CDRW vs CDR

[cuteybunny]

I find cdrw to be much more useful, cdr maybe obsolete sooner or later I mean who doesn't have cd that don't have multi read capability theseday unless you got ancient cdrom that you have to settle for CDR only. I have thrown so many bad burn of CDR it not even funny. while the CDRW if you made a bad one you can format and start over again like a floppy disk
These disposable CDR are cheaply made that why they cost 2-3 times less, they are becoming less and less useful as CDRW are catching up in write speed.
out of 20 cdr media i have thrown at least 10 away due to bad media, defect or bad burn.
but i have so far have not gotten any bad CDRW, all work fine, another reason why i insist to drop cdr technogy or halt it to say 10x and leave it there while increasing CDRW capability instead.
today you see 24x 10x 40x, 20x 10x 40x,16x 10x 32x
as you can see cdr are much faster but these disposable media seem more useful because of it speed.
why cant they make cdr that is rewritable, a marketing thing to make more $$$?
the average joe probably think 24x 10x is much much better then 12x 10x only to realize that it just for disposable cds only

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I have lots of disks. Instead of taking the 1hr it takes to format the disk in order to rewrite it, I'd rather write a new CD in 8 minutes and throw away the old one.

Nik

 

[yoda291]

1. Get a burner with burnproof
2. Stop buying Bob's bargain basement cdrs.
3. Get some respectable archival quality cdrs.

The only cdrs I have had to throw away are buffer underruns (which I fixed by caching to a RAM disk now, at least until my 12x comes back home to me) and cds which were scratched beyond all recognition(which would've killed a cdrw too).

 

[HardcoreRobot]

<< 1. Get a burner with burnproof
2. Stop buying Bob's bargain basement cdrs.
3. Get some respectable archival quality cdrs.

The only cdrs I have had to throw away are buffer underruns (which I fixed by caching to a RAM disk now, at least until my 12x comes back home to me) and cds which were scratched beyond all recognition(which would've killed a cdrw too). >>



Ditto. I did have ONE pack of bad cd-rs, but then again, I guess they were free for a reason. CDRWs are a pita.

 

[stev0]

cdrw's are a waste. I too have only had a bad pack of cd's, a 10 pack of freebies from googlegear.com. yes, get a burnproof cdr drive and but some decient media.

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<1. Get a burner with burnproof
2. Stop buying Bob's bargain basement cdrs.
3. Get some respectable archival quality cdrs.

The only cdrs I have had to throw away are buffer underruns (which I fixed by caching to a RAM disk now, at least until my 12x comes back home to me) and cds which were scratched beyond all recognition(which would've killed a cdrw too). >>

The only time I've had problems with CD-R's was with a supercheap set of Dysan CD-R's. All other times it was my drive's fault. (Made 6 coasters in a row at varying speeds/settings before figuring out that my burner was dying.)

My typical burn failure rate is about 2%, if you're getting a 50% failure rate, you need to buy some quality CD-R's like Fuji or Sony or TDK.

ZV

 

[Looney]

I have thrown so many bad burn of CDR it not even funny.

Really? In the last 2-3 years, i have not had a single bad burn... and that's still using my HP 8200i CDRW. I would guess that's about 200 burns in that last 2-3 years.

they are becoming less and less useful as CDRW are catching up in write speed.


I don't think it's the speed of CDRW that's the problem... it's the size of the CDRWs. They don't hold as much data because of the FAT table.

 

[Nefrodite]

even 2% burn failure is kinda high, i've gone through several spindles without killing a single disc. ussually when i destroy one now its because my comp totall crashes or something else that can't be blamed on media or drive. i also use the cheapest discs around too. b4 i got burn proof i used to destroy quite a few discs so i think the people that complain about one media or another just have not so great drives

I have lots of disks. Instead of taking the 1hr it takes to format the disk in order to rewrite it, I'd rather write a new CD in 8 minutes and throw away the old one.

it takes about 1.5 min or something to quick format a cdrw on my drive. you only need to full format if you want to wipe data for security. cdrw has its uses

I don't think it's the speed of CDRW that's the problem... it's the size of the CDRWs. They don't hold as much data because of the FAT table.


only for packet writing

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<even 2% burn failure is kinda high, i've gone through several spindles without killing a single disc.>>

Most of those failures were on an early 2x2x6 Memorex drive, the new drive in my ThinkPad (Sony CRX700E) has only made one coaster, and I traced that to something I had set wrong in Nero. Still no burn proof though.

ZV

 

[dionx]

i had one CD-RW media that came with my burner and to this day, i still cant think of a use for it. when i burn something, i use it for archiving purposes, not as a bigger floppy. also, i burn lots of audio cds and CD-RW would not work for most of my audio cd players such as the one in my car.

 

[yoda291]

well, cdrw media is good for storing things that change....like drivers for the comp in case it dies, or the newest revision of word document/web site.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

If its something that is going to keep changing, Ill just leave it on my hard drive. Unless of course, it was large. But in that case, I would just burn another disc and put the old one in the microwave.

 

[thomsbrain]

for the price of one cdrw, you can burn like 5 cd-r's. i'm not that likely to re-write a cdrw 5 times before i get something on it i don't want to lose...

 

[FrustratedUser]

CDRW is great. I use it as a big floppy and to store data that is updated frequently.
It sucx$ that it takes so long to format.

