Shamus_McFartfinger

Just to clarify, there is no driver as such. The write speed of your drive is governed by the media ID and the firmware in your drive. Imgburn (or any other program) can't tell the drive what speed to burn at if the selected speed isn't supported by either of these two things. FWIW, I also have a TSSTcorp drive.... which I hate with a passion. It hasn't worked properly since the day I bought it. Luckily, there's a shiny, new Pioneer 112 sitting on my desk waiting to take its place. I recommend a similar course of action.

Probably a hardware error. Grab the latest firmware (link below) for your drive and see if that fixes it. ftp://ftp.benq-eu.com/dvd-rw/firmware/dw1655/dw1655_bcib.zip

I found them while trawling the net for interesting things. I haven't had time to look for more but if you search Google for something like "high speed photos" or high speed photography", you might find something.

I sling it over my shoulder and tell her I'm a bell ringer.

It'd be alot like mountaineering. It'd be exactly like it if she had a keg of rum around her neck and knew how to yodel.

I wonder how many bags of flour he used?

Happy birthday, mate! Another year gone swirling, huh? Well, cheer up. This year I got you a woman to share your birthday cake with.

It's something I've learned to live with. *cough*

Testing, as you'd imagine from Lightnings' perpective, is often hit and miss. What works fine with some hardware will fall over on others. What works fine with XP dies on 98.... etc.. etc... A report about buggy s/ware when it seems (to us, at least) that there's a problem with the hardware used is a sure way to get up the nose of pretty much everyone here. In either case, I'm happy just to let the subject drop and die a lingering death so we can get on with finding the cause of the problem. Agreed? A comparison test isn't wasting our time. *WE* want to know where the problem lies. I'm sure Lightning_UK! (as resident Great Poobah ) is curious also. The latest beta (which I haven't played with yet) makes some changes that I don't pretend to understand with the way files are treated which will, apparently, speed things up a bit. That's the exact reason the rest of us leeches.... err... regulars are here. FWIW, this is the log of a larg-ish ISO I just built for testing purposes. The source drive was a networked, crappy, 5400rpm, IDE drive on a pretty ordinary PC. Not bad for 90 minutes though. I 22:51:12 ImgBurn Version 2.3.0.3 Beta started! I 22:51:12 Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional (5.0, Build 2195 : Service Pack 4) I 22:51:12 Total Physical Memory: 1,048,048 KB - Available: 597,732 KB I 22:51:13 Initialising SPTI... I 22:51:13 Searching for SCSI / ATAPI devices... I 22:51:14 Found 1 DVD-ROM and 1 DVD?RW! I 22:51:22 Operation Started! I 22:51:22 Building Image Tree... I 22:52:36 Calculating Totals... I 22:52:36 Preparing Image... I 22:53:57 Checking Path Length... I 22:53:57 Image Size: 93,066,428,416 bytes I 22:53:57 Image Sectors: 45,442,592 I 22:53:57 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:02:35 I 22:54:08 Operation Started! I 22:54:08 Building Image Tree... I 22:55:25 Calculating Totals... I 22:55:25 Preparing Image... I 22:56:47 Checking Path Length... I 22:56:47 Image Size: 93,066,428,416 bytes I 22:56:47 Image Sectors: 45,442,592 I 22:56:51 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:02:43 I 22:56:51 Operation Started! I 22:56:51 Image Contents: 76,325 Files, 16,728 Folders I 22:56:51 Image Sectors: 45,442,592 I 22:56:51 Image Size: 93,066,428,416 bytes I 22:56:51 Image Layer Break Position: 22,721,296 I 22:56:51 Image Single Layer Profile: DVD-R/RW (Media Capacity: 2,298,496) I 22:56:51 Image Double Layer Profile: DVD+R DL (Min L0: 0, Max L0: 2,086,912, Media Capacity: 4,173,824) I 22:56:51 Image Volume Identifier: testicle I 22:56:51 Image Application Identifier: IMGBURN V2.3.1.0 - THE ULTIMATE IMAGE BURNER! I 22:56:51 Image Implementation Identifier: ImgBurn I 22:56:51 Image File System(s): ISO9660, UDF (1.02) I 22:56:51 Destination File: R:\testicle.iso I 22:56:51 Destination Free Space: 778,676,097,024 bytes (760,425,876 KB) (742,603 MB) (725 GB) I 22:56:51 Destination File System: NTFS I 22:56:51 File Splitting: Auto I 22:56:51 Writing Image... I 00:29:29 Image MD5: 3d7e339d7aa7daace58e1046d9fbd494 I 00:29:29 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 01:32:37 I 00:29:29 Average Write Rate: 16,355 KB/s (11.8x) - Maximum Write Rate: 33,660 KB/s (24.3x)

Building is building, regardless of the destination. Shall we move on or continue debating the terms we've been using for years? I've used many NAS units in the past. Even one running NASLite on a Celeron 333. The speed wasn't great (around 6MB/sec) but it was certainly acceptable and usable. The same might be asked of a new member jumping into a help forum and proclaiming that the software doesn't work properly. We build and burn hundreds of images before each major release. We can't test every piece of hardware but if it took 90 minutes to parse and process 8gigs of data from a network device, we'd have noticed. Given that you obviously have a problem with the way ImgBurn handles files from your NAS, how about giving us some info on the NAS in question so we can see what it is? It's not one of those Netgear SC-101 things, is it?

True, but that little mouse sure is still going at it........... Yep. He's been humping that thing for about 6 months now and he still hasn't figured out that she's dead. Then again, he mightn't think it matters? Necro-mouso-philia?

I wonder what this is. A driver for that white, boxy looking music thingy? iTunes perhaps? An iPod! That's what I was thinking of. *cough*

What a waste of money. Check it out. http://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/2007/0...ion_dollar.html

I think they're stunning. And you're right, it's amazing what we don't see. I'll have a look around and see what else is around.

Well..... my crystal ball is in the shop atm and my pig entrails and tea leaves just aren't working the way they used to.

What a great little tool. A great find. Thanks!

You've lost me. Why would you go through all this crap instead of building an ISO directly from the NAS unit? Borland.

Happy birthday, ya old fart! Have a great day!

Hmm... not really. Any software used to query the drive will probably get the same response that ImgBurn did. Afterall, it's up to the drive to identify itself when asked. Pulling the drive out and having a look at it might tell you something. It might not either. I don't think I've ever seen a drive that won't identify itself which makes me curious. (Cheap Chinese knockoff comes to mind). Lightning might have a better idea of what the problem is but, personally, I'd be replacing the drive with a Pioneer 112 or something.

It's simple physics. If a drives' maximum speed is rated at 16x, it will only be able to attain that speed when burning near the outer edge of the media. Closer to the centre (where less disk surface passes beneath the laser per revolution), read/write speeds will be slower.

This is the only thing that stands out to me. Any idea who made this drive? A brandname or model number or something?

The only reason I can think of for wanting this feature is being able to extract and burn multi-rar torrent files. Some might argue that they seed linux distros but it's a pretty weak arguement when they can be downloaded directly from a webpage alot more quickly. I don't like your chances of having this implemented.

I agree with donta. Why would you bother? Yes, XBMC can extract then play an ISO contained within a rar file but what do you gain? HDs are so cheap these days it isn't funny. Farting around with archives to save a meg or two seems pretty pointless.

Try these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC