Jump to content

ThaCrip

Members
  • Posts

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ThaCrip

  1. Here is the OP's log.txt for those who don't want to download it...

    I 20:50:22 ImgBurn Version 2.5.8.0 started!
    I 20:50:22 Microsoft Windows 8 Core x64 Edition (6.2, Build 9200)
    I 20:50:22 Total Physical Memory: 33,480,684 KiB  -  Available: 23,953,008 KiB
    I 20:50:22 Initialising SPTI...
    I 20:50:22 Searching for SCSI / ATAPI devices...
    I 20:50:22 -> Drive 1 - Info: HL-DT-ST BD-RE BP60NB10 1.02 (F:) (USB 2.0)
    I 20:50:22 -> Drive 2 - Info: ELBY CLONEDRIVE 1.4 (E:) (SCSI)
    I 20:50:22 Found 1 BD-ROM/HD DVD-ROM and 1 BD-RE XL!
    I 20:51:55 Operation Started!
    I 20:51:55 Source Device: [0:0:0] HL-DT-ST BD-RE BP60NB10 1.02 (F:) (USB)
    I 20:51:55 Source Media Type: CD-ROM
    I 20:51:55 Source Media Supported Read Speeds: 4x, 10x, 16x, 20x, 24x
    I 20:51:55 Source Media Supported Write Speeds: 24x
    I 20:51:55 Source Media Sectors: 333,000
    I 20:51:55 Source Media Size: 783,216,000 bytes
    I 20:51:55 Source Media Volume Identifier: AIR_ALL_ORANGE
    I 20:51:55 Source Media File System(s): ISO9660 (Bootable), Joliet
    I 20:51:55 Read Speed (Data/Audio): MAX / 8x
    I 20:51:55 Destination File: D:\AIR_ALL_ORANGE.BIN
    I 20:51:55 Destination Free Space: 861,445,029,888 Bytes (841,254,912.00 KiB) (821,538.00 MiB) (802.28 GiB)
    I 20:51:55 Destination File System: EXFAT
    I 20:51:55 File Splitting: Auto

    I think I had a similar issue in the past with ImgBurn hanging on the analyzing tracks part. but in my case it was when reading a CD-RW disc, which those discs were pretty much faulty as once I got different ones it seemed to be okay after that on same drive.

    off the top of my head... try another CD/DVD reader if possible on that same CD as it could be possible your current reader has trouble reading it and may work okay on other drives.

  2. Windows 10 is officially supported until Oct 2025. Windows 11 will run on hardware that's not officially supported but requires a bit of extra effort to install.

    I also run Linux Mint (currently 21.2-Xfce) on my machines. in fact, I even run Windows 11 (and it's "activated" (the method I used to activate ('massgrave github' ; using 'HWID', which is the best) works on Win10/Win11)) in a QEMU/KVM virtual machine on my i5-3550 CPU which is not even officially supported and it works fine using official Windows 11 ISO straight from Microsoft. you can see QEMU/KVM emulates TPM v2.0. but I agree QEMU/KVM feels lighter than VirtualBox. side note: I noticed the 'activation' of Win10/11 using certain software seems to tie the activation to the QEMU/KVM's UUID of the virtual machines virtual HDD setup. because I noticed if I wipe it and start fresh, the activation is disabled. but if I restore the same UUID when I activated it, the activation is automatic with no further interaction needed as you just install Windows like usual and skip the key part etc during setup and once on the desktop you will notice it's automatically activated. but if I change the UUID of the virtual machine, like when you start a fresh one, the previous activation will no longer work. so it's easy enough to just use the same UUID in the future. on a real machine you would not have to worry about that UUID stuff if you installed Win11 directly on real hardware and activated it.

    even when it comes to file sharing between my real PC and the QEMU/KVM virtual machine I just setup a Samba share on my main Mint machine and then you can access it from the Win11 virtual machine etc.

    but at least on my i5-3550 CPU, you can't really expect native level performance when using a virtual machine (but performance is passable, especially if you don't plan on using it too much). but I generally don't use Windows, but it's nice to have on the rarer occasion where I need it in which case I use the VM. but generally the small amount of Windows software and limited amount of games I play all work on Linux Mint like Foobar2000/ImgBurn etc.

    also, you mentioned 'GPU passthrough'. while I never used this personally, from what I read, it seems you can only use it if you have a spare GPU that you are currently not using on Mint, which I can't imagine most people have (I don't).

    but given the direction things are going with Windows with Windows 11 etc I am glad I dumped Windows for Linux a little over 5 years ago now on my primary desktop PC as Mint is just more snappy without all of the bloat that runs on Windows. this is especially obvious the less CPU power your computer has as on a backup laptop I have with a under powered CPU (AMD E-300) Mint becomes usable noticeably faster than Windows does after booting up and installing updates on Mint is quicker to and you don't have to deal with forced reboots etc on Mint as with Mint you generally don't have to reboot after updates short of pretty much kernel ones or, if you have a NVIDIA GPU using the proper proprietary NVIDIA driver. even then it lets you choose when to reboot. in fact, on Linux Mint 21.2-Xfce I currently have my all-time record uptime of 180 days and counting (as I have not rebooted in over 180 days now on my primary use PC). so basically it will be a half of year without a reboot in about 3 days from now.

    p.s. I was reading articles recently that shows that, with Win11 24H2 in the near future, will REQUIRE a certain CPU instruction, which on Intel CPU's basically means you need a CPU that supports 'SSE4.2' otherwise it flat out won't work. still, unless your CPU is fairly ancient it will still work as my i5-3550 should work as it supports SSE4.2 and it's from the year 2012 and I think Intel CPU's older than mine still have SSE4.2. on the AMD side of things I think they go back even further to something like 2006-2007 etc. basically, in short, as long as your CPU is not too old Win11 should continue to work for the foreseeable future.

  3. 19 hours ago, dbminter said:

    However, given the steady decline of optical media, there's no guarantee they will still make optical drives to read your backups from some years in the future if you need them.

    Yeah, I get eventually drives that read optical media will be more difficult to come by. but at least currently I would say we should be safe for at least another 10+ years from now. because I figure as long as the SATA connection standard remains common in desktop computers we should be safe for a while because even if they say stopped making optical drives in 5-10 years time, it will be a quite a while after that before finding a optical drive will be a problem.

    but for more general backup... yeah, quicker storage is preferable like HDD's etc as that's what I do for most of my data backup. DVD backup would be largely for family photos/videos and the like, which is much more limited.

    19 hours ago, dbminter said:

    All of my other optical disc backups are to BD-R because they write faster and they last much longer than dye based recordable media.  Plus, they're like $1 each in bulk.  I don't paying a little extra for the speed benefits and the longer life.

    Fair enough as there are definitely some advantages there. I would say my main thing is DVD's are a bit more time proven and it's much easier to find a drive that can read DVD's unlike BluRay and drives are much cheaper that can read DVD to.

    even with longevity... quality DVD recordable discs will most likely last atleast decades given I have some around 15 years old with no real signs of degradation as I figure if they are still pretty much like how when I burned them after 15 years or so, they will likely remain reliable for decades to come.

    because when it comes to disc longevity... the main thing is as long as they can last a large portion of someones life span or so as if they pass this standard, I think one could argue that's what matters most. so if, for example, a DVD lasts 50-100 years and Bluray say lasts say double that, while good in paper, in real world it probably won't matter and this assume we still have drives that can read this stuff in 50-100+ years etc, which I figure by then this stuff might be much harder to come by.

    but purely from discs point of view... I get your point with $1 each at 25GB for BD-R vs $0.20-0.30 for DVD's 4.7GB (so roughly 14.1GB to 23.5GB per $1 or so) and it's more convenient/faster transfer speeds on BluRay.

