Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 28 of 28
Originally Posted by Dapper Dan 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... ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #21
    oz
    oz is offline
    forum.guy
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    arch linux
    Posts
    18,733

    Quote Originally Posted by Dapper Dan View Post
    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.
    oz

  2. #22
    Trusted Penguin Dapper Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Sovereign State of South Carolina
    Posts
    4,630
    Quote Originally Posted by ozar View Post
    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.
    Linux Mint + IceWM Registered: #371367 New Members: click here

  3. #23
    Linux Guru Jonathan183's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,043
    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).

  4. #24
    Trusted Penguin Dapper Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Sovereign State of South Carolina
    Posts
    4,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan183 View Post
    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...
    Linux Mint + IceWM Registered: #371367 New Members: click here

  5. #25
    Linux Enthusiast Bemk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Oosterhout-NB, Netherlands
    Posts
    525
    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.

  6. #26
    Administrator jayd512's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,023
    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.
    Jay

    New users, read this first.
    New Member FAQ
    Registered Linux User #463940
    I do not respond to private messages asking for Linux help. Please keep it on the public boards.

  7. #27
    Linux User Krendoshazin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by Krendoshazin View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    Administrator jayd512's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,023
    Quote Originally Posted by Krendoshazin View Post
    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.
    Jay

    New users, read this first.
    New Member FAQ
    Registered Linux User #463940
    I do not respond to private messages asking for Linux help. Please keep it on the public boards.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •