packet writing SW - a few general questions

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by smh » Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:37:02



.            --------------------------------------
                Mike Richter, were you born with
             "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
             --------------------------------------


Quote:

> Just to add the obvious: DCD also write variable-length packets; InCD
> does not. They do not have the weaknesses of fixed-length.

Forgot about this, Hit&Run?

   =======================
   From:   "Graham Mayor"
   Subject: Re: Software to format CD-R for data
   Date:    (7/15/02)

   As far as I am aware only Direct CD will format CDR
   =======================

But only 12 days before the above:

   =======================
   From:   "Graham Mayor"
   Subject: Re: InCD vs. Explorer vs. DirectCD
   Date:    (7/3/02)

   "SR" wrote...

   > > "Graham Mayor" wrote ...
   > > >
   > > > It will also work with CDR discs, which none of the others
   > > > will.
   > >
   > > Beg to differ: WriteCD-RW will read all other packet-writing, and
   > > also will write to CDR. (v-3.5).
   >
   > I have to agree with this since I also found it much better than
   > Direct CD and to believe DirectCD is the only packet writing
   > programme that will handle CDRs just shows he hasn't looked at the
   > alternatives.

   Yes - I concede I had missed WriteCD-RW ...
   =======================

          --------------------------------------
          Graham Mayor, were you also born with
          "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
          --------------------------------------

 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by smh » Sat, 05 Jul 2003 03:22:35


.            --------------------------------------
                Mike Richter, were you born with
             "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
             --------------------------------------


> Just to add the obvious: DCD also write variable-length packets; InCD
> does not. They do not have the weaknesses of fixed-length.

Is it now only "weaknesses"?
Whatever happened to the fragile, flaky, faulty, unreliable "format"?

Aren't you ever going to respond to this, Hit&Run?

    =======================
    From:    Gerry_uk
    Subject: Re: Could not drag-and-drop from windows explorer
    Date:    5/20/03


    > Fixed-length packets ... provide the
    > most fragile and least reliable format for writing to CD.

    ...that's not the case with Packet Writing in general.
    =======================

 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by smh » Sat, 05 Jul 2003 03:23:39


.            --------------------------------------
                Mike Richter, were you born with
             "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
             --------------------------------------


> Just to add the obvious: DCD also write variable-length packets; InCD
> does not. They do not have the weaknesses of fixed-length.

Is it now only "weaknesses"?
How about losing data?

Aren't you ever going to respond to this, Hit&Run?

================================
From:   "BrianT"
Subject: Re: Loosing Disk Space {formatting CDRW}
Date:    5/8/03

Mike Richter (Hit&Run) wrote...


> > Hi this is strange, anyone else get this? or can explain it When I
> > re-format a CDRW with Drag to Disk Full Format {EasyCD 6}, the space
> > available after format drops by between 150 and 200 Mgs and I cannot
> > get it back. A full format on a new CDRW is OK. I have a LG
> > 52x24x52x and use TDK or Packard Bell 10X CDRW. This never happened
> > with EasyCD 5.

> The space you are losing is due to sectors found to be unreliable.
> It's a good sign that the disc is developing errors and is ready for
> the trash. You'll also find that formatting gets slower; it takes time
> to retry verification and to mark the bad sectors.

> If you insist on using fixed-length packets, you ask for that as well
> as losing data.

Mmm, but if I format a brand new CDRW I get the full monty then if I
immediately re-format, quick or full, I loose 150Mg. Surly CDRW's don't
develop errors after 5 minutes?

Also from your statement "If you insist on using fixed-length packets,
you ask for that as well as losing data" are you suggesting that the
Drag and Drop part of Easy CD is unreliable and should not be used ?

If so why does Easy Cd 6 have this software and say how easy it is to
use. Now I am very puzzled.
================================

 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by Stuart Summervill » Sat, 05 Jul 2003 08:47:37


Hey smh... I don't mind people being corrected on their erroneous
claims, but I do find it rather strange/annoying that most of your posts
  seem to be rather long ones (containing considerable sized snippets)
whose only connection to the thread is pushing people on past comments
they've made that you dislike.

I can't really argue that your technique is bad (to the contrary, some
aspects of it are quite clean and well directed), but must say it seems
to get int he way.

sTu.


> ..            --------------------------------------
>                 Mike Richter, were you born with
>              "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
>              --------------------------------------


>>Just to add the obvious: DCD also write variable-length packets; InCD
>>does not. They do not have the weaknesses of fixed-length.

> Is it now only "weaknesses"?
> How about losing data?