    I guess a lot of it comes back to how much higher importance data one has to backup and how much up front costs someone is willing to pay. because if one has many TB's then DVD's really start to lose their appeal just from a practical point of view. but if you only have say hundreds of GB's or so, then it's a option.

  4. On 1/12/2024 at 11:05 AM, dbminter said:

    I mostly use USB SSD's for backups nowadays. 

    While not bad, personally I would not rely on that too much as since SSD is basically a memory chip. so if it does fail, it can be sudden. that's why I prefer regular hard drives over SSD for long term storage for general backup purposes of most things.

    another bonus with optical media is one can't accidentally delete anything.

    On 1/12/2024 at 11:05 AM, dbminter said:

    I use optical media mostly for things like CD Audio and DVD Video

    I use CD-R's for creating standard Audio CD's (maybe for a very small amount of data backup in addition to DVD-R/+R).

    so I guess I should have said CD-R for standard Audio CD's and DVD for a smaller amount of higher importance data backup is my general thing.

  5. I use optical media for backup purposes, not for general usage. helps keep wear on the drive less this way and it's not like one really need to use CD/DVD etc much nowadays besides data backup anyways given one can get plenty of hard drive space for reasonably cheap for quite some time now.

    p.s. if you wanted you could say make a single uncompressed rar/zip file with a bunch of smaller files if you wanted. but I guess it depends on how small and how many as to whether it might be worth doing that or not. like if it's a bunch of smaller txt files, I would probably create a single '.7z' file with compression here. but if the files are not too small and you don't have tons of them, just burn them to CD/DVD straight up.

  6. 5 minutes ago, sh5dc said:

    not gonna buy steamdeck or legion go handheld pc

    ??? ; I am not using Steam Deck (which I am aware is Linux based). I have a standard desktop PC (ones that normally run Windows) and simply installed Linux to it (in my case Mint 21.2-Xfce as I wiped the boot drive and I only run Mint now as I have been on Mint for nearly 5 years now as in Jan 2024 it will be 5 years since I dumped Windows for Linux (I pretty much don't use Windows anymore)) which is completely free and a small tweak to ImgBurn and it can see my standard desktop sized CD/DVD burners without issue (but it should work fine with a external USB burner to I would assume, although the general word is desktop burners are better than laptop sized burners).

  7. 17 hours ago, sh5dc said:

    winlator

    fixed everything

    run windows on android

    From a quick look it appears that's pretty much using 'Wine', which is basically Linux software that allows some Windows program to run on it Linux based OS's.

    Wine (winehq.org ; although I got my ImgBurn setup through PlayOnLinux but it's still using a Wine variation) is basically what I am using on my desktop Linux computers to get ImgBurn working. but I still got to adjust some options in ImgBurn for it to see my CD/DVD burners.

    but connecting a DVD burner (in your first link) to a smart phone actually works? ; because if yours works without any further configuration of Wine it must be different from desktop Linux as that requires changes to ImgBurn settings for it to see ones DVD burner etc.

    but thanks for the info ;)

  8. On 12/20/2023 at 11:55 AM, sh5dc said:

    the pc and laptop just heavy hassle

    any chance make an android app?

    Personally... I think desktop PC's are far better than smart phones as everything is superior on those besides portability. even if I were to go with portability on some level, I would still default to a laptop since at least it's a proper computer where as smart phones are watered down online experience as smart phones are okay for quick/limited use, but if I am going to be online for any length of time, which is typically the case for me, a desktop is my preferred way by-far.

    but I guess if a persons primary concern is social media (or the like), and is heavily into portability/less weight, a smart phone is probably good enough for these kinds of users. which probably accounts for a lot of people nowadays as desktop/laptops ain't as popular as they used to be. but I definitely won't be dumping a desktop as it's just the best way to experience the internet and typing is much faster on these as on a smart phone/laptop it's a bit of a chore.

    just some thoughts ;)

  9. If you are trying to burn a standard Audio CD with ImgBurn, I suggest doing what I do, which is to temporarily convert your FLAC back to standard WAV files (i.e. 16/44.1) with Foobar2000 (or whatever software you prefer), burn your Audio CD like usual through ImgBurn using these standard WAV files, and then delete the WAV files once done and keep your FLAC for long term storage like usual.

    that might not be super convenient but unless you are burning a lot of CD's it's a good enough work-around and then you don't have to worry about any random errors like that.

    p.s. that's what I have been doing on Linux when using ImgBurn to burn standard Audio CD's once in a while.

  10. When burning standard audio CD's I would not worry too much about the quality of the CD-R media itself. I would be more concerned with using a lossless audio source (i.e. FLAC). if you are burning from MP3's to standard Audio CD, all the more reason not to worry about the quality of the CD-R media.

    like you generally want a lossless audio source to burn a standard audio CD. so FLAC etc is optimal and just keep the FLAC files as this way even if your standard Audio CD acts up in the future it's really easy to re-burn to CD-R.

    p.s. personally... I pretty much only use CD-R media for burning a occasional standard Audio CD as I rarely use it for general data backup as for general data backup I use DVD recordable media (Verbatim/TY(Taiyo Yuden)).

  11. Unless things changed, back when I overburned XBox360 games to Verbatim DVD+R DL discs I had to have a special firmware. I still have that drive and the firmware flashed to it (Liteon iHAS-324B) as it's the reason I bought that drive in the first place (although I use it for general burning nowadays).

    I 'think' there are some newer drives than what I have that can overburn though, although I can't tell you what they are off the top of my head.

    but my XBox360 collects dust for years now as I don't think I have used that on a semi-regular basis in probably around 10 years. I still have about eight Verbatim 2.4x DVD+R DL discs from those days collecting dust.

    p.s. some XBox360 games can be played on a PC using the 'Xenia' emulator.

  12. On 10/5/2023 at 5:34 AM, ojed4r said:

    *For blanks, Verbatim seems the best choice, but do Sony's have good quality as well?
    For DVDs, should I pick DVD-R or DVD+R?

    I would say Verbatim and Taiyo Yuden are the two best options in general. Verbatim tend to be a bit cheaper then TY though, which probably makes it the best all-around choice. but outside of those two you start to gamble a bit more as you might find other decent brands of discs with decent quality, but maybe not.

    but between DVD+R vs DVD-R, I doubt it matters much, but DVD-R does hold slightly more data, maybe 5-10MB more off the top of my head.

     

    On 10/5/2023 at 5:34 AM, ojed4r said:

    *The recommended speed for burning DVDs and Blu-Rays is 4x as using the lowest speed or above 4x is not safe. However, I've read that for M-Disc the recommended speed is 2x, should I use that one or 4x is sufficient?

    I generally stick with the following as they are probably safe bets...

