Re: I burned my first and last CD

In message <ec7u1PUuJHA.4364@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, MEB
<MEB@not.?.invalid> writes:
[]
>> No. The - small - increase from 650M/64' to 700M/74' _was_ achieved by
>> tweaking the actual physical manufacture of the blanks; I'm not sure
>> exactly what they did, though I think it was improving the ability to
>> manufacture the surface near the outside edge of the disc. (As I
[]
>> standard. (The 900M/90' ones did it by putting the tracks actually
>> closer together, which _did_ infringe the standard, causing the
>> resultant discs not to play on some machines.)
>
> Not some, but most devices are and were incapable....

I'll take your word for it; I never tried one, since the blanks were
considerably more expensive than either the 650 or the 700 capacity ones
(and this at a time when _those_ weren't as cheap as they are now).

[Incidentally, I've always been a bit sad that the 3" size ones
generally cost more, too; they're a handy size, not only capacity-wise -
180-220 M or so, or about 21 minutes - but physically. But I suppose
it's supply and demand.]
>
> The ink used, material used in the backing/reflector, and manufacturing of
>the physical disk [clarity and otherwise] helped to extend the purported
>capabilities to a limited extent. It was, however, the actual laser
>mechanism and its control advances which allowed the purported extension of
>the blanks. However, without the code to *allow* the extension AND the

No, I'm pretty sure they just improved the ability to manufacture the
discs closer to the edge.

>*standard* which addressed the extended area, there is no extension. A
>700meg capable disk will only hold 650meg unless both the disk AND the
>device are capable of using the finer grained format AND the device supports
>the standard. Moreover, even this requires that the software used for
>burning ALSO allows use of that area and *supports* the device's and disk's
>extra functionality/abilities. Without this UNION of agreement between these
>necessary aspects, it makes no difference what the supposed capability of a
>blank is. Just as it makes distinct difference when a drive does not support
>a particular standardized format.

Yes, of course, you need a drive (and burning software) that goes into
the last few mm of the disc to do it; however, I don't think many
_drives_ were made that couldn't handle the 700 capacity, though
possibly some softwares couldn't. (It seems Letterman has software, a
drive, or both that _is_ limited to 650 - in his case it probably _is_
the drive, since the software apparently let him try to go beyond,
though with warnings, but he produced a disc that stopped there.)

But even if you have both software and a drive that knows about 700, it
won't allow you to burn 700 on a 650 blank. (You can probably get a
_bit_ beyond 650, by overburning, but why bother.)

> For instance, my drive can read most standard DVD formats, e.g., DVD-ROM,
>DVD-RAM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, but not DVD+R or DVD+RW, and supports a very defined
>set of *modes*, e.g., Packet, TAO, DAO, SAO, RAW SAO, RAW SAO 16, RAW SAO
>96, RAW DAO 16, RAW DAO 96.

DVD is _much_ more complicated (-:! There are at least the three types
of actual disc (+, -, and RAM), with the first two being available as
both R and RW, and then there are the _many_ different ways of putting
the data on them. Though I believe (at least for reading) they're a bit
more compatible at low level - I _think_ you can always see folders
containing files, it is just what those files are and mean that varies -
than CD-data and CD-audio were.

> Anything outside of its defined capabilities will not work with the drive.
>The drive and software, however, support over-burning of a 700 meg blank
>which, depending upon the blank quality, allows up to a tested 728megs.
>However, this over-burnt disk will not work reliably in just *any device*,
>the device MUST be capable of the extended laser travel and control. Nor can
>I rely upon always being able to over-burn a given blank to 728, even within
>the same batch process and manufacturer.

Indeed! (I don't think I'd ever even try to get 728M! If nothing else,
having a bit left unused at the end gives a bit of physical protection -
I feel 728M would go so close to the outside edge that I'd feel I had to
handle it very gingerly! It tends to flake near the edge, especially in
high-speed drives.)

> When the blanks were labeled 650meg I could usually over-burn to between
>660 to 710, depending again, upon the batch and manufacturer. Do not

660 I could believe; 710, I would suspect were actually "700" discs that
for some reason (maybe quality control sample testing declared them a
poor batch) had been labelled and sold as 650s. Rather like in the old
days of floppies, when most had head-holes in both sides, but you bought
them as single-sided or double-sided, depending on the manufacturer's
testing results; single-sided ones usually worked double-sided fairly
well.
[]
> Perhaps you missed an older discussion [a year or two ago] in this group in
>which we addressed these very issues DURING the course of a querier's
>requests to know WHY his old CD drive could not use newer disks and could
>not even read newer disks, yet still functioned with his older CDs which had
>been created using supported formats of that era.
>
I did indeed miss that discussion. I yield to your knowledge/experience
- though I suspect _some_ of it might have been to do with burning
speeds.
>>
>> Think about it: you could (when the 650s were still available) _buy_
>> blanks labelled as 650M, and blanks labelled as 700M; if the extra
>> capacity was achieved by some smart coding algorithm, this wouldn't have
>> been the case.
>
> Sure it would. Manufacturers had to change their manufacturing techniques
>to allow the finer grained formats AND change inks and such. This required

(Well, I still think the _small_ change from 650 to 700 was only an
improved ability to make the outside edges, no change to density.)

>they continue to label their disks in the format KNOWN as supported or they
>would have lost their consumers. Even then without a device to use the

I'd be a bit surprised - I'd have thought most consumers wouldn't be
worried, especially if they were labelled "700 (650-compatible)" or
similar.

>purported extension/extended capacity, the label means squat.
>
Of course.
[]
>> There were other formats - mainly hybrids of the "don't play track 1"
>> variety (one band actually produced an album with that name!), which
>> allowed you to have a CD that played on audio players but also contained
>> software. There was even a video single, which IIRR included _analogue_
>> video on the CD! _That_ never caught on - don't think I ever even saw a
>> player. Tail end of the laserdisc era, really.
>
> You still see them occasionally. Some now contain a short DVD/movie, or
>AVI, or some other standard format section, such as which might provide
>specialized visuals for WMP.

No, all of those contain _digital_ video data. The ones I'm thinking of
- I think they might have been called "video single" - actually
contained some _analogue video_ signal on the disc; they needed a
special player. I suspect they were quite hard to manufacture (press) to
adequate yield.
>
> I still have a Music disk {somewhere} which would install a software
>application [Bink if I remember correctly] on the computer for its special
>Movie and display. Yet would also play normally [without that installation].
>When I first got the disk it couldn't be read as the drive had no support
>for mixed mode disks.

There's also a despicable habit of placing some software such that, when
played on an (at least Windows) computer, the disc - this is done with
audio discs - loads a special player to play the audio, when the disc is
inserted into a computer, though plays as normal in an audio player.
This was an attempt to reduce ripping. (The one disc I have of that type
- that I know of, anyway - wouldn't play with my ageing PC, which is my
default for playing CDs, I had to rip all the tracks in order to play
them at all, thus defeating the object: I wouldn't in fact have normally
ripped _all_ the tracks.) I believe that after some lawsuits, such discs
cannot bear the "compact disc digital audio" logo which all audio CDs
originally bore, because these are not to the "red book" standard;
however, people probably don't look for that any more anyway.
>
> There was and/or were many disks during that experimental era [the
>beginning of mixed-mode standard], which also contained virus installations
>which would auto-install [part of the reason we were informed to disable
>auto-play]. Its still an excellent way to transfer virus and rootkits, hence
>the continued advisements to disable auto-play of CD/DVD.

