Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
I will certainly agree that the Direct CD formatting is problematic,
however, it appears to be regardless of if you use CD-R or CD-RW media,
so that's not a good way to "test" CD-RW media.
I'm going to wait for someone to point to me where CD-RW media has been
shown to be suspect in terms of longevity or errors. It doesn't cost
much more than CD-R, and that certainly is saved soon after it is
recorded to more than about 3-5 times.
I could get into a long discussion about the '3 Rs' being that we are
heading into Earthday in a few weeks, but I'll be nice and won't soap
I do agree that the workflow of CD-RW requires the disks to be rewritten
as a unit, but depending on your system, you can re-write to another
CD-RW and just not include the older files that you've altered and add
the new ones off the hard drive, and then erase the original disk once
the new copy is made.
Terry Carroll wrote:
> I think everyone who starts out in CD burning initially leans toward
> CD-RW, and then moves to CD-R after some experience with CR-RW.
> I used to use CD-RW, using Adaptec's feature (I think it's called
> DirectCD) that lets you write to it as though it were one big floppy.
> I've stopped doing that for a couple of reasons. First, I've had
> unsatisfactory results with DirectCD, inclusing lost data, and some system
> hangs. I'm not willing to blame this on the Adaptec software, though,
> because my system's a little squirrelly; but in any event, I've abandoned
> the use of DirectCD.
> So, the sole advantage of CD-RW over CD-R is that you can reburn the media
> over and over. But what you have to do is copy the CD-RW to disk, make
> your changes, erase the CD-RW, and then reburn the CD-RW. It's just as
> easy to copy a CD-R to disk, make your changes, put in a new CD-R and
> reburn the CD-R. True, you're using a new balnk media, but: 1) CD-R media
> is a lot less expensive than CD-RW; 2) I think CD-R is more reliable and
> has a longer life; 3) CD-R will be readable in more drives than CD-RW; and
> 4) the prior CD-R is still around as a backup for the one you just
> pressed, whereas if you reuse a CD-RW, its prior contents are lost and
> gone forever.
>>From discussions with friends who also have CD-RW access, most have gone
> through a similar process -- initially using CD-RW, and then eventually
> moving to just CD-R.