|
Pentium3 machine?
|
|
|
Jane1
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2005 @ 18:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hello,
Will a DVD burner work on an Intel 733 CPU, P3 machine?
Thanks.
Jane Conners
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
Ppower
Senior Member
|
18. June 2005 @ 18:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah it will work, you probably won't be testing any 16x media but yeah it will work
|
|
Jane1
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2005 @ 18:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks for the clarification.
You mean that I won?t be burning at 16x, yea?
Of course not......DVD burn at 4x, & CD at 24x.
& Sony DRU- 800 A, DVD Burner on Secondary Master & Asus 16x DVDROM on slave.
Is that fine?
Jane Conners
|
Moderator
|
18. June 2005 @ 20:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yea .. I used to use a P3 450Mhz w/ 386MB SDRAM.
It will just take longer. And don't multitask :)
|
|
Jane1
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2005 @ 20:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks.
It?s a 733 CPU e 512 of memory.
I understand that will take long, but any technical reason for not Multitasking?
Jane Conners
|
Moderator
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
encoding a dvd already consumes alot of your processor. Even on my machine I never multitask. Just habit ... don't want any errors :)
Also, I know you say you wouldn't burn at 16x. Not alot of burners are good at burning at 8x. 4x IMO is the best speed for burning. 4x takes around 20 minutes while 8x takes around 15-16. the extra 4-5 minutes is worth it.
|
|
Auslander
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
it can cause errors in your encoding and burning that will create skips, freezes, pixellation, and other problems in your finished video.
*edit*
darn flip, you beat me to it.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2005 @ 21:09
|
|
Jane1
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have been advised by a friend to always burn a DVD at 4x & CD at 24X, despite what ever the speeds, burner supports.
Jane Conners
|
|
Auslander
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
that's a good way to go.
|
|
smsmike
Member
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
flip218 (Moderator) 19. June 2005 @ 01:00:
Encoding a dvd already consumes a lot of your processor. Even on my machine I never multitask. Just habit ... don't want any errors :)
Also, I know you say you wouldn't burn at 16x. Not a lot of burners are good at burning at 8x. 4x IMO is the best speed for burning. 4x takes around 20 minutes while 8x takes around 15-16. the extra 4-5 minutes is worth it.
================================
Flip, I know that everyone has their preferences, but I have been burning at 16X WITH printed paper disk labels applied to my blank media for as long as the faster speeds have been available. My failure rate is about 2 percent. I was getting that same failure rate at the slower speeds without the labels, so I really don't see any reason for even considering the lower speeds anymore. I burn an average of 50 disks a month WITH paper labels attached.
Seems to me that if you have decent media, and a good burner, the faster speeds present no major problems (from my experience) yours, however, may differ.
- Mike -
|
|
Jane1
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wanna pic of a REAL WOLF.
I have one as my partner/pet.
Take care.
Jane Conners
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2005 @ 21:17
|
Moderator
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:18 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
yours, however, may differ.
Well I use Verbatim 8x +R's. MCC03 media ID.
I just don't like wasting blanks ... even if it is 2%. And so far my backups still play after a year and a half.
but hey sounds like you found the right burner, and the right media.
|
|
Auslander
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
smsmike, you're kinda walking a fine line there. while your performance today may be good, you can't guarantee how your dvd's wil age.
jane1, have a pic of a real wolf, eh? cool, pm me about it :-) me loves all zee animals, but wolves rock more than the rest. XD
*edit*
i swear to god flip, you're out to beat me to every thread tonight.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2005 @ 21:22
|
|
Jane1
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
Np I shall.
Could you please address the code/ password post of mine.
Thanks & take care.
Jane Conners
|
|
Auslander
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
i'll see what i can do :-)
|
|
Jane1
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
I appreciate a person's trying; results are left to the ultimate savior.
Jane Conners
|
|
smsmike
Member
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:45 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Auslander (Senior Member) 19. June 2005 @ 01:21
smsmike, you're kinda walking a fine line there. while your performance today may be good, you can't guarantee how your dvd's wil age.
===============================
I tried the quote text input - I hope I did it right...
