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!

The First Blu-ray Burner, Pioneer's BDR-101A

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the just-getting-started dept.

181

mikemuch writes "ExtremeTech has a review of Pioneer's BDR-101A-- the first Blu-ray burner available. The drive can do anything with CDs, is kind of slow with DVDs, and doesn't support double-density Blu-ray media, but hey, it's a start, and can burn 25GB in 42 minutes. Check out its burn speed benchmark performance at the link above."

cancel ×

181 comments

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

Learn to read! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586395)

> The drive can do anything with CDs

should read:
The drive can't do anything with CDs

Re:Learn to read! (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586558)

Learn to read!

sorry i read it too as "The drive can do anything with CDs". i is trying to learn to read good so please don be harsh...

Re:Learn to read! (1)

mikemuch (870535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587077)

d'OH. Pardon the typo.

Fatal Error (5, Funny)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586396)

Copyrighted media detected. Burn aborted.

Re:Fatal Error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586549)

Copyrighted media detected. This device will explode in five seconds.

Re:Fatal Error (4, Funny)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586649)

Copyrighted media detected. Burn aborted. Your TCM chip has notified the autorities. The *AA lawyers should be ringing your doorbell in 5..4..3..2..1..**DING-DONG**

Re:Fatal Error (1)

livingdeadline (884462) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586762)

A burner that does anything [zombo.com] ? I've *always* wanted a burner (or software) with support for adding shit like Cactus Data Shield [wikipedia.org] , it would be cool in the same sick sense as Beavis and Butthead when they glue hair to their faces or fry dead rats at Burger World.

Re:Fatal Error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586869)

As opposed to the classic Nero message when duplicating CDs "This CD is copyrighted... continuing"

Wow (3, Funny)

quicks0rt (983047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586401)

42 minutes... Oy!

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

morcheeba (260908) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586567)

That's about the data rate of a 7X DVD burner. Or a 73X CD burner.

Re:Wow (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586573)

I was really confused when I saw that fact.

The printer friendly version doesn't have pictures and leaves out the most relevant piece of information
As you can see from the chart generated by Nero's DVD-Speed utility, we suceessfully created a BD-E data disc. It took about 42 minutes to completely fill up the 25GB disc.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586792)

I remember when we were all using 1x burners and we liked it. For the number of times you're going to have to back up 25 Gigs, this should be sufficient. If you want something faster, then back up to tape or hard disk or something.

Re:Wow (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586881)

Considering I have to save twice that amount of data daily, I'm not really that impressed.
On the other hand, retrieving the data should be pretty fast when comparing to other medias that can handle that much data.

Re:Wow (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586915)

Actually I think that's pretty damn good for a first generation device. The 1x CD burners were only doing less than 1MB per second from what I remember, so this is quite a lot faster.

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586932)

Well, the 1x burners took 74 minutes to write a disc, which is 8.8 Megs a minute. Which is .146 Megs a second. That's pretty slow considering. Even just comparing the time to burn one entire disk, this thing blows the 1x burners out of the water.

Re:Wow (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587257)

1x CD = 150K/s (which by no coindicence is the data rate for CD audio).

Why burn just 1? (4, Interesting)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586410)

...when you can set up your own distribution center: Engadget has a peek at Primera's mass Blu-ray duplication system [engadget.com]

Primera has started shipping the world's first Blu-ray disc duplication system, the Bravo XR-Blu Disc Publisher, able to burn up to 50 discs in one session. The core of the unit is actually Pioneer's recently announced BDR-101A Blu-ray burner, but it's backed up by some sweet built-in robotics to keep the discs moving (we hope -- we've heard this things are a little buggy) and full-color direct-to-disc inkjet printing to ensure a professional-looking job. This being the first unit of its kind, however, it should come as no surprise that it only uses single-layer discs, able to store a measly 25 GB, but Primera says an upgrade will be available "shortly" to allow for dual-layer burning. And if you thought regular, single-disc Blu-ray burners were expensive, you better look away now, 'cause this beast will set you back a whopping $5295.

