have cdrw drive speeds plateaued?

[dolph]

it seems that there was a mad rush to 48... then quiet. since cdrom drives are barely faster than this, does that mean we've reached the maximum potential for cdrw drives (at least, for a while)? are new cdrws just around the corner? if so, how approx. how long?
note: this isn't just a general musings thread, i have an "old" 16x yamaha that's been acting up lately. i'd like to replace it with either the sony 40x or the lg 40x (or 48, but the price difference isn't worth the speed increase, and the sony can be flashed to 48). but i could hold back a few months if 60x burners are coming 'round... but waiting 6 months would be silly, considering the sony 40x is available now for $30 after rebates. thoughts?

 

[BillGates]

I've been wondering the same thing. They are never going to be able to burn faster than any regualar CDRom can write.

The next generation is already out - they're called DVD-RW drives

By the way, get a Lite-On or spend a bit more to get a Plextor, Sony's are a piece.

 

[Evadman]

The fastest you will ever see will probably be 48-50x. You would be looking at somewhere around 7000 RPM for a 50x. Your CD would turn itno little glittery pieces.

 

[bizmark]

yeah, what Evadman said. Look at the site that I linked to in this recent thread, it appears that above ~50x the speed is simply so fast that the CDs cannot handle the forces and simply disintegrate into a billion tiny pieces. Even 48x CD drives have been known to cause low-quality discs to shatter. 32x is plenty fast enough for me. 2-3 minutes is not too long to have to wait for a CD.

Of course DVDs don't have to be spun as fast as CDs to get a lot higher data transfer rate. I wonder where they'll plateau. There's really not much of a use for very fast DVD drives, at least as far as the common man goes. I mean, is there *any* DVD-ROM software out? Everybody that I know uses their DVD drives just to play movies, and guess what, 1x speed is enough for that

A 64x drive using CLV would have to rotate the disc with 33,920 rpm when reading an inner track, exposing the hub of the disk to a tangential force of some 45 N/mm2. A point on the periphery of the disc will be moving with 213 metres per second, slightly more than half the speed of sound. Can the disc take that?

The answer is no. A powerful no.

At about 52x, i.e. 27,500 rpm, most manufacturer's CDs blew up in a rain of plastic particles, leaving their marks on the premises. The result was a pile of shimmering plastic chips.

 

[dolph]

yeah, i've always kinda wondered about that... what's up with the lack of software being put on dvds? i'm glad that appps aren't getting more bloated to match the amount of space available, but the only reason i'd go beyond 1x on my old dvd-rom was to rip dvds. hell, i recently replaced my 4x dvd-rom with a 16x dvd-rom, only because i was able to get $20 for my old one (my new one is a pioneer slot loader, but that's another story ).

i know we've come quite a way in cd burning, but even 2 minutes is still a long time to sit around and wait for files to be copied. remember andy grove's argument that fast means "whatever you want to happen, happens in the blink of an eye." i suppose something will have to replace cds (i'd guess compactflash as well as dvds) to copy faster, but i suppose that we're at the end of the line for cd burners.

 

[Shalmanese]

We have reached the point of diinsihing returns long ago. There is no real INCENTIVE for the vast majority of users to upgrade from their old 8x burners.

Most people only burn 1 - 2 CD's a week if that and the money spent on saving 10 minutes a week isnt worth it. Even for the person who burns 10 CD's a day, the extra 15 minutes gained from going from a 24x to a 48x isnt really all that compelling.

 

[Nothinman]

what's up with the lack of software being put on dvds?

Everyone has a CD-ROM, not everyone has a DVD-ROM. Unless you need the space you plan for the lowest common denominator, and most things don't need the space.

but even 2 minutes is still a long time to sit around and wait for files to be copied.

Sit and wait? I do other things while discs burn, even if it's just browsing the web or reading email. Especially since I have a DVD-RW now and it's back to 15-20 min burns for full discs.

 

[dolph]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Everyone has a CD-ROM, not everyone has a DVD-ROM. Unless you need the space you plan for the lowest common denominator, and most things don't need the space.

you're right about most things not needing the space, but did manufacturers wait until everyone had a cdrom before they started putting their programs on it? not by any means. and i'd wager that most of the computers made in the past 3 years do have dvd-roms. i'm happy that software companies haven't dramatically raised the amount of space their apps take up to match the available space given by dvds and today's relatively huge hard drives, but if software isn't going to be put on dvds then what was the point of having a dvd-rom in the first place? now that dvd burners are catching on, there's (slightly) more reason for people to have dvd-roms, but if that's the best case then why did most of us get them 5 years ago?

Sit and wait? I do other things while discs burn, even if it's just browsing the web or reading email. Especially since I have a DVD-RW now and it's back to 15-20 min burns for full discs.

you're making excuses why it's ok for cd burners to take a few minutes to make a cd. all i'm saying is that eventually even 2 minutes will seem like 10, and by that point we'll be as fed up with our slow cdrws as we were when they took 20 minutes.

