From: Mike Echo on
In article <as2dnehs-b0zgV_XnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d(a)posted.ccountrynet>,
q34wsk20(a)yahoo.com says...

> Well, I'll be damned if I'll go by "Juliet Charlie". 80)>

Hmmm, sounds positively nice, sweetie. ;-)

R.
From: John Corliss on
Mike S. wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>> (snip)
>> I have yet to try burning a disc in the computer in which the burner
>> resides normally. There's some program from Sony installed for burning
>> on that computer. I'd temporarily installed the burner in my friend's
>> computer so I could back up some files. I checked the five discs I
>> burned (all at 4x) and the copies are good. Even at 4x, it didn't take
>> that long to do the job.
>
> How did you check them? The most useful way is by scanning them on a drive
> capable of returning PI/PO error rates and using software like Nero
> CDSpeed or DVDInfoPro to perform media analysis. When I do that, I usually
> find that drives which have reverted to generic strategy on unknown
> media produce discs that may superficially seem "ok" but actually have
> rather high error rates - particularly towards the end of the disc. I
> usually reburn such discs on compatible drive/media setups if the discs
> are going to be used for long term backup, or interchanged with someone
> else's drive. This can be especially problematic with video DVD players
> that may unexpectedly refuse to load discs, or develop stuttering and
> pixellation towards the outer portion of the disc.

Good info. Thanks, Mike. And what's strange is that I've read someplace
where somebody said that burning at a lower speeds produces more
reliable burns. Good to hear that's wrong.

--
John Corliss BS206. I block all Google Groups posts (because of
Googlespam) and all x-privat.org posts (because of the forgery flood
posted through that service) with NewsProxy. No ad, cd, commercial,
cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR
warez for me, please.