OT: Noob question - Which DVD formats for Data?

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:33:52 -0700, "(Pete Cresswell)" <>
wrote:

>Should I stick with one of the UDF formats for data?

I'd recommend not using UDF format at all. It is not as reliable as just
burning data to the DVD with Nero in the "Make Data DVD" format. Be sure
to uncheck the "Allow data to be added later" box, thereby making the
disk readable in (nearly) all players. Also, use RW disks. They are only
a little more expensive than R and can be rewritten at least 1000 times.
Newegg usually has a stack of 100 for less than $50. They work fine. If
you are planning on archiving for a really long time - years - then the
R disks supposedly have a longer storage life than RW.


>Finally: DVD+ and DVDD-. Didn't know which, if any was better, and they were
>on sale, so I got a spindle of each. Is one preferable, or is it just a
>matter of what a given player/drive is able to read?

Both formats work ok. The reason there are two formats is one bunch of
folks didn't want to pay royalties to another bunch of folks so they
created their own format. Neither one has any significant advantage over
the other. Buy whatever is on sale and will work in your burner. Some
burners work better (fewer coasters) with one type, but that is a
function of the burner, not the format. I have a Samsung burner and it
likes +RW media, so that's what I use.

--
BT

Bill Turner

In article <>,
Bill Turner <> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:33:52 -0700, "(Pete Cresswell)" <>
>wrote:
>
>>Should I stick with one of the UDF formats for data?
>
>I'd recommend not using UDF format at all. It is not as reliable as just
>burning data to the DVD with Nero in the "Make Data DVD" format. Be sure
>to uncheck the "Allow data to be added later" box, thereby making the
>disk readable in (nearly) all players. Also, use RW disks. They are only
>a little more expensive than R and can be rewritten at least 1000 times.
>Newegg usually has a stack of 100 for less than $50. They work fine. If
>you are planning on archiving for a really long time - years - then the
>R disks supposedly have a longer storage life than RW.
>
>
>>Finally: DVD+ and DVDD-. Didn't know which, if any was better, and they were
>>on sale, so I got a spindle of each. Is one preferable, or is it just a
>>matter of what a given player/drive is able to read?

>Both formats work ok. The reason there are two formats is one
>bunch of folks didn't want to pay royalties to another bunch
>of folks so they created their own format. Neither one has any
>significant advantage over the other.

If you look at the low-level design with the - disks having the
timing on the lands and the data in the groove vs the + disk
having both the timing and data in the groove, it seems logical
that the + format is more reliable [at least potentially] and
is cheaper to make and read.

>Buy whatever is on sale and will work in your burner. Some
>burners work better (fewer coasters) with one type, but that is a
>function of the burner, not the format. I have a Samsung burner and it
>likes +RW media, so that's what I use.

My set-top uses +R/+RW while the one on my computer takes either.
The +R seem [ in my limited circle of friends that I've made discs
for ] to be more readily readable on standalone DVD players.

I've also noticed that at one time Costco used to handle TDK
-R and +R disks, now they handle only +R printables. That probably
has to do with a high-profit margin and also keeping total
inventory count low.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Bill Vermillion

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 23:15:01 GMT, (Bill Vermillion) wrote:

>If you look at the low-level design with the - disks having the
>timing on the lands and the data in the groove vs the + disk
>having both the timing and data in the groove, it seems logical
>that the + format is more reliable [at least potentially] and
>is cheaper to make and read.
__________________________________________________ _________

How does that make them more reliable?

--
BT

Bill Turner

Among others, Nero supports formats "UDF 1.02", "UDF 1.50", and "UDF 2.00".

From context, these seem like better formats for data because they handle longer
file names.

The only problem I see is that my (older) Sony DVD drive can't read them. OTOH,
the Mad Dog Multimedia drive that creates them has no problem.

Should I stick with one of the UDF formats for data?

If so, which one?

Finally: DVD+ and DVDD-. Didn't know which, if any was better, and they were
on sale, so I got a spindle of each. Is one preferable, or is it just a
matter of what a given player/drive is able to read?
--
PeteCresswell

(Pete Cresswell)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:03:19 -0700, "(Pete Cresswell)" <>
wrote:

>Per Bill Turner:
>>"Make Data DVD" format.
>
>I don't see this in Nero 6's scrolling list that contains things like "DVD-ROM
>(ISO)", "DVD Copy", "DVD-Video" and so-forth.
>
>Is it hiding somewhere else, or do I maybe need a newer version of Nero?

"DVD-Rom (ISO) IS the data dvd. It opens two windows which allow you
to drag and drop data files.

... Steve ..

Steve(JazzHunter)

Per Bill Turner:
>"Make Data DVD" format.

I don't see this in Nero 6's scrolling list that contains things like "DVD-ROM
(ISO)", "DVD Copy", "DVD-Video" and so-forth.

Is it hiding somewhere else, or do I maybe need a newer version of Nero?
--
PeteCresswell

(Pete Cresswell)

In article <>,
Bill Turner <> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 23:15:01 GMT, (Bill Vermillion) wrote:
>
>>If you look at the low-level design with the - disks having the
>>timing on the lands and the data in the groove vs the + disk
>>having both the timing and data in the groove, it seems logical
>>that the + format is more reliable [at least potentially] and
>>is cheaper to make and read.
>_________________________________________________ __________

>How does that make them more reliable?

Lower complexity almost always leads to more reliability.



--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Bill Vermillion