One-step disc copy mode

[WinTakeAll]

A suggestion that has come up before in other forms:

 

ImgBurn ought to have a user-friendly one-step disc-to-disc copy mode. I'd like to highlight that this would be a very valuable addition even if it's done without the effort of adding true copy-on-the fly operation for speed. (The on-the-fly part is what's primarily been suggested before and pretty much been turned down by LUK.)

 

The lack of a simple disc copy option really stands out at first glance at the Ez-Mode Picker screen or the Mode menu. Such a common task and it's not there. I challenge anybody to find another suggestion that has a better "how-many-would-use-it" to development-effort ratio.

 

Sure, you can accomplish this by reading and then writing an image, but that really is far less user friendly:

 

You currently can't copy unattended even if you have two drives. That's a big difference if you're making a copy for a visiting friend and you don't really want to sit in front of your computer to monitor the process.

 

Novices (i.e. the majority) will stumble on figuring out and completing the current multi-step-process. They'll look in vain at Ez-Mode Picker screen for an option to copy a disc. They're not likely to want to read a manual or guide. And if they do get started on the current multi-step process they may very well be confused about differences between .bin/.cue and .iso, about where to store your temp image, or even how to find it when you're ready to write it.

 

To conclude, I have to agree with this guy re disc-to-disc copy:

 

Only reason I have to keep ugly/bloated/crappy nero installed.

Edited April 3, 2008 by WinTakeAll

[blutach]

Far less user friendly? C'mon!

 

Regards

[spinningwheel]

Asked several times...answered several times.....NEXT?

[WinTakeAll]

Far less user friendly? C'mon!

I'm 100 % serious about the "far less user friendly" part. It's not just that the current copy process can't be done unattended even with two drives, it's also a fact of life that most users are non-techies and you'd be amazed what small hurdles actually block them from completing tasks in real life. If you look at actual usability studies with real, average users you see dramatic differences in successful completion rate between something like:

 

a) When you want to copy a disc, find that it's called "Copy disc". Then follow on-screen instructions for any additional steps (that don't involve choices) such as "insert a blank disc".

 

When you want to copy a disc, find that it's called "Create image file from disc". Then decide or at least be aware that for certain types of disc .bin/.cue is suitable, for others .iso is. Then pick a temporary destination for your image. Then find that the next step is "Write image file to disc". Then find the image file you just created...

 

So the reality is that users will keep asking for this. And until they get it, ImgBurn is just not the right software for the 95 % or so non-techie world population who still wants to copy a disc. Or for all of us who like unattended copying. And incidentally, copying a disc is probably most common thing anybody wants to do with their CD/DVD burner. But for now, for common users wanting to do this common operation, the bloated ugly Nero that came with the drive in fact remains a better choice, for all its warts.

 

And keep in mind that with this feature added, ImgBurn would still be no less perfect for advanced users.

Edited April 2, 2008 by WinTakeAll

[WinTakeAll]

Asked several times...answered several times.....

 

What I've seen asked before is specifically an on-the-fly copy mode, and I understand that LUK doesn't want to do that. So in this thread I wanted to make an argument for why a "Copy Disc" mode is valuable even if it doesn't include the added bonus, and added development effort, of "on-the-fly" speed.

 

To recap:

 

1) It really stands out as missing on the "Ez-Mode Picker" screen

2) Without it you can't do unattended copying even with two drives

3) Believe it or not, but a majority of real users find it hard to do a copy as long as it involves multiple steps and choices, even little ones.

Edited April 2, 2008 by WinTakeAll

[blutach]

Far less user friendly? C'mon!

I'm 100 % serious about the "far less user friendly" part. It's not just that the current copy process can't be done unattended even with two drives, it's also a fact of life that most users are non-techies and you'd be amazed what small hurdles actually block them from completing tasks in real life. If you look at actual usability studies with real, average users you see dramatic differences in successful completion rate between something like:

 

a) When you want to copy a disc, find that it's called "Copy disc". Then follow on-screen instructions for any additional steps (that don't involve choices) such as "insert a blank disc".

 

When you want to copy a disc, find that it's called "Create image file from disc". Then decide or at least be aware that for certain types of disc .bin/.cue is suitable, for others .iso is. Then pick a temporary destination for your image. Then find that the next step is "Write image file to disc". Then find the image file you just created...

 

So the reality is that users will keep asking for this. And until they get it, ImgBurn is just not the right software for the 95 % or so non-techie world population who still wants to copy a disc. Or for all of us who like unattended copying. And incidentally, copying a disc is probably most common thing anybody wants to do with their CD/DVD burner. But for now, for common users wanting to do this common operation, the bloated ugly Nero that came with the drive in fact remains a better choice, for all its warts.

 

And keep in mind that with this feature added, ImgBurn would still be no less perfect for advanced users.

I'll grant you that - and we do see the odd forum question about it, too. But that's it - it the odd question - maybe 5 in the last year. We say use read mode then write mode and they say thanks and that's it.

 

In response to some people who have pushed for this, we even have a "guide" (accessible from the Help menu) - http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?showtop...amp;#entry66253

 

Finally, ImgBurn is made for people with a few brains.

 

Regards

[WinTakeAll]

I'll grant you that - and we do see the odd forum question about it, too. But that's it - it the odd question - maybe 5 in the last year. We say use read mode then write mode and they say thanks and that's it.

 

[...]we even have a "guide"

 

What you don't know is how many thousands of users had a quick look at ImgBurn, found that it lacks the one feature they were looking for - disc copy - and moved on to something else without letting anyone know why. Or how many advanced users use it but won't recommend it to all their muggle friends and family despite the "Ez-Mode Picker" screen supposedly for novices, because that screen lacks the #1 needed feature. Be kind to the muggles.

 

The ones who read manuals or guides are a minority. And the ones who take the trouble to register for the forum and ask are a truly tiny minority. Developers of great software know this and make software that doesn't need manuals or guides: Software where it's intuitively obvious right in the UI how to do the tasks that users want to do.

 

Being donationware, LUK may very well find a decent payback if more people were to go: Wow! This software does just what I wanted it to, it's simple, and it works! Again, I challenge you or anybody to find another suggestion that has a better "how-many-would-use-it" to development-effort ratio.

 

Finally, ImgBurn is made for people with a few brains.

 

Why limit yourself to such a small audience? ;-)

 

Seriously though, take a look at actual usability studies for software or web sites. It'll be an eye-opener to see what the vast majority of real world users are like. Successful developers know this and deal with it. Hopefully without offending the wiz-kids too much.

Edited April 3, 2008 by WinTakeAll

[blutach]

The ones who read manuals or guides are a minority. And the ones who take the trouble to register for the forum and ask are a truly tiny minority.

I wonder why we have almost 9,500 members then?

 

But, I'd agree, guide readers are a tiny minority.

 

Regards

[LIGHTNING UK!]

I don't recall ever saying a 'Copy' mode wouldn't be implemented, quite the opposite infact.

 

You don't really need to suggest thing like this, they're 'no-brainers'.

[meRobs]

I don't recall ever saying a 'Copy' mode wouldn't be implemented, quite the opposite in fact.

 

Actually, ImgBurn does a disc-to-disc copy despite LUKs help note on http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?showtopic=6380.

I have recently done a direct copy of an Audio CD, a Data CD and a video DVD.

I used the Burn mode and:

(1) hit 'Browse for Folder and selected the Drive with the disc to be copied (in my case G:/ appeared in the Source pane)

(2) placed an empty disc in a second drive & hit Build.

 

That's it and it worked!

 

So, what is wrong with this method?

If nothing is wrong, then ImgBurn already has the 'mechanics' (ability) to do a one click Copy Disc mode.

Have I missed something?

 

A great program -- I am surprised how good it is!

Robin

[LIGHTNING UK!]

It's not a 1:1 if you do it that way.

 

And is sure as hell wouldn't work with a proper Audio CD!

[weisborg]

Most 1-to-1/On-the-Fly apps only do what ImgBurn does anyway- Make an image, Burn the image, Keep or Delete the image.

 

I never burn disc to disc. Too many issues can come up. Nero has the option for it to be without the middle image, but I only had to use it once to know I don't want it. Same thing with copying to more than one disc. It may be a few seconds/minutes slower going to image, but it is much more reliable. In some cases all the swapping back and forth and slowdowns to do On-the-Fly or multi-disc burns is actually slower than just writting the image at full speed to HDD and burning from it at the full speed. Not as much cache issues buring from image either as from disc and/or flat files.

[meRobs]

It's not a 1:1 if you do it that way.

 

And is sure as hell wouldn't work with a proper Audio CD!

 

Sorry: I have been running so many tests on ImgBurn over the last few days trying to understand its fetaures that I slipped up. When I copied the Audio CD 'directly' in Build mode only the TOC was copied over. So, it failed.

 

As for your first comment LUK, I do not understand why you say my copies were not 1:1. In each case (a CD full of MP3 and WMA files burnt as 1 session, a backup CD written in 17 sessions and a Video DVD) all copied from disc to disc without any sign of an intermediate file being formed. The source disc, being much faster, was blinking on/off while the destination disc (slow -RW) was full-on burning. To me that was a direct copy?!?

 

In any case, I agree with Weisborg: I would be unhappy relying on any App controlling the flow of data between discs of different read/write speeds and the buffers.

In practice I would reluctantly do a Read then a Write, although, it would be nice to be able to trust a burning App to do a direct copy.

 

There is one interesting difference between 'my' direct copy of a data disc and the read/write process is that the former copies only the latest session whereas the 2-stage copy burns all sessions.

This may be good, depending on your perspective; and it would mean a much faster burn for the 1-stage copy if the older hidden or 'deleted' folders (old sessions) take up significant space.

 

The ideal would be for ImgBurn to one day offer a one-click Copy Disc and do it as a 2-stage process, ie, via an image file.

I can do no more than hope!

Thanks folks.

Edited April 15, 2008 by meRobs

[weisborg]

Been forever since I've used Multi-Session, but aren't they somewhat additive? I don't recall it being like the old stuff is totally wasted and all is wrote over again. I think it is just a TOC thing and if the old data is valid then the newly wrote TOC points to it and if deleted it still is on the disc, just not pointed to, etc. Any new data is wrote to the new session and pointed to by the new TOC as well. The final copy if the most recent TOC and used data is copied would be smaller since unused data on the disc isn't copied when just reading what is there now. Mostly only really smaller by how many deleted items there are. TOC additions shouldn't add too much. Although to copy a disc you sometimes want bit by bit. I think another reason he may be keeping away from the Copy Disc mentality is to keep to the name of the product and keep from being recognized as just a disc copier, etc for legal reasons.

 

One big disadvantage of Multi-Session was the way it worked like above in that if anything happened on the most recent session the old data was useless now since the TOC errored out and doesn't point to it. So it is better to just put as much as you can to disc to have a reliable backup.

Edited April 15, 2008 by weisborg

[meRobs]

One big disadvantage of Multi-Session was the way it worked like above in that if anything happened on the most recent session the old data was useless now since the TOC errored out and doesn't point to it. So it is better to just put as much as you can to disc to have a reliable backup.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this comment. I have a recent multi-session disc that I used to backup (copy) a folder of Word docs and other notes, every month or so. Currently it has 670 MB of stuff and the last session (TOC) represents only 438 MB! On examining the content of all 17 burning sessions with ISObuster it is clear that some folders had been written again (different LBAs) even though their names and content had not changed and that some items had been deleted (still present but not listed in the more recent sessions), etc. So, some of the old content may be useful and some not. The advantage of copying only the last TOC is efficiency!

 

If the last session had been done incorrectly, eg failed to 'import previous session', it would be obvious that things were amiss (seen in Explorer) and the disc would not be copied. In this case, ISObuster may be used to extract an earlier TOC (session).

 

As a test, I copied the above disc with Nero (2-stage) and all sessions were included (670 MB), as happened in ImgBurn when 'Read' then 'Write'. However, in Cheetah DVD Burner, also 2-stage, only 438 MB was copied -- only the last session (TOC) -- as with the direct copy in Build mode (ImgBurn). The 670 MB version would be useful if older burning sessions are of interest and the 438 MB otherwise.

 

By the way: love your quote ('If you aim at nothing ....')!

Edited April 15, 2008 by meRobs

[weisborg]

Interesting...I wonder why it wasted time and space copying unchanged folder/files? I could see maybe a folder if only one file was changed, but just for the heck of it would be a waste. Kind of good to know I guess that some burning apps consider multi-session different.

 

I forgot all about IsoBuster type stuff to extract old files...in just Explorer, a corrupt last burn would make the disc useless though.

[meRobs]

Finally, ImgBurn is made for people with a few brains.

Regards[/color]

This comment by Blutach reminded me of the reason for this thread. It was initially requested that a one-step disc copy mode be added.

 

I suggest that because we have brains, we would want the operation of ImgBurn to continue to grow in a logical fashion and to improve efficiency where possible.

To this end, it would be rational to think of a natural extension to a one-click disc copy mode (not one-step).

This would then combine the Read (to ISO or BIN) and the Write modes into one seamless process.

Being via an image file it would be safe - just as good as the separate operations of Read and Write.

It would also add efficiency. Rather than coming back to the PC twice to copy, once would be enough!

 

Anyway, this is my twopence worth.

And I think the logical structure and thoroughness of ImgBurn is crying out for this addition (if not ImgBurn, then many of us)!

 

I am not trying to be cheeky, just hopeful.

Regards

Robin

Edited April 17, 2008 by meRobs

[danei]

I don't recall ever saying a 'Copy' mode wouldn't be implemented, quite the opposite infact.

That means the so called "on the fly copy" will be implied? Glad to hear this

[meRobs]

I don't recall ever saying a 'Copy' mode wouldn't be implemented, quite the opposite infact.

That means the so called "on the fly copy" will be implied? Glad to hear this

I would have thought a one-click copy via an image (2-stage) would be better than an on-the-fly?

The latter could have problems due to differences in read/write speeds, buffers, etc.

[danei]

I don't recall ever saying a 'Copy' mode wouldn't be implemented, quite the opposite infact.

That means the so called "on the fly copy" will be implied? Glad to hear this

I would have thought a one-click copy via an image (2-stage) would be better than an on-the-fly?

The latter could have problems due to differences in read/write speeds, buffers, etc.

Make it an option under the one-click copy will satisfy both of us? hehe