> Aren't you ever going to respond to this, Hit&Run?

> ================================
> From:   "BrianT"
> Subject: Re: Loosing Disk Space {formatting CDRW}
> Date:    5/8/03

> Mike Richter (Hit&Run) wrote...


>>>Hi this is strange, anyone else get this? or can explain it When I
>>>re-format a CDRW with Drag to Disk Full Format {EasyCD 6}, the space
>>>available after format drops by between 150 and 200 Mgs and I cannot
>>>get it back. A full format on a new CDRW is OK. I have a LG
>>>52x24x52x and use TDK or Packard Bell 10X CDRW. This never happened
>>>with EasyCD 5.

>>The space you are losing is due to sectors found to be unreliable.
>>It's a good sign that the disc is developing errors and is ready for
>>the trash. You'll also find that formatting gets slower; it takes time
>>to retry verification and to mark the bad sectors.

>>If you insist on using fixed-length packets, you ask for that as well
>>as losing data.

> Mmm, but if I format a brand new CDRW I get the full monty then if I
> immediately re-format, quick or full, I loose 150Mg. Surly CDRW's don't
> develop errors after 5 minutes?

> Also from your statement "If you insist on using fixed-length packets,
> you ask for that as well as losing data" are you suggesting that the
> Drag and Drop part of Easy CD is unreliable and should not be used ?

> If so why does Easy Cd 6 have this software and say how easy it is to
> use. Now I am very puzzled.
> ================================

 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by smh » Sat, 05 Jul 2003 09:55:57


.            --------------------------------------
                Mike Richter, were you born with
             "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
             --------------------------------------


> Just to add the obvious: DCD also write variable-length packets; InCD
> does not. They do not have the weaknesses of fixed-length.

Is it now only "weaknesses", Hit&Run?

Whatever happened to the "LETHAL"?

              =====================================
              Mike Richter & "Lethal for archiving"
              =====================================

            ( The following applies only to DirectCD )
            (          and Drag-to-Disc              )

          =====================
          From:    Mike Richter (cRoxio Shill)
          Subject: Re: File Integrity Errors - DirectCD Bug?
          Date:    10/15/01

          Combining the flaky UDF fixed-length packets with
          the tendency of erasables (particularly HS) to forget
          is  LETHAL  for archiving.
          =====================

That being the case, shouldn't there be a big warning in DirectCD and
Drag-to-Disc about using CDRW discs?

Why isn't there a big warning in DirectCD and Drag-to-Disc, Mikey?

 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by smh » Sun, 06 Jul 2003 04:11:43


.            --------------------------------------
                Mike Richter, were you born with
             "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
             --------------------------------------
             Graham Mayor, were you also born with
             "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
             --------------------------------------


> I've just gotten into packet writing of CDRWs, and finding myself back
> in usenet looking for answers... (yes, I did read the FAQ & other ref
> info)...

> - Why do the different packet writing tools seem to be so incompatible
> with each other? Is there a problem getting all involved on the same
> wavelength?

That's caused by proprietary, faulty, buggy, non-standard-conforming
IMPLEMENTATION of the UDF standard 1.50.

Quote:> - Is there one PW tool or standard that looks to be taking over as the
> * or most popular one?

There is already a standard: Universal Disk Format (UDF) by OSTA.
http://www.veryComputer.com/

Quote:> - Is there any OS that can properly write PW CDRW natively, un such a
> way that the incompatibilities between Roxio & INCD etc are eliminated?

Incompatibility is mainly caused by DirectCD with its buggy, proprietary
implementation of the UDF 1.50 standard.

Quote:> - Why doesn't Win XP or even 2K have built in support for this? Is it
> THAT new a technology?

Win2k reads UDF versions 1.02 and 1.50.  Winxp reads UDF versions 1.02,
1.50, 2.0 and 2.01.  Win98 supports only UDF 1.02.

    http://www.veryComputer.com/

    "Windows UDF reader frequently has difficulty with discs
     formatted with Roxio proprietary version of UDF"

As for the udf writing, MS should license it from Sonic (Prassi),
Pinnacle (VOB) or Software Architect - but not from cRoxio.

Quote:> - I've been using INCD that came with my LG CDRW drive. I find it rather
> strange (yet not impossible) that this technology is so immature that in
> order for anyone else to read that CD, they must have a custom driver
> installed on their machine. How then does one read that data on a
> machine they don't have admin rights to?

As mentioned Win2k/xp has built-in udf reader and on those systems the
udf discs should be readable - if the discs are written conforming to
the udf standard.

For Win9x, you need a udf reader as those systems do not have support
for udf 1.50.  Win98, for example, has support for udf 1.02, but not
1.50.

http://www.veryComputer.com/

Quote:> - Can the driver installed on reader machines to access the PW CDRW data
> cause any problems when reading regular CDR CDs? or other CDRW ones?

It shouldn't.

Quote:> - We just had some major "fun" trying to get a packet written CDRW disc
> of mine read by some CDROM drives at a friends place. It seems
> reasonable that the older drives couldn't cope - but one was a 52x - is
> that not recent enough to be able to read such a disc?

To read udf discs, you need MultiRead drive and udf reader.

Quote:> Heck... I even had my own machine (that wrote the disc) tell me that it
> was in a foreign format (on re-insertion), and that I'd need to install
> the driver to read it. Reinserted the disc, & it then worked fine.

There were a flood of such complaints from DirectCD users.  This type of
problems are NOT caused by the udf format, but by faulty, buggy
implementation of the format.

Quote:> Crikey, I thought the whole buffer underrun problem with older CDR
> drives was bad enough - little did I know what hassles were ahead of me.
> Grrrr...

Try one of the amazing packet writing softwares:

        =====================================================
        Amazing Packet Writing Softwares - DLA & InstantWrite
        =====================================================

===============================
From:    smh
Subject: Re: Direct CD (v3.01d) doesn't see 2nd CDRW
Date:    9/12/02



> > Recently added a Philips 3210 CDRW to PC with HP 9100i CDRW, and
> > Direct CD refuses to see the 2nd CDRW. I see nothing in the help
> > screens and everything is visible and operational in Windows AND in
> > Nero (v5). But DCD sees only one CDRW and therefore won't allow packet
> > writing to the 2nd one.

> Assuming that "3210" is CDRW3210s, it would be a complete waste of time.
> The drive does not support packet writing and the software can't make
> the hardware do what the hardware isn't designed to do.

Both Stomp's DLA and VOB's InstantWrite do packet writing with the
drive.  What amazing softwares, enabling packet writing even for a drive
not designed for it !!!
===============================

                --------------------------
                cRoxio, Eat Your Heart Out !!!
                --------------------------

 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by smh » Sun, 06 Jul 2003 04:12:38


.            --------------------------------------
                Mike Richter, were you born with
             "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
             --------------------------------------
             Graham Mayor, were you also born with
             "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
             --------------------------------------

There are many in these cdr groups who swear by these:

CD-RW is less reliable than CD-R, thus CD-RW is unreliable.
CD-RW is the least reliable media, thus CD-RW is unreliable.

Packet writing is less reliable than mastering, thus packet writing is
unreliable.  Packet writing is the least reliable format, thus packet
writing is unreliable.

Notes:
------
The bugs of DirectCD do not translate to bugs of packet writing.
The bugs of DirectCD do not translate to unreliability of CDRW media.

DirectCD does not conform to the UDF standard.
DirectCD does not set the UDF standard.
DirectCD is not the UDF standard.

Incompatibility with DCD does not translate that other packet writers
have bugs or do not conform to the UDF standard.

 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by Stuart Summervill » Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:50:13



Quote:>>- Is there any OS that can properly write PW CDRW natively, un such a
>>way that the incompatibilities between Roxio & INCD etc are eliminated?

> Incompatibility is mainly caused by DirectCD with its buggy, proprietary
> implementation of the UDF 1.50 standard.

>>- Why doesn't Win XP or even 2K have built in support for this? Is it
>>THAT new a technology?

> Win2k reads UDF versions 1.02 and 1.50.  Winxp reads UDF versions 1.02,
> 1.50, 2.0 and 2.01.  Win98 supports only UDF 1.02.

The softarch website says win2k has limited support for 1.50. Not
surprising then to find win2k boxes needing to install the driver from
any PW developer that happens to fully exploit 1.50 when reading their
discs.

If that is all true, then its also not surprising that the PW softwares
are diverging in their support for explicit standards when there is no
baseline OS that provides a fixed target of UDF readability for them to
aim at. They're all saying "well, on the win2k boxes we've tested on,
our reader can read disks created by our writer, so we're done". WinXP
presumably turns that on its head though. Bit late for 2k/98/me users.

Quote:

>>Heck... I even had my own machine (that wrote the disc) tell me that it
>>was in a foreign format (on re-insertion), and that I'd need to install
>>the driver to read it. Reinserted the disc, & it then worked fine.

> There were a flood of such complaints from DirectCD users.  This type of
> problems are NOT caused by the udf format, but by faulty, buggy
> implementation of the format.