    -DVD = 16x (or 8x or 12x)

    -CD = 16x

    while some might say as long as a disc burns okay and then verifies with ImgBurn is 'good enough', at least with DVD recordable discs, I tend to prefer checking it with programs like KProbe as this gives you a better ball-park indication of burn quality (which is a good idea to do in my opinion for anything you really care about long term). because if you start off with good burn quality, even as the disc degrades slowly over time, I figure, at least in theory, it will buy you more time before the disc is unreadable, especially assuming discs degrade slowly and not slowly and then suddenly a lot all at once (my Verbatim and Taiyo Yuden discs, the last I knew, seem to still hold strong even after 10-15+ years which is why I expect these discs to last decades at least). I guess main thing is you don't want initial burn quality running too close to the edge as in my estimations good discs with decent initial burn quality will probably last decades (at least 10-20+ years for a conservative estimate, especially with Verbatim/TY) before any failure to read them occurs.

    p.s. if I recall correctly, there was only one time where burning slow (I want to say 4x or less burning was required(but it's been a while since I did this so I can't recall exact details)) actually mattered on DVD. which was creating a boot DVD for a original XBox console that was moded. but for general data backup etc this probably is not going to matter for most people.

  13.  

    41 minutes ago, Polidoro said:

    Slimtype DVD A  DA8AESH XAAM (E:) (SATA)

    I suspect someone will say that's likely the problem since it appears when it comes to laptop burners they are so-so compared to proper desktop burners and I think it's especially true given you are apparently using quality DVD media (i.e. "DVD-R (Disc ID: MCC 03RG20)"), assuming those are the real Verbatim media.

     

    43 minutes ago, Polidoro said:

    the movie (The Godfather) is 3h long and weights 1.8GB, the dvd I'm using says that it has 4.7GB and 120 MIN of space

    If it's pretty much just the movie itself, off the top of my head, 1.8GB seems a bit too small as for a 3hr movie you would generally want it to take up as much of that space as possible which could increase video quality.

    p.s. but personally with today's tech, it's more optimal to 'find' that movie in a decent bit rate 720p/1080p x264 variation as the quality will be better and if you got say a computer or laptop with a HDMI port, you can play it from there to your TV in HD quality which is hands down better than DVD at this point in time. but considering how old DVD tech is, it's not bad for SD video. because when I play my movies it's typically from my computer etc to the TV using the HDMI connection. just make sure the TV connection is using the TV's 1080p (1920x1080) res as on Linux, by default it seems to select a lower res, but I can fix it easily enough so it's using 1920x1080 to get max image quality, otherwise it looks noticeably worse.

  14. This post should cut through the BS since here is the MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256 hashes of a CLEAN ImgBurn v2.5.8.0 installer ( SetupImgBurn_2.5.8.0.exe ; "3.0 MiB (3,101,913 bytes)")...

    MD5 = 4bf2b8f4b46385bfda4d65e423cfb868

    SHA-1 = 6a3d20796e1fcd4169d5d339af6e491dcea3367c

    SHA-256 = 49aa06eaffe431f05687109fee25f66781abbe1108f3f8ca78c79bdec8753420

    on a side note... there are a fair amount of stuff people post this kind of info for random program, but I suspect it's largely ignored as people just assume what they download is safe.

    NOTE: you only need to match to one of those as if it matches one, it will match the rest. I just posted more there as people can use whatever they prefer.

    but what Lightning UK basically said is correct, he only has so much control over things whether he likes it or not (same would basically apply to myself and the next random person). it's nothing against anyone, as like he said, it's just a fact of life. one has to take reasonable measures to ensure they don't install any program on their computer that could potentially be including unwanted junk in it.

    p.s. https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/imgburn.html (I checked both links here and they are good as ImgBurn has been downloaded there over 9.2 million times and even says on that site "ImgBurn on MajorGeeks is a clean installer without OpenCandy distributed with permission.")) ; they have the same one from a download I got years ago as it's the same hashes as what I am using (on my Linux system). but, as usual, if you want to be 100% sure run a hash check on it to make sure it matches what I posted above and then you can be sure it's clean basically.

  15. Alternatively... IMGBurn works on Linux, which if you are still using a old OS like WinXP/Win7 online, unless you must use those OS's for whatever reason, it's best to switch to Linux if you can't use Windows 10 or newer since you will have a secure internet machine.

  16. 17 hours ago, schmidtp said:

    you can install new kernels, but it's really a mishmash sometimes (especially if you installed an LTS kernel previously)

    I suspect if you try to install non-standard kernels in Mint it 'may' act up (which I would avoid as a general rule) but the stuff I mentioned is officially acknowledged by the Mint team (as I have seen mods there on their forums suggest that sort of stuff to people here and there with newer hardware). with 'apt install linux-oem-22.04c' and they even have a one with less support, which is newer than the LTS(5.15) but not as new as the one I mentioned(6.1), in the 'Update Manager > View > Linux Kernels' of 5.19 kernel, which they only support to Aug 2023. but soon they will probably have a newer one than 5.19 offered in the Update Manager for those who want it (it does not install by default as those who are on 5.15 will stay on that kernel series unless they install a newer kernel).

    but I also heard the Mint team say that's it's best to stick with the LTS kernel unless you have a real reason to use a newer one, like you need it for support of newer hardware etc.

    so I guess a 'safer bet' would be if your system is supported by 5.15 (Nov 2021 released) it's probably best. still, I would be confident newer kernels (the ones Mint supports) will be okay on Mint 21.x series to.

    but like you said, 'there's a distro out there for everyone'.

     

    17 hours ago, schmidtp said:

    What's the point in having RAM and power if you aren't going to use it? Most modern laptops can handle hungry desktop environments without blinking an eye these days.

    Fair enough. but one thing about lighter DE's, less stuff to act up, high end hardware or not, it will run well. I am more of the mindset once the interface looks 'good enough', which I feel Xfce and other similar ones are, I prefer to side with speed/reliability over a fancier interface. but I get there is no definitive answer here as it's still mostly preference.

    but I guess with certain hardware, it might easily handle the more fancy interfaces. but what I like about Mint's DE's (Cinnamon/MATE/Xfce) is they have a traditional Windows like feel to them, which I think is always a safe bet.

    but in terms of RAM... I suspect it's generally not much either way with DE's, at least in regards to Cinnamon/MATE/Xfce (or the like) variations. so it's pretty much a non-issue from the RAM aspect. but short of lighter users (who may be able to get by with 4GB of RAM), 8GB of RAM is pretty much a minimum nowadays. I got 16GB of RAM (I had 8GB from May 2012 until 2020 when I bought some used DDR3 ram (2x 8GB) for my main PC, which it's now at the limit of the motherboard). I would probably say 8GB or 16GB is the sweet-spot for most people (and probably makes up a large portion of computers still in use, with some 4GB of RAM PC's as PC's that don't have at least 4GB of RAM are probably straight up ancient) and more than 32GB of RAM is probably overkill for the vast majority of people.

     

    17 hours ago, schmidtp said:

    Sounds like it's getting a little long in the tooth LOL. I've just setup my old A10 ASUS laptop for my daughter to use with the latest 22H2 windows 10 on it. Still running fine. That ones about 10 years old. But hardware does get to a point where it become pretty much obsolete as it can't keep up with data transfers - like using USB2.0 to transfer 100GB of files. You can do it, but is the time worth it? I generally just use older hardware for gaming machines etc so once they're setup, I don't have to touch them.

