 2X when smeared with grape jam and peanut butter or somethin. :D

Re:the slowdown in writing is dirty media (1)

Angram (517383) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541746)

No reason for them to give any numbers like that. All max speeds for technology are based on an optimal environment. If you put that drive on a 386 with with 2MB RAM, it's probably not going to run at 8X then either.

If you can't keep your fingers off of your DVD surfaces (or your DVDs out of your sandwiches, as you seem to suggest), you're in no position to argue about the product not performing the way you expected. DVDs normally contain warnings about heat, contact, etc. to make this clear.

Re:the slowdown in writing is dirty media (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541814)

It was a gag, you moron. Get a sense of humor somewhere. Buy one from The Apple Store or something. :/

Plextor's 708A works just fine at 8X (4, Informative)

Jarnis (266190) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541721)

I've had the Plextor drive in question now for bit over a week. Works like charm. Using Maxell's 4x DVD+R discs, which the drive detects to be 'good enough' for 8X, I've now written about a dozen of these with zero problems. It's a Plextor after all, which roughly translates to being the Ferrari of the optical drives...

So yes, based on my personal experience, while Plextor's 708A costs an arm & leg compared to low end DVDRW drives, it works as advertised and burns at 8X without problems to DVD+R discs. Have not tried DVD-R yet, but according to documentation, it's limited to 4X.

DVD-R vs DVD+R (3, Interesting)

mm0mm (687212) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541734)

is as sticky competition as VHS vs Beta. No matter how fast they are I won't buy a burner until either of them becomes de facto standard. ...oh yeah, I know a lot of burners burn both formats, but it doesn't matter to me. I mean, what happened to DVD-ROM drives nowadays? Does anyone even remember?

Re:DVD-R vs DVD+R (1)

GauteL (29207) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541788)

Why should you care as long as you get a cheap burner that can burn both formats and both formats are supported by DVD-ROM drives and standalone DVD-players?

And afaik almost all computers these days come with a DVD-ROM drive, so that is what happened to them.

Re:DVD-R vs DVD+R (1)

swb (14022) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541803)

You won't be owning a DVD drive for a while, then. The competition is still going strong. I'm somewhat skeptical that -R/RW will vanquish +R/RW, mainly due to the overwhelming market penetration of the +R/+RW consortium (Philips, Dell, HP).

On the other hand, -R seems to be the media format of choice for people in the content industry, and -Rs backers are no slouches, either (Panasonic, Toshiba, Pioneer, and sometimes Sony, whose set-top DVD recorder supports -R/RW and +RW but not +R).

Re:DVD-R vs DVD+R (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541881)

Sony seems skeptical as well, I just purchased a (very nice, i might add) Sony DRU-510a, and it supports +R/RW and -R/RW, some at 8x and others at 4x. So far, it is a very nice piece of kit, and i recommend it thoroughly.

Re:DVD-R vs DVD+R (1)

RonBurk (543988) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541805)

Couldn't tell if you were being facetious or not. DVD-ROM is the physical format used by DVD-Video discs.

They pretty much all read DVD-ROM discs, except possibly for some DVD-RAM drives (which few are buying), so that would not be a good example of why one should wait for a single standard.

If you really are concerned about being able to buy a drive that reads your old discs in 10 years, then pay the high dollar for magneto-optical (MO). Pledged backward and forward support is its main claim to fame at this point.

Re:DVD-R vs DVD+R (1)

Espen (96293) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541856)

The comparison with VHS vs Beta is meaningless. In that format war the media was physically different. In this case, both media types strive to create written media which is compatible with a third, universal, standard, namely DVD. As long as they both produce DVD compliant discs, what difference does it make (apart from making sure you pick up the right blank media)? The answer is: none. This is a non-issue.

Always the way (5, Funny)

Frodrick (666941) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541767)

"It seems that the next speed level for DVD Writers is here."

Of course it is - I just bought a 4x DVD burner yesterday. 8+(

Re:Always the way (1)

Angram (517383) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541773)

I hope you kept your reciept.

Re:Always the way (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541895)

Why would he have grounds to return it? Unless the store has a "no quibble" returns policy (and then I would say you are abusing it).

Re:Always the way (2, Insightful)

Angram (517383) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542002)

He/she is not satisfied with the product. Simple as that. It's not an abuse; the person bought the product believing it was the best offered product in its class, but has found it not to be. Few stores only accept returns on broken items, and many (most?) large chains only ask as a matter of gathering consumer feedback on inventory.

Space not speed, and price issues (3, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541829)

Personally I want more space on a DVD. I'm quite happy to wait twice as long if I can store more. In terms of a backup solution

Your typical HD costs 200 pounds for 250GB.
Removeable caddy for HD costs 10 pounds
One-off caddy container for PC is 15 pounds.

