Defenestration
-
Posts
238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Defenestration
-
-
-
I agree.All that is just a little bit overkill.All threads default to 'normal' priority but the app itself switches to 'high' when burning.To override them, use the following keys:
OVERRIDE_ThreadPriority_Build
OVERRIDE_ThreadPriority_BuildRead
OVERRIDE_ThreadPriority_Burn
OVERRIDE_ThreadPriority_DeviceBuffer
OVERRIDE_ThreadPriority_GraphData
OVERRIDE_ThreadPriority_Read
OVERRIDE_ThreadPriority_Verify
They're all DWORD type values.
0 = idle, 1 = lowest, 2 = lower, 3 = normal, 4 = higher, 5 = highest, 6 = time critical, everything else = normal.
Time to get testing
-
Before burning the files to DVD, try viewing them on your PC with a media/video player to see if they look OK. This will rule out any problems with the source files.
-
Current machine only has a whopping 512MB RAM which isn't enough IMO (especially when using Firefox with lots of tabs open
). I'd like 4GB but 2x2GB sticks costs sooooo much. My next machine will have 2x1GB unless memory prices of 2GB sticks comes down.Will you be overclocking the Conroe LUK ?
-
Both these points are very picky so feel free to ignore them, but I thought I'd point them out anyway.
1) The Check for Program Update drop-down combo has the options in the following order Never, Daily, Fornightly, Weekly, Monthly.
Weekly and Fortnightly could be switched round.
2) I didn't think I'd see it due to the response I got when I posted about it, but thanks for implementing the new %B Filename field specifier for the Graph Data filename! The Legend on the right says "%B - Date (YYYY/MM/DD)", but the date's actually inserted as YYYY-MM-DD, so maybe the legend text could be changed to what's actually inserted.
BTW LUK, what registry keys/values do I need to add to start playing with the thread priorities, and what are the defaults ?
-
Great build LUK! Lots of nice tweaks to the 2.0 build.
-
FYI, they store it on a hidden partition. These partitions can be made visible/removed with partitioning software.Somehow they have secreted the operating software to an untouchable spot on the hard drive. -
I had a problem with the DVD-ROM/CD-RW drive of the first DELL laptop I had, but only had a return-to-base warranty. The problem only seemed to arise during playback of some DVD's (although admittedly I didn't do much burning at the time). When I called them to report the problem I followed all the steps they said to take (I was none the wiser at this time), including running DELL diagnostics. All the tests I performed indicated the drive ran perfectly, but yet the drive still had problems with playback of some DVD's.
I even suggested that they get a copy of the DVD in question to play back, so that when I sent the laptop back to them they would be able to see the problem - DELL said we don't budget for things like that so it was my problem.
After several calls I finally said "Look, I'm not happy with the drive because it's faulty and I can demonstrate that, despite the fact that you can't reproduce the problem. If you send the laptop back to me again without replacing the drive, I can tell you now that I will be calling you up again to report the same problem again, and the cycle will continue which helps no-one." (or words to that effect). I added a bit of fluff saying "This is my first DELL and I've been very happy with it up to now. However, the problem with the drive is putting me off buying a DELL ever again."
Finally they agreed to send an on-site technician round (even though I was on a RTB warranty) and he replaced the drive. I offered to demonstrate the problem with the DVD in question (which I did) but he wasn't interested and just replaced the drive.
After a second call when I had a problem with the power supply and had to go through a similar laborious process, I became wise and without following their instructions just told them every time "Tried that but it didn't work!". While you still have to go through the steps with them, which is procedure, it cuts down the time you spend before getting the part.
When it comes to DELL, a little white lie never did them any damage.
My new "technique" hasn't failed me since (As long as you sound sincere when you call)
-
Hmmm, I wonder if this could be related to a similar problem I was having with the device buffer repeatedly emptying during burns.
http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?showtopic=1833
While it was suggested that my problems might be down to the fact I'm burning on a laptop to an external burner, the problem reported by shar would not appear to be due to this problem.
I'm waiting for IB 2.1 to see if boosting some of the thread priorities helps (BTW LUK, what registry keys are used to control this new thread priority feature ?). If not, then I still think there may be some sort of thread synchronization issues which results in the thread that fills the Device buffer either
a) having the data, but simply not sending it to the drive fast enough
or
b ) not having the data to send
As the System buffer always stays pretty constant at 100%, then that would tend to rule out (b ) as the problem. I would be interested in running a build which contains extra debug information for the thread which fills the Device buffer to identify exactly why it has problems keeping this buffer filled.
