Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
drive? Thanks....
Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
drive? Thanks....
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Two layers.
Dual layer drives have double the capacity
"Brian J" <bjenkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0hDod.5499$VG.3001@trndny07...
> Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
> drive? Thanks....
>
Two layers.
Dual layer drives have double the capacity
"Brian J" <bjenkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0hDod.5499$VG.3001@trndny07...
> Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
> drive? Thanks....
>
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
The dual layer drive writes on two sides of a cd. You have to purchase
these cds as you can not write on the cds that we are currently using.
My experience has been that so far the DL is not totally reliable when
writing DVD.
The Phillips that comes in the Dell computers are a nightmare.
Unless you are going to write with DL cds and do extensive dvd
authoring I would get a writer that is more reliable and wait till
they perfect these more.
>Two layers.
>
>Dual layer drives have double the capacity
>"Brian J" <bjenkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0hDod.5499$VG.3001@trndny07...
>> Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
>> drive? Thanks....
>>
>
The dual layer drive writes on two sides of a cd. You have to purchase
these cds as you can not write on the cds that we are currently using.
My experience has been that so far the DL is not totally reliable when
writing DVD.
The Phillips that comes in the Dell computers are a nightmare.
Unless you are going to write with DL cds and do extensive dvd
authoring I would get a writer that is more reliable and wait till
they perfect these more.
>Two layers.
>
>Dual layer drives have double the capacity
>"Brian J" <bjenkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0hDod.5499$VG.3001@trndny07...
>> Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
>> drive? Thanks....
>>
>
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Dual layer does not write on both sides of the disc. Dual layer is just
that, dual-layer on one side. There are two data layers and the laser is
basically refocused depending on which layer needs to be written or read.
"tellme" <whois@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kq87q0prbsh36jn5bb0iegln7a1iopb5j7@4ax.com...
> The dual layer drive writes on two sides of a cd. You have to purchase
> these cds as you can not write on the cds that we are currently using.
>
> My experience has been that so far the DL is not totally reliable when
> writing DVD.
> The Phillips that comes in the Dell computers are a nightmare.
>
> Unless you are going to write with DL cds and do extensive dvd
> authoring I would get a writer that is more reliable and wait till
> they perfect these more.
>
>
>>Two layers.
>>
>>Dual layer drives have double the capacity
>>"Brian J" <bjenkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:0hDod.5499$VG.3001@trndny07...
>>> Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
>>> drive? Thanks....
>>>
>>
>
Dual layer does not write on both sides of the disc. Dual layer is just
that, dual-layer on one side. There are two data layers and the laser is
basically refocused depending on which layer needs to be written or read.
"tellme" <whois@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kq87q0prbsh36jn5bb0iegln7a1iopb5j7@4ax.com...
> The dual layer drive writes on two sides of a cd. You have to purchase
> these cds as you can not write on the cds that we are currently using.
>
> My experience has been that so far the DL is not totally reliable when
> writing DVD.
> The Phillips that comes in the Dell computers are a nightmare.
>
> Unless you are going to write with DL cds and do extensive dvd
> authoring I would get a writer that is more reliable and wait till
> they perfect these more.
>
>
>>Two layers.
>>
>>Dual layer drives have double the capacity
>>"Brian J" <bjenkins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:0hDod.5499$VG.3001@trndny07...
>>> Hi, what is the difference between a dual layer drive and not dual layer
>>> drive? Thanks....
>>>
>>
>
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Tom Scales wrote:
> Two layers.
Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
Tom Scales wrote:
> Two layers.
Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
"Tweek" <shawnwinget@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1xPod.2633$6m2.1148@trnddc04...
> Dual layer does not write on both sides of the disc. Dual layer is just
> that, dual-layer on one side. There are two data layers and the laser is
> basically refocused depending on which layer needs to be written or read.
Also, dual-layer discs are very expensive right now, around $10 per disc.
They're really not worth the cost at this point.
"Tweek" <shawnwinget@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1xPod.2633$6m2.1148@trnddc04...