 

[cuteybunny]

CDRW don't hold as much data?! where you get this from? a cdrw that has a capacity of 650 can hold as much as 690megs no prob maybe 700 but I havent tried that cause it take a little experimenting. a cdr with 650 won't do more then 650 but you'll find that out if you have two of the same capacity. you may think cdr hold more because the market has something like 800-900 meg for it but thats all it can hold. and will give you a bad burn if you try to overburn it like you do with CDRW.
so not only CDR has limited uses it cannot overburn as much very little overburning if you ask me,
the most you going to get is 1-2megs more without making it unreadable then you know where it goes?
I don't think you going to keep something like CDR forever are you? sooner or later you going to have to throw it away and buy some more CDR, ah more money for the manufacturer but bad for you in the long run that's why they make it very very fast and keep making CDRW half as fast and keep it that way.
silly marketing isn't it? so before CDRW become 20x CDR must be at least 40x.
I just bought 200 CDR lol but you know what? my CDRW is going to be more useful in the long run because i need to format it and reburn it.
this CDR is kinda silly and unneccesary. they could make cdr that wold be rewritable but that would mean
less money for them so they don't. for something to be useful it must be rewritable, like your floppy, harddrive, zip drive, and removable harddrive just to name a few.
again cdr is as useless as those cd that aol sent you or any CD that's used my the manufacturer because they are cheap LOL




<< I have thrown so many bad burn of CDR it not even funny.

Really? In the last 2-3 years, i have not had a single bad burn... and that's still using my HP 8200i CDRW. I would guess that's about 200 burns in that last 2-3 years.

they are becoming less and less useful as CDRW are catching up in write speed.


I don't think it's the speed of CDRW that's the problem... it's the size of the CDRWs. They don't hold as much data because of the FAT table. >>

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

CDRWs are not archival quality. They are likely to go bad!

And yes, when using packet writing, a lot of space is taken by overhead on the CD-RW

 

[cuteybunny]

cdrw, the prices for 10x is very unattractive vs 8x cdr that cost 10 times less.
it's good to have a few CDRW for a few archival stuff but too many is not good, high cost and too slow.
that why i have only 8 CDRW and 220 CDR. i see permanent burn is good like tattoo make for attractive burn as well lol never come off hehe.

 

[StageLeft]

I have a 24X IDE burner with burnproof (lite-on!) and it makes no spindles. None! I use CDR almost exclusively because it is cheaper than CDRW and my CDRW only burns at 10X, plus you have to format, plus I like to keep stuff I burn anyway forever. I use CDRW a bit, but not as much.

 

[SnoopCat]

ive been through 5 cd players and none will recognize cdrw's. Older cdrom drives do not like cdrw's either

 

[Looney]

CDRW don't hold as much data?! where you get this from? a cdrw that has a capacity of 650 can hold as much as 690megs no prob maybe 700 but I havent tried that cause it take a little experimenting.

I got that from experience. Maybe things have changed in the last few years, but when i first bought CDRWs, i would probably get about 550mb out of a 650mb CDRW... the rest of it was used as the FAT.

 

[Zenmervolt]

CD-RW go bad very often in my experience too, the 1.44 MB floppies I force-formatted to 2.88 MB are more reliable than the CD-RW's Ive used. My level of trust for removable media (descending order): CD-R, ZIP, 1.44MB floppy, 2.88MB floppy, CD-RW.

ZV

 

[Looney]

Well, i found out why CDRWs had lesser capacity... it was the way they were formatted. Apparently there are different ways of doing it, with DirectCD being the worst (at least the version i was using back then... this is over 2 yrs ago mind you).

Anyways, what program are you using to format your CDRWs? I would definitely use it more often if i could get the same capacity as CDRs.




<< Some packet-writing solutions will take a large bite out of your available disc space. For example, if you use File-CD it uses fixed-length packets. This allows random file erase, which means that when you delete a file you actually get the space back, but you're reduced to about 493MB after formatting the disc. >>



CDRW FAQ



<< The Register are reporting on Philips's next-gen proposal to end the write-once issue of CDR and also the format and reduced capacity of CDRW. This next-gen CD recordable format won't be restricted to a single write, or even need formatting for CDRW-like drag-and-drop. And that's not just for Windows, like the Adaptec DirectCD (which as we all know probably contributed more to halting CDRW than anything else by being crap). >>



Nomad Jedi Homeworld

 

[Pepsi90919]

<< I have a 24X IDE burner with burnproof (lite-on!) and it makes no spindles. None! I use CDR almost exclusively because it is cheaper than CDRW and my CDRW only burns at 10X, plus you have to format, plus I like to keep stuff I burn anyway forever. I use CDRW a bit, but not as much. >>

makes no spindles? what?

 

[Senior Member]

Yoda 291: The best sig I've ever seen! Congrats! (or is it borrowed from somewhere?)

 

[yoda291]

<< Yoda 291: The best sig I've ever seen! Congrats! (or is it borrowed from somewhere?) >>



Which one? I recently changed it from the number 2 pencil thing to its current incarnation. "Stupidity should be painful" is something I've been saying for years now. It started as something I'd say to people who'd ask me dumb things.

The sex thing came out of reading from another thread that oral sex was illegal in some areas. I created the statement that follows, tho I doubt I'm the first one to think of it, I didn't copy it from anywhere.

BTW, CDR data life can be measured in terms of decades. CDRW, not necessarily.