|
|
|
Is Shrink too slow?
|
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
9. January 2005 @ 21:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes, software can hard to get just right. XP can be great or be a curse. I have adjusted like 100 settings so it works good for me. On Linux, you might find you like some things better, but also find that many typical things you can do in XP are a pain to get to work under linux. The grass is always greener on the other side, LOL. My opinion is that it's not really any better...... Unless you really know what you want it for, then it's perfect for some. It all depends on how much and what you want to do with it I guess. I've done systems for many years, and it doesn't float my boat. I only see it as a typical tool good for some types of biz's. Also, you will encounter just as many problems like you did tonight under linux anyway. Not to mention some things you like to get on the market may not be compatible (hardware/software). Your friend will obviously show you it's best points. Only you can decide what's best of course. But again, it's only my opinion.. I'm glad you appreciated the help. I hope you get it all going.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. January 2005 @ 22:02
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
9. January 2005 @ 22:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
Now my DVD seems to be playing DVD only sometimes, I did remove a fair amount of software some of which had to do with playing videos and alot of it I never heard of before either, but its getting stressful and Im just gonna worry about it tommorrow.
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
10. January 2005 @ 07:45 |
Link to this message
|
Well finally that Nero test is working for me. I don't know what I did to get it to work but as long as it works I guess.
DVD-RW start at 6.82X End at 14.98X
DVD ROM Start at 3.20X End at 6.79X
I should have wrote down more numbers, but either way the DVD ROM seems to be quite slow in comparason to the RW drive both of which are rated at 16X read speed. Is this a sign of a bad drive?
|
|
punx777
Senior Member
|
10. January 2005 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
man this thread got big fast, noone answered my question on the first or 2nd page yet and i have a feeling it aint gunna get answered
matrix infiniy modded ps2 (broken, burnt out PS1 fuse)
xbox(freshly softmodded with krazies)xbmc dash. Stock HDD.
www.norcalmods.com did my ps2 mod, cheap n fast:)
DOWN WITH APPLE!
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
10. January 2005 @ 20:11 |
Link to this message
|
Ok someone will answer it, You want to know what the difference between shrink and decrypter is? Well I don't know much about it but I only use decrypter when it is absolutely necessary to rip a movie, such as RE2 which is the only time I have ever used it. I use shrink and Nero all the time. I know DVD Decrypter is capable of burning a DVD and DVD Shrink is not by itself. But Im sure someone can give a better answer then I just gave.
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
11. January 2005 @ 07:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
I finally remembered to check my memory usage while buring. Well It is all over the place which is probably not good anywhere from 6000K to 375000K of available memory, although it was at 375000 between tracks, maybe that is normal, but going down to 6000K thats don't sound good. Should I be getting more RAM?
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
11. January 2005 @ 21:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
New carpet is being installed in the next day or two which means the entire office is being emptied, including computers, LOL. So I've been slowed down, but anyway - Sounds like you got your problems resovled and even the Nero Speed test.. Yes, I do see the difference between your drives. It seems like your newer one does a lot better than the older one. That's another good use for the test.. comparing drives.
Since your memory dips down to 6000K (6MB) , I'd say get more ram if you prefer xp being smoother. I could not remember how 512MB responded before, but do now. It will sink down to zero as data goes over the bus. XP uses ram differently depending on how much you give it. I have 1GB, and it immediately grabs 300MB to 350MB leaving 650 to 700MB (roughly) available. But after that, the number never sinks to zero in most applications including burning. Almost everything I do it sits at nearly 700MB free, or 670 roughly. This is *great* because that means when it is done the XP memory cache is not blown. That memory cache holds info for XP, icons bits of graphics (everything) and tries to remember them for later. If it can remember what it loaded before, thing will seem to load very quickly as they are loaded from ram and not HD. If your memory goes down to zero, you will see that your system responds very slowly after burning for a minute or two. If you open a browser, it must be totally reloaded. Not the end of the world.. But I like it simply popping up fast. It also helps to multi-task when burning if programs stay in ram. I make it a point to not do anything much during a burn, but I can open a browser if I choose and it's smooth.
The reason is XP needs a certain amount of ram to funnel the movie data through. After that 300MB it doesn't seem to touch the rest when you have 1GB. I don't want to say this is true always, but I've watched mine and it sure seems to be like that with 1GB. When you have 512MB it works differently. XP grabs nearly all of it, then tries to make use of the swap file. You'd think it would grab 300 and leave 212, but it doesn't work like that. It's hard to explain exactly why because XP responds differently depending on what you give it. For example, XP grab as much ram as possible when it sees a 256MB system. Yet it will leave some. But with each program load it just ends up with all of it. It just balances XP and apps with swap files and that is slower. If all your XP is cached in 1GB it will stay smooth for most things. It's not a MUST to buy the ram if you are burning fine. I'd say get it if you like not running out and want XP staying smoother. It will make your windows more responsive after doing other large memory gobbling things too. With 512 you are seeing it run out a little. Someone with 256 would see this happen a lot faster and more. I don't see it at all.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2005 @ 22:03
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
11. January 2005 @ 21:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi, punx777 Decrypter was written before shrink. It's big use was to decrypt the key allowing the video to be backed up. Programs like Nero or Easy CD will not allow you to back up programs. Newer versions of Decrypter allowed more, like the ability to burn directly... But newer programs, like from 321 studios XCOPY and Shrink decrypted, backed up in a way that "seemed" easier for some people. Also Shrinks big feature is that it will *Recompress* a video on a 9GB layer 9 DVD down so it can fit on a store bought 4.3GB blank using special compression methods. Decrypter won't do this.... Unless a new version now can. At least that is how it started out. So they are very similiar but from different authors and with some different main features. Shrink also seems to be very intuitive allowing you to move sliders and delete sections of the DVD while keeping the struture the same.. Still, Decrypter has other advantages. And as Sean5775 pointed out Shrink needs to know that burning software is availble or it doesn't work.
Decrypter can allow reading in ISO mode and seems to be more of a technical tool, while Shrink seems to be more set up for simply backing up movies. With ISO mode in decrypter you could for example pretty much clone the older/smaller type DVD5's that are 4.3GB or under with decrypter in ISO mode rather than file mode. But the output of a large DVD won't fit on a small 4.3 from decrypter. When this all started 2 years back or so, people had to get special editing tools to make a large DVD fit on 2 smaller DVD's and they would split them. Not much fun. There's more but that is the very basic idea. One suggestion. If you find that people seem to ignore your question, it may not be on purpose. In a large thread, started by someone else, sometimes questions are accidently missed. If you start a brand new thread, it will usually get answered faster than burying it in a thread with a different topic. I actually didn't even see yours even though I thought I read it all. I'm not trying to be rude, just helpful. I'd bet that if you stated a new thread right now, you would get tons of answers with even more info. It also may already be answered someone in the forum, and search might help.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2005 @ 21:46
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
11. January 2005 @ 22:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well Im getting really stressed over all this. I bought a few new DVD's today and backed them up. Well the first one took 3 and a half hours, and the second one took 2 hours and 15 minutes and it did not require compression. Basically put, Im back to square one. I even tried yet another backup of Troy, which I did all my testing with and it was well over 3 hours. I did it in under 1 hour at one point. I even disabled all startup items and non Microsoft services and the time was not improved, although the Ram seemed to stay around 275000, which is does not do if I just do the backup with all the other regular processes etc running.
Before I rush out and buy some new RAM, I can remove the extra RAM out of my second computer which will boost this one to 1GB and see how that might change things.
I already checked the drives to make sure they are in DMA mode and other then that I'm fresh out of ideas as to what would have caused the dramatic slowdown of these backups. I did a defrag 2 days ago and tested with Troy right after that and it was under 1 hour. Then today its right back to how it was when I started this thread, about a week ago or so.
Will post back after I put the new RAM in, im gonna do that right away actually, somehow I have the feeling that this is not gonna make a big difference, hopefully I'm wrong. LOL
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
11. January 2005 @ 22:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sorry to hear that your burning is slow again. I guess there is something messing you up that you have not discovered yet. And I don't have any idea what it could be. I edited my suggestion about ram to actually add the fact that more ram will not speed up your burn anyway.. Only you had read it and wrote back before I got done editing it, lol.. I edit a lot sometimes. If you look at my edit time you will see we were writing at the same time. So you might want to re-read it. I suggest that it will make your XP really nice and smooth and you should try it if you want that to be the case. I doubt it will solve your burning problems. As for it staying at 275000 with services disabled, that means you hit the sweet spot where xp is funneling data without depleting cache memory. If you have too much happening, XP tends to just start drinking it until it's gone.. But try your 1GB, and you'll *most likely* find that it reaches a certain point and quits sinking in most cases. Again, it's not needed for burning. If you only had 128 or 256, I'd wonder, but not with 512... But yes, your problem is most likely not your ram, but something undiscovered so far. I suspect it too, because first you are quick, then you are slow.
It might simply be that your other drive is somehow intermittently causing your read speed to be slow. This is just a guess, but maybe you should pull out your older drive and see if the problem clears up. Another idea, you could have cable going bad. I really really, hate to guess and cause people to do things that don't work, LOL..... But I'm tossing out ideas.
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
11. January 2005 @ 22:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
A few more random ideas. Some of these are annoying and time consuming, but I'll put them here. Your problem could be almost anything with hardware or software... but if you have another IDE cable, try it for the CDrom, and maybe the drive. Then you eliminate that possibility. I once had a 2nd drive's letter D: keep dissapearing in XP. I tried everything for days only to find out my IDE cable had bad wires in it, and a new one solved it. Try only the faster burner without dvd-rom for now. Make sure the HD and Burner are at the end of the IDE cables. If possible, get a hold of another burner and see how it responds. Like borrow one, or buy and return one from BB. Yes, that's pretty time consuming, but it's a last resort. Maybe back up your current windows (if possible), then install fresh. Then you can go back to it later if needed. May be hard if your C is huge and full. Mine is partitioned and I use drive image to backup and restore windows.
Also do a speed test with Nero while it's running slow and see if the score has dropped. I know! Maybe you could put the "good" burner into your other computer and see if it's time to do Troy beats your really bad time in the current problem machine. Even if it's a slower computer. Unless it's really slow.... You could also see if the time stays stable.... Just some ideas. You could even change the whole computer and burner, (only kidding)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2005 @ 23:14
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
12. January 2005 @ 08:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well you got some ideas there Im willing to try out. I did the RAM switch and it didnt help the backup, but I did notice a significant increase in the speed and smoothness of XP.
It might take me a few days to try out all those ideas, well I may not do them all but most. I will post back after I tried out all the ideas I can.
|
|
DjaizDude
Newbie
|
12. January 2005 @ 10:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
12. January 2005 @ 20:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't have service pack 2 and im not really interested in getting it, Im about as anti-microsoft as anyone can get. I figure that the service pack probably would do me more harm then good, possibly invade my privacy and other stuff won't get into it. But still theres some interesting info on that site. I am still trying some suggestions of bluelaser's and nothing so far is helping drastically.
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
13. January 2005 @ 20:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well nothing is working. I guess I just need to accept the fact that until I get a new system im probably looking at 3 hour backups.
|
|
mdinap
Newbie
|
14. January 2005 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sean 5775
DO NOT GET THE SERVICE PACK. I installed it in my computer and the whole thing is all messed up now. The times are slow again, my whole computer is running slow again and its taking me forever to navigate my computer with the simple things i want to do, like opening a web browser, and microsoft word. On saturday im going to be spending all day fixing this computer and trying new things to make this work faster. Saturday night i will post my results of what happened. Talk to you then.
|
|
mdinap
Newbie
|
15. January 2005 @ 19:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Alright i tryed everything i could think of. Defrag, clean-up, virus protection, ad-aware, spyware, XP self fix, upgraded memory to 512k, closed all unnecessary programs upon start-up, and removed all unneeded programs from the hard drive. I am at 82% CPU usage and I still have 30GB free space from a 60GB hard drive. All my efforts have failed. At this point I am willing to try any ideas anyone has got?