A DVD-/+/RW/RAM drive costs 105 pounds.
A DVD-RW holds 4.5GB and costs 17 pounds for 5 (=22.5 GB)
Total cost of 250 GB DVD media is (105+187 =) 292 pounds.

So, the DVD just about scrapes home as cheaper during the third 250 GB. You may be able to get something off if you buy your DVD's in larger bulk - those prices were all I could see offered, and they're the cheap end as well. The "branded" names make the argument even stronger since "Sony" DVD-RW's are 22 pounds, not 17...

On the other hand, you now have 165 DVD's with your data on somewhere. At that rate, it's surely better to have 3 HD's and a caddy slot on your PC ? In an emergency, you can even get by for a day or so using the data live off the disk.

If, however, you want to pirate DVD's and play them in your home cinema, then sure, that extra 7 minutes you'd have to wait over a 4x drive would seem an eternity...

Simon.

Re:Space not speed, and price issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541850)

A DVD-RW holds 4.5GB and costs 17 pounds for 5 (=22.5 GB)


Shop around you're talking 20GBP for 25 4x DVDR- discs delivered first class.

You have a point but your maths is biased.

Re:Space not speed, and price issues (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541935)

I'd find a better dealer if I were you... Hint: Don't shop at PC World.

250GB is cheaper at 2*120GB which will set you back 114+VAT.

Branded DVD-RW is *much* cheaper then you suppose - retail price for is 8 (inc vat) for 5 branded traxdata.. unbranded stuff you can get for 5 for 5. If you don't need RW (why should you? it's for backup) then you can half those figures.

A dual format +/-RW drive will set you back ~80 inc. vat.

Re:Space not speed, and price issues (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542014)

All the prices save the media were from DABS online. The media was the best prices single-page ad I saw in the back of computer shopper.

I did *say* you could get them cheaper...

I was using RW rather than R to level the playing field. The HD can rewrite, and some people rotate their backups in cycles...

Simon

Re:Space not speed, and price issues (1)

Equinox (26682) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542029)

225 pounds, 292 pounds...I'm screwed either way. I only weigh 130 pounds...

(please don't hurt me...it's a joke)

Re:Space not speed, and price issues (1)

xyote (598794) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542074)

Somebody is going to have to do a rethink when SATA replaces PATA. The removable carriers for SATA use the SATA disk's data and power connectors rather than a specially designed and built connector for the task. The plug/unplug duty cycle for SATA disks is rather low, similar to what scsi SCA connectors are, not the 10's of thousands that a PATA carrier was rated for.

Re:Space not speed, and price issues (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542126)

Typically it's the caddy that takes the brunt of any plugging/unplugging - the caddy receptacle mounts in the PC case, and the caddy plugs into that. The disk plugs into the caddy.

At least, in all the ones I used to use at the MoD.

Simon.

Is maximum speed just a matter of marketing? (3, Insightful)

ToKsUri (608742) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541841)

I've always had the impression that gradually incrementing the speed of CD/DVD writers (and other products) is just a matter of marketing and not of actually beeing posssible to offer the technology.
When CD Writers started going up from 8x, 12x, 16x, 24x, 32x, 40x, 52x.... it seemed ridicolous! I simply thought the 52x technology was already available when the 8x was out in the stores.
I know that increasing the writing speed is probably not just making the CD spin faster.. but then, what else is it?
It looks like as if with the DVD, everything is repeating. Can someone give me a reason why DVD writers are not faster already apart from marketing reasons and companies just wanting us to buy all different speeds? Is it actually impossible to have faster DVD writers at market price right now? or is it a technical impossibility?

Re:Is maximum speed just a matter of marketing? (1)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542031)

Reliability of data transfer. The faster you spin the disc, the higher a chance you have of error when writing, and unlike with reading, if you write wrong, you can't go back and fix it.

As much media development as the drive itself (3, Informative)

pacc (163090) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541846)

Here is a story about how laser output, drive speed and media properties is related in getting faster DVD writers:
http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/nea/200311/co nele_27449 0.html

Re: Excellent link, thanks (1)

fruey (563914) | more than 10 years ago | (#7542171)

Fascinating article. This is the kind of thing I've been looking for relative to high speed DVD writing, and understanding the real difference between each of the standards with their advantages and disadvantages.

It's a shame your introduction isn't quite a good "sell" of the quality of the article, for example I quote:

16x is without doubt the next target for recording speed, but there are a variety of technical issues to be overcome first. These can be broadly categorized into three areas. The first is improving the recordable DVD drive, which includes challenges such as boosting laser diode output and signal processing IC speed (Fig 3). The second is improving the media, by developing a recording layer with higher sensitivity and a wide recording power margin. And the third is adjusting the interface between the first two: the write strategy.

Other people should go see the site, here's an HTML link [nikkeibp.com] to make it more interesting.

