Burning ISOs at slowest speed?

[oz]

Hi ozar. Personally, I don't see the need to buy a new drive just to burn faster. It's only a few more minutes to wait...

Good morning, Dap!

If a drive is defective, burning at the slowest rate possible could add many more minutes to burn time if you have several ISO files to burn to disk. Of course if a person has plenty of spare time, that might be the better way to go rather than spend $20 on a drive that works properly. I do agree entirely that it is a personal matter that should be decided by the owner of the drive.

My point was that it is not absolutely necessary to always burn at the slowest possible speed for all users. Hope all that made sense with the clarification.

[Dapper Dan]

My point was that it is not absolutely necessary to always burn at the slowest possible speed for all users. Hope all that made sense with the clarification.

Absolutely, I was mainly just "funnin'." But really, if there's anything I dislike more than waiting a few more minutes for a CD to bake, it's replacing hardware in my computers! Even if a new drive was five dollars, I'd be loath to do the work unless the present drive stopped functioning properly. There was a time when I enjoyed tinkering on my boxes, but after years of having to do it so much, it's become drudgery.

[Jonathan183]

I always burn at minimum speed ... unless I forget . I'll buy a new drive if the one I have stops working ... but not to increase burn speed. If it takes 4 times as long to burn the CD but gives me a better chance of being able to read the information off it I'll take the extra time ... that way it only costs me a bit of time (and I can always find something else to do while its burning anyway).

[Dapper Dan]

that way it only costs me a bit of time (and I can always find something else to do while its burning anyway).

That's when I usually head to the bar and pour a few adult beverages...

[Bemk]

I just burn at the lowest speed possible, with my drive, just to reduce the chance of wasting disks. Until now the low speeds have worked fine. The failed disk I told about was at school, using a really old device. Higher speeds at my own systems have never failed, but I don't want to risk wasting disks as I already have said.

[jayd512]

Personally, I prefer to burn slower just to avoid the chance that I'll be wasting a perfectly useful disc.
I've only had 2 bad burns, and both happened when I forgot to lower the speed, and used 48x burning on a 48x capable disc.
Might have just been coincidence, but it was enough for me.

[Krendoshazin]

I have a 18x dvd burner but the burn often fails if I use 18x, so I use 16x which works perfectly.

I just realised that the media I use is rated for 16x which would probably explain why it fails. I should get hold of some 18x media to test it.

Edit: There doesn't appear to be any 18x dvd media. There are 22x dvd burners but these are designed to burn at 22x on 16x discs. Whether you actually get that or not is another question.

[jayd512]

Edit: There doesn't appear to be any 18x dvd media. There are 22x dvd burners but these are designed to burn at 22x on 16x discs. Whether you actually get that or not is another question.

Which is why I, like others here, usually burn at lower speeds than are the supported maximum. It makes for a good habit that helps you avoid making coasters due to differences like that.