Page 1 of 1

Lite-On: Winmodem of CD-burners.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:41 am
by Tubtanic
I keep asking the same question over and over.
What is the deal with Lite-On's horrible cpu usage?

Lite-On fanatics come up with all sorts of excuses.
i.e. I'm a huge fan of lite-on, cpu usage isn't a problem
for me. Or, it's not an issue, I have a very fast computer.
Or, why are you being picky? Or, it's simply a firmware
issue, they'll get to it eventually. Etc, etc,...

If everyone else can keep cpu usage way down, where
it should be, then why can't the GODS from Lite-On?
Lite-On uses double or triple the cpu usage. I don't see
any extra performance. And judging from the latest
52x24x52x burners, Asus and a few others are at the
very least keeping up. Can you imagine if Plextor or
Yamaha or anyone else started using double or triple
the cpu usage to increase performance?
Lite-On would be in the dust.

Lite-On specializes in this market unlike Yamaha, Asus,
TKD etc. They have the high priced engineers and software
people that should be able to crank out top notch products
everytime. Let's not forget! They have been using the same
identical drives for a long while. Only the mediums and
firmware have changed. So, they know these drives very,
very well.

If everyone writing articles and lite-on supporters would
stop overlooking or denying that lite-on burners have a
real problem concerning cpu usage then maybe Lite-On
would do something about it. You are making life real easy
for the guys and gals making huge salaries at Lite-On. You
are letting them off the hook. The sales figures tell the
bosses that the high priced engineers must be worth the
money. While you skimp, they live the high life with sloppy
work that you keep accepting just because it's Lite-On and
a few dollars less than the others.

Let me make it clear. I like Lite-on products but I don't feel
like I must look the other way. They don't owe me and I
don't owe them. They have one goal - make money. I as a
consumer have one goal - value.

Lite-On: Winmodem of CD-Burners

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 2:15 am
by cfitz
What are you using to gauge CPU usage? If you are relying on the results reported by CDSpeed, you might want to read through this thread:

Whether or not LiteOn actually does use more CPU cycles than other brands (and frankly I don't know what mechanism would cause a DMA transfer to use more CPU cycles for one brand as opposed to another - DMA is designed to avoid the CPU in the first place), I've never noticed any real-life impact from LiteOn CPU usage.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
by glock20rocks
Not to support Lite-On (I just trashed mine not to long ago), but...
Lets also keep in mind that IDE is a massive CPU hog. Ever try coping a couple of gigs of data and trying to do anything? Just getting into My Computer is nice and slow. Of course, that's why we have things like SCSI, dual CPU's, HyperThreading, and SerialATA. Well, hopefully Serial ATA will help...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 8:42 pm
by Kennyshin
How many hours have I wasted waiting for all those IDE devices to finish copying and moving? I hope Serial ATA II will be commercialized by the end of THIS year, not 2004. :D

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:04 pm
by glock20rocks
Kennyshin wrote:I hope Serial ATA II will be commercialized by the end of THIS year, not 2004. :D

Amen to that!! I just hope it really IS an improvement...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 2:25 am
by Tubtanic
IDE may play a role in cpu usage but everyone else seems to have resolved this issue.

It certainly appears to be simply a bug. Thanks Cfitz.

It would be nice if Lite-On and the folks responsible for CDSpeed could get together and quickly solve this issue.

I postponed purchasing a new Lite-On burner due to the unusually high cpu usage. The older Lite-On burners didn't have this problem, as far I can tell. As usual, I am probably wrong about that.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 10:38 am
by dodecahedron
Tubtanic wrote:The older Lite-On burners didn't have this problem, as far I can tell. As usual, I am probably wrong about that.

no, i don't think you're wrong, i also seem to recall that the older Lite-Ons, up to say 32x (?) had quite reasonable CPU usages. only in the later models that started soaring... :o :x

i must say i wondered about that (not that it bothered me in any practical manner, as i never have contemplated buying a Lite-On), but it is rather strange that no one has seriously commented about this until your rant... good job! :D

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:18 pm
by Tubtanic
I know! You're all thinking, "What's his problem? Get over it!"

I'm thinking of setting up a multiple burner system and I really
need to know if Lite-On does have a SERIOUS cpu usage problem.
Single burner you can kind a look the other way but with mulitple
burners it becomes a problem that other manufactures don't have.

The only thing I can figure is the software for buffer underrun. What else
could it be? Every other drive based on the Lite-On using the same
software is also munching up on cpu usage.

Can anyone try a Lite-On writer using the "Other" buffer underrun software? And testing the cpu usage? I'm not sure the "other" software
will run but it's worth a try.

I just took another look at the CenDyne Lightning V 52/24/52 CD-RW
and it's sad to see the extremely high cpu usage.

Thanks for putting up with me. Especially Cfitz.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:15 pm
by cfitz
Hi Tubtanic,

I replied in your other thread about using multiple burners, since I thought your questions were more than just rants and raves, and deserved to be answered in the technical section of the forums: ... 8909#48909