====
I doubt that I will have any problems in the future with those disks. I always burn with Nero and have the VERIFY option flagged so that each and every burn is checked against the file on the HD. If it passes that check, it is NOT going to decay any faster or any slower than the media it is written to. Since I use RIdata DVD+R (16X) disks, I don't worry about quality. If the film is good, the burn will last for years and years.
Just a side note: I have disks from two years ago that were burned on K- Hypermedia (bottom of the barrel) disks, With the Paper Labels attached prior to burning, and they still play just fine. NEC Burners just seem to get the job done no matter what media you put into them.
============================
- Mike -
|
Moderator
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:48 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
NEC Burners just seem to get the job done no matter what media you put into them.
I'll argue that one :) ... I had a NEC 1300 crap out on me. I've had no problems with my NEC 2510 or 2500. But IMO Plextor makes the best burners.
|
|
Auslander
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2005 @ 21:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
your quote turned out just fine :)
you're one lucky SOB then, if all that is working so well for you. personally, i've never heard of a track record so good. as for myself, i'll stick with caution and try to prevent being SOL along such lines. but if it's working for you, i'm not about to demand you change your ways. hope it all keeps up.
*edit*
you're an evil man with a fast connection, flip :-P
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2005 @ 21:53
|
|
Jane1
Suspended permanently
|
18. June 2005 @ 22:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Out of the 3 which brand would you guys recommend as a DVD burner:
1.Sony DRU-800A
2.Plextor.
3.NEC.
Is it ok if I keep using the Asus 16x Quie track DVDROM or would you recommend changing that too?
Thanks.
Jane Conners
|
Moderator
|
18. June 2005 @ 22:17 |
Link to this message
|
I've seen this in some guys sig ... great guy, somewhat knows his stuff :) lol
Quote:
Plextor PX-716A, Lite-On 167T
|
Moderator
|
18. June 2005 @ 22:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
If ya got the bucks, I would replace it.
A LiteOn goes for around $25 U.S. and if you got the money to burn I would go with Plextor. They make excellent burners. My PX 716 actually is in DMA 4 mode and rips faster than my DVD ROM.
But for a budget burner, can't beat the NEC drive (3520 or 3540).
so it's up to you Plextor or NEC.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2005 @ 22:21 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I've seen this in some guys sig ... great guy, somewhat knows his stuff :) lol
Somewhat is right :) <g>
And the "Great guy" part is surely debate-able.
Im sure one of the 1000,s of BANNED people would agree.
But your OK in my book Flip :)
Just dont 'Quote' me on the last part.
Possunt Quia Posse Videntur. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2005 @ 22:24
|
|
smsmike
Member
|
18. June 2005 @ 22:28 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Jane1 (Newbie) 19. June 2005 @ 02:14
Out of the 3 which brand would you guys recommend as a DVD burner:
1.Sony DRU-800A
2.Plextor.
3.NEC.
Is it ok if I keep using the Asus 16x Quie track DVDROM or would you recommend changing that too?
Thanks.
=============================
That's not a question one can answer unless one has used all three burners, Jane. I have used a Lite-On burner and a TEAC. Both did the job but not as well as any of my NEC burners have. I currently have five burners in use; all NEC. Of course, I have two very fast computers, running Windows XP - and with two 160 Gig Hard Drives in each computer. SO, I do have an advantage when it comes to playing around with program and drive setups and the like.
As for your old DVD ROM, it won't hurt to keep it. If for no other reason than to TEST run the movies you have burned against a different reader. Keep in mind that DVD Burners are very, very sensitive, and they will fail to read through some flaws and errors that a normal DVD player has no problems with. Just hang onto the ROM drive until you really need something different in that slot.
- Mike -
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
smsmike
Member
|
18. June 2005 @ 22:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Jane 1
Just an aside to make sure you understand something about burning DVDs that is very important. You MUST have your Hard Drive partitioned in NTFS (NT File System) in order to handle the large files that are generated when you copy disk files and Images to the Hard Drive. If you are still running FAT 32 disk partitions, on that old machine, you will have to change it over. I am hoping you are at least running Windows 2000 or better as an OS. Don't even attempt it with Windows 98!
- Mike -
|