Sounds like we'll be seeing surprisingly cheap Blu-ray movies on Ebay any day now.

Re:Why burn just 1? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586608)

Sounds like we'll be seeing surprisingly cheap Blu-ray movies on Ebay any day now.
It'll take you 35 hours to burn a stack of 50 discs.
70 hours if it's dual layer.

Don't you remember how long it took for DVD-Rs to come down in price? We aren't going to see cheap BDVD-R movies on ebay for years.

Re:Why burn just 1? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586694)

that's it? I'd imagine that the media cost would be a larger barrier to pirates than how long it takes them to make the disks.

Re:Why burn just 1? (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586929)

And why is that exactly? "able to burn up to 50 discs in one session" so you can burn all the disks at once using that device the OP was discussing.

Re:Why burn just 1? (1)

arodland (127775) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586980)

Do you remember how long it took for DVD+R DL to come down in price? What's that, they haven't? Oh yeah.

Re:Why burn just 1? (4, Informative)

AJWM (19027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587053)

Yeah they have. DVD+R DL used to be about $10/disc ($30 for a 3-pack). Now they're in the $2-$3/disc range. Still a long way from the price of blank single layer DVD+/-R, let alone CD-R, but the price is coming down.

Hey, I remember when blank CR-Rs were in the $10-20/disc range. RAM cost $50-$100/megabyte (not gigabyte). And DVD burners were still on the horizon at $15,000 each. And we likedit. (Hell no we didn't!)

Re:Why burn just 1? (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586719)

Why burn just 1?

Um, maybe because you're burning? If I want to start an optical media distribution center, I think stamped discs would be the way to go.

Concurrency (3, Interesting)

murderlegendre (776042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586791)

Is it just me, or were there a LOT more DVD players and DVD media in enduser hands, before the announcement of DVD burners?

It's almost like they (yes, the perjorative and mysterious 'they') want to have it both ways.. sell the stamped media, the blank media, and the hardware all at once - yet you *know*, from recent demonstrations, that they are geared up to protect any potential infringement of copyrights.

Or is this just how things work, these days?

what can it do? (1)

phoresy (984397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586412)

can or can't?

Re:what can it do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586571)

Even if I wanted a Blue Ray burner, I sure as shit wouldn't get this thing! Already it talks about what it can't do!? What kind of marketing is this? What kind of half assed product is this?

Next!

Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586413)

Yes, but, can it run linux?

Re:Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586449)

Yes, but, can it run linux?

The kernel guys are pretty quick; last I heard, Linux now almost supports 5 1/2 inch floppies.

Correction on CD disk capability (5, Informative)

chamilto0516 (675640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586428)

From the article: "Interestingly, the BDR-101A neither burns nor reads CD media of any type. So if you still need CD burning or reading capability, you'll need an additional drive."

Anyway, the Blu-Ray disks are $19-29 USD. I will need to wait until I can buy a spindle of 100 Blu-Ray disks for 9.99 before I go out and buy one of these things.

Re:Correction on CD disk capability (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586569)

2.5 terabytes for 10 bucks? me thinks ur ganna be waiting awhile... lol

Re:Correction on CD disk capability (2, Insightful)

chamilto0516 (675640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586693)

Ha!...ok, I didn't do the math but I'm sure at some point it was said:
  • A dollar a megabyte, you are crazy
  • A dollar a gigabyte, you are going to be waiting a while

Just give it time :)

Re:Correction on CD disk capability (1)

mako1138 (837520) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586764)

The size difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is about a factor of 5. The jump from CD to DVD was about the same, in relative terms, and look how cheap DVDs are now. I expect history to repeat itself =).

Re:Correction on CD disk capability (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586823)

Not really. We probably never thought that DVDs would reach the same price as CDs since they held so much more. Now DVDs are cheaper than CDs because that's what people are buying. I can get 100 DVD+R for $30 CDN. That's 470 Gigs. The reason the DVDs are even more popular is because people are putting movies on them. With music people would rather just put it in MP3 and leave it on their computer. With DVDs people don't have enough space on their computer to keep them there, and would rather play them on their regular DVD player. Plus encoding a DVD down to fit on a CD takes days on a regular computer, whereas a DVD can be copied in under an hour.

"CD disk" Capability? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15587060)

CD Disk = Compact Disc Disk

This Public Service Announcement has been brought to you by the Redundancy Department of Reduncancy.

Re:Correction on CD disk capability (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587098)

Never seen DVD for that price although I have seen 50 DVD-R for approx US$12 but I suppose if it fell of the back of a truck?

Can't read CD media? (5, Insightful)

Danga (307709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586446)

Why did they leave that ability out? I know I don't want to have a separate drive to read CD's, but with this drive that is the only option. I can see phasing out CD's once this new generation of media is firmly in place but it is way too early to start phasing out CD's. Floppy disks somewhat recently just got phased out for Christ's sake. I don't see CD's going anywhere for at least 3 more years.

Re:Can't read CD media? (2, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586593)

With the crap most CD copy protection does, and how quickly it burns through drives, I wouldn't want to put CDs in this thing... Hell, for $1000, I wouldn't do *anything* with it that I could do with a cheaper drive...

Re:Can't read CD media? (1)

enrevanche (953125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586624)

I doubt if they left it out for any reason other than it's the first to market and thus they did not have time to add that functionality. Unless there some serious compatability problems, the next generation will have these features. Anyways at $1000, it's not likely to matter if you have to have another drive. At this price, it's preferable to only use the drive for blu-ray.

Re:Can't read CD media? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586673)

I paid $600 for my first 1x CDROM reader. I paid $300 for my first 2X CD Writer.

I don't have any fear that these drives will sit at $1000 for a long time.

Re:Can't read CD media? (1)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586639)

Most likely, they assume that people buying this will either already have a cdrom drive or have an extra slot for one. It's nice to have them in one drive, but then again, plenty of drives are still sold that can't burn cds.

Re:Can't read CD media? (4, Insightful)

Danga (307709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586717)

I don't care about it having the ability to write CD's, I do care about it having the ability to READ them though. This was clearly rushed to the market and a waste of money IMHO.

Re:Can't read CD media? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586640)

At $1000 per drive & $19-$29 per disk, anyone buying this 1st gen BDVD drive can deal with its lack of CD capabilities. Maybe they'll enable CD capabilities with a BIOS flash, but the 2nd gen drives should definitely be faster & able to handle CDs.

What I found more interesting was that they left DVD-RAM off the compatibility list.

Why no love for DVD-RAM?

Re:Can't read CD media? (2, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586646)

Why no love for DVD-RAM?

Licensing fees.

Re:Can't read CD media? (2, Insightful)

Danga (307709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586799)

Maybe they'll enable CD capabilities with a BIOS flash
I am not entirely sure but I think it would require a different laser, so a BIOS flash to support CD's may not be possible.

Why no love for DVD-RAM?
People exist who actually use DVD-RAM? I mean it has some advantages such as hardware verification of written data and the ability to be used similar to how a HD is used but because it is not highly supported and is pricey why not just buy an actual hard disk?

Re:Can't read CD media? (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586663)

Incidentally, you can get a CD burner for less than a Blu-Ray blank for this thing.

Re:Can't read CD media? (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587116)

>Incidentally, you can get a CD burner for less than a Blu-Ray blank

Yes, but that is not the point. Many people have smaller systems now and either don't want a separate drive or CAN'T have a second, optical internal drive. I see no reason why the drive should not support reading and writing CD/CDR/CDRW, it should be extremely easy. It is a bad precedent to set- not having backwards support, and for something that is physically the same size disc!

