[james_hardin]

These are my views:

Compatible? Media formatted with any prior version of D2D or DCD will not be writable with V9 D2D. However it is fully readable.

Media formatted with D2D V9 is backward compatible (writable) to V6. V5 and earlier will not be able to write to it.

BSOD? I have seen it twice. First time and the disc was lost. Second time and the disc was intact… After the second one I made 21 more writes plus 13 erases all with ejects and no problems.

File Limits? Probably but I have not hit the limit. My testing used a folder with 4,318 files in it. Wrote this folder to a DVD 3 times (12,954 files) before it was full and had to be erased.

File Size Limits? Not that I can tell as long as UDF is the file system used in the format. I have written a single 4.2+gb file to a DVD without a problem.

File System? I prefer the straight UDF 2.0, the default of V9. If you choose Joliet or ISO9660 you are limiting yourself to the standards of Win9 and Win3!

All DVD movies are written in UDF 2.0 so why limit yourself to yesterday?

Format? Quick or Full? Good question! Quick requires the burner to be capable of that system. It takes longer to write and eject. Quick Formatted media if placed in a burner not capable of using that system will result in a read only operation. If it can't write, it can't write… Full Format takes longer but overall, the time is the same in the end. Suit yourself on this one.

Open or Close? For trouble free operation with D2D, leave the disc open. If you close it, you will never be able to write to it again unless it is an RW and you format it. I have not had an instance where a disc was not readable on a PC. Some may have a problem with early MAC OS's or Linux/Unix. Use Classic and you won't have these problems. (a matter of picking the right tool for the job) See the picture below for the settings.

Reliable? In a word - NO! packet writers are the least reliable form of burning ever devised. The reasons are varied and most failures focus on the operator with media as 1st runner-up. Normally it fails without any warning. You may or may not be able to recover your written data. Some 3rd party programs, Iso Buster or CD Roller, may help. But it really falls back to why did you let yourself get here?

Media? RW media is life limited. Like a battery, you only get so many writes/erases before you wear it out. Newer RW media is cheaper than that of 2002 or so. It is cheaper because they found a cheaper coating. It has proven less durable than pre-2002 RW media!

R media is as good as it gets but even if you erase a file, you can never recover the space it used.

Uses? Practically speaking, it is a great way to move data from one PC to another where no other means exists. Today, USB, Flash Drives and External Drives have nearly erased any practical reason for packet writers like D2D!

It should never, never be used for "backups" or "archives"!!!

Attached image(s)

• 

[BonzaiDuck]

james_hardin, on Dec 27 2006, 03:47 PM, said:

These are my views:

Compatible? Media formatted with any prior version of D2D or DCD will not be writable with V9 D2D. However it is fully readable.

Media formatted with D2D V9 is backward compatible (writable) to V6. V5 and earlier will not be able to write to it.

BSOD? I have seen it twice. First time and the disc was lost. Second time and the disc was intact… After the second one I made 21 more writes plus 13 erases all with ejects and no problems.

File Limits? Probably but I have not hit the limit. My testing used a folder with 4,318 files in it. Wrote this folder to a DVD 3 times (12,954 files) before it was full and had to be erased.

File Size Limits? Not that I can tell as long as UDF is the file system used in the format. I have written a single 4.2+gb file to a DVD without a problem.

File System? I prefer the straight UDF 2.0, the default of V9. If you choose Joliet or ISO9660 you are limiting yourself to the standards of Win9 and Win3!

All DVD movies are written in UDF 2.0 so why limit yourself to yesterday?

Format? Quick or Full? Good question! Quick requires the burner to be capable of that system. It takes longer to write and eject. Quick Formatted media if placed in a burner not capable of using that system will result in a read only operation. If it can't write, it can't write… Full Format takes longer but overall, the time is the same in the end. Suit yourself on this one.

Open or Close? For trouble free operation with D2D, leave the disc open. If you close it, you will never be able to write to it again unless it is an RW and you format it. I have not had an instance where a disc was not readable on a PC. Some may have a problem with early MAC OS's or Linux/Unix. Use Classic and you won't have these problems. (a matter of picking the right tool for the job) See the picture below for the settings.

Reliable? In a word - NO! packet writers are the least reliable form of burning ever devised. The reasons are varied and most failures focus on the operator with media as 1st runner-up. Normally it fails without any warning. You may or may not be able to recover your written data. Some 3rd party programs, Iso Buster or CD Roller, may help. But it really falls back to why did you let yourself get here?

Media? RW media is life limited. Like a battery, you only get so many writes/erases before you wear it out. Newer RW media is cheaper than that of 2002 or so. It is cheaper because they found a cheaper coating. It has proven less durable than pre-2002 RW media!

R media is as good as it gets but even if you erase a file, you can never recover the space it used.

Uses? Practically speaking, it is a great way to move data from one PC to another where no other means exists. Today, USB, Flash Drives and External Drives have nearly erased any practical reason for packet writers like D2D!

It should never, never be used for "backups" or "archives"!!!

Your observations are quite useful. I've used D2D (previously Adaptec DirectCD) for years -- and for making backups.

Do you recommend instead the use of Creator Classic to make backup data discs? (Other than BUMP?)

I've also noticed that there is no "Scandisc" feature with my D2D installation. What happened to that?

[james_hardin]

BonzaiDuck, on Jan 6 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

Your observations are quite useful. I've used D2D (previously Adaptec DirectCD) for years -- and for making backups.

Do you recommend instead the use of Creator Classic to make backup data discs? (Other than BUMP?)

I've also noticed that there is no "Scandisc" feature with my D2D installation. What happened to that?

Go back and re-read what I said about "Reliable?" as well as my last sentence!

BUMP or any other dedicated backup system require the writing program to restore data. There is no guarantee that, that specific program will even run on a future PC when the time comes that you need it!

I have a CD disc backup set made with Take Two. It will not even install on any XP PC. What good is that backup set?

Whereas if you use Classic, you are reasonably assured that the media will be readable for many years to come. You still have to pay some attention to technology changes. You don't want to be sleeping when CD's and DVD's go the way of 8" Floppies or even 5 1/4" floppies…

Scandisc is gone and soon forgotten. I never had it do anything for me that ISO Buster or CD Roller couldn't do better!

[MikeE]

James, you said "...Use Classic and you won't have these problems...".

Is there a reason you recommended Classic over Record9? Other than the obvious user interface of the two, is there any 'technical' or 'format' difference of the CD's created with them.

My tests with R/W CD's showed that initially creating a CD with one of them and leaving the CD 'open' then the other program could add additional files. So the two programs didn't have any problems using a R/W CD regardless of which one initially wrote to the CD.

Just curious if your choice was a matter of preference for the end-user screens of one compared to the other, or if there was a 'deeper' reason for recommending Classic.

Thanks, Mike E

[sknis]

MikeE, on Jan 25 2007, 06:15 AM, said:

James, you said "...Use Classic and you won't have these problems...".

Is there a reason you recommended Classic over Record9? Other than the obvious user interface of the two, is there any 'technical' or 'format' difference of the CD's created with them.

My tests with R/W CD's showed that initially creating a CD with one of them and leaving the CD 'open' then the other program could add additional files. So the two programs didn't have any problems using a R/W CD regardless of which one initially wrote to the CD.

Just curious if your choice was a matter of preference for the end-user screens of one compared to the other, or if there was a 'deeper' reason for recommending Classic.

Thanks, Mike E

Are you talking about Record 9 Music Studio? If so, that's more like Music Disc Creator (included in EMC 9). Classic is primarily for recording non-music files (images, photos, etc.) As you probably know D2D is a packet writing program and, as implemented in any packet writing program, has problems, You can search these boards for other's experience.

[MikeE]

sknis, on Jan 25 2007, 05:03 AM, said:

Are you talking about Record 9 Music Studio? If so, that's more like Music Disc Creator (included in EMC 9). Classic is primarily for recording non-music files (images, photos, etc.) As you probably know D2D is a packet writing program and, as implemented in any packet writing program, has problems, You can search these boards for other's experience.

I'm talking about EMC9's Record Now, not Record 9 - Music Studio.

My question was to find out if there are any differences between RecordNow Data and Creator Classic with respect to the actual CD recording - not differences for the user interface using RecordNow vs: Classic.