    Yep. it's showing it's age ;) ; but it's still usable as I tend to roughly use a measuring stick of when doing fairly basic tasks if it's routinely pegging the CPU to 100% or thereabouts then you know it's truly ancient hardware and it's pretty much time to move on (like pretty much a underpowered laptop I have HP2000 with a AMD E-300, but I mainly use this (which has Mint 21.1-Xfce on it) for playing movies on TV's from .mkv files). but just browsing internet etc, CPU usage is not too high on that ASUS A8N32-SLI board. it's also limited to 4GB of RAM MAX, which is what's in it (4x 1GB DDR 400Mhz) as I would say the RAM would be more of a issue than CPU will be for general usage, 'if' I had to use that on a regular basis like I do my main PC. but I only use it once in a while, so it's still passable.

    but with that motherboard I got in early 2006 (the high end 2005 tech) is a ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe (socket 939) and originally had a single core CPU in it but I upgraded it to a dual core back in 2010, which at the time was still my main PC until May 2012 (which is when I got my current main PC). that old 2006 board currently has a AMD Athlon X2 3600+ dual-core 2.0GHz, but I got it overclocked to 2.3GHz. but this setup is a backup desktop, which I generally don't use much but it's nice to hang around for older hardware as while it has SATA II ports, it does have some IDE connections to so I can use my old CD/DVD burners that have IDE connections on them (and a small amount of old IDE hard drives I got if I need to).

    AMD was better than Intel at the time (like early 2006), but shortly after I got that, Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo CPU's and, to my knowledge, Intel has been ahead of AMD ever since in terms of performance per core. but prior to that AMD was ahead of Intel for probably around 5 years (like with gaming etc). my primary PC has a i5-3550 (runs at 3.5GHz under full load) as that's 11 year old CPU tech (although I had a i3-2120 CPU (2-core/4-thread) in that from when I got it until the year 2020 when I got a near dirt cheap ($20) used i5-3550 (4-core/4-thread) which was a solid upgrade for barely any money). in fact, my current main PC (ASUS board etc) is the longest I ever owned a primary PC as it just crossed the 11 year mark last month (my previous record high was 6 years and 2 months (March 2006 until May 2012)) and still works well although the on-board sound on it died back in 2020 but I just got one of those cheap USB sound cards with a 3.5mm jack on it to restore the sound and then just disabled the on-board sound in the BIOS/UEFI. I plan on sticking with this setup for the foreseeable future since it does pretty much everything I need.

    but I see your point with USB 2.0 given it's limited to about 30MB/s transfers where as a typical USB3 (or SATAII/III (probably even SATA I on some level)) will allow the hard drive to work at maximum speed which, unless one has a small capacity hard drive it can probably do around 80-100MB/s+ (even on smaller capacity HDD's 50-60MB/s or so)). I think the USB3 connection itself can do up to 300MB/s at least, or maybe up-to 500-600MB/s, as I know SATA II is limited to 300MB/s and SATA III can do up-to 500-600MB/s.

    but good point about the older hardware for gaming machine as once they are setup you don't have to mess with them, especially if it's pretty much a offline machine.

  17. 18 minutes ago, schmidtp said:

    And I'm running Linux on newer systems, so need newer kernels. But it's all good - Whatever works right?

    Yeah, even on the newest Mint 21.x series, the default kernel is 5.15 which that kernel was released in Nov 2021 (first Mint 21.x series release was about mid-2022), so it's got a little age on it. but one can install a bit more recent kernels to it if needed. so I guess it depends on how new ones hardware is. but if one needs a bit newer kernel, the newest one I see available in it is 6.1 which appears to be from Dec 2022 ( apt install linux-oem-22.04c ), so roughly a half year ago.

     

    24 minutes ago, schmidtp said:

    I tried LM years ago (with MATE, I think I tried Cinnamon as well)

    While 'Cinnamon' is sort of their main version, Cinnamon/MATE had a issue on at least two out of the three computers I have in regards to video playback (720p/1080p x264 and the like) with Celluloid paired with MPV for hardware accelerated video playback. but Xfce works without issue which is why at this point and for quite a while now I settled on Xfce. it's especially noticeable on a slower laptop I have etc. even my main PC has the issue but it's not as obvious and I can temporarily fix it by restarting Cinnamon, but then the issue returns roughly a day later (I generally leave my primary PC on all of the time). but with Xfce I simply don't have the issue, even after a lot of time passes. currently my system up time on my main PC running Mint 21.1-Xfce is 74 days and counting.

    even in terms of basic interface... while the three offered by Mint (Cinnamon/MATE/Xfce) are similar, I never cared for MATE's interface as I think Cinnamon/Xfce are more similar/better, but ultimately I had to side with Xfce as I think it's a safer bet across a wider range of hardware.

    but I suspect with Linux variations in general... there are probably quirks and preferences etc. so it's hard to definitely say one is 'the best', but I would guesstimate Mint (Xfce) is probably one of the better choices for users coming from Windows to Linux (assuming their hardware works on it).

    but from what you say, it appears you prefer a interface that's a bit more fancy at the tradeoff of being more resource hungry. personally I think DE's like Xfce look good enough and are on the lighter side as it does the important stuff well enough with a simple/clean interface.

     

    35 minutes ago, schmidtp said:

    As long as you're not using it for day to day things (like banking) that need the security and you're not connecting it to the net, you should be fine. Besides, Win10 works well enough even on slightly dated PCs

    I forgot to mention... on that backup computer with Mint/Win7, it cannot run any Windows newer than Windows 7 as while Win10 32-bit installs, it's unstable, and Win10 64-bit outright won't install as it complains about lack of nx-bit. but I am not too surprised as the motherboard is basically high-end tech from 2005 (I built it in early 2006).

     

    53 minutes ago, schmidtp said:

    But I hear what you're saying about just converting over entirely to Linux and their file formats.

    Yeah, I already did over 3 years ago now at this point.

    it was only some odd months ago I did the Linux(120GB SSD SATA)/Win7(on 80GB IDE HDD) on my backup computer setup. but it boots to Linux (Mint) by default.

  18. 19 minutes ago, schmidtp said:

    As using it in windows, you could just right click a folder and you can open that location with the program easily. Running it in Wine I don't think there was that option, so you had to navigate in the program itself (which takes time).

    Well when it comes to general audio playback, I just always have Foobar2000 open and you can change songs easily enough through it's GUI. as for playing back songs, I always load the main Foobar2000 and then drag-and-drop songs into whatever tab you want and play. even in regards to general playback, through Foobar2000's settings, I made it so you can rewind/fast forward with the arrow keys. spacebar is play/pause etc. but the Foobar2000 program needs to be the active window for it to work.

    I even have the 'right click (like right click a file(s) in Foobar2000) > Convert' section setup with shortcuts which makes it easier to convert from FLAC to MP3 etc in the future. this is actually pretty easy once it's setup as you open Foobar2000, drag-and-drop files into it's own tab etc, then select them all (or whatever you want to convert, right click and select Convert etc.

    also, after setting up Foobar2000 through PlayOnLinux, through my Mint 21.1-Xfce installation on the 'Keyboard > Application Shortcuts' section I setup a keyboard shortcut to load Foobar2000 by pressing CTRL+SHIFT+F. this is not straight forward/easy but it's not too difficult. but I just generally have PlayOnLinux create a desktop shortcut to whatever Windows program I want to use as then it's simple enough.