CD's are not going away anytime soon. There are billions/trillions of audio CD's, VCD's, picture CD's, software CD's, and backups archives floating around out there.

Now, if it didn't support full 52x CD writing speeds, that's OK.

Re:Can't read CD media? (2, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587202)

Something tells me that if you're so hard up for a drive *now* that you are willing to blow $1000, and not wait for cheaper, more feature rich drives, you're putting it in a system that is solely designed for BluRay authoring...

It is a bad precedent to set

What a load of crap. They're not setting a precedent... They're just getting their drive out the door before everybody else. The CD part of the firmware probably wasn't done, and leaving it out probably shaved days off the release.

If you don't understand it, it probably isn't aimed at you.

Re:Can't read CD media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586686)

A Blu-Ray burner is like the ferrari of the tech world, and you're complaining about a lack of cupholders.

Re:Can't read CD media? (2, Funny)

navyjeff (900138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586885)

A Blu-Ray burner is like the ferrari of the tech world, and you're complaining about a lack of cupholders.

Here, [aol.com] now it's a cupholder too.

(Explanation here) [mcafee.com] .

Re:Can't read CD media? (1)

m00j (801234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586925)

I remember back in the days when internet explorer would open it automatically for me when I clicked the link. Now firefox makes me download the file and run it by hand! What a sad world we live in where I cannot open my disc drive via a website anymore.

It's a feature ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586872)

Don't think of it as a lack of a CD-Player/CD-Burner ...

Think of it as protection from Sony's Root-Kit

Error in the article (1, Informative)

LionOfMacedon (947932) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586448)

Interestingly, the BDR-101A neither burns nor reads CD media of any type. So if you still need CD burning or reading capability, you'll need an additional drive.

as usual no one has bothered to check the facts.
the drive does not burn cds at all.

Re:Error in the article (1)

Oxyrubber (982275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586576)

I believe the first post was referring to this (even though he/she didn't explain it very clearly).

Re:Error in the article (1)

VisceralLogic (911294) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586977)

Is the error in the article, or the summary?

Your quote from the article is inconsistent only with the summary.

Re:Error in the article (1)

mikemuch (870535) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587164)

Sorry, my bad: The error's in the summary.

The Summary (5, Informative)

Doomedsnowball (921841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586451)

In the end, the BDR-101A is really a device for a select audience. For what it's worth, the drive is actually cheaper than the first-generation DVD recorders, which weighed in at over $2,000 when they first launched. Over the next months and years, we'll see the price of Blu-ray drives start to come down, as players, media, and the technology for more easily creating discs becomes more prevalent. It's also not well-suited for watching Blu-ray movies, since no off-the-shelf software exists. It's a good tool for people who are authoring Blu-ray, and are willing to put up with the single-layer limitation. For anyone else, it's really an expensive toy.

This just about sums up the entire article: Wow, neat. Don't buy one yet.

From the last flamefest... (5, Insightful)

Frightening (976489) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586456)

We have already established that Blu-Ray READERS are to be boycotted for the general public good. Why post an article about a BURNER when nobody is going to use the READERS? I mean, everybody reads and believes slashdot, right? Right?

Re:From the last flamefest... (5, Insightful)

bsartist (550317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586508)

We have already established that Blu-Ray READERS are to be boycotted for the general public good.
I believe that has more to do with DRM-infested commercial releases than with the readers themselves.

Why post an article about a BURNER
Backups, distribution of free software, etc. There are plenty of uses for a new recordable optical media type that don't involve buying commercial DRM-infested discs.

Oh hell, who am I kidding? The real reason is right here [thepiratebay.org] .

Re:From the last flamefest... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15587017)

It's = it is, its = belongs to it. Get it right please.

D00d, get that dick out of your ass... what a fucking fag. Fucking little grammer bitches need the beat down.

DRM-infested commercial releases (1)

RareButSeriousSideEf (968810) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587113)

Even the Blu-Ray readers presumably fund the DRM queen via licensing fees. To me, that makes them nearly as culpable for the infestation as the commercial releases are.

But even if I put all my DRM vigilantism aside, the capacity increase over reg'lar DVDs just doesn't cut it in my pocketbook. In fact, why even write to removable media when a RAID can store oddles more gigs per $?

I guess I just don't see the point in these things, with TV & stereo -out available for most PCs on the cheap, and with HTDV -out not being too pricey either.

Re:From the last flamefest... (3, Interesting)

DarkEdgeX (212110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586757)

Actually, Blu-ray Disc is the format everyone should be hoping wins if you have any interest in data backup to optical media. HD DVD is a joke compared to BD (15/30 GB for HD DVD vs. 25/50 GB for BD). And don't get me started on the kind of extras we'll see on BD that we'll never see on HD DVD simply due to the capacity issue (or that TV shows on BD will fit more episodes per disc than HD DVD can, or that longish movies like The Lord of the Ring: The Return of the King Extended Edition will probably work fine on a single 50 GB BD disc, but will likely have problems with an HD DVD disc).

Blah. Sony may be screwing up this format launch so far, but I really hope they pick up the ball on this. Since it'll be at least another 5-10 years before another optical format emerges, I'd hate to see HD DVD be the one we're stuck with for that duration...

Re:From the last flamefest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15587014)

Nice astroturfing, Sony minion. You say: Since it'll be at least another 5-10 years before another optical format emerges, I'd hate to see HD DVD be the one we're stuck with for that duration... I say BULLSHIT! If both HD DVD and Blu-Ray fail, someone else will come up with a solution, a better one. Maybe less restrictive? In any case, boycott Sony for treating their customers like criminals and releasing nothing but shitty software.

Re:From the last flamefest... (1)

Yiliar (603536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587100)

But wait!

You are then a Microsoft shill.

Nice -- what to choose, evil Sony, or evil Microsoft. Niether!

DVD(HD) on DVD5,DVD9,DVD20,DVD45 no HD-DRM (4, Interesting)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587065)

Note, "HD" is possible on DVD5 or above.

Here are the steps to follow:
1. Upscale your DVD collection, writing using standard DVD's, in the DVD format, except enhanced for resolution, and perhaps formats (Perhaps Theora, DivX, MP4, in addition to MPEG2).
Call this DVD-HD.
2. Find a player that plays these DVD-HD discs. Buy this player.
3. When/If you find a commercial disc encoded with "DVD-HD", buy it as well.
4. Remember, don't buy the other HD-DRM discs (Unless it has be worked-around)
5. You can buy a DVD20 or DVD45 writer for data backups.
6. If a "DVD-HD" player is sold that plays "DVD20-HD" or DVD45-HD", buy this player.
7. Or just use VLC on a PC.
8. When/If you find a commercial DVD20 or DVD45 disc encoded with "DVD-HD", buy it as well.

0. If you bought into HD-DRM-DVD, then you expect the next step to be expiring media, then rentals only . Have fun.

Re:From the last flamefest... (1)

adam31 (817930) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587233)

(+5: Insightful), that's sweet!

But was the up-mod for the insight, or for the irony?
Some of our zany mods need to tick it up a few for Informative, just to seal the deal ;)

Why bother? (5, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586464)

Honestly, why bother?

Blu ray would have been relevant 4 years ago if it had been introduced then, but it wasn't. Instead it's been introduced in todays age when you can buy a 250 GB hard disk for less than $70 with ease. The disks for this will be like any other disk in that their effective lifecycle will just be a few years. Like any other burnable disk they will suffer from burn problems and very low reliability.

It doesn't price justify to buy this kind of media (nevermind the whole DRM bit). Your better off spending your money on hard drives, they hold significantly more data, are an order of magnitude cheaper and several orders of magnitude more durable. In all sincerity, why would you ever want to buy something like this?

