Home News Reviews Forums Shop


I Need some opinions...

Burn baby burn!

I Need some opinions...

Postby Number 25 on Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:47 am

Which do you prefer when formatting CD-RW's:

UDF 1.5 or Mount Rainier? Any significant differences between the two? Which is better? :roll:
Number 25
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:35 am

Postby KCK on Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:12 pm

Here are some results for my Lite-On LTR48125W VS08 on a CD-RW 80min/700MB 10x disc.

For standard UDF 1.50 formatting, physical format takes about 8 min and logical format takes about 3 min (i.e., 11 min in total). In contrast, initial CD-MRW formatting takes about 30 sec (the disc is usable at this stage), whereas background formatting takes about 9 min (without influencing copy speeds); in both stages, ejecting the disc takes several seconds. As for space, InCD reports 50KB used, 572MB free for UDF 1.50, whereas CD-MRW has 539MB free.

The copying and reading speeds seem to be comparable for both formats.

UDF 1.50 discs can be read in CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drives under WinXP SP1 natively (without installing EasyWriteReader).

CD-MRW is claimed to be more reliable because defect management is done via hardware; however, apparently none of the popular burners have passed the EasyWrite test.

I have been using both formats with quite cheap media, without significant problems so far. Still, packet writing to CD-RW discs is not reliable enough for primary backups. 8)
Last edited by KCK on Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KCK
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 12:55 pm

Postby dodecahedron on Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:19 pm

KCK wrote:CD-MRW is claimed to be more reliable because defect management is done via hardware; however, apparently none of the popular burners have passed the EasyWrite test.

what do you mean by "the EasyWrite test" ?
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby KCK on Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:28 pm

See Mount Rainier Verification on Philips page

http://www.licensing.philips.com/information/mtr/

and the EasyWrite Essay in

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Article ... e&Series=0

The EasyWrite test was also discussed at www.cdfreaks.com quite recently, but I can't give a link because the CDFreaks forum is down.
KCK
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 12:55 pm

Postby Number 25 on Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:31 pm

Thanks for the info, but my os is Win 98SE, so that advantage of UDF over Mt. Rainier doesn't apply to me. I just wanted to know which of the two (and not between packet writing or multisession writing) are more reliable and easier to use.
Number 25
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:35 am

Postby KCK on Mon Mar 10, 2003 11:50 pm

Native readability is advantageous only if you want to read your discs on other XP SP1 computers.

With InCD, there are no differences in ease of use (except for formatting times).

As for reliability, I have not seen any comparative results.

Yet another point is that some data recovery programs may work better with UDF 1.50 than with CD-MRW, or vice versa. I don't know, since I have never used such programs! :P
KCK
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 12:55 pm

Postby Action Jackson on Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:27 pm

Number 25 wrote:Thanks for the info, but my os is Win 98SE, so that advantage of UDF over Mt. Rainier doesn't apply to me. I just wanted to know which of the two (and not between packet writing or multisession writing) are more reliable and easier to use.


My system is Win98SE too and KCK's formatting description's are what I also experience.
Action Jackson
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2002 12:13 pm
Location: Markham, ON. CANADA


Return to CD-R/CD-RW Drives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2017 CDRLabs Inc.