Agreed.

> IIRC, there was even a game disk being distributed with a children's cereal
>which came with its own virus.
>
I did try a cereal disc some years ago which caused me no end of
problems getting rid of it; can't say it was a virus, but it was
certainly tenacious.
[]
>> Odd, as RedBook is, I'm pretty certain, the audio standard ... BICBW
>> there.
>
> The games used the RedBook to provide the background/atmosphere to the
>game.
>
Ah yes, I think that would have been mixed mode: ISTR some games discs
which would "play" (if playing odd atmosphere and effects means
anything) in an audio player.
[]
> Yes and No... the above would also be an overly simplified description.
>
> One can not discuss these without also discussing the file extension [used
>to identify the proposed method] and other aspects which identify the format
>used between differing presentational/preservation techniques.
> Moreover, unless the drive or device supports those formats or at least
>recognizes them [can read the format], the drive can not be used to PLAY the
>disk, though it MAY be able to transfer the data format to a SOFTWARE
>program [such as in a computer] which can, PROVIDING that format maintains
>some form of KNOWN storage assignment..
> You discuss the STANDARD or format, yet apparently attempt to dismiss the
>constraints OF the format and the device.

If you talk about file extensions, you're talking about data format
(blue book I think) discs. The data on an audio CD is not _in_ files,
certainly not with extensions; it's one continuous stream. The simple
directory near the start of the disc, which an audio player can read,
contains the address of where, in the continuous stream of audio, the
individual "tracks" start (and end, though I think it might be length
rather than end that it stores).

If you put an audio CD into a computer drive and look at it _with
explorer_, at least in '98, the drive firmware and Windows 98 between
them will make it look as if there are 20 (or whatever) files there; it
usually gives them a .cda (CD audio) extension. However, these are _not_
the actual audio data; they're just the entries in the simple directory
(usually only about 1k in size; look at the total size indicated). You
can usually copy them off the disc, but no software will be able to play
them, as they don't actually contain the audio data. In order to
actually get the audio data from an _audio_ CD, you need to run some
sort of ripper: GoldWave, for example, or there are many others - I
think most burner softwares have CD-ripping ability thrown in.
[]
>> I'd be interested (I never got into minidiscs; I understand their audio
>> encoding was not dissimilar to NICAM, but they never really got used for
>> [other than audio] _data_ storage), but it's probably very OT for this
>> 'group.
>> --
>> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> Right, well beyond the needs of the discussion. Though the Japan DID
>institute that standard [for data as well], among others [such as Floppy3]
>not found elsewhere or only to a limited extent. America is not exactly on

Yes, I thought when you mentioned it that I remembered seeing some
almost-prototype drive that used minidiscs for (non-audio) data; at the
time it seemed quite tempting (I think it was quite competitive on
price, plus the intrinsic reusability of the discs was attractive), but
I didn't bite, and am grateful I didn't (-:.

>the leading edge of technology, heck it was a decade or so before HDTV

I'm not sure which way you're pitching that (I'm in England BTW).

>arrived, and now we find the government and business forcing it upon the
>people.
>
Forcing? You mean against their will?

If it's anything like here, the public (and most shops) don't know how
to use even widescreen yet, let alone HDTV: they seem to feel that if
the picture doesn't fill their wide (or short) screen, they're being
short-changed, regardless of how distorted it is (i. e. if it is from a
non-widescreen source). And here a large percentage still think
satellite TV means TV you pay for from Sky, too. (Free satellite is
available here, just not very well advertised, unsurprisingly.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda - Craig McLean on Nigel
Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008

 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <ec7u1PUuJHA.4364@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB@not.?.invalid> writes:
> []
>>> No. The - small - increase from 650M/64' to 700M/74' _was_ achieved by
>>> tweaking the actual physical manufacture of the blanks; I'm not sure
>>> exactly what they did, though I think it was improving the ability to
>>> manufacture the surface near the outside edge of the disc. (As I
> []
>>> standard. (The 900M/90' ones did it by putting the tracks actually
>>> closer together, which _did_ infringe the standard, causing the
>>> resultant discs not to play on some machines.)
>>
>> Not some, but most devices are and were incapable....
>
> I'll take your word for it; I never tried one, since the blanks were
> considerably more expensive than either the 650 or the 700 capacity ones
> (and this at a time when _those_ weren't as cheap as they are now).
>

<snip>

>>
>> One can not discuss these without also discussing the file extension
>> [used
>> to identify the proposed method] and other aspects which identify the
>> format
>> used between differing presentational/preservation techniques.
>> Moreover, unless the drive or device supports those formats or at least
>> recognizes them [can read the format], the drive can not be used to PLAY
>> the
>> disk, though it MAY be able to transfer the data format to a SOFTWARE
>> program [such as in a computer] which can, PROVIDING that format
>> maintains some form of KNOWN storage assignment..
>> You discuss the STANDARD or format, yet apparently attempt to dismiss the
>> constraints OF the format and the device.
>
> If you talk about file extensions, you're talking about data format
> (blue book I think) discs. The data on an audio CD is not _in_ files,
> certainly not with extensions; it's one continuous stream.

But I think those ARE a special form of WAV files, however. So I don't know
if it's quite accurate to say they aren't "files", per se. But (admitedly)
they are only indicated in the directory listing by their indexes as those
small ".cda" files, and the actual music data itself is not visible as seen
by using windows explorer.

Maybe it's more accurate to just say they are PCM files (16 bit files that
used a 44.1 kHz sample rate), and not bonafide "WAV" files, per se?? Not
sure.

 

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:hvAx5cMYCp3JFwwl@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> In message <Xns9BE87D66B5037thanexit@85.214.105.209>,
> thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes:
>>"MEB" <MEB@not@here> wrote in
>>news:OPZMUFLuJHA.2376@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> AND how much DATA did you burn.... 700megs or 650??
>>
>>A 700 MB CD-R will take up to 705 ALWAYS, and up to 710 or
>>715 sometimes, I have not arrived at an EXACT figure yet
>>since I do not insist on getting 100% of my 15 cents'
>>worth. I usually burn between 630-705 MB of data.
>>
> I don't think you'll _get_ an _exact_ figure, because -
> once you go beyond what the standard specifies (which
> probably _is_ 703 or 705 or something) - you will be into
> the area of variation between manufacturers, even batches
> (let alone whether the burner - and reader! - can
> physically track there, though I suspect most can, and of
> course you need software that lets you try).

You may well be correct here. I was quite surprised I was able
to get to 710 actually.

 

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:WI1Mg5QO8p3JFw14@soft255.demon.co.uk:

<SNIP>

A very interesting discussion but I'll just comment on the sig.

>a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda - Craig
McLean on Nigel
>Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008

Nigel Kennedy is a very good musician but one of the creepiest
guys I've ever seen - thankfully only on TV.
Damn Canadians.