Re:Why bother? (2, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586537)

Four years ago DVDs were still catching on, after about two decades of VHS. Now a new format is on the scene less than half a decade after DVD became dominant. The only thing we've really learned is that it's stupid to maintain your own personal video library, since everything's just going to have to be re-released in the new format anyway. so.. the real winners are netflix and people who like uncluttered furnishings.

Re:Why bother? (2, Funny)

fireman sam (662213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586617)

Well I guess I will have to buy the White album again...

Re:Why bother? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586687)

The only reason I bought a new copy of the White Album was because my vinyl copy developed a skip at 'Martha My Dear.'

Which rendered the entire album unplayable, because you have to listen to all four sizes, as a whole, in order. And it was a DRAG to get that far in and discover the skip.

Re:Why bother? (3, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586961)

The only thing we've really learned is that it's stupid to maintain your own personal video library,

Not at all. VHS tapes aren't compatible with DVD players, however, Blu-ray and HD-DVD players are fully compatible with the DVD collection you already own.

In addition, these high-def formats are fundamentally different:

They are being introduced at the very start of a new TV technology (unlike DVDs, which were released at the END of NTSC TVs).

They provide the full resolution these new TVs can display (unlike VHS)

It's perfectly reasonable to assume HDTV will be the standard for the next 50+ years. Only 3D TV could require something new, and that's nowhere near the horizon.

Now that our home media has switched to digital (computer) standards, it's perfectly reasonable to assume backwards compatibility for many, many generations of formats to come.

There's absolutely no reason to re-buy your DVD library, thanks to backwards compatibility.

These technologies are just being introduced. Maybe they won't catch-on for a few years.

You're acting like you have to throw away all your DVDs RIGHT NOW.

Re:Why bother? (3, Interesting)

donglekey (124433) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586555)

Because in 2 years the dual layer disks will cost 50 cents a piece which will mean you can backup a terabyte for $10 and give it to a friend.

Piffle (3, Interesting)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586589)

Dual layer DVD's have been out for a couple years now and the media /still/ costs about $2 a disc (best price on froogle). And to get that price you have to buy them by the 50 pack. By the time these disks come down to the price point you offered I'll be able to get a 1 TB drive for the price I offered, and the effeciency curve will continue to favor the drive. So why bother to invest in this technology.

Re:Piffle (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586870)

Yes, but you can get the single layer discs for $0.33 each, Which will give you 470 GB for $30 (when bought in lots of 100, Best Buy Price [bestbuy.com] ). That price is much better than hard drives, and you can swap stuff with friends easier. I would hesitate about giving a friend a $70 hard drive. I also wouldn't want to tote it back and forth with me everywhere, because that much travel can make them much more failure prone. The new BluRay disks hold 25 Gigs each, so assuming you could get them at the same price (DVDs are as cheap if not cheaper than CDs now) you could get 2.5 TB for $30. Which again, is much cheaper than buying a hard drive.

Re:Piffle (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586916)

Dual layer DVD's have been out for a couple years now and the media /still/ costs about $2 a disc

Yes, but dual-layer DVDs have been the single exception, quite possibly because people haven't yet felt the desire to upgrade from their single-layer DVD burners.

CDs and single-layer DVDs have dropped through the floor very quickly, and I can't see any reason why single-layer Blu-ray discs won't do the same.

Re:Piffle (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586974)

Actually, the cheapest I found for a 50pk was $1.45 ea. with free shipping [shop4tech.com] , which is still sort of pricey, but a not-insignificant 27.5% below $2. I found name brands around $1.80, which is still 10% less than $2.

Also you don't have to buy them on spindles to get them at or below $2/ea:

http://meritline.stores.yahoo.net/single-sample-du al-layer-dvd-dl-r-media.html [yahoo.net]
recordingstore.com [amazon.com]

Re:Piffle (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587092)

Dual layer DVD's have been out for a couple years now and the media /still/ costs about $2 a disc

Still? Still? When DL first came out the media cost about $10-15 disc -- probably more than that but I bought my first DL burner about 2 years ago when the media price dropped to about $10 (3 for $29.95). It was at least a year after that before the price started to drop, as competitive suppliers began filling the pipelines.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Danga (307709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586566)

In all sincerity, why would you ever want to buy something like this?

Well once the price of the media and drives comes down, there is a/are format(s) that are somewhat standard, and high definition DVD players are more common how about to be able to master your own HD DVD's? You can't really cheaply mail out copies of the latest video you took in HD to people using hard disks and it also is pretty hard to get a high definition DVD player to play content when it is on a hard disk and not a compatible optical disc.

Re:Why bother? (1)

gambit3 (463693) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586711)

Because I can't pop in my hard drive into a DVD player?

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586955)

There is a school of thought which holds that spending large sums of money on the cutting-edge technology increases one's penis size.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587066)

When will we know whether Blu-ray/HD are taking or flopping? Companies must have projected sales forecasts, don't you know it man.

(I so very want to see the looks on face when gray haired executive boss jerk gets angry at financial operations manager... I HATE THEM so much!!!!)

Video (2, Interesting)

Silent sound (960334) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586468)

Can this drive burn video blu-ray discs capable of being played back on a blu-ray video drive?

an answer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586742)

A current player can do anything with the burned Blu-Ray discs.

Re:Video (1)

DarkEdgeX (212110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586775)

I would certainly hope so, and I've seen nothing suggesting discs burned with BD burners can't be played back on set top devices. I imagine you'd need some authoring software of some sort though, and I'm not aware of anything commercially available that'll let you author BD discs (though Nero Burning ROM 7.0+ has support for Blu-ray Disc burners, maybe it has some wizard to make it easy to burn a video only disc as long as the video is encoded properly?).

I'd love to see some feedback on this though.

It remains to be seen (4, Funny)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586492)

It remains to be seen if the Beta-Ra*COUGH* blu-ray has any merit.

Please forgive me. I seem to have caught a cold. It has persisted since, oh, about 1983 or so...

Yeah, who needs Bluray (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15586631)

Let's just stick with DVD. 9,856,614K ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Yeah, who needs Bluray (1)

NosTROLLdamus (979044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586668)

Especially HITLER.

Re:It remains to be seen (1)

Talez (468021) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586987)

What's Beta?

Excellent.. (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586623)

This time we won't have to wait to burn copies of copywritten material. Those years before CD burners and decent DVD burners were just torture.

growisofs (2, Interesting)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586659)

Cool! So when can I burn these disks with growisofs from the command prompt? I'll maybe get one of these drives then.

im too paranoid (2, Insightful)

MrP- (45616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586753)

i'm too paranoid to use stuff like this for backups.. sure 25 gigs is nice but whats the use if i just burn everything in 35 copies on the disc incase one part becomes unreadable?

as media starts to hold more, i just start creating more copies of the same backup on the disc. bluray/hdvd scares me because if it gets scratched you lose so much more than if a cd gets scratched

Definitely (4, Funny)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587054)

That's why I have my Mac backed up on 3,248 floppies. If anything goes wrong with one, I'll only lose 1.44MB

Create/burn PAR2 files with your backups (5, Informative)

MojoStan (776183) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587218)

i'm too paranoid to use stuff like this for backups.. sure 25 gigs is nice but whats the use if i just burn everything in 35 copies on the disc incase one part becomes unreadable?

as media starts to hold more, i just start creating more copies of the same backup on the disc. bluray/hdvd scares me because if it gets scratched you lose so much more than if a cd gets scratched

One of the most useful comments (for me) I've ever read on Slashdot was one suggesting PAR2 files for DVD backups [slashdot.org] .

For those that don't know, PAR2 files are parity files that can efficiently reconstruct missing or damaged blocks in your archive. If you have more PAR2 recovery blocks than damaged blocks, then you can completely reconstruct all of the damaged files in your archive. The best newbie explanation I've seen is the "PAR & PAR2 files" section [slyck.com] from Slyck's Guide To The Newsgroups.

