johnniedoo

I am getting back to my own original post as a final thought /follow up. I am now enjoying my past fantastic copy and iso file making speeds. i can do 2 at a time to my drive across the cat6 wired lan in 4minutes. I get no more buffering and back to normal. I did something to mess it up, somehow. i had not been able to determine precisely what i did , but a simple roll back to a restore point i had(i set one daily) made all my trouble go away, and have stayed away for 2or more weeks now. Thanks for the information and help provided, truly appreciated it. John

i appreciate all your info. i knew about the hp drives for some time via the avs forums i subscribe to. i thought the drives from lite on and hp were the same in those models, but i was no sure at all. i was checking the transfer speeds i could see and it hovered around 80mbs going down to 40 and staying near 72 or so for most of a transfer of file or data. some things go faster than others. I never quite grasped what all that meant in the long run though ...eg the burning of discs or ripping to drives. i have burnt well over 1000 dvds of all types but no blu rays .i have also ripped a few hundred movies to the hard drives, over 300 and less than 500 . i have gone thorough a bunch of drives over the past few years, too. i used light scribe for a time 3 or 4yrs ago but no more. I had terrible luck with Lite On drives, have purchased 6 of them and only one has lasted more than a year. The HP from the 1040 to the 1270 or whatever i have now have fared a bit better, one even making 2yrs now. I never knew who made them or if the same model was made by the same original manufacturer over a few yrs. that was the only reason i got interested in the disparity between or among the different drives and the total time to make a dvd or rip a movie. i only noticed the one which was so much different on a 3gig movie 4mins vs 15mins got my attention even presuming there were other factors that went into the final time that i didnt know about. i have had so many drives fail for all kinds of reasons , i was just anticipating the need to purchase a couple more internal drives and at least 1 new external drive thank you very much for your insights and suggestions i appreciate them. John

the drives i used were different brands but same or similar and made by the same manufacturer, the 24x dvd hp and liteon had the same guts, or so i read. that is why i wondered about the speed differences. i do send the iso to different places, often to a drive on the network. in these cases, i sent one via esata to a 1T WD hard drive and the faster iso was to a wd 1T drive , however it was the 2nd drive inside the same box. the slower one was connected by sata but it was to an enclosure out of the box and the 3rd or 4th drive . i did not know that it would take longer to send it to a network lan drive. i have gigabit ethernet , wired lan which speed tests show going faster than they write, by far. but, thanks for the information, it is useful. i learned that there is more to the final speed than the optical drives writing them and the speeds the disk drives write . i built all my computers so it is no problem to pull them apart, which i do every 6months anyway just to clean dust from the cpu coolers

ImgBurn HAF 922 Cadfael.txtCadfael on 890.log I had attempted to load both log files, unsuccessfully i guess. I appreciate the response and so quickly on this small , mostly personal , issue. I have tried to compare the 2 copies of imgBurn but being on 2 separate computers makes it rough to remember. one is only a few weeks on the SSD unit since i had to reinstall it and left it in the default status other than changing destination folder. the fast copy has been around some time and is , for the most part, default as far as i can remember. i am not usually messing with configs since it works fine for me as is. i believe i have managed to make the attachments work with the log files. i can not make out anything in them that helps me determine why it takes so much longer on the faster computer. though i got a 2nd try down from 15mins to 10mins somehow. i just cant see how i might have configured the faster ImgBurn on the 'slower' computer. i realize that there may be other things controlling the net time to make an iso only i dont know what those things may be. i really like img burn and use over the rip part of any dvd hd now, all the time. i just want to figure out how to tweak it better, i guess. so many places for me to make mistakes..(i noted the different read times and write times, but dont know why these are different , as i noted in original post: i have both set for max/8x )in the start part of the interface.

I have 2 computers with same hp super multi dvd drives and i have imgburn on both . write to same kind of hdd 1gig wd sata connections. but it takes about 4mins on one (phenomII x4 965BE, 8g ram, 790FX board) and it takes 15 mins on the other computer. (Thuban 1090T x6, 8gig Ram, 890FX) the 2nd computer has a new 128gig SSD plenty of room, faster clock settings in the ram, and newer board but it much slower. ihave the same settings in ImgBurn Max/8x and just want to know why it should take so much longer. both have AnyDvdHD which i disable but runs the same regardless of being on or off. I found out by accident as i usually use the 890FX/Thuban 1090T for most of my burning and ripping but it was off and i just wanted to try the other Phenom II with the 790FX board and thought something was wrong when i got the 'successfully completed" chimes in 3min 53seconds for the 100min movie. I had to try it on the usual one and fired it up and at 10mins it is still buffering and stuff . I didnt see all that buffering going on on the fast rip but i wasnt really looking, i kind of expected about 8-10 mins for it. If anyone has any ideas at all, i would appreciate a line. As I mentioned, i only changed the folder for the finished rip , but did it in both. i did not change any of the default settings in either, just have run it to make quick back ups of my movies and save the full iso file of them on larger hard drives. Thanks John