Jump to content

jmichae3

Members
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About jmichae3

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. not sure why so much time is spent on the hard disk. random accesses?
  2. new blank disc shows as 100% full, files added show further in red for instance, a 700MiB JVC CD-R, shows all blue, Used 695.31MB. adding 294MB+2.09KB+5.09MB results in showing 995.88MB in the red as overage. drive is Pioneer Electronics BDR-2208. so far it has burned fine, until using 4.5.4.5143.
  3. I do computer repair. I would like to parallel-process the drives and generate the appropriate reports for each drive on a multi-drive computer. saves me time. one source set of files, parallel drives, with which they can be verified after burning. if they verify after burning, then I know the drives are OK. verification results can be shown as a (text or otherwise) list. I might also like to choose to do a separate collection of files per drive. this is for software development where sometimes I have the need to burn different data to different drives. being able to do them as async
  4. changed to udf 1.5, udf 2.6, made no difference, although UDF 2.6 is recommended for blu-ray. there are microsoft XP/vista drivers for blu-ray here: blu-ray for xp/vista IMAPI interestingly enough, I see a "No Disc" in the lower left hand corner. this is a Pioneer BDR-2208 which is supposed to do BDR-XL 128GB. pioneer BDR-2208 - 15x Internal BD/DVD/CD Burner. Supports BDXL™ media. Cyberlink® software included. SATA interface. | Pioneer Electronics USA The discs are blue 25GB Memorex BDR-SL. the bar graph shows just barely short of full, and 9775.13MB. apparently there's no blu-ray suppo
  5. 4.5.4.5518 click cd name, hit F2 jumps the focus to file area. should change the cd name (volume ID). and stay there. it only does this the first time. I think. I had thought it happened more than once before. could be a flaky bug.
  6. sometimes I get a shorter-than-normal limit, and sometimes I get a longer limit. not sure what's going on here. not sure what conditions cause this. 4.5.4.5118
  7. what OS are you running? there's a microsoft KB article on windows 7 that shows a known bug that incorrectly reports the size of the data, so the Blu-ray disc gets corrupted. it has not been fixed. a paid support call to microsoft 1800-426-9400 should fix that if you are able to find someone to fix the bug.
  8. 4.5.4.5118 1.Disc, set labels, change to . 2.add folder. 3.clear. 4. look at disc label 5.Disc, set labels, change to . 6.close program 7.start program 8.look at disc label actual: disc label gets reset at steps 3 and 6. expected: disc label should be kept when doing step 1, regardless of step 3 or 6. a clear should reset it to the "set label" setting. yes?
  9. jmichae3

    some bugs

    - the "before posting a bug" sticky post's link to third party bugs is a broken link. - when creating a bootable disk image, there is no OK button, only Cancel. it just left me temporarily befuddled as to what to do next. a solution is, upon success, change the Cancel button to an OK button, or display both an OK button and a Cancel button in the same place and simply toggle visibility style. or just have both buttons separate and gray one out or the other. - PLEASE, PLEASE add support for 100GB BDXLs (BDR-XL, BDRE-XL). at least BD-DL's (BDR-DL, BDRE-DL) if support is not already there
  10. I think I deleted the files in the session with the old disc in, opened a dxp file that had udf 2.50 as the fs and program, changed the fs to udf 1.02, and is now thrashing my optical drive and the led on it is periodically blinking and won't quit. what in the world is this thing doing? I don't need my drive prematurely worn out. drives heat up from constant access. aren't there better ways to detect if a disc is in the drive? deviceioctl() a win32 call has IO_CONTROL_STORAGE_VERIFY and IO_CONTROL_STORAGE_VERIFY2. and you can detect if a disc is in the drive without resorting to thrashing
  11. am using udf 2.01 and it says 322.75MB now. perhaps a variable relating to thegraph or disc size is uninitialized?
  12. it DOES burn a data disc, I see physical evidence. am using udf2.50 and trying to read it on winxp and it failed, and tried to read it again (continue session) with cdburnerxp.se, and it failed. win7x64ultsp1 the usage graph is also wrong proportion and position. it should start on the left and grow to the right (well, it's ltr here in the USA, not oriental countries where it's rtl). it should also not show 116MB on a 700MB cdr as 70% full (green), as 116/700*100%=16%, which as a fraction is close to 1/5 or 20%/100%. I am choosing multisession discs (add to tracks later). UPDATE:
  13. I had to kill explorer.exe in order for it to complete at thevery least (maybe the only thing) I can't remember for sure whether I was required to close everything else, but I did anyway, but found I had to kill explorer.exe which killed my desktop and taskbar of course. this didn't used to be a requirement, and I had no problems with dependencies that I knew of before this even though I had stuff running (firefox, Word, excel, programmer's editors, cmd shells, etc).
  14. I am not associated with cdburnerxp.se, but my understanding of the blu-ray standard is that it is supposed to use the UDF filesystem. make sure you are using that. blu-ray specification (look under format specification and apparently now you must order a book - BDXL is listed there too) there is also a blu-ray m-disc coming out at some point, supposed to last 1k years or until the Lord comes. http://www.ritek.com/p3a.asp?num=254 should be great as an archival disc for photos, movies, and use for "gold master discs" for server software etc. imgburn could be an alternative, apparently nero
  15. actually, it's 737MB=703MiB=736,962,560bytes. I had to check the sector count with cdrecord.exe for some other stuff. I document all that at http://jesusnjim.com/using-computers/optical-drives/media-capacities.html leesee: assuming MiB: 119/703*100=16.9% assuming MB: 119/737*100=16.1% 2/3=66% I don't think they are anywhere near close to being correct. please fix the graph, thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.