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
16. January 2005 @ 02:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
My room is back together... Well, I'm not sure which things you tried so far, but I was hoping to eliminate the fact that it might be the burner, or the rest of the computer (or software), by trying to move the burner to the other computer, or try a new one... We know that your computer can backup quickly because you saw it happen. The thing that really would get me would be if it was intermittent hardware failures in either the motherboard or burner. If it's still hooked up the same way on the cables that did the best, then you have to wonder why it would 1st improve then change back. But not to steer you down the wrong path, again it could be settings in software. But for example, if you put the burner in a 2nd computer and it was slow that would make you wonder about the burner. Or if fast, then you'd be more sure it was in the 1st computer. And if you couldn't put it in another computer, then the other choice is to try another burner of a different brand and see if your problems clear up or stay the same. And you might not be able to easily do that, but that's how I'd try it. I'm repeating myself some, but switching and swapping is probably your best bet to proove or disproove where the problem is. Sorry it comes down to suspicions but that's the way it goes, lol.
You originally said that it could "rip the DVD really fast", but encode was 2 ot 3 hours. IF this is still the same problem you are having, then that would steer me away from it being your burner. Once it's in the computer the burner is out of the picture. So I am assuming it's still can read fast but it encodes slowly, right? What confuses me is that you are using shrink and you list the encode time seperately from rip time, and up to 3 hours. So you are breaking up the process so that you rip first, then encode from files right? I'm not sure your particular reason to do it that way, but that leaves the burner totally out of the picture. It would be up to your main board, memory, cpu and HD to to the job. So the slow down could be affected by CPU performance or dependent on what running processes are going on. I know you checked for spyware, virus etc, but sometimes these checkers can miss things that are new. If even one bad one was running, it could change things. But according your task manager nothing is eating up cpu anyway.. hmm.. Anyway, I let shrink encode as it reads to files. I tried shrink 3.2 and it automatically asks for a blank to burn with and uses Nero to burn in the background. Is this how you do it now? Or still the other way?
Here's something to check. How are your temps in AsusProbe? (it should be on your motherboard CD). An Intel CPU will throttle down to 1/2 speed if it over heats and your decode would go slow. That could happen if anything isn't quite right with your fan, or it's clogged with dust. I know, I know, it's probaby not that, but thought I'd mention it. Again, I think the fastest way is to eliminate things by swapping hardware around, and trying different units. Where you able to try those things? Or are you just going to wait until you change your computer?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. January 2005 @ 03:30
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
16. January 2005 @ 02:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
mdinap, I guess you can't easily go back to before SP2? So your system is very similar to Sean577's? Is it an Asus motherboard, and cpu running at around 3ghz? I'm not a MS or SP2 lover myself, but it's strange that SP2 would slow it that much. I have tried with and without SP2 and couldn't notice any slowdown here. I did turn off the extra features like the SP2 firewall and other stuff since I have a Norton firewall. I may restore my computer from backup to before SP2.. But haven't decided yet. As Sean put it, MS can be very sneaky and I don't fully trust their privacy rules, lol... I like XP, but only tweaked my way ;-). Still it didn't change my burning issues, or my explorer, navigation speed, or speed of icons poping up. But if your system is on the verge of not being quick enough, I guess it's possible to slow it with the upgrade.