 

[Nothinman]

you're right about most things not needing the space, but did manufacturers wait until everyone had a cdrom before they started putting their programs on it?

No, but things like MS Office were much easier to install from CD than from 30 floppies, the space isn't a pushing issue here like it was then.

and i'd wager that most of the computers made in the past 3 years do have dvd-roms.

And you'd lose. Every user's PC in the company I work for has a CD-ROM, not a DVD-ROM and these are Compaq boxes, not home brews.

but if software isn't going to be put on dvds then what was the point of having a dvd-rom in the first place?

High quality movies.

now that dvd burners are catching on, there's (slightly) more reason for people to have dvd-roms, but if that's the best case then why did most of us get them 5 years ago?

Everyone knows that if you jump on a technology as soon as it's out you pay a much higher price than those who wait.

you're making excuses why it's ok for cd burners to take a few minutes to make a cd. all i'm saying is that eventually even 2 minutes will seem like 10, and by that point we'll be as fed up with our slow cdrws as we were when they took 20 minutes.

I'm not making excuses, physics doesn't allow them to go faster how can you argue with that? The only option is a new form of storage, preferably without moving parts.

If you don't have a machine that can handle burning a cd and browsing the web or reading email, the max speed of your CDRW is the least of your problems.

 

[dolph]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I'm not making excuses, physics doesn't allow them to go faster how can you argue with that? The only option is a new form of storage, preferably without moving parts. If you don't have a machine that can handle burning a cd and browsing the web or reading email, the max speed of your CDRW is the least of your problems.

i'm not arguing with physics, i totally understand and accept the fact that they can't burn much faster then they do right now and still be cost effective. however, your statement about new forms of solid state storage is something i'm all for moving towards. as it is, i use smartmedia & compactflash cards whenever i can to move small-medium sized files that would take too long to burn to a cdrw, and would just waste a regular cd.

as far as not having a machine that can handle burning a cd while doing other tasks... who even brought that up? i'm adequate when it comes to my computing power, i don't have a problem with that, the only point i'm making is that we still have a ways to go before data transfer is instant, and fast is a relative term.

 

[Nothinman]

i'm not arguing with physics, i totally understand and accept the fact that they can't burn much faster then they do right now and still be cost effective.

It's not an issue of cost effectiveness, the CDs can't physically spin any faster without shattering. Perhaps if they were made of different material, but that means a completly new drive and everything anyway.

as far as not having a machine that can handle burning a cd while doing other tasks... who even brought that up?

You did when you said I was making up excuses as to why it's ok for a burn to take 2 minutes as opposed to instaneous.

the only point i'm making is that we still have a ways to go before data transfer is instant, and fast is a relative term.

It won't be instant for a very very long time, hell copy 700M or 4.7G from one hard drive to the other and see how long that takes, you think removable media should be faster than that? Even if it's possible it would be dumb because no disks would be able to keep up.

 

[dolph]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

You did when you said I was making up excuses as to why it's ok for a burn to take 2 minutes as opposed to instaneous.

that still doesn't explain why you implied i had a slow computer. i don't care if i can browse the web, read email, or do anything else for two minutes, that doesn't make the cd burn faster.

It won't be instant for a very very long time, hell copy 700M or 4.7G from one hard drive to the other and see how long that takes, you think removable media should be faster than that? Even if it's possible it would be dumb because no disks would be able to keep up.

we already have networking technology that's fast enough to be transparent and makes the bottleneck the hard drive, so what's to stop a form of removable media?

look, i'm tired of arguing over details. these are my main points:

1. crdrw drives are faster than they've ever been before, but they're still relatively slow. i understand that they're a widespread medium, and very inexpensive, etc, etc. and if i wanted to copy files faster, i'd get an ipod and do it that way, and it still wouldn't be anywhere near compatible. that still doesn't negate my original statement of cdrws being slower than i'd like.

2. since dvd-roms were brought up, they became another point of contention. dvd-roms are interesting, but have been more or less pointless for the past few years. you brought up that people use them for high quality movies. on their televisions, yes, but on their computers? please. how many people enjoy watching movies on an average screen size of 17", sitting on a desk chair? and how many people would connect their computers to their tvs to watch dvds that way? i know there are many (i'm one of them), but the vast majority of people with dvd-roms probably don't exactly know why they have them. and i'm sorry, i should have been more clear: i was referring to home users, not corporate. in my experience, most of the people i know who bought computers for home use in the past few years bought them with dvd-roms, just as in your experience, most corporate computers have cd-roms. i think it seems now that almost all of them probably should have just bought a cd-rom instead, rather then pay the premium for dvd-roms when they did. dvd-roms for computers seems to have been a premature technology up until today.