    I noticed on some Wine installations, like through the standard system install itself, that sometimes it does not affiliate double clicking a exe to run it (so I got to use terminal etc) but I noticed installing it from the official Wine website (winehq.org) seems to automatically affiliate exe's with Wine to where it acts a bit more like Windows where you just double click to run a exe. but even with the official WineHQ site install, I also suggest installing the 'apt install wine-desktop-files' as this creates shortcuts on your start menu for easier access to 'Configure Wine' (instead of having to do 'winecfg' from terminal) etc.

    so while Foobar2000 does not have a fancy looking interface, it's practical function is where it shines as it does the basics well (maybe some slight tweaking needed) if you don't mind loading up the program to play your music.

    p.s. but with FSTAB I mainly did that so that hard drives are always mounted to the same location regardless of whether the /dev/sda changes or not (which it might on random reboots).

     

    29 minutes ago, schmidtp said:

    TBH Once I settle on a distro, I was more thinking along the lines of running Windows in a virtual machine instead of dual booting.

    Yeah, I am not much of a fan of dual-booting in general as it's a safer bet to either run Windows or Linux exclusively.

    even on the rare occasion I need to play with Windows on my Linux machine, I just run it through a virtual machine (QEMU/KVM etc)

    but with virtual machine, while it will probably be okay, I suspect there are some instances where ones has to be running Windows on the actual machine for it to work. but I imagine this generally won't be the case (I have one thing that requires the real Windows though, but fortunately I rarely use that device that requires Windows).

    p.s. the only dual-boot system I do have of the three computers I got is my backup desktop where Linux Mint runs from a 120GB SSD and Windows 7 is on a 80GB IDE. the Windows 7 I do have installed was installed from a custom/updated to Jan 2023 ISO I made with a 'Integrate7' script by a user on another forum called 'wkeller'. it's about 2.1GB larger than the official stock Win7 SP1 from Microsoft which I think was from 2011 or so. I know Windows 7 support was officially gone as of Jan 2020, but it did get updates until pretty much Jan 2023 but was not easy to do etc. but I only have that installed on what will likely be a rare use occasion where I have to run a very limited amount of Windows games on that old computer since, in short, they don't work on that computer since the Linux driver is using the older 'radeon' driver instead of what more modern gaming on Linux uses on the AMD side of things, which is 'amdgpu' driver. but those old games I got on that work fine on Linux on my primary PC but it's using a proper NVIDIA driver etc.

     

    35 minutes ago, schmidtp said:

    I'm sort of 50/50 ATM. I can do a lot of things in Linux, but when it comes to audio/video production a lot of things are still quicker in Windows unfortunately. Its just a matter of finding the equivalent software I'm happy with in Linux But I'm getting there. I'm going to try and give the native Linux apps a go first before I switch to running Windows apps in Wine if I can.

    Yeah, I see.

    I don't use much Windows software, mainly just Foobar2000/ImgBurn and maybe a little bit beyond this (along with some games), but the Windows software I do use, there just ain't a good Linux equivalent (maybe with burning software on some level, but even with that ImgBurn is more optimal), especially with Foobar2000.

     

    39 minutes ago, schmidtp said:

    I'm using a Fedora based distro ATM (Ultramarine) and most things are generally working well (except the occasional snag). I've got a slight issue ATM I can't solve with drives being corrupted occasionality when Linux writes to NTFS formatted partitions. Unfortunately my Files drive has to be formatted in a type that both Windows and Linux can read when I switch OS.

    I see. but since you are still fairly heavily using Windows, I totally understand with keeping NTFS. in fact, when I made the switch to Linux in Jan 2019 full-time I held off about 1 full year after that (so to around Jan 2020) before changing pretty much all of my hard drives from NTFS to EXT4 just to make sure I was going to stick with Linux in the long term.

    but I did notice some issues on Linux with NTFS hard drives, like with torrents it would download to 100% but there was fairly often a tiny bit of that data I had to pause, do a 'force recheck' and then it would find a bit of missing data and then when I started download again it would finish and generally be okay. but on EXT4 I never experienced that issue once. so while I think 'NTFS' on Linux is 'mostly okay', there can potentially be weird quirks like this and what you experience etc.

    anyways... while I get there is a lot of Linux distro's out there, so it might be difficult to find one to settle on for some people, I never had a real reason to dump Linux Mint as it's been around a long time, is based on Ubuntu (which is one of the more used Linux distros as while there might not be strictly any 'standard' when it comes to Linux, I would say Debian/Ubuntu (both can use '.deb' files) based ones are probably as close as it gets) and has support for nearly 5 years each major release as it seems a fair amount of others might be in the 2-3 years of support cycle. also, while I get many Linux OS's can claim to be 'stable', I would be willing to bet with Linux Mint things are more likely to just continue working vs some other variations.

  19. 23 hours ago, schmidtp said:

    So let me wrap my head around this - you're ripping from a 8.5GB DVD and directly converting to X264?

    No. but ill make it clearer (and with much less words)...

    -DVD9(8.5GB) to DVD5(4.7GB) (movies) using Devede works as expected (no stutter. works well) (with the libdvdcss2 installed of course).

    -720p/1080p x264 (movies) using Devede to convert to standard DVD (4.7GB) video format has a little stutter like I was saying.

    p.s. the original 720p/1080p x264 movies I have work perfect (no stutter). so the stutter issue occurs during the conversion with Devede (source file being 720p/1080p x264) to standard DVD format.

     

    23 hours ago, schmidtp said:

    Probably the only thing I really miss from Windows when I'm using Linux is Mp3Tag. You can run it in Wine, but doesn't integrate very well (accessing drives and what not).

    For all of my general audio playback/conversion I use Foobar2000 (paired with the Encoder Pack... https://www.foobar2000.org/encoderpack ) on Linux as that's simply better than any native Linux program.

    I heard of Mp3Tag but I never bothered with software like that since once I setup my FLAC files, which I can do in Foobar2000, everything works well after that during say FLAC to MP3 etc conversions (with a little tweaking in Foobar2000 itself depending on how you like things setup with file names it creates etc).

    but I noticed occasionally, in regards to 'accessing drives and what not', you may have to tweak things. like on a game (Windows game running on Linux) I am running a graphics enhancement mode on, in the ini configuration files, it has Windows drive letters (say D:\Games\GameNameHere\ etc) and by default it won't be setup correctly. so I open 'Configure Wine (or winecfg from terminal) > Drives' section as this can be corrected here (along with some tweaks in the ini so it's looking for the mod files in the proper directory).

    even in regards to my save state in Foobar2000 with all of my music loaded with different tabs etc, like even if I backup that data, say format my system (or wipe the wine profile to start clean) etc, and restore the Foobar2000 profile save state, since drive letters will likely change in Wine, if you try playing music (from the previous profile data that you restored) it will probably fail since the drive letter won't match, but this can be corrected on that 'Drives' tab in Wine basically and then all of your tabs in Foobar2000 that you restored from your profile are working once again as expected.