 

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WI1Mg5QO8p3JFw14@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <ec7u1PUuJHA.4364@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB@not.?.invalid> writes:
> []
> >> No. The - small - increase from 650M/64' to 700M/74' _was_ achieved by
> >> tweaking the actual physical manufacture of the blanks; I'm not sure
> >> exactly what they did, though I think it was improving the ability to
> >> manufacture the surface near the outside edge of the disc. (As I
> []
> >> standard. (The 900M/90' ones did it by putting the tracks actually
> >> closer together, which _did_ infringe the standard, causing the
> >> resultant discs not to play on some machines.)
> >
> > Not some, but most devices are and were incapable....
>
> I'll take your word for it; I never tried one, since the blanks were
> considerably more expensive than either the 650 or the 700 capacity ones
> (and this at a time when _those_ weren't as cheap as they are now).
>
> [Incidentally, I've always been a bit sad that the 3" size ones
> generally cost more, too; they're a handy size, not only capacity-wise -
> 180-220 M or so, or about 21 minutes - but physically. But I suppose
> it's supply and demand.]

Again, basically an Asian/Japan activity.

> >
> > The ink used, material used in the backing/reflector, and manufacturing
of
> >the physical disk [clarity and otherwise] helped to extend the purported
> >capabilities to a limited extent. It was, however, the actual laser
> >mechanism and its control advances which allowed the purported extension
of
> >the blanks. However, without the code to *allow* the extension AND the
>
> No, I'm pretty sure they just improved the ability to manufacture the
> discs closer to the edge.

Tell you what, let's not belabor the point and say better manufacturing
techniques..

>
> >*standard* which addressed the extended area, there is no extension. A
> >700meg capable disk will only hold 650meg unless both the disk AND the
> >device are capable of using the finer grained format AND the device
supports
> >the standard. Moreover, even this requires that the software used for
> >burning ALSO allows use of that area and *supports* the device's and
disk's
> >extra functionality/abilities. Without this UNION of agreement between
these
> >necessary aspects, it makes no difference what the supposed capability of
a
> >blank is. Just as it makes distinct difference when a drive does not
support
> >a particular standardized format.
>
> Yes, of course, you need a drive (and burning software) that goes into
> the last few mm of the disc to do it; however, I don't think many
> _drives_ were made that couldn't handle the 700 capacity, though
> possibly some softwares couldn't. (It seems Letterman has software, a
> drive, or both that _is_ limited to 650 - in his case it probably _is_
> the drive, since the software apparently let him try to go beyond,
> though with warnings, but he produced a disc that stopped there.)

Again, drives didn't always have the capability.

>
> But even if you have both software and a drive that knows about 700, it
> won't allow you to burn 700 on a 650 blank. (You can probably get a
> _bit_ beyond 650, by overburning, but why bother.)

Exactly. Reliability and portability means stay within the standards.
Take a XP or Vista burnt disk to another system and you find people popping
into the groups whining because they don't understand its not standard, with
stupid little comments like "it works in my other Vista machine, so how come
it doesn't work in my friends Apple,,, or Win9X or Linux.... whatever..."

>
> > For instance, my drive can read most standard DVD formats, e.g.,
DVD-ROM,
> >DVD-RAM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, but not DVD+R or DVD+RW, and supports a very
defined
> >set of *modes*, e.g., Packet, TAO, DAO, SAO, RAW SAO, RAW SAO 16, RAW SAO
> >96, RAW DAO 16, RAW DAO 96.
>
> DVD is _much_ more complicated (-:! There are at least the three types
> of actual disc (+, -, and RAM), with the first two being available as
> both R and RW, and then there are the _many_ different ways of putting
> the data on them. Though I believe (at least for reading) they're a bit
> more compatible at low level - I _think_ you can always see folders
> containing files, it is just what those files are and mean that varies -
> than CD-data and CD-audio were.

?? ah okay,,,

>
> > Anything outside of its defined capabilities will not work with the
drive.
> >The drive and software, however, support over-burning of a 700 meg blank
> >which, depending upon the blank quality, allows up to a tested 728megs.
> >However, this over-burnt disk will not work reliably in just *any
device*,
> >the device MUST be capable of the extended laser travel and control. Nor
can
> >I rely upon always being able to over-burn a given blank to 728, even
within
> >the same batch process and manufacturer.
>
> Indeed! (I don't think I'd ever even try to get 728M! If nothing else,
> having a bit left unused at the end gives a bit of physical protection -
> I feel 728M would go so close to the outside edge that I'd feel I had to
> handle it very gingerly! It tends to flake near the edge, especially in
> high-speed drives.)

Well, we agree; exactly, what is the point; I certainly wouldn't actually
use that size and expect to even potentially use it in the drive that
created it after it degrades. Flake??? what are you talking about?? Oh you
mean speed and quality wise perhaps?

I suppose I should have noted that I couldn't burn at standard drive speed
[52X] and that size, I had to drop back to 16x or 8x {4X for some disks}.
And I wouldn't suggest experimenting much beyond *90 minutes* with ANY
drive, you CAN physically damage the mechanism [I rarely go beyond 93
minutes for a 80 minute rated, even under the most extreme testing, in fact
I now stop around 92.57 max].

Since you're in the UK:
http://www.diskdepot.co.uk/acatalog...0-minute-800mb-capacity-10-dis-intenso005.htm

Just remember you must be able to actually *use* the disks and NOTE the
warnings. And certainly don't expect them to be usable in other OSs or even
drives.

>
> > When the blanks were labeled 650meg I could usually over-burn to between
> >660 to 710, depending again, upon the batch and manufacturer. Do not
>
> 660 I could believe; 710, I would suspect were actually "700" discs that
> for some reason (maybe quality control sample testing declared them a
> poor batch) had been labelled and sold as 650s. Rather like in the old
> days of floppies, when most had head-holes in both sides, but you bought
> them as single-sided or double-sided, depending on the manufacturer's
> testing results; single-sided ones usually worked double-sided fairly
> well.

No. These test were done on older 650meg disks, BEFORE the extended
standard [we're talking old 2x or 4x ONLY blanks].
And "not exactly" - for 31/2" floppies, not actually sided but DENSITY,
double density [1440/1.4] worked for either [tape over the other hole] or
just use the right command; and you MIGHT be able to reform a single density
[720k] to 1.4 IF you bored a hole in the disk AND you used one of the
specialty format tools from the era, otherwise your success rate [using MS
format] might have been dismal. Unless you are referring to the even older
51/4"{5.25}.
Here's another example of Microsoft not following standards and causing
issues... it used 1.8meg format for some of its distribution disks. Lots of
people had difficulty with those. Supposedly all 31/2 drives could read
them, yet some couldn't for some reason [ an ahhh here ].

> []
> > Perhaps you missed an older discussion [a year or two ago] in this group
in
> >which we addressed these very issues DURING the course of a querier's
> >requests to know WHY his old CD drive could not use newer disks and could
> >not even read newer disks, yet still functioned with his older CDs which
had
> >been created using supported formats of that era.
> >
> I did indeed miss that discussion. I yield to your knowledge/experience
> - though I suspect _some_ of it might have been to do with burning
> speeds.

That is part of it of course. His particular issue lay within un-supported
modes...

> >>
> >> Think about it: you could (when the 650s were still available) _buy_
> >> blanks labelled as 650M, and blanks labelled as 700M; if the extra
> >> capacity was achieved by some smart coding algorithm, this wouldn't
have
> >> been the case.
> >
> > Sure it would. Manufacturers had to change their manufacturing
techniques
> >to allow the finer grained formats AND change inks and such. This
required
>
> (Well, I still think the _small_ change from 650 to 700 was only an
> improved ability to make the outside edges, no change to density.)

