Maurice wrote:
> is there any free equivalent to the Roxio direct CD, that can
> format a rewritable CD to be like a floppy or a USB flash, so we
> can copy and delete files with window explorer without the need of
> a burning software?
ArameFarpado wrote:
> CDRW has a limited time they can be re-writed, with that process
> (UDF filesystem) everytime you write a file to it, the index tables
> are re-writen and over a while it damages the area where the index
> tables are located, living you with a corrupted filesystem.
>
> forget it, that method is not reliable at all.
Unknown wrote:
> Where did you get that information? Or is it emotional talk?
ArameFarpado wrote:
> Personal experience using CDRW in UDF since Win 3.1
>
> Do you have more stupid questions or what?
Unknown wrote:
> So it is emotional. Because you and nobody else has a problem it is
> unreliable?
ArameFarpado wrote:
> Lots of people had problems with udf cd's... i lost files with many
> hours of work on one of those cds because i used to trust them...
> this method of dealing with cdrw is much older than you think, and
> i and many other user had our share of problems with these cds...
> it's filesystem corrupts very easy when you start to use them as
> the op stated, like amovible hard-disks or floppys
>
> But of course, if you don't even know what i'm saying, you can't
> have problems with something you never even seen.
>
> On the other hand, i know very well what i'm talking about:
> in the old days when my PC had just 640MB of hard disk, those cd's
> looked like a great solution for me.. that was until i crash on my
> face.
I used CDs a lot. Never thought using a CD-RW was a great idea - as the
concept seemed flawed from the start. I'd rather waste the CD-R and just
have several copies. Safer, wiser.
As for the comments - "Unknown" was correct. Your response was an emotional
one. No matter how bad your experience was - I know others who still, to
this day, use -RW media of one sort or another and have had few if any
issues. It all comes down to quality of the media and how/where it is
actually used. Those with the success seldom change machines, do have other
backups and buy the best media of brands they have learned to trust over
years.
If it was more than 'emotional' in nature, if it was logical, thought out
experiences which you could have conveyed - then why when you were asked to
do so you instead attacked the person asking?
As for knowing what you are talking about - just because something did not
work 'in the past' does not mean it does not work 'in the present'... Flown
anywhere lately? Driven/been driven anywhere? Viewed any web pages? Sent
any emails? Done any calculations that would take you hours on paper in
minutes on a computer? Times and what can/cannot be done properly change
over time. ;-)
I remember trying to get 'gold' CD-Rs and the 1X burning speed and how cool
it was to be able to save things like that and get it off my very small hard
drive. 486-50MHz machines were *fast* and had a lot more space than the
20MB hard disk drive I ran a BBS system (14.4/28.8) off of on a Commodore
64. Dozens of games would fit on a single floppy diskette - literally a
*floppy* diskette - not the 1.44MB not-so-floppy diskettes.
Times change. Storage changed with it. Just because it *was* unreliable
does not equate to it still being unreliable and with the Internet at
everyone's fingertips - if something is unreliable - word of it is spread
far and wide for everyone to see VERY quickly. A non-emotional response
would have been one where such links to such experiences were given -
because seldom do the wise people of this world investigating things they
know little about take the word of a single individual they have never met.
;-)
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html