OT: Noob question - Which DVD formats for Data?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Bill Turner, Apr 9, 2005.

  1. Bill Turner

    Bill Turner Guest

    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, Apr 9, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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, Apr 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill Turner

    Bill Turner Guest

    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, Apr 10, 2005
    #3
  4. 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), Apr 10, 2005
    #4
  5. 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), Apr 11, 2005
    #5
  6. 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), Apr 11, 2005
    #6
  7. 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, Apr 12, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    6,145
    Allan
    Jul 15, 2005
  2. Jonathan Walker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    592
    Peter
    Aug 26, 2007
  3. JimDoire

    Here a noob, there a noob....

    JimDoire, Apr 10, 2008, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    469
    JimDoire
    Apr 10, 2008
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,436
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. helena68
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,495
    popularscan
    Nov 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page