-
That footage would be tough to watch.....
...but intriguing all the same.
Rays don't like to be approached from above, and with a cameraman in front of the ray filming them both, I can understand why the ray got spooked. Very unlucky when you think a few inches either way and he'd probably have survived.
-
Another good site containing information on firewalls and various leaktests is
-
I've had similar "laborious" calls to DELL myself when something goes wrong. However, when I know for sure there is a problem after doing my own testing I just pretend to be following their instructions on the phone (with added delays to make it look like I'm doing it) and just keep telling them "No, that didn't work either", or for longer tasks I say "I'll try it and get back to you" (without actually doing it).
After they've exhausted all avenues they say they'll replace the faulty part.
So, I would suggest calling them back and saying you've done the system restore but the problem with the DVD drive still exists.
-
I use Look 'n' Stop (www.looknstop.com) which is the lightest firewall around and very secure when using the Enhanced or Phant0m's rule set (you can get the latest beta which is very stable from the forum http://wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=28 ). It does not work with 64-bit Windows.
Outpost is also very good although is more resource hungry (with version 4 to be released soon which has 64-bit support)
-
That makes me wonder... is there such a thing as a possible... oh, dear... a cash Bar Mitzvah?
"Gimme a Little Off The Top." 
=)) -
I would've suggested that the problem was due to bad media, as the others have already mentioned, but since exactly the same problem also happens with different (and much better) media, then I would say it's either a problem with firmware or, more likely, a problem with the drive itself. If the drive's still under warranty then I'd suggest getting it replaced after trying out a new firmware.
-
If you have a DivX capable DVD player, you could convert each asf file to Divx or XviD format, then burn these files to a disc.
Otherwise you will need to convert them into DVD-Video format before burning to disc.
There are many apps capable of doing these conversions which can be found using Google.
-
Jesus Def, what on earth would make you say something like this?
In case you didn't realize at the time, let me point out to you that this is very offensive stuff, I thought you were better than that.
I'm speechless.
C'mon, I find it hard to believe you're really that sensitive.
-
Nope, scrap that, I see now the LCISOCreator just does a sector by sector read of the disc.
That's different to actually building a new filesystem.
The size of the ISO should match (exactly) the size of the original disc.
Hmmm odd. I will try several discs to see if any others suffer from a missing block.
-
I think I'm in loveI happen to be part Australian and take offense to what you have just said, I as well as many others on this forum think you are an arrogant little c**t that needs to keep his mouth shut and his nose out of other peoples business, it's not your program if you don't like it then fuck off and leave us all alone.
I guess I hit a raw nerve there with my comment Jill. Would I be right in thinking it was the Australian part in you that made your comment
polopony - I make references to Nero because that's what I've got experience with, and even though a lot of Nero is bloat does not mean that there are no good features in Nero, which LUK may deem worthwhile additions to IB. Even LUK himself mentioned very recently that he was trying to mimic Nero (and other apps) with regard to handling of dates of folders.
A lot of what I have posted has been either suggestions (some useful, some less so) and bug reports, but where's the problem in that. On occasions I also try to help people if I have something worthwhile to say, and someone else hasn't already posted the same comment.
If LUK decides not to implement a feature then fair enough and if he says NO (not a maybe or possibly but an actual NO, that is), then I'm quite happy to leave it at that. I don't get why some forum members take it upon themselves to start slagging off other people because they don't like that a member has made some suggestions/comments, or is maybe continuing a thread because they feel they have some extra info to add. I'm sure LUK is a big enough boy that he can look after himself if someone steps over the line.
I choose to use IB for my burning needs because I like the program a lot and also think LUK is a very talented software developer.
Re. the animosity, lets give an example of how a fictitious thread might pan out:
<User> How about implementing XYZ
<LUK> Possibly, but I'm not sure when
<User> I was thinking you could maybe implement like this.....
<Hostile Users> (in harmony) Don't you understand the word NO. LUK said NO you stupid f***ing c**t.
Despite the fact that LUK never said NO, some people seem to take it upon themselves to start slagging off the original poster when they might be adding some useful extra info.