    I got my additional hard drives mounted to the same point upon boot up (through '/etc/fstab' file using UUID etc)... like say '/media/1TBHDD' for example. so if my music is in some general folder on that hard drive and Foobar2000 can't see it, I just go to Wine's 'Drives' tab and select the proper drive letter Foobar2000 is expecting to see that music on (which you will know the drive letter that's needed by the error screen Foobar2000 shows when you try to play the music and it's not in the location Foobar2000 expects). so say Foobar2000 after profile restoration expects some music you are trying to play in a tab at D:\ etc etc, on the Configure Wine section on 'Drives', for 'Letter' you put "D:" and for target folder I put something like "/media/1TBHDD" (so to Wine it see's that 1TB HDD as the 'D' drive now) and then apply and now all of the tabs/music folder I had previously configured work well once again instead of having to redo it from scratch which can be a little time consuming.

    I setup the limited amount of Windows programs I use on Linux through PlayOnLinux as this keeps things separated from the standard system installed wine which I generally use for games. basically the system installed wine stores stuff in the default ".wine" folder in ones Home directory. with PlayOnLinux all of it's stuff goes to a different location... in ones home folder it's more easily accessed through 'PlayOnLinux's virtual drives' shortcut it creates. but it's basically stored more precisely at "~/.PlayOnLinux/wineprefix/"

    p.s. that Foobar2000 'encoder pack' is only needed if you plan on converting from say FLAC to MP3/AAC/Opus etc. but for proper Apple AAC conversion through Foobar2000 (which is the best AAC (AAC-LC)) you need to take additional steps for it to work (you need additional files) as it won't work simply by installing Foobar2000 and the Encoders Pack. but if you don't use AAC (AAC-LC) and just MP3 etc, a default install of Foobar2000 and the Encoders Pack will work.

  20. 13 hours ago, schmidtp said:

    Although I did have a little look into various app's available on Linux for ripping DVDs. K3B looks to be a good alternative as it also supports libdvdcss I believe once installed

    I did play around with that libdvdcss not all that long ago (roughly a year or two ago) and it did work for removing copy protection from a older movie DVD I had when playing around with it. I think I used it in combination with 'Devede' software when converting to standard 4.7GB DVD if I recall correctly.

    that Devede (apt install devede) is decent software but the only real problem I had with it is... when converting actual movie DVD's it worked as expected, but when converting from 720p/1080p x264 (h264) video files, while it worked, the final video on the DVD side of things had a bit of stutter in the final DVD output during playback and I could never figure out how to fix it (the source 720p/1080p x264 files worked perfectly (no stutter) as expected. so the stutter on the DVD side must have been some weird glitch during conversion).

    not that it was a big deal, since I don't use DVD for video playback anymore in general (maybe rarely), but it would have been nice to figure out just in case since while the final disc is watchable, there is consistent stutter throughout the video. like it plays fine, slight stutter, plays fine, stutter and continues to end of video file. off the top of my head, I want to say the very slight stutter occurred once every few seconds or so. but I suspect some people it might not bother, but that sort of stuff bothers me as it's noticeable instead of working perfectly like it's supposed to (like I say, the DVD9 to DVD5 worked perfectly though with no stutter).

    sort of that stutter issue I was happy with Devede as it even creates a ISO for you to burn/use. but if you are converting from say DVD9 (8.5GB) to DVD5 (4.7GB), I think Devede will work well for you, as like I said, when I converted from a real DVD, there was no stutter in the final video output by Devede. I just used the main movie file with a basic menu created by Devede in my testing.

    a moment ago (on Mint 21.1-Xfce which is based on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS) when issuing 'apt install libdvdcss' it shows (as I already installed it a while ago)...

    Note, selecting 'libdvdcss2' instead of 'libdvdcss'
    libdvdcss2 is already the newest version (1.4.2-dmo1).

     

    p.s. I use ImgBurn on Linux for all my general CD/DVD burning. it works once setup properly as you have to tweak a couple of things for it to work on Linux. like it has to run in WinXP mode on Wine and, off the top of my head, I think on Wine versions newer than v4 series or so, you have to change from ImgBurn's default ASPI driver to SPTI etc in ImgBurn's options otherwise it won't see your CD/DVD drives. but once you do this, it works well.

     

    13 hours ago, schmidtp said:

    I decided there were too many variables backing up audio CDs to Bin files. So decided either WAV/CUE or FLAC/CUE would be a better alternative as you can't just make a disc copy of a CD

    I would avoid storing WAV for long term storage as FLAC is better and is about half of the storage space with identical sound quality since it's a lossless audio format.

    personally I don't worry too much about super precise audio CD backup, like people get with 'Exact Audio Copy' software (it's good software, as I am not dissing it, but it's probably a little overkill for most people), as the main thing is getting the song data from original CD (which is basically WAV) to FLAC format and then from there one always has a high quality source to convert to lossy formats (MP3/AAC/Opus etc) when needed.

    because the way I see it... as long as there is no obvious read errors when getting the basic song (WAV) data from the CD to ones hard drive, even if 'Exact Audio Copy' is technically a tiny bit better, in the real world, I highly doubt a person would be able to audibly detect any differences. like for example (especially if your audio CD don't have any obvious scratches etc)... Exact Audio Copy vs just copying the audio file(s) from ones file manager to hard drive. I am willing to bet they are pretty much the same in real world sound quality (assuming no obvious read errors).

    because CD audio already exceeds human hearing. because even decent bit rate lossy files people struggle to notice the difference between the lossless and lossy file and after a certain point they basically can't tell the difference and if they can't tell the difference between lossy to lossless it's pretty much guaranteed they ain't going to notice anything from Exact Audio Copy vs a standard copy/paste of WAV files from ones CD to hard drive (assuming no obvious read errors occur).

    so while I don't fault people using programs like Exact Audio Copy, as it's still good stuff at the end of the day, I think it's almost a obsession with people after a certain point with sound quality etc. like for example... standard audio CD's vs "HD" audio. it's totally pointless to waste space with HD audio because us humans can't tell the difference outright since standard Audio CD's that have been around since the 1980's already exceed our hearing ability. point being, it's basically impossible to improve on sound quality of standard Audio CD's to a difference that would actually matter to us humans.

  21. So the gist of it is the OP is trying to create a ISO from the VIDEO_TS folder so then he can mount the ISO through Windows with right click etc. but like dbminter said, "It sounds like the ISO's are definitely not compliant in some variety" which I imagine is the issue.

    it's been a long time since I played with that sort of stuff, and while I suspect there is easier ways with other windows software (but if there is, it's probably old software at this point), it appears one can create a ISO through terminal etc using something like... https://superuser.com/a/109223 & https://askubuntu.com/a/28071 etc

  22. 10 hours ago, dbminter said:

    I do have somewhat of a real world result for how long BD-R last.  I had one I burned 7 years ago back in March where all the contents read back fine from last week.  So, BD-R should last at least 5 to 10 years.

    But, I've also had DVD-R from last year that were readable after I had burned them 19 years before.

    Yeah. that's why I tend to prefer DVD because given they have lasted 10-20 years already, and if there is no obvious degradation with KProbe scan etc, chances are they are going to last at least decades, unless of course disc deterioration starts to hit a disc rapidly out of no where, which I would 'guess' is unlikely.

    but I guess on paper, since they went from CD to DVD to BD, while you get more data on each disc, they are all the same physical size so it's cramming more data into a smaller space, which at least theoretically, makes it more susceptible error (like read errors etc).