Your need to bash DirectCD is annoying, despite your otherwise
informativeness. I'm not using it - but INCD by Nero.

What can I say... the whole thing is a mess... Dunno how the layman PC
user is meant to figure it out.

Like someone else in this ng says... best to steer clear of CDRW/UDF for
a while.

Thanks, sTu.

 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by smh » Sun, 06 Jul 2003 15:05:48




> >>- Is there any OS that can properly write PW CDRW natively, un such a
> >>way that the incompatibilities between Roxio & INCD etc are eliminated?

> > Incompatibility is mainly caused by DirectCD with its buggy, proprietary
> > implementation of the UDF 1.50 standard.

> >>- Why doesn't Win XP or even 2K have built in support for this? Is it
> >>THAT new a technology?

> > Win2k reads UDF versions 1.02 and 1.50.  Winxp reads UDF versions 1.02,
> > 1.50, 2.0 and 2.01.  Win98 supports only UDF 1.02.

> The softarch website says win2k has limited support for 1.50.

So is the case with winxp.

Quote:> Not
> surprising then to find win2k boxes needing to install the driver from
> any PW developer that happens to fully exploit 1.50 when reading their
> discs.

The problem is not with win2k/xp's unsupported features of udf 1.50, but
with non-compliance with udf 1.50:

Windows 2000 Cannot Read CD-R Discs Created with DirectCD
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;Q268094

(I liken the unsupported features like a audio player not supporting
cd-text.  But the audio player still "plays" the audio with cd-text.)

Quote:> If that is all true, then its also not surprising that the PW softwares
> are diverging in their support for explicit standards when there is no
> baseline OS that provides a fixed target of UDF readability for them to
> aim at. They're all saying "well, on the win2k boxes we've tested on,
> our reader can read disks created by our writer, so we're done". WinXP
> presumably turns that on its head though. Bit late for 2k/98/me users.

Try one of the amazing packet writers.

Quote:> >>Heck... I even had my own machine (that wrote the disc) tell me that it
> >>was in a foreign format (on re-insertion), and that I'd need to install
> >>the driver to read it. Reinserted the disc, & it then worked fine.

> > There were a flood of such complaints from DirectCD users.  This type of
> > problems are NOT caused by the udf format, but by faulty, buggy
> > implementation of the format.

> Your need to bash DirectCD is annoying, despite your otherwise
> informativeness. I'm not using it - but INCD by Nero.

I know that.  Had a discussion with Jay Sottolano a while back and we
concluded that InCD 1.6 (by BHA), in comparison with InCD 1.3 (by
Prassi), opted more for compatibility with DirectCD at the expense of
conformity to the UDF 1.50. (InCD 1.3 discs were readable on win2k/xp
without any drivers.)

Quote:> What can I say... the whole thing is a mess...

DirectCD and InCD do not make the "whole" thing.  How can you talk of
the "whole" thing when you don't know the "whole" thing?

Quote:> Dunno how the layman PC
> user is meant to figure it out.

The misinformation being peddled around does not help any.

Quote:> Like someone else in this ng says... best to steer clear of CDRW/UDF for
> a while.

Why?  When the supposedly flaky, fragile, faulty, unreliable packet
"format" was good enough for BACKUP, of all things, even when combined
with supposedly flaky, fragile, forgetful, unreliable cd-rw media?

        =====================
        From:    Mike Richter (Acraptec Shill)
        Subject: A note on Take Two
        Date:    9/1/99

        You may  back up ...to a DCD-formatted erasable.
        =====================

 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by Stuart Summervill » Sun, 06 Jul 2003 23:45:50



Quote:>>Your need to bash DirectCD is annoying, despite your otherwise
>>informativeness. I'm not using it - but INCD by Nero.

> I know that.  Had a discussion with Jay Sottolano a while back and we
> concluded that InCD 1.6 (by BHA), in comparison with InCD 1.3 (by
> Prassi), opted more for compatibility with DirectCD at the expense of
> conformity to the UDF 1.50. (InCD 1.3 discs were readable on win2k/xp
> without any drivers.)

Ok, that doesn't help.

Quote:

>>What can I say... the whole thing is a mess...

> DirectCD and InCD do not make the "whole" thing.  How can you talk of
> the "whole" thing when you don't know the "whole" thing?

True, there are (likely) many other systems out there happily using UDF
for what it was designed for. My use of "the whole thing" was more about
those regular PC users out there who get a copy of INCD (or DirectCD...)
bundled with their burner, and then have to put up with the
complications. Presumably those people outnumber the rest.