3. you seem complacent when it comes to improving speed. i acknowledge that cds were a great leap beyond floppys, but your position on dvd-roms seems vague. they aren't installed on any of the computers you said you work with, so it would imply that you would be against them, yet you give your support to them for "movies?" when it comes to removable media, you seem to think there's no good reason it should be as fast as internal hard drives. you think that cds burn fast enough, and no one should expect faster speeds, regardless of physical possibilities. looking at your rigs, you certainly do enjoy having a fast computer, so i'm puzzled why you don't seem to be interested in even faster parts.

 

[Nothinman]

that still doesn't explain why you implied i had a slow computer. i don't care if i can browse the web, read email, or do anything else for two minutes, that doesn't make the cd burn faster.

I never implied you had a slow computer, I said if.

It may not make the 2 minutes go faster, but it does change your perception of the time and makes it seem to go faster. Burn 2 CDs, spend one watching the clock and the other reading an article online and see which one seems slower.

we already have networking technology that's fast enough to be transparent and makes the bottleneck the hard drive, so what's to stop a form of removable media?

Most likely price, otherwise I'm sure solid state disks would be a lot more common.

you brought up that people use them for high quality movies. on their televisions, yes, but on their computers? please.

I never watch my TV, the only time I watch movies is on my PC or laptop.

and how many people would connect their computers to their tvs to watch dvds that way?

I have, my laptop has S-Video out.

but the vast majority of people

The vast majority if people havn't got a clue as to why they have most of the things in their computer.

i was referring to home users, not corporate. in my experience, most of the people i know who bought computers for home use in the past few years bought them with dvd-roms

I know you were, but corporate users are probably comparable in numbers to home users (unless you count a house of 3-4 people sharing 1 PC as 4). But there's plenty of people out there with older boxes with plain CD-ROMs or CDRWs that don't have DVD-ROMs, so software distributers either create 2 discs (one on CD and one on DVD) or just one on CD. And just creating the CDs are cheaper and more compatible, so why even spend the time on using the DVDs?

Very few apps can actually use the space on DVDs and some of those already have DVD versions out, like VS.NET, the others would just be a waste of a disc.

you seem complacent when it comes to improving speed

Depends on where. My box has 2 1.2Ghz Athlons, 1.2G memory and 3 SCSI160 drives, those are the important bottlenecks to me. I don't transfer files to or from my CD-RW or DVD-RW on a daily basis so it's not a big deal, I'd rather put money into speeding up things that affect me more.

they aren't installed on any of the computers you said you work with, so it would imply that you would be against them, yet you give your support to them for "movies?"

I'm not against them (well I do dislike the region coding and CSS on the movies, but that's another topic) for data storage, I just think it's not necessary for the majority of things.

when it comes to removable media, you seem to think there's no good reason it should be as fast as internal hard drives.

I think it's pointless to move behind the internal hard drive speed because they're not getting any faster, all you're doing is shifting the bottleneck and there's many more of them in a PC than just hard drives and optical drives.

you think that cds burn fast enough, and no one should expect faster speeds, regardless of physical possibilities.

The physical limits have been hit, we should be spending time on getting faster, cheaper solid state drives out there not trying to hack CDs to work around the laws of physics.

looking at your rigs, you certainly do enjoy having a fast computer, so i'm puzzled why you don't seem to be interested in even faster parts.

I definately do, but you have to prioritize and I don't think opticals should be very high on the list. Faster hard drives would benefit a lot more people than cutting CD-RW burns from 2m to 1m.

 

[Shalmanese]

Even though YOU might care if a burn takes 2 minutes, 99% of people have gone far beyond caring for the miniscule speed increases a CD burner upgrade would offer. I don't know how many times you burn CD's but, to me, the whole time taken in scratching off the plastic wrap from teh CD cover, opening the case and putting the CD in, taking the CD out and labelling it and putting it back into the case and then making space on my shelf to fit the CD takes significantly longer than 2 minutes so theres not much point for me for the actualy CD burning process to go faster. For any new product to take off, there has to be enough people willing to buy it and, the only reason to upgrade a CDRW now is if your old one has broken, in which case you dont really care if its 32x or 60x.

As for DVD's, its backwards compatible with CD's and the cost over and above a CD drive is small enough so that the average home user buys it in case he MIGHT need to watch DVD's.

However, most software out there is still around the 200 - 600MB region so there is no real incentive for mfgs to start producing software for DVD's. Plus, the cost of the disk is still just enugh above CD prices to make it not worht their while. Even if 80% of households have DVD drives, the cost of producing 2 different versions and having retards who didn't RTFM come up and compain about the DVD version not working in their 12x CD ROM isn't worth the hassle.