     

    1 hour ago, Bassthang said:

    Thanks for your thoughts on the formats and longevity. I've recently read some old CDs that were written in the 90s and they seem OK, so I reckon your findings are spot-on. I also tend to copy files from my older archive CDs to new DVDs every few years, just in case. I'd rather have 2 or 3 copies of a file than none!

    In my opinion, that's largely a waste of time to re-copy to 'newer' CD/DVD's etc.

    but I do agree, as extra insurance, that besides the usual two copies on two different hard drives method (which is more practical in general since it's minimal effort and convenient and offers a reasonable level of protection against data loss), that having a one copy on say Verbatim media and another copy on Taiyo Yuden media offers that much more insurance as I do this occasionally, but I would never consider re-burning it given the current copies show no signs of degrading (which KProbe etc scans would show since you can keep original scan after burning, then compare it to a newer scan you do many years later).

    but after a certain point this stuff almost starts to become a bit obsessive, which is why I figure a good balance of things is the two hard drive stuff along with at least one copy on DVD media etc (although for super high importance stuff, two different kinds of DVD media for example are all that much better because the odds of both of those dying at the same time is probably slim enough).

     

    1 hour ago, Bassthang said:

    DVD is not an option for some of my data, though. We're talking multi-track audio (Pro Tools and the like) from home recording projects and backups of my band's professional studio projects (which can be huge) so a single project would have to be split across dozens of DVDs. Not ideal. Likewise, my partner's digital photos (which I'm currently sifting though) take up a lot of space.

    Yeah, I understand.

    because in terms of optical media, for really a large project, BD-R is more practical (given 25GB a disc vs 4.7GB). but 'may' be more risky in terms of longevity of discs and there is less drives to read it available to the masses etc.

    honestly though, if I had many TB's of data to backup, short of super high importance data, I would just stick to regular hard drives, just use more hard drives... like besides the usual two copies on two different hard drives, which is a good bare minimum convenient standard, just use more and keep some offline for extra insurance against viruses etc and accidental data deletion.

    hell, most of the data I backup I stick to the two hard drive method since it offers the best balance of convenience(like ease-of-backup/using that data)/data security.

    p.s. just speaking for myself... even for backing up digital photos (i.e. family photos etc) I noticed a good portion of what I have backed up, is a bit of excess as I could probably get rid of some pictures to save space since most pictures are nothing TOO special. but then I get as a side effect of this, it takes time (probably quite a bit depending on how much you have to sort though) to sort through these and tune it before burning to say DVD etc, which while it makes the final disc one burns of higher quality pictures/videos etc, the time it takes to do this can be a lot. so I guess one tries their best to balance things.

     

    1 hour ago, Bassthang said:

    It's such a shame that the BDR format seems to have been nobbled and sidelined by the manufacturers.

    I think a lot of the reason why BD-R never took off like CD/DVD is lack of general public using it since it seems many switched over to streaming etc. optical disc seem to be limited to a limited amount of people nowadays.

    the only reason I still use optical media is because I feel it's the all-around best alternative for backing up data for long term storage if you put hard drives aside. plus, optical media ain't prone to accidental data deletion etc. it's a nice way to permanently store data for at least years, but probably decades.

    1 hour ago, Bassthang said:

    The WinXP machine is my Music PC, running Pro Tools and older software like Cubase and some vintage Adobe products (I now use Affinity on my laptop for my art and design, but sometimes it's quicker to just go back to a simpler Adobe tool to do some jobs). It doesn't connect to the Internet any more, nor is it used for day-to-day tasks. It's also where I run my old PC games (Doom, Quake, Unreal, Half-life and so on). I like it just the way it is - what a breath of fresh air it is to use XP after faffing around with Win10!
    I do have some Linux PCs too (still trying to decide which distro is best for me), and I now have the use of my late partner's Mac laptop, so I have a lot more options.

    I see. like one of those machines you don't like to touch since it's good for old school stuff. I totally get it ;)

    p.s. speaking of old games, I got MAME (arcade emulator) setup on some of my PC's for playing my favorite fighting games, which are the arcade versions from the 1990's (which I used to play all besides MK1 in the arcades back in the 1990's), Mortal Kombat 1 through Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 (i.e. MK1/MK2/MK3/UMK3) and Killer Instinct as I have been playing around with these once again lately on my X-Arcade stick (which I bought back in the 2000's decade as it's the older serial port version which I got the adapter that converts it to the more modern USB connection). anyways, the games you mentioned I played those at one point in the last to (like back in the 1990's etc). my single favorite gaming experience would be Mafia (2002) which, while one could setup on a old Windows computer (as I do have this setup on a old computer running Windows 7 (also has Linux Mint on it)) as a backup, it works on my primary PC running Linux Mint computer through Lutris/Wine etc.

     

    2 hours ago, Bassthang said:

    I do have some Linux PCs too (still trying to decide which distro is best for me)

     

    Yeah, while there are plenty of choices (as there is no definitive answer)... I think Linux Mint is one of the safest choices for beginners and people in general (it's been around longer than most and stuff is more likely to 'just work' etc). because it's based on Ubuntu (the current Linux Mint 21.x series is based on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS) which is similar enough to Debian as these have been around a long time (Debian since 1993 and Ubuntu since 2004. Mint has been around since 2006) so are a bit more common/somewhat standard. but one area Mint shines over many others is the amount of time it's supported for as each major version is basically 2 years apart and is supported for pretty much 5 years...

    -Linux Mint v20.x (released about mid-2020) = supported until April 2025

    -Linux Mint v21.x (released about mid-2022) = supported until April 2027

    and if the pattern holds, which it probably while, Mint v22.x will be released about mid-2024 and supported until April 2029.

    the default kernel for newest Mint 21.x is currently 5.15 which that kernel was from Nov 2021. so as long as someones hardware is not too recent it should be okay. even if they need a newer kernel you can install newer ones on Mint through the OS itself. but generally... the Mint team suggests sticking to the kernel that comes with it unless you have a specific reason (like newer hardware support etc) to need a newer one.

    anyways, it seems a fair amount of other Linux variations only have support in the 2-3 years range before one would have to upgrade where as Mint is pretty much 5 years (technically it's not a full five years, but close enough).

  23. On 4/10/2022 at 5:07 AM, Bassthang said:

    I've used IMGBurn for years to write archive discs - mostly of my music files (multi-track projects in Pro Tools and Cubase, WAVs and MP3s)

    If these are standard 44.1/16-bit WAV files, you are better off converting them to FLAC since sound quality will be the same (since it's a lossless format) but roughly half of the file size etc. basically there is no real reason to burn WAV as a data disc for general data backup over FLAC (even if you need WAV for whatever reason in the future, it's easy to convert it back to WAV, and of course, no sound quality loss).