Well, okay, no sense beating a dead horse.

> >they continue to label their disks in the format KNOWN as supported or
they
> >would have lost their consumers. Even then without a device to use the
>
> I'd be a bit surprised - I'd have thought most consumers wouldn't be
> worried, especially if they were labelled "700 (650-compatible)" or
> similar.

650 DATA / 80 minutes MUSIC or something like Extended Music 80 minutes,
in fact for a short time, you could go down the Music isle in some stores
and find 700/80 Minute *MUSIC* CDs [labeled as such] for a high cost, and in
the computer isle find 650 DATA / 80 Minutes [no music explanation or 74
Extended or 700 Extended with a Warning Capacity not be available in all
drives] for a few dollars less; WHY, because computer users knew their
drives required 650 meg CDs [we're talking DOS - 9X era here] and 700 megs
confused them [and many store clerks], and music burners thought they were
getting a SPECIAL disk for music hence the higher cost [most consumers
generally aren't the brightest bulbs in the universe].
One needs to remember the time period: RETAIL mid-range CD BURNING drives
cost several hundred dollars - to high end burners at a thousand or more.
PLAYERS, on the other hand, only need support for READ capabilities and
might have cost two or three hundred dollars. Low range drives/players [like
those coming with proprietary adapters or sound cards, or supplied by mass
manufacturers {pre-made computers}] generally didn't support extended
features or some of the available "modes" and burning was out of the
question.

Windows user basically breezed through this ignorant [as usual] of any
issues. Most users during that time period either had no CD-ROM drive or
they used the manufacturer's supplied burning software with a recently
purchased drive that supported the extended capabilities. It was suggested
that was part of the reason Microsoft "forgot" to include CD support in its
included backup software.
9X came from an era of essentially no CD-ROM drives to the era of
relatively high cost for such drives. 2K rode through expected CD drives and
then DVD drives [but not really designed for that purpose, hey its for
business not consumers]. XP is the cheap burner era, an experimental
consumer OS, and a POS, yet manages to hold Windows junkies in its thrall.
Vista is,,,, worthless ... oops,, a nice cozy blanket to wrap around one
self, conveniently providing all one needs at one's finger tips, no need to
know anything about computers or computing, providing a appeasing interface
designed for ease of use, "Yes here is the world's OS" {soft music playing
in the background with children playing, 4 year olds using the computer to
print pictures, 6 year olds creating postcards and other nifty stuff, 9 year
olds creating music CDs, 'Oh Yes, I'm convinced, with this I can ignore
climate change, world depression, war and anything else, and' ... just don't
look at the blanket too hard,, its full of holes...}

Anyone else notice that Microsoft is already supposedly going to offer
downgrades from Windows7 to XP [what happened to Vista???] ? Does Microsoft
intend to create another extended support OS like 9X??? (like I care
anyway..)

>
> >purported extension/extended capacity, the label means squat.
> >
> Of course.
> []
> >> There were other formats - mainly hybrids of the "don't play track 1"
> >> variety (one band actually produced an album with that name!), which
> >> allowed you to have a CD that played on audio players but also
contained
> >> software. There was even a video single, which IIRR included _analogue_
> >> video on the CD! _That_ never caught on - don't think I ever even saw a
> >> player. Tail end of the laserdisc era, really.
> >
> > You still see them occasionally. Some now contain a short DVD/movie, or
> >AVI, or some other standard format section, such as which might provide
> >specialized visuals for WMP.
>
> No, all of those contain _digital_ video data. The ones I'm thinking of
> - I think they might have been called "video single" - actually
> contained some _analogue video_ signal on the disc; they needed a
> special player. I suspect they were quite hard to manufacture (press) to
> adequate yield.

We are thinking of two different things here, apparently. Just a few months
ago, yet another American "artist" [musician] included some special
materials and "shorts" on his released music CD [or was he the first for
DVD?]. Plays in a standard player, yet when placed in a computer [possibly a
DVD player, not sure] you get the SPECIAL goodies.

> >
> > I still have a Music disk {somewhere} which would install a software
> >application [Bink if I remember correctly] on the computer for its
special
> >Movie and display. Yet would also play normally [without that
installation].
> >When I first got the disk it couldn't be read as the drive had no support
> >for mixed mode disks.
>
> There's also a despicable habit of placing some software such that, when
> played on an (at least Windows) computer, the disc - this is done with
> audio discs - loads a special player to play the audio, when the disc is
> inserted into a computer, though plays as normal in an audio player.
> This was an attempt to reduce ripping. (The one disc I have of that type
> - that I know of, anyway - wouldn't play with my ageing PC,

AH, yes I can relate to this

> which is my
> default for playing CDs, I had to rip all the tracks in order to play
> them at all, thus defeating the object: I wouldn't in fact have normally
> ripped _all_ the tracks.) I believe that after some lawsuits, such discs
> cannot bear the "compact disc digital audio" logo which all audio CDs
> originally bore, because these are not to the "red book" standard;
> however, people probably don't look for that any more anyway.

They wouldn't know what it meant or even care... if it plays all is well,
if it doesn't they will pitchabitch [or raise bloody hell as you might put
it] on one of the forums somewhere.

> >
> > There was and/or were many disks during that experimental era [the
> >beginning of mixed-mode standard], which also contained virus
installations
> >which would auto-install [part of the reason we were informed to disable
> >auto-play]. Its still an excellent way to transfer virus and rootkits,
hence
> >the continued advisements to disable auto-play of CD/DVD.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > IIRC, there was even a game disk being distributed with a children's
cereal
> >which came with its own virus.
> >
> I did try a cereal disc some years ago which caused me no end of
> problems getting rid of it; can't say it was a virus, but it was
> certainly tenacious.

Might have been it... what a unique distribution method, what child isn't
going to put the free game CD into a computer or DEMAND the parents do it.
Moreover, how many parents would suspect a virus from a major "cereal"
manufacturer.

> []
> >> Odd, as RedBook is, I'm pretty certain, the audio standard ... BICBW
> >> there.
> >
> > The games used the RedBook to provide the background/atmosphere to the
> >game.
> >
> Ah yes, I think that would have been mixed mode: ISTR some games discs
> which would "play" (if playing odd atmosphere and effects means
> anything) in an audio player.
> []
> > Yes and No... the above would also be an overly simplified description.
> >
> > One can not discuss these without also discussing the file extension
[used
> >to identify the proposed method] and other aspects which identify the
format
> >used between differing presentational/preservation techniques.
> > Moreover, unless the drive or device supports those formats or at least
> >recognizes them [can read the format], the drive can not be used to PLAY
the
> >disk, though it MAY be able to transfer the data format to a SOFTWARE
> >program [such as in a computer] which can, PROVIDING that format
maintains
> >some form of KNOWN storage assignment..
> > You discuss the STANDARD or format, yet apparently attempt to dismiss
the
> >constraints OF the format and the device.
>
> If you talk about file extensions, you're talking about data format
> (blue book I think) discs. The data on an audio CD is not _in_ files,
> certainly not with extensions; it's one continuous stream. The simple
> directory near the start of the disc, which an audio player can read,
> contains the address of where, in the continuous stream of audio, the
> individual "tracks" start (and end, though I think it might be length
> rather than end that it stores).

Ahh, its still a "format" and a "mode", the data has to arranged in some
logical order....

>
> If you put an audio CD into a computer drive and look at it _with
> explorer_, at least in '98, the drive firmware and Windows 98 between
> them will make it look as if there are 20 (or whatever) files there; it
> usually gives them a .cda (CD audio) extension. However, these are _not_
> the actual audio data; they're just the entries in the simple directory
> (usually only about 1k in size; look at the total size indicated). You
> can usually copy them off the disc, but no software will be able to play
> them, as they don't actually contain the audio data. In order to
> actually get the audio data from an _audio_ CD, you need to run some
> sort of ripper: GoldWave, for example, or there are many others - I
> think most burner softwares have CD-ripping ability thrown in.

Glad you finally got around to that, I was was going to cut the statement
apart and make a point of that...

> []
> >> I'd be interested (I never got into minidiscs; I understand their audio
> >> encoding was not dissimilar to NICAM, but they never really got used
for
> >> [other than audio] _data_ storage), but it's probably very OT for this
> >> 'group.
> >> --
> >> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> >
> > Right, well beyond the needs of the discussion. Though the Japan DID
> >institute that standard [for data as well], among others [such as
Floppy3]
> >not found elsewhere or only to a limited extent. America is not exactly
on
>
> Yes, I thought when you mentioned it that I remembered seeing some
> almost-prototype drive that used minidiscs for (non-audio) data; at the
> time it seemed quite tempting (I think it was quite competitive on
> price, plus the intrinsic reusability of the discs was attractive), but
> I didn't bite, and am grateful I didn't (-:.

A Japanese company [Sony I think} just showed another example of mini-disk
tech a few months ago, seems they are getting close to movie length
capabilities.
They already offer a retail 1 gig for music.
http://www.sony.co.za/product/hmd1ga

>
> >the leading edge of technology, heck it was a decade or so before HDTV
>
> I'm not sure which way you're pitching that (I'm in England BTW).
>
> >arrived, and now we find the government and business forcing it upon the
> >people.
> >
> Forcing? You mean against their will?

Basically, yes,, the standard broadcasts are being removed leaving only
HDTV broadcasts. The government offers a discount coupon for a converter to
the old signal format for older TVs. We just got another extension before
the final shutoff, though many stations have already dropped standard
broadcast. On the plus side, you may get a few more channels over the
antenna than before as the signal strength was increased for HD. One
converter for one TV. If you still can't afford a converter, well, neither
business or the government gives a rats behind...

>
> If it's anything like here, the public (and most shops) don't know how
> to use even widescreen yet, let alone HDTV: they seem to feel that if
> the picture doesn't fill their wide (or short) screen, they're being
> short-changed, regardless of how distorted it is (i. e. if it is from a
> non-widescreen source). And here a large percentage still think
> satellite TV means TV you pay for from Sky, too. (Free satellite is
> available here, just not very well advertised, unsurprisingly.)
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Well, here its a matter of consumerism and "keeping up wit da jones", big
HDTVs are almost a must have unless you want to *look* poor, heck its almost
un-American [give it a few more months and it will likely be LABELED
socialist to not have one]]] Americans are so easily lead by the nose, and
we certainly didn't get the BRIGHTEST of the world's emigrants]]]]....

Satellite had its heyday years ago here... now its cable and Dish [small
disk] satellite. Yes, some satellite is/was free here, but to get all the
goodies, like sports channels or movie channels, required/requires a paid
service [or a hack].


ANYWAY,, to sum up the original related discussion material:

We seem to have finally agreed 700 meg is NOT the standard for data, and to
use it requires at least a drive and software that supports that extended
capacity.

We have also apparently agreed that there are many different formats and
modes which also require at least a drive and software that can
use/recognize them.

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

 

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:49:34 -0400, "MEB" <MEB@not@here> wrote:

>over-look this,,, it is/was called over-burning because the STANDARD for
>data disks is/was 650megs. Windows users have long ago lost interest with CD
>capacities. They stuff in a blank, burn until it is finished, and never
>bother to even look at what was burned and at what capacity, and newer
>Windows automatically over-burn to the capacity of the disk giving the
>impression of a supported format, e.g., 700 meg [or what the disk will hold,
>such as 702 or otherwise]. That does NOT mean the DATA STANDARD changed, it

NOW I find out that data disks are limited to 650. Now it makes sense
what went wrong. Maybe I'll have to plug it in again. I assume there
must be some *overhead* too, so I suppose my data limit should be
maybe 640? I now ask why they label them to 700, when they know that
they can only hold 650 (stupid advertising scam if you ask me).

I'm curious where you said "They stuff in a blank, burn until it is
finished, and never bother to even look at what was burned and at what
capacity, and newer Windows automatically over-burn to the capacity of
the disk giving the impression of a supported format"

Does that mean XP limits the data to what the blank can handle?

(Win2K does NOT have built in burning software, or at least I have not
found it yet, because 2K has an odd way of hiding stuff, in fact I
made a folder on the desktop and started making shortcuts to all the
common stuff like notepad, wordpad, etc).

Getting back to CDs, I still question why they put 700 if data CDs
only handle 650, and then they sell MUSIC CD blanks. Does music
really need these special blanks, or can the standard CD-r be used for
music? Then too, if I was to put 700m of MP3 music on one, would the
CD player on my stereo play all of it, or my DVD player on the TV?
I sort of get the feeling to just never use more than 650 to be safe
(just a guess).

Well, back to trying to figure out Win2K. In some ways it's like 98,
but in others it can be puzzling. For instance, some of the nicer
wallpapers that come with 2K require switching to "Active Desktop"....
WTF???? (I hate webpage looking desktops). Yet, I can use some of my
own LARGE .BMP files with no problem...... WEIRD !!!!

However I do sort of like Win2k in some ways. It's much better than
XP. but 98 is still easier... But now I have both to play with.

I cant believe that MS still did not include any ZIP software like
Winzip in their OS, I had to install that program right away, and 2K
did not even complain that my version of Winzip is from 1998, because
I have never understood why Winzip needs to be upgraded. It only does
2 things, zips and unzips......

LM

 

letterman@invalid.com wrote:

> NOW I find out that data disks are limited to 650. Now it makes sense
> what went wrong. Maybe I'll have to plug it in again. I assume there
> must be some *overhead* too, so I suppose my data limit should be
> maybe 640? I now ask why they label them to 700, when they know that
> they can only hold 650

> (stupid advertising scam if you ask me).

No, still clueless user.

IF
you have 700MB blanks

AND IF
you have a cd burner that isn't ancient

AND IF
you have a cd burning program that isn't ancient

THEN
you can burn 700MB of data
__________________

> Getting back to CDs, I still question why they put 700 if data CDs
> only handle 650,

see above

> and then they sell MUSIC CD blanks. Does music
> really need these special blanks, or can the standard CD-r be used for
> music?

They sell "music " blanks because years ago some group got their nose out of
joint and a portion of the higher price of "music" blanks goes to them.
There is no physical difference in the media.
____________________

> Then too, if I was to put 700m of MP3 music on one, would the
> CD player on my stereo play all of it, or my DVD player on the TV?
> I sort of get the feeling to just never use more than 650 to be safe
> (just a guess).

Neither of them would be able to play *any* of it unless the device
contained a chip to decode the MP3 to wave.

MP3s ALWAYS have to be decoded to wave, you cannot play them in MP3 form.
MP3s aren't music per se, they are more of a shorthand representation of the
wave from which they were made; decoding them reconstructs - more or less -
that wave and the wave can be played.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

In message <eZKKAGYuJHA.5452@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Bill in Co.
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> writes:
[]
>> If you talk about file extensions, you're talking about data format
>> (blue book I think) discs. The data on an audio CD is not _in_ files,
>> certainly not with extensions; it's one continuous stream.
>
>But I think those ARE a special form of WAV files, however. So I don't know
>if it's quite accurate to say they aren't "files", per se. But (admitedly)
>they are only indicated in the directory listing by their indexes as those
>small ".cda" files, and the actual music data itself is not visible as seen
>by using windows explorer.

Well, I _think_ they're one continuous "file", if you like. They contain
the raw music data as you describe:
>
>Maybe it's more accurate to just say they are PCM files (16 bit files that
>used a 44.1 kHz sample rate), and not bonafide "WAV" files, per se?? Not
>sure.
>
>
A true .WAV file has a header that gives the sampling rate, whether
stereo or not, and I think the bit depth - you can certainly have a mono
..wav file, and I _think_ you can have an 8-bit one (perfectly adequate
for some game sound effects). The audio data on an audio CD certainly
doesn't have the header (since it has to be 44100x16x2), and I don't
_think_ it is in individual files, just one long one, with the .cda
files containing pointers to the start points.

[Of course this is all discussions to various levels of abstraction: at
the very lowest level, a CD is one long spiral track, with one
continuous stream of data on it. But let's not go there (-:]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda - Craig McLean on Nigel
Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008

 

In message <Xns9BE8E2191894thanexit@85.214.105.209>, thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes:
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:WI1Mg5QO8p3JFw14@soft255.demon.co.uk:
>
><SNIP>
>
>A very interesting discussion but I'll just comment on the sig.

I'm glad you are finding it so; I think that's partly why I and my
protagonists are continuing the discussion - because we think people are
being interested and informed. (And misinformed!)
>
>>a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda - Craig
>McLean on Nigel
>>Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008
>
>Nigel Kennedy is a very good musician but one of the creepiest
>guys I've ever seen - thankfully only on TV.
>Damn Canadians.

(Eh? I thought he was London.) The .sig is from my random .sig file,
from which a new one gets selected whenever I start Windows; what goes
into the file are snippets I find interesting, amusing, or
thought-provoking, usually these days from the RT. The same one can
start to grate if I post a lot in the same session, though, sorry if
that's so.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda - Craig McLean on Nigel
Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008

 

In message <eyZVGwauJHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
<MEB@not.?.invalid> writes:
[]
>> [Incidentally, I've always been a bit sad that the 3" size ones
>> generally cost more, too; they're a handy size, not only capacity-wise -
>> 180-220 M or so, or about 21 minutes - but physically. But I suppose
>> it's supply and demand.]
>
> Again, basically an Asian/Japan activity.

On the mass-pressed side, it has had a resurgence of late, as a carrier
for drivers for novelties, which are often packet in a box physically
too small for a full-size CD. But the blanks for home use are still
harder to find and much more expensive. (And try finding _labels_ for
them over the counter - even online, they're not easy to find, though
they do exist.)
[]
Long discussion snipped: I think we'll just have to agree to disagree
amicably. I think the only difference between 650 and 700 capacity discs
is that the actual recording surface extends closer to the edge, with
the spiral pitch and everything else being the same. (Obviously you have
to have a _drive_ - and software - that lets you into that area.) You I
think think otherwise. At least we are both agreed that the 900/90' ones
_do_ achieve it by tightening the pitch, causing problems on many
readers (let alone burners).
[]
> Exactly. Reliability and portability means stay within the standards.
> Take a XP or Vista burnt disk to another system and you find people popping
>into the groups whining because they don't understand its not standard, with
>stupid little comments like "it works in my other Vista machine, so how come
>it doesn't work in my friends Apple,,, or Win9X or Linux.... whatever..."
>
Hmm. Are you talking about the actual low-level disc structure, or the
software it carries? Certainly I'd expect to be able to _read_ a disc
prepared on any of XP/Vista/9x/Linux (and probably Apple) on any of the
others, in terms of actually getting the data out of the files; whether
I'd be able to _do_ anything with it (other than burn it to another
disc, of course - or a pen drive, floppy, or network), then no.
Obviously I wouldn't expect to run XP or Vista _software_ on my '9x
system.
[]
>> Indeed! (I don't think I'd ever even try to get 728M! If nothing else,
>> having a bit left unused at the end gives a bit of physical protection -
>> I feel 728M would go so close to the outside edge that I'd feel I had to
>> handle it very gingerly! It tends to flake near the edge, especially in
>> high-speed drives.)
>
> Well, we agree; exactly, what is the point; I certainly wouldn't actually
>use that size and expect to even potentially use it in the drive that
>created it after it degrades. Flake??? what are you talking about?? Oh you
>mean speed and quality wise perhaps?

No, physically: with some poorly-made blanks (and even pressed CDs), you
can get your fingernail or similar in at the edge, or other foreign body
can get in, and the reflective coating can detach along the perimeter.
Not necessarily enough to be visible, but enough to affect the
focusing/tracking ability of a player.
>
> I suppose I should have noted that I couldn't burn at standard drive speed
>[52X] and that size, I had to drop back to 16x or 8x {4X for some disks}.

Out of interest: I remember some years ago reading about some
experiments done - not with drives, more things like industrial
grinders, which have suitable guards on them. The maximum speed the
industry has settled on, of around 48-52x, is close to the physical
limit anyway: the plastic discs have a tendency to disintegrate much
above that.

Also: because the data has constant _linear_ density, i. e. there's more
per revolution near the outside than near the inside of the disc, the
drives industry changed around the time they were passing through around
12x-14x: a modern "52x" drive is only doing 52x on parts of the disc
(the outside edges I think).

I remember the first x12 drive I encountered (in a machine at work):
very noisy - not surprising if you calculate what speed they're actually
rotating at! They seem to have managed to get the noise back down again
as speeds continued to rise.

>And I wouldn't suggest experimenting much beyond *90 minutes* with ANY
>drive, you CAN physically damage the mechanism [I rarely go beyond 93
>minutes for a 80 minute rated, even under the most extreme testing, in fact
>I now stop around 92.57 max].

Interesting. Do you do this just for curiosity or part of your
profession (you mention testing), or do you actually have requirement
for 9x-minute audio?
>
> Since you're in the UK:
>http://www.diskdepot.co.uk/acatalog/intenso-40x-cd-r-extra-long-90-minut
>e-800mb-capacity-10-dis-intenso005.htm
>
Hmm - not a bad price: 32p each, but that does include cases. (I don't
have any need for them - or probably hardware or software to use them -
but nice to know they're still out there.)

> Just remember you must be able to actually *use* the disks and NOTE the
>warnings. And certainly don't expect them to be usable in other OSs or even
>drives.
>
Indeed. I'm surprised at the mechanism damage claims - I thought these
achieved the _significantly_ higher capacity by making the spiral pitch
finer, not extensive overburning: after all, we're talking a 14%
increase here (from 700 to 800), as opposed to the 7% that 700 from 650
means. Maybe its a combination of both, though.
>>
>> > When the blanks were labeled 650meg I could usually over-burn to between
>> >660 to 710, depending again, upon the batch and manufacturer. Do not
>>
>> 660 I could believe; 710, I would suspect were actually "700" discs that
>> for some reason (maybe quality control sample testing declared them a
>> poor batch) had been labelled and sold as 650s. Rather like in the old
>> days of floppies, when most had head-holes in both sides, but you bought
>> them as single-sided or double-sided, depending on the manufacturer's
>> testing results; single-sided ones usually worked double-sided fairly
>> well.
>
> No. These test were done on older 650meg disks, BEFORE the extended
>standard [we're talking old 2x or 4x ONLY blanks].

Interesting. I do wonder whether the ones that reached over 700 were
manufacturers experimenting, though, even if it didn't say so on the
"label".

> And "not exactly" - for 31/2" floppies, not actually sided but DENSITY,
>double density [1440/1.4] worked for either [tape over the other hole] or
>just use the right command; and you MIGHT be able to reform a single density
>[720k] to 1.4 IF you bored a hole in the disk AND you used one of the
>specialty format tools from the era, otherwise your success rate [using MS
>format] might have been dismal. Unless you are referring to the even older
>51/4"{5.25}.

I was talking about 5.25" ones, and more the single/double sided ones. I
don't think any manufacturer actually made single-sided ones: I think
they all made them as double-sided, but labelled them as single- if more
than a certain proportion in batch-testing failed on one or other side.
(I guess the ones that failed on the wrong side might have been turned
over, not sure about that.)

The transition from single-density, to double-density, to high-density
was a different matter though. Single to double _was_ just a matter of
improved head and electronics, and coating quality - there was no hard
and fast border, and there was a fair chance you could get away with
using single-density discs as double-density. The high-density ones,
however, used a _different_ coating (I think it was more chrome than
ferric; it certainly looked a darker brown). As you say, with 3.5"
floppies, they were able to design an extra hole and sensor into the
standard, with 5.25" ones they couldn't. The higher-density ones
required somewhat more magnetic field to change them: if you tried to
use them in a lower-density _drive_ (which you'd rarely do, as the discs
cost more), you'd have variable luck, even just deleting stuff - it
depended on the individual drive. However, if you tried to format a DD
one as HD, you might initially succeed, but you shouldn't rely on it
lasting: the discs tended to lose the signal with storage, unlike the
proper HD discs made with a different material.

Interesting the densities, and how 5.25" gave way to 3.5"; initially,
the two sizes were the same, with just more precise engineering (made
possible by the metal hub and other aspects of the smaller format)
giving the same on the smaller size initially. Initially binary
progression, as the computer industry likes: 180K single sided (though
I'm not sure SS 3.5" ever were common), 360K double-sided, 720K
double-density. But when they went to high-density, though 3.5" went to
1440K as you'd expect, 5.25" only went to 1200K (or 1.44M and 1.2M) for
some reason - probably there wasn't _too_ much effort going into the
larger format by then. (Oh, and remember the 3" - not 3.5" - format? My
Oric Atmos used it, as did quite a few machines - the UK101 I think, and
certainly many of the early Amstrad machines - but it lost out for some
reason.) But I digress, as I tend to do a lot ...

> Here's another example of Microsoft not following standards and causing
>issues... it used 1.8meg format for some of its distribution disks. Lots of
>people had difficulty with those. Supposedly all 31/2 drives could read
>them, yet some couldn't for some reason [ an ahhh here ].

Yes, I do (though I thought it was 1.7). I have some utilities somewhere
that let me create them (IIRR once you'd created them DOS was then happy
with them, BICBW). Can't remember when I last used any sort of floppy
for anything though - not, I think, for two or more years.
[]
> 650 DATA / 80 minutes MUSIC or something like Extended Music 80 minutes,
>in fact for a short time, you could go down the Music isle in some stores
>and find 700/80 Minute *MUSIC* CDs [labeled as such] for a high cost, and in
>the computer isle find 650 DATA / 80 Minutes [no music explanation or 74
>Extended or 700 Extended with a Warning Capacity not be available in all
>drives] for a few dollars less; WHY, because computer users knew their
>drives required 650 meg CDs [we're talking DOS - 9X era here] and 700 megs
>confused them [and many store clerks], and music burners thought they were
>getting a SPECIAL disk for music hence the higher cost [most consumers
>generally aren't the brightest bulbs in the universe].

There was also the added confusion that, for a brief period, standalone
audio-recording decks appeared - you fed them with analogue audio, and
they made a CD; they were the CD equivalent of the tape recorder, except
that the write-once nature of the medium made them much less versatile.
(They were pretty expensive, too.) Anyway, some if not all of these
devices - due presumably to pressure from the recording industry - would
only _work_ with "music" blanks: in particular, they would refuse to
work with the ones sold for data or general use. Those blanks had some
sort of coding in them that these special recorders recognised. Those
blanks cost considerably more, with the extra _claimed_ to be
distributed among the recording industry, I don't know how.
[]
>> No, all of those contain _digital_ video data. The ones I'm thinking of
>> - I think they might have been called "video single" - actually
>> contained some _analogue video_ signal on the disc; they needed a
>> special player. I suspect they were quite hard to manufacture (press) to
>> adequate yield.
>
> We are thinking of two different things here, apparently. Just a few months
>ago, yet another American "artist" [musician] included some special
>materials and "shorts" on his released music CD [or was he the first for
>DVD?]. Plays in a standard player, yet when placed in a computer [possibly a
>DVD player, not sure] you get the SPECIAL goodies.
>
Anything produced in the last few years will be digital. The analogue
video singles I remember (reading about - I don't think I ever actually
saw one) had raw video on the disc: I don't mean raw _digitised_ video,
I mean raw analogue video, like you'd get straight out of a
(non-digital) camera. Remember that was the age when just being able to
play back digitised (but not compressed, no way) audio in the home was a
marvellous thing: digitised video, where it existed at all, was the
province of the broadcasters and needed racks of equipment.
[]
>> If you talk about file extensions, you're talking about data format
>> (blue book I think) discs. The data on an audio CD is not _in_ files,
>> certainly not with extensions; it's one continuous stream. The simple
>> directory near the start of the disc, which an audio player can read,
>> contains the address of where, in the continuous stream of audio, the
>> individual "tracks" start (and end, though I think it might be length
>> rather than end that it stores).
>
> Ahh, its still a "format" and a "mode", the data has to arranged in some
>logical order....
>
Yes, but "file extensions" - or even filenames at all - has no meaning
in the context of an audio CD. The ".cda" apparent extension is created
by the firmware in the drive and Windows Explorer working together, it
doesn't exist (i. e. the three characters "c", "d", and "a" as adjacent
bytes) anywhere on the CD, unlike the file extensions in filenames on a
data CD.
[]
> Glad you finally got around to that, I was was going to cut the statement
>apart and make a point of that...
>
Nice we agree (-:
[]
>> Yes, I thought when you mentioned it that I remembered seeing some
>> almost-prototype drive that used minidiscs for (non-audio) data; at the
>> time it seemed quite tempting (I think it was quite competitive on
>> price, plus the intrinsic reusability of the discs was attractive), but
>> I didn't bite, and am grateful I didn't (-:.
>
> A Japanese company [Sony I think} just showed another example of mini-disk
>tech a few months ago, seems they are getting close to movie length
>capabilities.
> They already offer a retail 1 gig for music.
>http://www.sony.co.za/product/hmd1ga
>
I think flash memory is gradually killing off all moving-media storage
for portable audio and video; about time too - any motor, let along the
phenomenally complicated mechanism of a video tape system (digital or
otherwise), vastly reduces the time the battery/cell will last. The
cameras can also be made much smaller and more robust, too. (Pity,
though, that only the more expensive ones come with proper optical zoom
- if they can do optical zoom on a £50 multimegapixel still camera, it
shouldn't be impossible to do it to greater zoom on a movie one which
requires far less lens quality, given it's not as high resolution [I'm
not talking HD here]. But I digress again ...)
[]
>> >arrived, and now we find the government and business forcing it upon the
>> >people.
>> >
>> Forcing? You mean against their will?
>
> Basically, yes,, the standard broadcasts are being removed leaving only
>HDTV broadcasts. The government offers a discount coupon for a converter to
>the old signal format for older TVs. We just got another extension before
>the final shutoff, though many stations have already dropped standard

