Cynthia Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 Strange, I didn't seem to see ANY decrease during burning in the performance tab, and definitely not by that much even when the burn started! Hmmm, perhaps it depends on the version of Windows (I'm using XP Home SP2 with all critical updates), and possible differences in memory management? Use the queue function with some images loaded...
fordman Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 Use the queue function with some images loaded... 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?
killjoy Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 Use the queue function with some images loaded... 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
Cynthia Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 I still don't understand this: The last release was on Wednesday 22nd February 2006. Some days after this release this bug was found. The bug makes the queue function more or less worthless. I went back to the old version. This version have another bug - you can't burn multiple copies if you select the delete the image after the burn is completed. It's deleted after the first burn and when it tries to burn the second image - there is no image to burn... So my basic question is this. Why was it so tricky to release a version that solved this bug in a fast way? It seems very odd that more or less a month after this bug - still no solution to the end users. What's if there is a new critical bug in the next release - do we need to wait another month for a fixed version? There are two ways to ship programs; 1. Use beta testers to test the program and then ship the program when it's tested and hope that there are no bugs. 2. Ship/post up new beta versions - use them if you dare... and once in a while transform one of the betas (if no bugs have been reported) to a stable version. I do know that this is a donation ware program - but with critical program bugs there should be some way of releasing a fixed version that solved the problem. I do like this program - but I don't like the way the bugfixes are handled.
killjoy Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 (edited) 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. Edited March 19, 2006 by killjoy
Shamus_McFartfinger Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 I still don't understand this: The last release was on Wednesday 22nd February 2006. Some days after this release this bug was found. The bug makes the queue function more or less worthless. I went back to the old version. This version have another bug - you can't burn multiple copies if you select the delete the image after the burn is completed. It's deleted after the first burn and when it tries to burn the second image - there is no image to burn... Cynthia, I understand your frustration. The problem is that there?s only about half a dozen of us beta testers and it?s impossible to test every change Lightning_UK! makes to the program with every possible hardware and software configuration that?s available. The buffer problem is an example as Windows shouldn?t do what it does with the read buffer. L_UK didn?t pick it up because he has 2gigs of RAM available and I didn?t pick it up because I almost never burn images from a local drive. The ?write in test mode using the command line? bug is something none of us found is because most of us (all of us?) never use ImgBurn from the command line in test mode. There are bugs that I?m sure L_UK is aware of and he fixes them as they are found. It?s not a commercial product. None of get paid for what we do, least of all Lightning_UK. Your patience and forebearance is appreciated.
chewy Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 The problem is that there?s only about half a dozen of us beta testers that could be easily remedied, official beta testers and non-offical
polopony Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 Ok ,maybe I see it differently , its a free program , I save all the releases to my hard drive and have done for a few years so I have all the IMGburn versions and a good few of others and if I have to revert back to one of those no big deal . I currently have 3 burning programs on my box and if by some reason 1 doesn't work then there's another and a disc is going to be burned one way or another . If this was commercial software I paid for then I would be upset if something didn't work. Nero has bugs and they fix them only to sometimes create others and the fixes dont happen overnight, YOU PAY and you wait . Img burn is always a work in progress always will be and problems occur ,show me anything in development that doesn't go through find and fix, bottom line is theres no program that doesn't go through it .The bugs will get fixed by LUK no doubt about it and with the addition of new features it will be the best, probably already is ..I remember another program he was involved with and it was and I'm sure still is the best at what it was meant to do and again FREE. Everyone has a job LUK included thats involved with IMGburn and has familys to support and as such cant spend 24/7 working on the program. I know my time is limited because of a hectic work schedule,the bills dont wait. This is LUK's baby and he releases the next version when he thinks its ready , if a bug is found so be it, if it was perfect then there would be one version and no others forthcoming ,its not, but that doesn't mean everyone isn't trying to make it perfect, we are. If you're short on patience then nothing is ever going to be fast enough or good enough and there is always going to be something that will F-up your day. Look at the bright side today IMGburn didn't fry any drives ,delete partitions , shift the earths axis or create any mayhem thats been attributed to it in past posts, tomorrow I'm not sure
killjoy Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 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.
polopony Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 soon is relative to every individual ,with the new version notification you'll know when its available each release since its conseption has added new cool features and I'm sure LUKs working on more ,like its been said this program has to work with all sorts of drives and as such that takes time to check and double check all the coding that goes into the software. Its the members that find stuff ,and the beta testers that help work out the kinks .If you have to revert back to a previous version is that really such a big deal and is there anything in the new version that you absolutely cant live without untill the bugs are fixed I know for me there isn't and the new version works just fine for my needs .You want to make multiple copies of something then dont select delete image untill you're working on the last disc you still have to load blank discs into the burner so doing it for the first or last disc to me is nothing to bet bent at you now know that if you want multiple copies and select delete image then its gone after the first .I myself never select this option I just open my D drive and delete stuff when I'm sure it can go a general cleanup of the drive once in awhile. About LUK telling everyone when the new version will be out if he said 6 months then you would say ok 6 months and if he released it in 4 he'd be everyones hero if he said 2 weeks and it was 15 days then he's the goat, a kind of no win situation theres been 20 -30 versions released if you count betas thats a lot of work in a short time
killjoy Posted March 19, 2006 Posted March 19, 2006 About LUK telling everyone when the new version will be out if he said 6 months then you would say ok 6 months and if he released it in 4 he'd be everyones hero if he said 2 weeks and it was 15 days then he's the goat, a kind of no win situation theres been 20 -30 versions released if you count betas thats a lot of work in a short time 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.
LIGHTNING UK! Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 This caching problem isn't the only thing I'm working on and so the fact that it's fixed (and has been for ages) doesn't really come into it. I realise it's been a big problem for some people though and I apologise for that. I'm not in a position to be able to offer new builds as and when I fix each little thing. If someone wants to start donating ?150+ a month so I can get my own dedicated server with loads of (i.e. unlimited) bandwidth, please do so. To do that now would see me over my allowance within days and I'd get booted off the server for excessive resource usage - I've already been sent several warnings. I'm thankful that Nethosted are so understanding! I've just made another beta available to the team and once that's been given quick test on as many drives a possible, I believe we're good to go. This one introduces a whole chunk of extra error checking and it's important I'm not over checking or else people will get errors where before it would have failed silently, and possibly without it causing a problem.
lfcrule1972 Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 I will test the latest beta tonight - I have to say that some of the posts here look f'in ungrateful to me ! LUK! works his socks off for this program and includes whatever features he can when asked to - as polo pointed out you don't get that kind of service for programs you buy !!!! Come on guys - chill out and show some patience.....
fordman Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 I will test the latest beta tonight - I have to say that some of the posts here look f'in ungrateful to me ! LUK! works his socks off for this program and includes whatever features he can when asked to - as polo pointed out you don't get that kind of service for programs you buy !!!! Come on guys - chill out and show some patience..... I hope we can all just turn down the emotion a notch here. I agree that LUK deserves nothing but praise for his programming. I think you are witnessing that some have developed a "dependency" on his ImgBurn program, and when it's not working on their machine because of a programming change, they panic. I, for one, was not affected by this issue and am happily using 1.2.0.0 and it is working as desired. I think the frustrations of some users stem from that fact that they are having issues and LUK raised expectations that a 1.2.1.0 version would be released approximately two weeks ago after this particular fix went through one more night of testing. However, since then, it appears that the lack of sufficient beta testers (an argument offered by one beta tester) and/or LUK's desire to pack more features in before releasing the next version has led to a more noticeable delay. Sometimes packing too many changes into a release can cause original features to break, as was witnessed with this problem... Like I said, I am not affected, though I admit I avoided it at first because the problem sounded pretty bad. I also don't use the queue feature, so I don't know if I would have an issue with that... I appreciate the fact that LUK is a perfectionist who wants to improve things as much as possible!
Milko Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 It's a windows caching problem. Seems windows doesn't cache me reading in the 4gb file if I read in 64k chunks. As I switched to 256k (to hopefully speed things up!), it now caches everything and eats all your memory. This was reported lastweek sometime and fixed almost immediately. Get 1.2.1.0 when I release it and you'll be fine. Cheers for reporting it though. maybe you can put an option for us to choose the transfer rate. Hey When will Imgburn 1.2.1.0 be relesed. Or has the probleme with buffer underruns been fixed in v1.2.0.0 Released: 22nd February 2006.
kevdriver Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Milko, just as soon as the next release has been throughly tested it will be released. The problem your mentioning has been fixed for this new release version. Just have patience my friend...........
jmet Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I, myself have no problem with waiting for the next release. LUK works very hard by providing us with a "free" burning program. Yea sure, he could go ahead and release it now to pacify all the "whiners" but, what good would that really do? Nothing, because someone would start a thread just like this thread complaining of all the "bugs" in the new version. Its a vicious cycle that I don't blame LUK for not wanting to get into. LUK may not approve of this but, why don't everyone having problems just go back to version 1.1.0.0 ? Thats what I did until the new release comes.
lfcrule1972 Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Believe me the latest beta is being tested right now !!!
killjoy Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 Believe me the latest beta is being tested right now !!! Again?
kevdriver Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 (edited) Yes Killjoy, and again and again and again, until LUK and the beta team are satisfied that any problems have been fixed and any new options are working correctly. This is the reason for this arthor's reputation for putting out top quality programs. Lets all stop the whining and give them a break so they can finish up and get the new version released. Edited March 23, 2006 by kevdriver
blutach Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 (edited) LUK may not approve of this but, why don't everyone having problems just go back to version 1.1.0.0 ? Thats what I did until the new release comes. How? There's not a mirror hosting it. BTW: My burns with 1.2 are flawless, irrespective of this bug (of course, I can't do anything else during the burn but I never do anyway). And I agree that premature releases (no pun intended so LFC keep quiet!) only set the author up for a smack in the face from an ungrateful community. Regards Edited March 23, 2006 by blutach
LIGHTNING UK! Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 How? There's not a mirror hosting it. If you're clever, you can still get it from ImgBurn.com In all fairness, that last windows caching problem (which I still don't consider a 'bug', as technically, I'm not doing anything wrong!) was something I added at the last minute. I checked for obvious problems and didn't find any. Had it have gone out to the beta team, no doubt one of them would have also had the problem and told me about it. I do suffer from it too, but I have enough memory not to notice and also a different setup (using scsi, sata and ide) to the average joe. I don't want you to all think 'we' (the beta team an I) are all useless... they (the beta team) played no part in that problem reaching the end user. I guess that just makes me useless!
jmet Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 I guess that just makes me useless! Yea!, Get a life LUK!
Movie Junkie Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 If you're clever, you can still get it from ImgBurn.com I just checked. You can still get all three released versions, if as you said, you're clever.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now