 

[SpideyCU]

It seems that the focus of this thread has shifted from "Can they go faster?" to "No? Well, I want them faster anyway!". They physically CANNOT burn faster, so what's the point of arguing this? And saying that they're "relatively" slow - relative to what? No other removable media with storage capacity on that scale is faster.

brought up that people use them for high quality movies. on their televisions, yes, but on their computers? please

Check any set of dorm rooms across the countries' campuses (campi? Heh). You think college students have 52" plasma flatscreen TVs? Or, even room for them? Many, many more people use their computers for watching DVDs than you think.
Similarly, the VAST majority of people, as Shalmanese mentioned, are quite content with current burning speeds. Think about it - you'd have to double the writing speed in order to halve the writing time. As we know, that isn't possible in the slightest. And if two minutes are such a trial of endurance, then one minute is still probably too much for you. Would you want the speeds quintupled for a 30 second burn time? 200x burners are just around the corner! Sustained data transfers of 30 MB/sec are certainly realistic.
I guess I still don't understand why you're arguing with Nothinman about speed increases. You accuse him of being complacent when it comes to burning speeds, but he lives in a little place we call reality where he knows that it just *can't* get faster with this particular media. It's not a conspiracy where the speeds won't get faster if we don't demand it. So...again I have to shrug and ask...what's the point?

 

[zephyrprime]

Maybe we'll have multibeam someday?

 

[SpideyCU]

Some sort of multi-writing method is certainly imaginable. My only thought is, when technology like that comes around, we'll likely be using a different media by then. Whether it's DVD-based or not, who knows?

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Maybe we'll have multibeam someday?

It'll probably follow TrueX and go the way of the dodo.

 

[jarsoffart]

Originally posted by: bizmark
yeah, what Evadman said. Look at the site that I linked to in this recent thread, it appears that above ~50x the speed is simply so fast that the CDs cannot handle the forces and simply disintegrate into a billion tiny pieces. Even 48x CD drives have been known to cause low-quality discs to shatter. 32x is plenty fast enough for me. 2-3 minutes is not too long to have to wait for a CD.

Of course DVDs don't have to be spun as fast as CDs to get a lot higher data transfer rate. I wonder where they'll plateau. There's really not much of a use for very fast DVD drives, at least as far as the common man goes. I mean, is there *any* DVD-ROM software out? Everybody that I know uses their DVD drives just to play movies, and guess what, 1x speed is enough for that

A 64x drive using CLV would have to rotate the disc with 33,920 rpm when reading an inner track, exposing the hub of the disk to a tangential force of some 45 N/mm2. A point on the periphery of the disc will be moving with 213 metres per second, slightly more than half the speed of sound. Can the disc take that?

The answer is no. A powerful no.

At about 52x, i.e. 27,500 rpm, most manufacturer's CDs blew up in a rain of plastic particles, leaving their marks on the premises. The result was a pile of shimmering plastic chips.

Does
this review have any truth to it? It is regarding the Kenwood 72x CD-ROM.

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: jarsoffart
Does
this review have any truth to it? It is regarding the Kenwood 72x CD-ROM.

Read this page, the drive reads 7 tracks at a time, and thus does not truly spin the disc at 72x speed.

 

[Howard]

I was going to mention Kenwood's method of reading CDs as an alternative to writing at faster RPMs (as it was for reading), but somebody else has done that.

 

[dpopiz]

yeah is there any way do a TrueX, etc style thing with cd-rw?

I agree that nobody really needs faster speeds for burning audio discs/backups or whatever but faster would enable new cd-rw uses like mt rainier

 

[glugglug]

Multibeam CDs will never happen for one simple reason.

The CD format, unlike every other digital disk format, resembles an old record, with the data written in a spiral rather than arranged in easy-to-seek-to tracks and sectors. (spiraling out from the center in the case of a CD, in towards the center in the case of a record).

Multibeam DVDs might eventually happen, but not CDs, because with the spiral format you can't just seek to the next track after each beam finishes reading its 1/2 of the previous track.

 

[kpb]

Are you talking about mutlibeam cd-writers or just readers?

Readers are already out as someone linked to the true-x 72 shows. With all the burn-proofing that all the new drives have the basis is already there altho I don't think it's worth the cost. Upgrading from a 4x to a 32x burner was great I don't see any real need to go beyond that tho.

 

[lukatmyshu]

So then to answer Dolph's original question I think the answer is yes. Go out and buy the cheapest/fastest CDRW and be content that your CDRW, like your floppy drive, will soon be a piece of equipment that we buy without even noticing what or where it's coming from. (BTW to this date I've gone four years without a working floppy drive. That's not to say I don't have them, they just never work and I never bother to fix them). Another interesting point ... I remember when Software/Games started coming on Two/Three CDs. Someone told me that each of the disks contained only 200MB or so of data and the manufacturers were doing this only to somehow increase speed. Anyone care to negate me?