Quote:

>>Dunno how the layman PC
>>user is meant to figure it out.

> The misinformation being peddled around does not help any.

As always.

Quote:

>>Like someone else in this ng says... best to steer clear of CDRW/UDF for
>>a while.

> Why?  When the supposedly flaky, fragile, faulty, unreliable packet
> "format" was good enough for BACKUP, of all things, even when combined
> with supposedly flaky, fragile, forgetful, unreliable cd-rw media?

>         =====================
>         From:    Mike Richter (Acraptec Shill)
>         Subject: A note on Take Two
>         Date:    9/1/99

>         You may  back up ...to a DCD-formatted erasable.
>         =====================

sTu.
 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by smh » Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:54:58


.            --------------------------------------
                Mike Richter, were you born with
             "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
             --------------------------------------
             Graham Mayor, were you also born with
             "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
             --------------------------------------



> >>What can I say... the whole thing is a mess...

> > DirectCD and InCD do not make the "whole" thing.  How can you talk of
> > the "whole" thing when you don't know the "whole" thing?

> True, there are (likely) many other systems out there happily using UDF
> for what it was designed for. My use of "the whole thing" was more about
> those regular PC users out there who get a copy of INCD (or DirectCD...)
> bundled with their burner, and then have to put up with the
> complications. Presumably those people outnumber the rest.

The problem you had with InCD, inserting formatted disc a couple of
times to be recognized, is a very minor annoyance compared to this.
With all its faults InCD does not have this type of bug, and it
shouldn't be lumped together it DirectCD class.

================================
From:   "BrianT"
Subject: Re: Loosing Disk Space {formatting CDRW}
Date:    5/8/03

Mike Richter (Hit&Run) wrote...


> > Hi this is strange, anyone else get this? or can explain it When I
> > re-format a CDRW with Drag to Disk Full Format {EasyCD 6}, the space
> > available after format drops by between 150 and 200 Mgs and I cannot
> > get it back. A full format on a new CDRW is OK. I have a LG
> > 52x24x52x and use TDK or Packard Bell 10X CDRW. This never happened
> > with EasyCD 5.

> The space you are losing is due to sectors found to be unreliable.
> It's a good sign that the disc is developing errors and is ready for
> the trash. You'll also find that formatting gets slower; it takes time
> to retry verification and to mark the bad sectors.

> If you insist on using fixed-length packets, you ask for that as well
> as losing data.

Mmm, but if I format a brand new CDRW I get the full monty then if I
immediately re-format, quick or full, I loose 150Mg. Surly CDRW's don't
develop errors after 5 minutes?

Also from your statement "If you insist on using fixed-length packets,
you ask for that as well as losing data" are you suggesting that the
Drag and Drop part of Easy CD is unreliable and should not be used ?

If so why does Easy Cd 6 have this software and say how easy it is to
use. Now I am very puzzled.
================================

 
 
 

packet writing SW - a few general questions

Post by smh » Tue, 08 Jul 2003 04:30:28


.           --------------------------------------
               Mike Richter, were you born with
            "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
            --------------------------------------
            Graham Mayor, were you also born with
            "Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
            --------------------------------------

Quote:> ================================
> From:   "BrianT"
> Subject: Re: Loosing Disk Space {formatting CDRW}
> Date:    5/8/03

> Mike Richter (Hit&Run) wrote...

> > The space you are losing is due to sectors found to be unreliable.
> > It's a good sign that the disc is developing errors and is ready for
> > the trash. You'll also find that formatting gets slower; it takes time
> > to retry verification and to mark the bad sectors.

> > If you insist on using fixed-length packets, you ask for that as well
> > as losing data.

> Mmm, but if I format a brand new CDRW I get the full monty then if I
> immediately re-format, quick or full, I loose 150Mg.

> Surly CDRW's don't develop errors after 5 minutes?

> ================================

  [ No Response from Hit&Run Mikey ]

==================================
From:    Arthur Lipscomb
Subject: Re: File Integrity Errors
Date:    10/13/01


> You are using the least reliable and most fragile format available for
> storage on CD.

> More than that, you appear to have flaky erasable media,
> possibly because they've been erased too often, possibly because they
> are not well matched to your writer.

... Or are you saying the problem is I'm formatting them as
rewriteable.  Which even if it's not as reliable as formatting as read
only, shouldn't have such extreme problems so quickly.  In the previous
example, the disc was formatted once, and I ran scandisc immediately
after transferring the files to the disc.  

So the problem wasn't caused by repeatedly erasing the disc.

==================================
  [ No Response from Hit&Run Mikey ]