     

    but for your general situation... in the future, I suggest sticking to DVD recordable (Verbatim or Taiyo Yuden) as they are probably not as picky as BD-R stuff is in my estimations. I think BD-R is more of a question mark for longevity where as I think CD-R/DVD-/+R is more time proven and, like I always say, it's easier to find a drive that can read CD/DVD where as BD media is not widely adopted like CD/DVD was where just about everyone had one of those drives in the past at some point in the 2000's decade and thereabouts. so while I realize you only get 4.7GB(DVD-/+R) vs 25GB(BD-R), unless you have a lot of high importance data you need for long term storage, DVD is 'good enough' as for most of my backup I tend to opt for the more efficient two hard drive setup as this keeps ones chances of data loss low enough and it's far more convenient where as stuff I burn on DVD tends to be much more limited and is a nice alternative/insurance for a limited amount of high importance data I don't want to lose.

    and personally... I don't think M-DISC are worth the extra cost. even assuming they last a long time, the price is too inflated and decent quality CD/DVD media will likely last 'at least' decades in my experience given I checked the disc quality of some discs (largely Verbatim and some TY(Taiyo Yuden)) I burned around 10-15 years ago (I date my discs when I burn them so I know exactly when I burned them) with KProbe etc and they still scan well to this day (i.e. not even close to failure).

    so if you do get some DVD recordable media, after burning, while it's not required, if you are concerned with longevity it's a good idea to get a feel of the initial burn quality as the better they are initially the longer they should last in theory given, assuming they degrade more on the slow side, it will buy a person that much more time before read failure etc.

    p.s. the stuff I burn with IMGBurn (I use IMGBurn on Linux to burn stuff not all that long ago) reads okay on my Linux Mint computer. so I imagine if this reads okay, Windows 10 should have no issues reading a burned disc. I see you mentioned you got a 'WinXP' PC, unless you must keep WinXP on that computer for whatever reason, I suggest wiping the drive and installing some form of Linux (which is free) on it as you can still use ImgBurn on that if you want to.

  24. 16 hours ago, AlbertEinstein said:

    Well, I have to question your claim that CD's can't be improved on. I mean, you can buy flash/SDXC storage and use them in portable devices these days in most new vehicles. And there is no chance in hell of the disc skipping if you hit a large pothole. The sound quality of music on a flash stick would be the same as it is on a CD-R.

    When I said CD's (meaning standard AUDIO CD's) can't be improved upon I meant strictly in terms of the sound quality they produce, since they already exceed human hearing abilities.

    sure, if you could carry lossless audio files (i.e. FLAC etc) made from standard audio CD's on a device that can play them, that's equally as good to and would be inline with what you said about it not skipping etc.

    but in regards to putting music on a flash stick and playing it in a car... technically, unless it can play lossless (FLAC etc) there would be some level of sound decline. although in practical real world use (which is where it really matters)... once a lossy file (i.e. MP3/AAC etc) reaches a certain point (like bitrate) us humans pretty much can't tell the difference especially when just sitting back and enjoying the music. but I like to always have a lossless source to convert to lossy files when needed since no matter what audio formats change to in the future, you always have a high quality source to convert from as FLAC will never get outdated simply because as long as it was ripped from a standard AUDIO CD the sound quality is already exceeding human hearing abilities.

    there are listening tests over on hydrogenaud.io website etc for people who like learning/reading up on this stuff. but what I am saying here is the gist of it. even LAME(MP3) @ V5 (130kbps average) scores pretty well in a public listening test to where I am confident many people would struggle to notice the different between that and the lossless source (FLAC or original audio CD and the like) and even those who can tell the difference, through ABX tests (which you can run on Foobar2000), it's not going to be a obvious difference when you are just sitting back and enjoying the music. but it's basically common knowledge (at least on that hydrogenaud.io site) that AAC(standard AAC-LC)/Opus do better than MP3 at lower bit rates. lets say lower bit rates are about 128kbps or less (but probably more around 96kbps and less). but at higher bit rates (say about 128kbps or higher or not all that much beyond this) it don't really seem to matter much in real world whether you choose MP3/AAC/Opus etc.

     

    16 hours ago, AlbertEinstein said:

    I think the biggest plus for optical media is the longevity of the burn and the cost per gigabyte if you get a good buy on the media whether it's CD-R, DVD-R, or BD-R. Of course, I use BD-R because they store 5x as much data as DVD's and up to 50x data over CD-R if you buy dual-layer. And for $5 a pop you could buy a BDXL disc to store 100GBs of data. That is equivalent to 1000 CD-Rs. No swapping of discs would be requiring but then again flash is the most convenient replacement for optical media these days.

    Yeah, clearly longevity of the data storage is where optical media shines and is the primary reason I still like having them around for some level of high importance data backup.

    also, while I am sure BD-R offers more storage space for the price... it's initial investment costs etc and lack of drives out there are probably what I would say is the biggest problem with it compared to more standardized/widely used CD/DVD. plus, it's not been around as long as CD/DVD media so it's a bit less time proven and not only that you are packing a lot more data into the same physical space which just this alone makes me think it's more picky and 'may' be more prone to data corruption as time passes. especially if you count the non-standard 25GB BD-R media with more than one layer as I imagine dual layer (or higher) media is more susceptible to issues than single layer media.

    so even if I did use BD-R media, I would almost certainly stick strictly to the standard 25GB discs as they probably have wider compatibility vs 100GB BDXL etc types of discs and cost per disc is probably a lot more reasonable etc.

    but yeah, flash media is appealing due to convenience as it seems many opt for convenience over long term data storage as I would never trust flash based media over optical media for long term data storage, especially if flash based storage is a persons only data backup source. with that said, flash based storage can be a nice additional backup source to more typical long term storage on hard drives and optical media though.

    p.s. but like I said in the past... I generally avoid CD-R's for storing data (unless someone has a very limited amount of high importance data backup) because it's not as practical as DVD (given DVD's hold 6.7x the amount of data of a CD-R) and disc cost between CD/DVD is about the same and data reliability is probably similar between the two assuming one uses quality media.

  25. On 4/27/2023 at 4:32 PM, AlbertEinstein said:

    I walk a fine line myself between walking away from optical media or not. I still think it's superior to the life of a 1 TB flash SSD but that's only because I have CD-R that have lasted over 20 years. That's some reliable shiaught!!!!

    That's ultimately why CD/DVD is still a good option for long term data backup (I have a fair amount of DVD's from 10-15 years ago still working well today and scan well with KProbe which gives one a good ball park indication of burn quality etc) as long as one does not have a boatload of stuff to burn (lets say 'boat load' means TB's of data), it's practical. I never got into BD burning as it's not enough of a benefit for me to justify the initial investment cost and not only that CD/DVD are far more common/standardized among the masses to as it will be easier to find a drive that can read CD/DVD many years from now than BD discs since just about any optical drive will read DVD's and all will read CD-R's basically. all-in-all, I prefer 4.7GB DVD for more limited high importance data backup (in addition to typical hard drive backups).

    but besides a more limited amount of higher importance data I just backup data on regular hard drives since it offers the best storage space and reliability for the price for most data backup.

    p.s. in terms of CD-R's... personally I almost exclusively use these for that occasion I want to burn a standard audio CD (ImgBurn can even overburn these to as on the standard Verbatim CD-R's (100-pack CMC Magnetics media code for about $20 for 100 discs) I have successfully burned to basically 82min15sec(shows up as 82min12sec on my standard CD player from the early 1990's and plays to the end without issue)) since standard audio CD's are still the best all-around available physical format available as the sound quality can't be improved upon since it already exceeds human hearing abilities as all of that 'HD' audio is marketing BS and just wastes storage space as standard 44.1/16bit is already more than good enough.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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