If I'm backing up to a data DVD-R (capacity 4,706,074,624 bytes), I'll leave around 4GB of space for the actual data and fill the rest (to the brim) with the PAR2 files that I created for that data. I name the PAR2 files starting with the letter 'z' so that they get burned on the outer edge of the DVD. When creating the PAR2 files, I choose a block size that is a multiple of 2048 bytes because that is the block size of a DVD sector.

Some easy-to-use tools to create PAR2 files:

  • Windows: QuickPar [quickpar.org.uk] (freeware)
  • OS X: MacPar deLuxe [xs4all.nl] (shareware, $15)
  • Linux/OS Independent (GTK): GPar2 [sourceforge.net]

Some DVD data recovery software (to get every readable block off a damaged disc):

  • Windows: IsoBuster [isobuster.com] (recovery functions are free)
  • Linux/OS X (command line): dd_rescue [garloff.de]

Thanks, WuphonsReach.

Stupid Sony... (2, Informative)

pestilence669 (823950) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586768)

This reminds me of the PS1, which used CDROM. At that time, the HP SureStore burner cost me $1,200. Good blank media cost $20 per disc. Add a little bit of soldering, and I never had to pay late fees for my game rentals ever again.

Now, right before the PS3 release, Blu-ray burners are available in the same price range. Even the media is similarly priced. If history repeats itself, which it always does, you should be able "backup" your PS3 games for under $400 in about a year.

Incredible! (4, Insightful)

eieken (635333) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586780)

Lets look at all the FEATURES, shall we?
  • $1000 price tag
  • Can't do anything with regular CDs
  • $19-$25 for one disc? Can you say Zip disk?
  • Can't burn dual layer discs, although dual layer blu-ray discs are available, completely ASININE!
  • "The drive includes Roxio Digital Media 7 for creating discs, but does not ship with software to watch Blu-ray movies." WTF?
Sounds like a winner to me!

Re:Incredible! (4, Interesting)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586866)

You act like the prices are really outragous, but this is what we call the "early adopter" cost. I had one of the first CD recorders, years ago (when people were still shocked there even was such a thing):

      - $1995 price tag
      - Could only record 650MB CD's, and at 2x speed
      - Blank CD's started at $20 to $25 each.
      - Could not handle rewritables, as there were none.
      - No buffer underrun protection (i.e., $20+ coasters)
      - The Pinnacle Micro drive I had came with super-beta software,
                so you were guaranteed to get one of those pricey
                coasters for every dozen disks.

The Blue Ray drive doesn't sound bad at all, in comparison. Expect media price to plummet as soon as there's competition, and expect the drives prices to drop 400% within 3 years.

Re:Incredible! (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 8 years ago | (#15586962)

Wow, 400% price drop?

I can't wait till they start paying $3000.00 to take a drive.

Re:Incredible! (2, Interesting)

donaldm (919619) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587207)

The organisation I worked for at the time got a special deal of a US$1000 from Silicon Graphics (SGI) for a scsi CDROM drive (did not write) so we could load software from CD (cira 1990) rather than use real-to-real magnetic tape.

It appears young people today have no idea of how much IT costs have plummeted in the last few years. To me the Bluray player/recorder or even the (shock, horror) PS3 is cheap for what it can do, especially if you compare it against older technology and like it or not DVD is older technology. Like the CD the DVD is going to be around a while and even then Blueray and I think HD DVD players will still support it so you won't loose your old movie libraries. Now VHS libraries - well that is a different matter.

With $1000 as its pricetag.. (2, Interesting)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15587015)

They might as well have used SCSI-3/SAS and gained some performance instead of sticking with IDE.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15587094)

It would only take me a day or two to back up the whole Internet!

(Um, biblical-length days - but hey, who's counting?)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?