killjoy

I'm sorry, but Memorex media surely isn't the best available. You'd be better off with Verbatim or Plextor media, Ricoh is also a good choice. I do not know which movies you are trying to backup, but it could also have to do with some kind of copy protection. edit: Can you check out the mediacode of your Memorex discs? You can read it out with Imgburn and looks like this for example: Pre-recorded Information: Manufacturer ID: TYG03

Thanks LUK! Can't wait to test the new version

Talking about the new version, any news on the releasedate?

lol, I remember that one of my first cd-writers did not support burn-proof technology and I ended up with many buffer underrun errors. Indeed you could throw away the disc if the buffer was empty . Nowaydays every writer has some sort of burnproof technology. Some say that Seamless Link technology works even better (Philips/BenQ drives), because it is part of the firmware and it is impossible to turn it off accidentely. Don't know if that is only a fairytale though...

I am sorry, but I just thought this question was about making an ISO file from a collection of files already present on the Harddisk. If the question was 'how to rip' then ofcourse this thread would be closed as we speak. Maybe it's a good idea to close this thread anyway, I think I gave enough suggestions already.

I would agree it is the best writing program out there. If it won't ever support ISO creation. Could you recomend a good program that will, even if I need to use it in combination with AnyDVD, etc? Thanks!!! You can use ImgTool Classic for creating an ISO-file. Use Google to find it. Alternatively you can use Folder2Iso.

Again?

polopony that is not the case. I just expected a release a bit sooner, if you would please check postnumber 13 of this topic before delivering this comment. And it's not the queue function, it is just the most important function I was referring to: the writing process itself.

polopony I partly agree with that. LUK already told in this forum that the buffer underrun error was one of the first things that was fixed. Then he said a new version was SOON to be released with that issue fixed. Now what is the definition of soon? Will that be some days or some weeks? Now everyone is waiting eagerly for the new release. So maybe some clarity about when the new release is coming surely can't hurt? I know it is impossible to give an exact releasedate, but an announcement of some kind would be gladly appreciated.

Cynthia, I have to agree with you. I think that solving bug fixes have priority over implementing new functions. Considering many people are dealing with a version containing some bugs I think they must have the chance of getting a fixed version instead of going back to a prior version (like I did). I know Lighting UK puts a lot of work in it, so please take this as positive criticism. If it's not too complicated, why not release a new beta version AND a final version alongside. Take for example Utorrent, they continiously release new beta versions with added functionality, and also having a final version for users that want stability.

I sure hope so, considering that was fixed almost instantly

I went back to 1.1.0.0, also because the buffer underrun error has not been solved yet.

Nope, it's max 4,37 GB. You should configure the program to set output file to max 4,35 GB or 4464 MB, that works best to burn your ISO to dvd. That it shows 4,7 GB on the package means nothing, just like when you buy a new hard disc. Windows always 'wastes' a bit of the full capacity.

Oh, so this only happens if you are burning images from the queue? I admit I don't do that - I only burn an image to one disc at a time, and don't find myself burning several different images consecutively in a short period. However, if the source of the issues is the size of the data "chunks" being read from the hard disk, I don't see how using the queue would be any different than burning a single image... However, I'll give it a try. Do I need to load several images, or will just one image in the queue be enough to test this? No, this applies to single images too. This has been fixed already in version 1.2.1.0