Reliability=dvd-ram (2, Interesting)

olddoc (152678) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541864)

If you really want reliability go with dvd-ram in a cartridge. There is built in error checking as you write and no software is needed. Just mkfs /dev/hdx and mount and go.
Unfortunatly this format hasn't caught on and the latest LG 4040B drive doesn't support dvd-ram with the protective cartridge. It does do dvd-r +r -rw +rw cd-r and cd-rw. Maximum PC mag states it can write a 4g dvd-ram at 3x in 20 minutes and every bit of your binary file *will* be there.

I have the plextor 708a (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541873)

After getting it for my bday on halloween. Upgrading the firmware. It truly does what's advertised. On select media, if conditions are right it burns at (6x start, 8x finish). A Ripped DVD+R movie at 8x on 4x media plays fine in the $40 dvd player. or chipped ps2 (of course i only copy games for backup purposes).
You can also burn dvd-rw at 2x (no 4x dvd+rw to rest) and that plays in the dvd player and ps2.

The dvd-r's only burn at 4x, but play in the DVD and ps2 player.

The CD-rw's dont got any, but the CD-R's burn in like 3 minutes flat (audio/vcd) and play inthe car/ps2/dvd player.

Hell i got 8 vcd pr0n mpegs, threw them in a nero dvd data disc, and the mpegs just listed in the menu and played in the dvd-player.

rewritables are the affordable option. Since 99% of the data is trash, i'd rather see 8X DVD+RW or DVD-RW, but im sure the media giants backing the development of the drives don't want that! not right now

lol

Great drive. Burns 40x audio cd's on 24x media flawlessly, i explicitly disabled speed control to see if it would create too many errors on the pimp azz imation 24x nope.

Basically plextor own j00.

i would think not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7541889)

since my dvds are as reliable as Valve right now.

one day it can read the entire disk, the next if i ask for one 500k file it will say crc error. dvd burning is bullsh*t, much more cheaper just to buy another harddrive.

~Kompressor

So, what is the expected data speed limit? (2, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541912)

I bought a 4X when they dropped to $125, and am pretty happy with it. I won't spring for a faster drive until I can get a DVD-9.

But to my real question: How fast will they go? Most seem to be married to the 33MHz IDE spec on which all removable media are based. IIRC that's one byte (8bit parallel) at 33MHz...or about 25X (118GB/hr) with the bus completely saturated. So, without moving to IDE100 or IDE133, 20-22X seems to be a limiting factor.

Someone above mentioned that 16X DVD speed has the same rotational velocity as a CD at 48X. Now, since 52X seems to be the CD-R limit based on the likelyhood of media disintegration that would seem to limit the DVDs to about 17X.

I suppose there is the proposition that a two laser DVD-9 could overcome the rotational velocity bottleneck by writing to both layers at once, given that the file layout cooperates. And if writing a DVD-18 becomes a possibility (unlikely), then a four laser system could write all four layers at once. But this requires moving the CD/DVD devices beyond the UltraDMA mode 4 they seem limited to.

So...where will the DVD speed end?

Perhaps the 1st, but not the only (1)

walt15 (154554) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541930)

I'm not sure if the Plextor drive came out first, but TDK also offers an 8X CDR/CDRW +- drive as well. We've been selling them at our store for over a week now. Link to 8x drive at TDK [tdk.com]

Installed mine Friday,,, (1)

Magus311X (5823) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541949)

I tossed a black PX-708A into my new box on Friday, and had to give it a few tests.

Does it write at 8X? You bet. 4.38 gigs barely took 8 minutes. 5 DVDs and no failures. My only beef is the drive is a bit noisy. It is definitely the loudest component, by far, in my system.

What surprised me though is Tom's Hardware used the 1.01 firmware, when drives have been shipping with 1.02 for some time, and that 1.03 has been available for over a month. The performance improvements are small, but enough to edge out the old Pioneer in virtually everything now.

----- -----

Re:Installed mine Friday,,, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7542028)

It fixed a few bugs as well. 1.01 hung on my system burning from a HDD on the same IDE channel, requiring a power cycle. 1.02 fixed that.

Just remember (3, Interesting)

sandbagger (654585) | more than 10 years ago | (#7541971)

Hi: When backing up your p()rn, write the date on the disc and transfer it again in under two years. Disc rot on a DVD-ROM is like disc rot on a CD-ROM, only better.

Media levy kills the possibility for backups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7542017)

..here in Finland a pack of ten HP 2.4x DVD+R discs costs 39.00 euro (=US$ 45.00) because of the levies paid to our RIAA/MPAA equivalent - and still it's illegal to backup my own DVD collection on them!

So if I want to backup let's say 80GB of data it will cost me 75 euro while a new 80GB hard drive costs less than 80 euro!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...