> Dual layer does not write on both sides of the disc. Dual layer is just
> that, dual-layer on one side. There are two data layers and the laser is
> basically refocused depending on which layer needs to be written or read.
Also, dual-layer discs are very expensive right now, around $10 per disc.
They're really not worth the cost at this point.
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Eddie Aftandilian wrote:
> "Tweek" <shawnwinget@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1xPod.2633$6m2.1148@trnddc04...
>
>>Dual layer does not write on both sides of the disc. Dual layer is just
>>that, dual-layer on one side. There are two data layers and the laser is
>>basically refocused depending on which layer needs to be written or read.
>
> Also, dual-layer discs are very expensive right now, around $10 per disc.
> They're really not worth the cost at this point.
True, but like all previous media, the price will come down shortly.
Eddie Aftandilian wrote:
> "Tweek" <shawnwinget@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1xPod.2633$6m2.1148@trnddc04...
>
>>Dual layer does not write on both sides of the disc. Dual layer is just
>>that, dual-layer on one side. There are two data layers and the laser is
>>basically refocused depending on which layer needs to be written or read.
>
> Also, dual-layer discs are very expensive right now, around $10 per disc.
> They're really not worth the cost at this point.
True, but like all previous media, the price will come down shortly.
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:SoXod.21$8k3.13@fe10.lga...
> Tom Scales wrote:
>> Two layers.
>
> Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7 GB,
> the dual layer ones 9.<something>
Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:SoXod.21$8k3.13@fe10.lga...
> Tom Scales wrote:
>> Two layers.
>
> Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7 GB,
> the dual layer ones 9.<something>
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:
> Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
Without a doubt because of your top posting. Top posting is only readible
if one reads the whole thread and thus it is only a waste of space to quote
the text from the previous posts.
--
Hans
The organic entity known as Tom Scales communicated the following:
> Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
Without a doubt because of your top posting. Top posting is only readible
if one reads the whole thread and thus it is only a waste of space to quote
the text from the previous posts.
--
Hans
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
The organic entity known as Sparky communicated the following:
> Tom Scales wrote:
>> Two layers.
>
> Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
> GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
I think the correct number is something like 8.5 GB.
I haven't gotten deeper into the technology, so I am unsure if that is a
technology maximum or just the maximum of the currently available drives.
--
Hans
The organic entity known as Sparky communicated the following:
> Tom Scales wrote:
>> Two layers.
>
> Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
> GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
I think the correct number is something like 8.5 GB.
I haven't gotten deeper into the technology, so I am unsure if that is a
technology maximum or just the maximum of the currently available drives.
--
Hans
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Tom Scales wrote:
> Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
> news:SoXod.21$8k3.13@fe10.lga...
>
>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>>>Two layers.
>>
>>Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7 GB,
>>the dual layer ones 9.<something>
Missed it - perhaps because of top posting <not intended as a flame, BTW>
Tom Scales wrote:
> Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
> news:SoXod.21$8k3.13@fe10.lga...
>
>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>>>Two layers.
>>
>>Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7 GB,
>>the dual layer ones 9.<something>
Missed it - perhaps because of top posting <not intended as a flame, BTW>
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
LaVacheQuiRit wrote:
> The organic entity known as Sparky communicated the following:
>
>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>>>Two layers.
>>
>>Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
>>GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
>
> I think the correct number is something like 8.5 GB.
You're right, I was guessing. From:
http://www.dvdrw.com/press/duallayer.htm
Philips will demonstrate its new dual-layer DVD recordable technology at
the DVD+RW Alliance booth at the CEATEC* JAPAN 2003 exhibition in
Makuhari (Chiba, Japan) from October 7 to 11. Developed by Philips
Research in cooperation with MKM (Mitsubishi Kagaku Media)/Verbatim, the
technology virtually doubles data storage capacity on DVD recordable
discs from 4.7 Gbyte to 8.5 Gbyte while remaining compatible with
existing DVD Video players and DVD-ROM drives.
LaVacheQuiRit wrote:
> The organic entity known as Sparky communicated the following:
>
>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>>>Two layers.
>>
>>Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
>>GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
>
> I think the correct number is something like 8.5 GB.
You're right, I was guessing. From:
http://www.dvdrw.com/press/duallayer.htm
Philips will demonstrate its new dual-layer DVD recordable technology at
the DVD+RW Alliance booth at the CEATEC* JAPAN 2003 exhibition in
Makuhari (Chiba, Japan) from October 7 to 11. Developed by Philips
Research in cooperation with MKM (Mitsubishi Kagaku Media)/Verbatim, the
technology virtually doubles data storage capacity on DVD recordable
discs from 4.7 Gbyte to 8.5 Gbyte while remaining compatible with
existing DVD Video players and DVD-ROM drives.
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.
Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it. Most
seem to be academicly related.
"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:HQ8pd.25$%v2.3@fe10.lga...
> Tom Scales wrote:
>
>> Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
>> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
>> news:SoXod.21$8k3.13@fe10.lga...
>>
>>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>>
>>>>Two layers.
>>>
>>>Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
>>>GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
>
> Missed it - perhaps because of top posting <not intended as a flame, BTW>
>
Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.
Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it. Most
seem to be academicly related.
"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:HQ8pd.25$%v2.3@fe10.lga...
> Tom Scales wrote:
>
>> Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
>> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
>> news:SoXod.21$8k3.13@fe10.lga...
>>
>>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>>
>>>>Two layers.
>>>
>>>Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
>>>GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
>
> Missed it - perhaps because of top posting <not intended as a flame, BTW>
>
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
FYI
I installed a Lite-On LDW-451S in my 4550 (a basic 4X) and with the
help at this website:
http://www.cdfreaks.com/
I changed the firmware and made it a SOHW-832S (which is an 8X
dual-layer recorder)
Lite-On is an inexpensive...but very good drive.
Burning DVDs is rewarding...but takes quite a bit of study and
research to fathom.
(compared with burning cds)
FYI
I installed a Lite-On LDW-451S in my 4550 (a basic 4X) and with the
help at this website:
http://www.cdfreaks.com/
I changed the firmware and made it a SOHW-832S (which is an 8X
dual-layer recorder)
Lite-On is an inexpensive...but very good drive.
Burning DVDs is rewarding...but takes quite a bit of study and
research to fathom.
(compared with burning cds)
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Tom Scales wrote:
> Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.
>
> Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it. Most
> seem to be academicly related.
Now that *does* sound like a flame.
Tom Scales wrote:
> Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.
>
> Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it. Most
> seem to be academicly related.
Now that *does* sound like a flame.
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Sarcasm, sarcasm.
The original poke about top-posting was a flame
s
"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:8fbpd.403$Kg3.281@fe10.lga...
> Tom Scales wrote:
>> Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.
>>
>> Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it.
>> Most seem to be academicly related.
>
> Now that *does* sound like a flame.
Sarcasm, sarcasm.
The original poke about top-posting was a flame
s
"Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
news:8fbpd.403$Kg3.281@fe10.lga...
> Tom Scales wrote:
>> Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.
>>
>> Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it.
>> Most seem to be academicly related.
>
> Now that *does* sound like a flame.
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Tom,
I agree with you, except the academically part.
Nothing more
frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line reply.
Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point rebuttal to
a long post.
Paul
"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:Yfudncl1oL5xujjcRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.
>
> Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it. Most
> seem to be academicly related.
>
>
> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
> news:HQ8pd.25$%v2.3@fe10.lga...
>> Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
>>> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:SoXod.21$8k3.13@fe10.lga...
>>>
>>>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Two layers.
>>>>
>>>>Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
>>>>GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
>>
>> Missed it - perhaps because of top posting <not intended as a flame, BTW>
>>
>
>
Tom,
I agree with you, except the academically part.
Nothing more frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line reply.
Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point rebuttal to
a long post.
Paul
"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:Yfudncl1oL5xujjcRVn-hA@comcast.com...
> Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.
>
> Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it. Most
> seem to be academicly related.
>
>
> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
> news:HQ8pd.25$%v2.3@fe10.lga...