-
-
Only dickwits like you.
Ah, you know you've won an argument when the other person starts throwing childish insults around.
Unlike yourself, I choose to leave the decision up to LUK since it is his to make. That does not mean that any other input cannot be made though. Do the MPAA or RIAA own the rights to my home movie ? No they don't.Put in a trust the several million $$$ that LUK! would need to defend an action against the MPAA, the RIAA and their associated members, and perhaps you would be given more credence. Till then, you should read the many times LUK has said NO.The most recent post by LUK on this subject indicated he was unsure he would ever implement raw sector copying, but did not really specify his intentions as the adapting the current file/folder copy method.
Ref: http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?s=&...ost&p=24167I'm not sure if ImgBurn will ever support reading to an ISO in the same way DVD Decrypter used to.Maybe you need to put your glasses on and re-read the posts LUK has made on this subject.
If only I could come up with such witty acidic put downs.I shall choose to ignore your rather pathetic attempt to get a rise out of me by criticing Australians. For, wherever you come from, your mom and pop didn't hand you sufficient brains when you were, rather unfortunately, conceived.All the best!
-
I do believe that the "manual intervention" you refer to is entirely justified to ensure this program does not suffer legal issues. Are you an IP lawyer?
I don't understand where all this animosity comes from, but then I don't have to live in Australia. I guess you all have chips on your shoulders down there (maybe originating from a lack of identity). Are you an IP lawyer by the way ? I thought not.
Where are the intellectual property rights infringed when the disc that is being copied is a home movie created by yourself ? Exactly, there are none.
Many other apps have no problems copying unprotected discs, or copying from unprotected discs (including Explorer).
From what LUK himself said in another thread on this subject, he is not sure whether IB will ever support reading to an ISO in the same way DVD Decrypter did (ie. by reading raw sectors). He did not rule it out completely, and then there is always the alternative method of just reading the folders/files (as is already done), but just automate the things like copying over the same file system name/data.
Ours is about burning files and images.Are you one of these same people who before IB 2 came out used to say "IB is only about burning images. If you want to burn files, use another app". Oh well, I suppose some progress has been made.
If LUK still deems in inappropriate (even doing it with the with the existing capability) then fair enough. I was just voicing an opinion like so many of the other members on this forum do.
-
I was just about to post back after creating a test image with Nero which preserved the folder dates, but you beat me to it.
Thanks for changing it.On a slightly different note, I was using LCISOCreator to create an ISO of the same disc so I could compare the two ISO's created by IB and LC. Aside from the root folder dates being "incorrect" on IB, the number of blocks was 1 less for the ISO created with IB. Any ideas why ?Got confused. It's actually the ISO created by LC that has 1 block less, so I guess that has a problem since all other apps I used to create a test image had 1 more than it.
EDIT: BTW, IB was about twice as fast at creating the ISO!From my tests with other apps, IB is not only "The Ultimate Image Burner" but also the "The Fastest Image Builder". IB was at least 1 minute faster (and often more) when creating a 2.7GB ISO, and is also less disk intensive (no doubt due to the buffering)
Re. the "create ISO from disc" and "copy disc" (create ISO from disc followed by burning X number of copies) features requested by myself and others, I can't see what the legal problems of implementing them would be (if that's the main reason for your reluctance) since the capability to do both is already present in IB. It's just that some of the automation is missing at the moment (ie. it requires a bit more manual intervention to achieve). Just a thought
-
I've been playing around with using IB to create an ISO from a previously burnt DVD-R. The disc has the ISO + Joliet + UDF file-systems. On the disc are 2 root folders, each containing a few files. The problem is that in the resultant ISO, the date of both root folders on all 3 file-systems have the current date instead of the date of the root folders on the disc. The files within both root folders all have the correct date equivalent to their respective counterparts on the disc. I have the Folder/File Dates setting set to "Use File Date & Time".
Is this a bug ?
On a slightly different note, I was using LCISOCreator to create an ISO of the same disc so I could compare the two ISO's created by IB and LC. Aside from the root folder dates being "incorrect" on IB, the number of blocks was 1 less for the ISO created with IB. Any ideas why ?
EDIT: BTW, IB was about twice as fast at creating the ISO!
Vista RC1 X-64
in ImgBurn General
Posted
No doubt Vista support will be added for version 8.0 $$$