Do I need a DVD drive if...

[DeathSlayer]

The 3550A can play DVDs, CDs, and burn DVD/CDs all in one, correct? It has a DVDx16 speed.

Will getting a stand alone DVD drive reduce the stress on the 3550A?

 

[JasonE4]

No, you don't need a DVD drive if you're getting a DVD+-RW. It's convenient if you want to directly copy a dvd/cd without ripping to the hard drive first or having two dvd/cds in at the same time.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

don't get the 3550a its a piece of ******. I just got one after trying to fix an older version. But give me Cylic Redundency Errors.

 

[ShellGuy]

CRE errors are normaly from dirty media not a bad burner...



Will G.

 

[Markbnj]

don't get the 3550a its a piece of ******. I just got one after trying to fix an older version. But give me Cylic Redundency Errors.

While those kinds of errors _could_ be caused by bad hardware, as Will points out, it is usually something specific to your system that causes it. NEC makes some of the best, most reliable hardware in the business. I'm using a 3540A and it has never given me even a little trouble.

 

[DeathSlayer]

Originally posted by: JasonE4
No, you don't need a DVD drive if you're getting a DVD+-RW. It's convenient if you want to directly copy a dvd/cd without ripping to the hard drive first or having two dvd/cds in at the same time.

Is it specifically DVD+-RW? because the speeds of those are 8x. I want 16x speeds. Here is the spec sheet:

DVD+R: 16X
DVD+R DL: 8X
DVD+RW: 8X
DVD-R: 16X
DVD-RW: 6X

a little confused here...

 

[stevty2889]

I have 3 3550A's and they have never given me any problems. I don't have a second drive in any of my rigs, the DVD RW drive can do everything, I think you misunderstood JasonE4, he was refering to the drive, not the type of disc.

 

[pdo]

spend the extra $10 and get the Benq DW1655.

 

[ShellGuy]

What on earth would you be burning at 16x anyway?? The rule of thumb for backing up DVDs is no more than 4x.. I guess if you are backing up your system you could try at 8x+ but i don't see why you would want to take the risk with the data.



Will G.

PS i use a Sony DRU - 710

 

[CalvinHobbs]

A second drive would decrease the load on the writer, i usually rip from one and burn with another

 

[corkyg]

Ideally, have a DVD player internally mountedand have your DVD burner external - preferably Firewire. Then you do most of your playing on the DVD internal and save the external for burns only.

 

[ShellGuy]

Corky why not have them both internal?? Seems you would less chance for errors and better connection with internal....


Will G>

 

[sniperruff]

save the money and skip the dvd-rom.

 

[dalfollo]

If you are reading a DVD or CD from one (Master) and then writing to the other DVD/CD writer (Slave) on the same IDE channel?

Right now I have my DVD/CD ROM on one Channel, and the HDs on the other channel...

 

[nerp]

Sparing a $38 dollar burner from wear by buying a $20 dvd-rom? At such a low price, who cares if the dvd-r burns out in a couple years. Hardly a great expense.

The only advantage to having multiple drives is if you're duplicating discs.

 

[CalvinHobbs]

Originally posted by: nerp
Sparing a $38 dollar burner from wear by buying a $20 dvd-rom? At such a low price, who cares if the dvd-r burns out in a couple years. Hardly a great expense.

The only advantage to having multiple drives is if you're duplicating discs.

in this case then you might read and burn from one drive, from where i come a dvd reader is
1/4 the price of a burner.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: ShellGuy
Corky why not have them both internal?? Seems you would less chance for errors and better connection with internal.... Will G>

Negative. External has always been more reliable way back in the SCSI age. Thge main reason is that the externals do not impact as much on the CPU processing. Also - they can be moved from one machine to another. Externals have always been more reliable - fewer coasters.

Also - if you are not burning, they can be turned off completely. Just like external modems have always been better in that regard than internals.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: corkyg

Originally posted by: ShellGuy
Corky why not have them both internal?? Seems you would less chance for errors and better connection with internal.... Will G>

Negative. External has always been more reliable way back in the SCSI age. Thge main reason is that the externals do not impact as much on the CPU processing.

Uh... what? If anything, the extra overhead of doing firewire/USB will cause MORE CPU usage. External SCSI *might* save you a bit compared to IDE/ATAPI, but how many people have external SCSI on their desktop systems?

Also - they can be moved from one machine to another.

This is true.

Externals have always been more reliable - fewer coasters.

They're the same drives. If you want to argue that SCSI is better than IDE (if only because SCSI burners tended to be higher-quality drives), I can maybe see that, but internal/external should make no difference.

Also - if you are not burning, they can be turned off completely. Just like external modems have always been better in that regard than internals.

So you can, what, save the extra 2W or whatever the idle drive is using? External modems are nicer mostly because you can easily reset them and see the status lights, not just because you can power them off when they're not in use. Also, MOST internal modems were software-driven, while the external ones are all hardware-based.

 

[imported_fatal]

The 3550A is a good drive, I highly recommend them