>> Tom Scales wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
>>> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:SoXod.21$8k3.13@fe10.lga...
>>>
>>>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Two layers.
>>>>
>>>>Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
>>>>GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
>>
>> Missed it - perhaps because of top posting <not intended as a flame, BTW>
>>
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
The academic part was tongue-in-cheek since Sparky has an edu domain.
"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@comcast dot net> wrote in message
news:r4udnaxJyb33fDjcRVn-sA@giganews.com...
> Tom,
> I agree with you, except the academically part. Nothing more
> frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line
> reply. Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point
> rebuttal to a long post.
> Paul
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:Yfudncl1oL5xujjcRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>> Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.
>>
>> Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it.
>> Most seem to be academicly related.
>>
>>
>> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
>> news:HQ8pd.25$%v2.3@fe10.lga...
>>> Tom Scales wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
>>>> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
>>>> news:SoXod.21$8k3.13@fe10.lga...
>>>>
>>>>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Two layers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
>>>>>GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
>>>
>>> Missed it - perhaps because of top posting <not intended as a flame,
>>> BTW>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
The academic part was tongue-in-cheek since Sparky has an edu domain.
"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@comcast dot net> wrote in message
news:r4udnaxJyb33fDjcRVn-sA@giganews.com...
> Tom,
> I agree with you, except the academically part.
Nothing more > frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line
> reply. Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point
> rebuttal to a long post.
> Paul
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:Yfudncl1oL5xujjcRVn-hA@comcast.com...
>> Yes, top posting is so much clearer and more convenient.
>>
>> Only die-hard people resistant to change have not yet recognized it.
>> Most seem to be academicly related.
>>
>>
>> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
>> news:HQ8pd.25$%v2.3@fe10.lga...
>>> Tom Scales wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I said that before you edited it out. Why did you?
>>>> "Sparky" <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message
>>>> news:SoXod.21$8k3.13@fe10.lga...
>>>>
>>>>>Tom Scales wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Two layers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which means twice as much data per DVD. The single layer DVDs hold 4.7
>>>>>GB, the dual layer ones 9.<something>
>>>
>>> Missed it - perhaps because of top posting <not intended as a flame,
>>> BTW>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
The organic entity known as Paul Schilter communicated the following:
> Tom,
> I agree with you, except the academically part. Nothing more
> frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line
> reply. Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point
> rebuttal to a long post.
Scrolling? Why not just use the "skip quoted text" button?
--
Hans
The organic entity known as Paul Schilter communicated the following:
> Tom,
> I agree with you, except the academically part.
Nothing more > frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line
> reply. Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point
> rebuttal to a long post.
Scrolling? Why not just use the "skip quoted text" button?
--
Hans
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)
Why should I have to click a button to get to the bottom when the right way
to post is top-post?
"LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns95ACB93776DD112345679x81@194.109.133.29...
> The organic entity known as Paul Schilter communicated the following:
>
>> Tom,
>> I agree with you, except the academically part. Nothing more
>> frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line
>> reply. Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point
>> rebuttal to a long post.
>
> Scrolling? Why not just use the "skip quoted text" button?
>
> --
> Hans
Why should I have to click a button to get to the bottom when the right way
to post is top-post?
"LaVacheQuiRit" <i.dont.want.spam@xs4all.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns95ACB93776DD112345679x81@194.109.133.29...
> The organic entity known as Paul Schilter communicated the following:
>
>> Tom,
>> I agree with you, except the academically part.
Nothing more>> frustrating than scrolling down a rather long post to read a one line
>> reply. Top post rules! The exception would be to make a point by point
>> rebuttal to a long post.
>
> Scrolling? Why not just use the "skip quoted text" button?
>
> --
> Hans
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Elon Musk took 19 days to set up 100,000 Nvidia H200 GPUs; process normally takes 4 years- Started by Admin
- Replies: 36
-
News Intel and AMD forge x86 ecosystem advisory group that aims to ensure a unified ISA moving forward
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 29
-
News Leak indicates AMD Ryzen 9000X3D series CPU gaming performance will disappoint
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 107
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram