|
Pioneer DVR-108 locks pc up
|
|
|
Surfrat
Newbie
|
16. September 2004 @ 01:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
I got the Pioneer DVR-108 dvd write, when I use nero to make a image of a dvd, part way through it locks the pc up so I have to press reset to restart the pc, I have got firmware 1.06 hacked, which according to several people works great.
I tried alcohol102% and get the same result.
Please advise
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
16. September 2004 @ 07:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi surfrat, First couple of things I would do: Uninstall Nero completely and reboot. Then go into your device manager and remove your burner drive. Then reboot again and let Windows reinstall the drive probperly. Once the drive is installed reboot again and see if it reads discs ok. If that goes OK, reinstall Nero and then see if your problem is gone.
Also check your IDE channels are both set to DMA not PIO.
Jerry
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. September 2004 @ 07:19
|
|
Surfrat
Newbie
|
16. September 2004 @ 22:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks for that I will try that and post the results.
Your help is most appreciated.
|
|
Surfrat
Newbie
|
17. September 2004 @ 11:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
I managed to get Alc120% to 77% then the pc locked up.
udma is at 66, not pio.
|
Member
|
19. September 2004 @ 23:31 |
Link to this message
|
Surfrat
You might try updating the firmware to 1.14. I also have the 108 and have updated my firmware. You can download 1.14 at:
drivers/softpedia.com/public/drivers/10-3257.shtml
Having said that, you might also benefit from my experience. Friends and I both used Nero until we got our hands on Roxio Easy Media Creator 7. We had all used (and still do) DVD Decrypter to rip then used Nero to burn. After getting hold of Roxio 7 we all removed Nero from our hard drives, simply because Roxio offers so many options and is so easy to use.
After Decrypting a movie we then burn the "main movie only" to DVD-R's using our DVR-108's. If the movie is still to big to burn on a single DVD-R, Roxio will shrink the movie to fit on a single DVD-R.
http://mysite.verizon.net/eric.groves/index.htm
Thermaltake Armor VA8003BWS Full Tower Case, Thermaltake Silent Purepower 680-Watt Power Supply, Intel BLKD975XBXLKR MB, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 CPU, 4GBs Corsair XMS2 DDR2 667MHz SDRAM, 80GB Maxtor ATA133 HD (C drive), One Seagate 1.5TB & One Seagate 1TB SATA300 HDs, Plextor PX-B940SA SATA Blu-ray Burner, ATI Radeon X1600 Pro PCI-E with 512MB?s, Samsung 24" Widescreen Black Flat Panel LCD Monitor, WIN XP PRO SP-3, DVDFab 7 (Blu-ray), AnyDVD HD & CloneDVD 2
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
20. September 2004 @ 18:25 |
Link to this message
|
I haven't seen any good software from Roxio in the last 3 tries. Nero is still a better program. Roxio software conflicts with most dvd backup programs. As long as it works for you and your friends keep using it. As to it being easier to use than Nero, I doubt it very much. I would guess that 75% to 80% of the members on here use Nero over Roxio.
Jerry
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2004 @ 10:20 |
Link to this message
|
Jerry747...my guess for Nero usage would be more like 95 to 99%. It also appears that eric545 is quite sold on Roxio, as his other posts try to work in the virtues of that package even when it isn't relevant to the thread.
|
|
Surfrat
Newbie
|
21. September 2004 @ 10:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Nero is ok, I tried loading firmware 1.14 but could not get the pc to boot at all, I kept getting blue screening during bootup, I restored previous firmware and the pc boots fine how ever I cannot use the drive for ripping as it still locks up the pc, my other dvd rom drive works great except its only a 4X dvd drive.
"LX"
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2004 @ 11:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
This could be a virtual memory problem. What operating system are you using?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. September 2004 @ 11:06
|
|
Surfrat
Newbie
|
21. September 2004 @ 11:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've checked the dma settings, I have set my swap file up on a seperate partition, I'm running windows xp pro sp2
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2004 @ 11:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
For right now, I would suggest trying the swap file at 4000 MB min and max on both drives or partitions. Make sure that the values are "Set" before leaving the utility. This amount of VM is a lot more than you need for ripping, but not encoding.
I would also make sure that my drives were defragged. This has been a reason for drives stalling during ripping.
Once you have done these, launch the Performance utility (Ctrl-Alt-Del >> Task Manager >> Performance Tab). This will give you a real-time CPU usage and physical memory reading. Observe what happens prior to stalling...if it happens again. Does CPU and memory usage go up/down?
|
|
Surfrat
Newbie
|
21. September 2004 @ 11:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have got my page file setup on a seperate partition, set to system managed, the current size is 1535MB, should I set it to user set at 4000MB on the partition drive or on the OS drive?
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2004 @ 11:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
A system-managed page file creates problems. You need to manually set it (user set). If you have a single drive set up with 2 partitions, put the page file setting on the boot partition.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. September 2004 @ 11:29
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2004 @ 11:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
What is the size of your drives/partitions, and free space on each?
|
|
Surfrat
Newbie
|
21. September 2004 @ 11:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
I got 4 partitions on a 250gig sata drive.
c: OS = 25gig
d: files/programs = 188gig
e: backup drive = 16 gig
f: page file drive = 5 gig
free space is not an issue at all
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. September 2004 @ 11:34
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2004 @ 11:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've not come across this setup before. Can you tell me if all 4 partitions show up in the swap file utility?
From my own preference, if I were going to partition a drive, I would put my OS and other program files on the same partition. I would then put all the data they created or that was related to them on another partition. (I don't partition because this has created problems when making a backup clone of my drive.)
I would also want my page file/swap file on the partition where the work was actually being done. For me this would usually be the OS and program file partition. This is mainly for performance reasons. The HDD read/write head makes less movement with this configuration, and ultimately works faster.
|
|
Surfrat
Newbie
|
21. September 2004 @ 11:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have only setup the page file partition for the swap file, the other drives are not setup for page file at all, this funny enough was a suggestion for performance by Microsoft them selves. A big reason for putting the swap file on its own partition is to prevent fragmentation and for performance, so they say.
The reason I have the OS on its own partition is for backup purposes, that way I only need to backup my main partition and not the OS partition considering if I had a system fail, I would have to reinstall the OS anyway, therefor saving me the time of having to backup something I have to reinstall anyway.
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2004 @ 12:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
I can understand the philosophy behind your setup. I am still wondering though, do all 4 partitions show up in the swap file utility?
|
|
Surfrat
Newbie
|
21. September 2004 @ 12:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
all partitions show up under system utility, I assume by utility you mean where you setup the swap file (virtual memory tab)
by clicking on each drive, only the page file partition displays "system managed" all the others show as "no paging file"
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2004 @ 12:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
About the page file. I can see the merits of having it isolated when it is system managed. This would reduce fragmentation, as XP tends to lay down page/swap files all over the place. When it is user-set, this creates a defined space on the HDD where page file swapping takes place. Nothing else goes on in this space except file swapping.
|
|
Surfrat
Newbie
|
21. September 2004 @ 12:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
thats the reason suggested by microsoft for having it setup on a seperate partition, the drive/partition will not be effected/interfered with by other files or programs.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2004 @ 12:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes, I am calling the routine where you set the page file a utility for lack of a better term.
You don't need a separate partition to isolate page files. And I'm wondering how well XP is handling it? Please defrag your F:page file and see if anything is there? Also, defrag C:, your OS. According to this separate page file theory, the OS partition should never need defragging. If it does, then I'm thinking that is where the page file needs to be set up. The thing about XP is that even if a page file were set to zero, it would still create one. Or so the literature says. Let me know what happens with the defraggs.
|