At least you know that it's possible to burn faster without SP2... If that really is the cause. I guess it would be a pain to re-install XP fresh. It seems strange that your whole system slows down majorly with SP2. I know there is a little bit of cpu usage, but I can't even feel it on this system. Also there is a slower 2.1ghz here and it has NO problems or slowdowns with backing up movies. It's not as quick as the 3.2ghz here, but it's ok. Just giving you some comparisons.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. January 2005 @ 03:02
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
16. January 2005 @ 03:19 |
Link to this message
|
punx777
The abridged version. DVD Shrink decrypts, edits, and compresses, doesn't burn. It can use AnyDVD for support when working with the new movies with difficult encryption.
DVD Decrypter decrypts and writes files to the hard drive, it will also burn files in ISO write mode.
Is Shrink too slow? This thread has sure taken on a life of it's own and gone elsewhere (think thread hijack). LOL In answer to the original question, yes. But sometimes it's just the app and the way it's set.
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
16. January 2005 @ 03:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear,
sean5775's original concern was that it wuld take up to 3 hours to backup a DVD which seemed way out of the norm to him. He was questioning if Shrinks speed could somehow cause that, and probably wondered if other people had the same slowness. He later found out that he could backup in only 45 minutes with a minor change suggested by cyberia (i think). But now his backup time has changed back to 2 to 3 hours again! This led to lots of people trying guess what the problem was, so that is probably why the thread grew long, wordy and seemingly un-abridged, LOL. His problem still remains unsolved. As for "thread hijack" you are right, lol... But I think punx777 has probably left the thread. Because he didn't know why the programs differed, I decided to explain ISO in a little more depth since he might not know why ISO was useful in decrypter to begin with, and it was a key feature.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
16. January 2005 @ 04:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Just joking about the verbosity that got involved with the hijacking. I wasn't trying to solve the problem. The original problem got lost somewhere back around page one and everyone kept posting to the thread on miscellaneous topics. Not a problem, unless you consider the confusion of someone wondering onto the thread looking for particular info. But then again, a shrink thread should be in the Shrink section.
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
16. January 2005 @ 04:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
"Just joking about the verbosity".. Not a problem. I did notice other miscellaneous topics too. At one point I mixed up one persons computer specs with another's because of that, but quickly got used to who had what. The problems were so similar they probably thought they should be in the same thread. They seem to have the same problem and nearly the same computer configuration, but it's easy to lose that in a thread this large. The original person was Sean5775 and is still here. He recently wrote just a few lines up.. He might not be able to sovle it, but maybe there's still a chance.... You're right, they may not have been aware there was a specific Shrink section so probably just chose dvd-r for newbies.. It's probably an easy mistake to make since some sections seem to overlap with others in meaning, with some being somewhat more specific than others. I think it would be great if the forum offered a way to move a thread, but without losing the original people that know where it is.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. January 2005 @ 04:39
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
16. January 2005 @ 05:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
They do. If one is subscribed to a thread and it's moved, you still get notifications when the thread is posted to.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
16. January 2005 @ 13:52 |
Link to this message
|
Yes Im sorry at the time I started this thread I didnt even know about the Shrink section... I now do and post there occasionally.
Anyways... I run Shrink and Nero and you were asking about ripping and encoding separatly. Well I do it just like scubapetes guide suggests. If there possibly is a better way then please let me know.
I tried my burner in another computer and its slightly faster and encoding(1hour 35 minutes for TROY) then this computer is, and its a P4 1.3 GHZ I believe, it was a friends computer so I'm not exactly sure on the specs but not as good as this one anyways. I have tried using a different HD in this computer, a 60GB one that is around 75% full and the time for encoding was just over 2 hours, which is better then the nearly 3 hours it takes with the HD that was in this computer. Now thats still a little short of impressive but seems to point to the fact that this HD which is newer and less full, also bigger, might be a problem. Its under warranty still and if I can somehow proove that its a problem I can have it replaced. But unfortunatly for these computer techs. It always 'seems to work fine' to them therefore doesnt get replaced. So do you have any surefire tests for the HD to see if its good or not?
|
|
