Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About whocareswhoami

  • Rank
    ISF Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

969 profile views
  1. whocareswhoami

    ImgBurn v2.5.8.0 Released!

    Just because you responded like that, doesn't mean I ever said that. You just keep at it, man. You found your calling.
  2. whocareswhoami

    ImgBurn v2.5.8.0 Released!

    ImgBurn is dead, because the creator loves legacy. He is still sad about CD dying and replaced with new technology.
  3. whocareswhoami

    Windows Disc Image Burner is faster than ImgBurn?

    Of course. But what is this "risk" then? I understand you don't recommend doing it but is there a real risk in it, eg. corrupting the DVD? If compatibility is all it eliminates, I can live with that.
  4. whocareswhoami

    Windows Disc Image Burner is faster than ImgBurn?

    Hmm, is there reasons other than compatibility? I've now burnt five DVDs with incremental and they all seem to work just fine. I don't plan to use these with any other PC anyway.
  5. whocareswhoami

    Windows Disc Image Burner is faster than ImgBurn?

    Interestiiing... I re-did the write with "Write Type" set to "Incremental" and true enough, ImgBurn was actually 16 secs faster than the Windows' builtin one. Impressive. That didn't take too long from you.
  6. Hey, I don't know what am I doing wrong, or how is this possible, but I took time how long it took to erase my 2x 4.7GB DVD-RW disc and write the latest testing Dual Core iso of Archlinux with both ImgBurn and Windows' own Disc Burner and found out that ImgBurn did this in 8:18 (mins:secs), while Windows' own decided to take only 6:46. I even re-wrote(/erased) the disc two times with both burners - results were still the same. No anti-viruses, no old firmwares, no nothing. My system is a up-to-date Win 7 (SP1) with the latest version of ImgBurn ( How is this even possible?

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.