From Start/Programs/Roxio/etc... select Record Now Data



Then from the main EMC9 menu select Data Disk



Regards, MikeE

[sknis]

MikeE, on Jan 25 2007, 10:38 AM, said:

I'm talking about EMC9's Record Now, not Record 9 - Music Studio.
Regards, MikeE

Sorry I misunderstood. I think that Record Now is more of the Sonic Solutions application that is incorporated in the EMC 9 where Creator Classic's heritage is Roxio. They should both work well and neither are packet writing programs. There are other examples of Sonic Solutions application in EMC 9 such as Audio CD that opens in the Home screen. I don't like that one since it insists on searching for my audio files every time I open it.

Classic was recommended probably because of the Roxio experience of the poster. A person who used Sonic Solutions MyDVD and other programs would have used Record Now as the example. Sorry James, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.

This post has been edited by sknis: 25 January 2007 - 08:57 AM

[MikeE]

I tend to use Classic as I can open it a bit faster than Record Now. Although they both open pretty slow for me, at least w/ Classic I by-pass the main EMC9 Home Menu.

And part of the reason I asked about their interchangeablility and compatibiliy is based on something you said - they each have different roots - so are there any issues or gotcha's interchanging them when writing to a CD.

Regards, MikeE

[bds1958]

james_hardin, on Dec 27 2006, 11:47 PM, said:

These are my views:

File System? I prefer the straight UDF 2.0, the default of V9. If you choose Joliet or ISO9660 you are limiting yourself to the standards of Win9 and Win3!

When I burn a Data DVD the burn options are set to ISO+Joliet by default.

Should I be choosing the ISO+Joliet+UDF option?

[james_hardin]

bds1958, on Jan 25 2007, 05:07 PM, said:

When I burn a Data DVD the burn options are set to ISO+Joliet by default.

Should I be choosing the ISO+Joliet+UDF option?

The Topic is D2D, not Classic, not RecordNow.

I'll let these posts stand for a day or 2 then they will be deleted!

But to answer your question, if you use UDF, No Bridge in Classic you won't run into the stone wall of Joliet. If you don't know what I am talking about, you will when you hit it!

[bds1958]

james_hardin, on Jan 25 2007, 10:18 PM, said:

The Topic is D2D, not Classic, not RecordNow.

I'll let these posts stand for a day or 2 then they will be deleted!

But to answer your question, if you use UDF, No Bridge in Classic you won't run into the stone wall of Joliet. If you don't know what I am talking about, you will when you hit it!

Thanks.

[MikeE]

It's fine if you delete the messages. I started the Classic vs: Recordnow question based on a statement you made in your post. In your post you recommended to use Classic. I was asking / trying to find out why you made that recommendation.

Your answer, and I quote you:

" But to answer your question, if you use UDF, No Bridge in Classic you won't run into the stone wall of Joliet. If you don't know what I am talking about, you will when you hit it! "

Now in my humble opinion, that is not a very clear answer. You warn " you'll know when you hit it. Are you telling me that I shouldn't use RecordNow because someday I'll hit "... the stone wall ...".

It seems you know something "we don't know" ... and for whatever reason ... are unwilling to share it with us beyond a cryptic warning. Is it so hard for you to explain the 'stone wall of Joliet' to those of us with less knowledge than you?

Regards, MikeE

[gi7omy]

The reason for any deletion here is nothing to do with who may be hiding what and from whom

It's simple - this topic shouldn't be IN this forum in the first place - there are other sections where it should be

This is for hints to be posted if they are workrounds or fixes so that they're all kept together and easy for other people to find. They will NOT find them if the forum gets cluttered up

[james_hardin]

Mike: My reply was to bds1958, that is why I quoted his post.

In answer to your Basic question, Daithi put the right words in my mouth, I use Classic and don't even have RecordNow installed. Either one is fine.

Joliet limits are free to those that seek them…

Filename – 64 characters max
Pathname – 128 characters (full path + filename)
8 subdirectories max
4gb file length limit

[MikeE]

oops! James, my mistake.

And that's why you were heading in the right direction re: deleteing some of these posts to keep it "on topic". As the thread diverts from the original topic, it not only can get confusing, but it can also waste other people's time who are interested in the original topic.

Regards, Mike