Interesting! No sign, as far as I'm aware, of any intention to cease SD
broadcasting here (UK): in fact the main "digital switchover", planned
here to occur region by region from 2008 to 2012, doesn't have HD
capability, and certainly much of the new equipment being sold
(especially the ubiquitous "FreeView" or "set-top" "box", from about
£16) doesn't have the capability, though most actual big tellies now do.
[]
>> If it's anything like here, the public (and most shops) don't know how
>> to use even widescreen yet, let alone HDTV: they seem to feel that if
[]
> Well, here its a matter of consumerism and "keeping up wit da jones", big
>HDTVs are almost a must have unless you want to *look* poor, heck its almost
>un-American [give it a few more months and it will likely be LABELED
>socialist to not have one]]] Americans are so easily lead by the nose, and
>we certainly didn't get the BRIGHTEST of the world's emigrants]]]]....

Oh, plenty of big tellies sold here too: my point was that I'd say
they're more often than not not set up properly, i. e. the picture set
to fill the screen regardless of distortion. (With some bellicosity
evident if you try to point this out, too.)
>
> Satellite had its heyday years ago here... now its cable and Dish [small
>disk] satellite. Yes, some satellite is/was free here, but to get all the
>goodies, like sports channels or movie channels, required/requires a paid
>service [or a hack].

Oh, yes, premier films, and much sport, cost here too, which IMO is fair
enough - but there's a lot of ignorance, and I fear at least _some_
deception by the retail trade, that you _have_ to pay to get satellite
(or, in the worst cases, to get TV at all, beyond the licence fee that
is), which is definitely not the case: even after "digital switchover",
well over 90% of the UK population will be able to receive some tens of
channels (including four BBC and plenty of commercial) _without_ having
to pay anyone specifically for it.
>
>
> ANYWAY,, to sum up the original related discussion material:
>
> We seem to have finally agreed 700 meg is NOT the standard for data, and to
>use it requires at least a drive and software that supports that extended
>capacity.

Not quite (-:. I am of the opinion that the standard for data (on an 8cm
disc) is either 650 or 700 depending on the blanks, with the 650 almost
unobtainable now, and you needing a drive that can go into the last 7%,
which all from the last decade or more can. I believe the capacity (65x
or 70x) is read, by the drive, from the blank, at the start of the burn
(well, before that - when the disc is first inserted), and that _some_
drives (when used with software that also allows it) can attempt to go
beyond the nominal capacity (65x or 70x as may be), so-called
overburning by writing past the nominal end of the spiral (NOT by any
encryption/encoding); I further believe that even higher capacities are
available by tweaking the pitch (and possibly overburning _as well_), at
your own risk.

In order to settle this once and for all, one of us is going to have to
read the Blue Book document (if I've got my colours right), and I don't
think either of us has the patience to do that (-:.
>
> We have also apparently agreed that there are many different formats and
>modes which also require at least a drive and software that can
>use/recognize them.
>
Indeed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda - Craig McLean on Nigel
Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008

 

In message <lr3ut45err87loq2iq3fpqhg5fhivl8b6i@4ax.com>,
letterman@invalid.com writes:
[]
>NOW I find out that data disks are limited to 650. Now it makes sense

No, it seems your _drive_ is probably limited to 650. (_Possibly_ it was
due to your software too, but it did seem to let you set up a recording
with a bit more, it just died at that point when actually recording it.)

This might tell us something: look (with your eyes I mean) at the two
discs you have recorded. The one you did with a reduced amount - did you
say it was 550M? - can you see where the recorded surface is? From the
middle outwards, there will be a slightly different appearance to the
surface. (The side opposite to the label is the side that's recorded on
of course.) The outer rim will look the same as it did before it was
recorded. Now look at the other one you recorded. Is the extent
different? Does the transition (between the recorded and not-recorded
bit) look any different, and/or is there a third region of different
appearance again?

>what went wrong. Maybe I'll have to plug it in again. I assume there
>must be some *overhead* too, so I suppose my data limit should be
>maybe 640? I now ask why they label them to 700, when they know that
>they can only hold 650 (stupid advertising scam if you ask me).

There is _slight_ overhead - the directories and so on take up _some_
space - but it's usually negligible, certainly not 10M. (There is also
overhead in each session - ISTR it is as much as 11M, which seemed
horrendous to me - in making multisession discs, i. e. where you don't
write a CD all at once and "close" it, but keep adding to it - but we're
not talking about those here.)

No, modern CD blanks will indeed hold 700M of data (in fact slightly
more - I think it's about 702-705). Sometimes, of you have a burner and
software that let you try, you can go beyond the end and squeeze even
more on by "overburning", but I'd say it's not worth the bother.
>
>I'm curious where you said "They stuff in a blank, burn until it is
>finished, and never bother to even look at what was burned and at what
>capacity, and newer Windows automatically over-burn to the capacity of
>the disk giving the impression of a supported format"
>
>Does that mean XP limits the data to what the blank can handle?

I was a bit puzzled by that too. Basically, a modern system - drive and
software - will read the capacity from the blank when you insert it;
this is unlikely to be 650 these days, but might be 180-210 rather than
70x, if the person has put in a 3" blank. Blanks have this information
coded on them near the start - the burner doesn't go looking for the
end.
>
>(Win2K does NOT have built in burning software, or at least I have not
>found it yet, because 2K has an odd way of hiding stuff, in fact I
>made a folder on the desktop and started making shortcuts to all the
>common stuff like notepad, wordpad, etc).

I think burning software integrated into the OS only came with XP, and
even there it's a bit odd to use; most people use one of the dedicated
burning softwares, such as Nero, ECDC, or similar.
>
>Getting back to CDs, I still question why they put 700 if data CDs
>only handle 650, and then they sell MUSIC CD blanks. Does music
>really need these special blanks, or can the standard CD-r be used for
>music? Then too, if I was to put 700m of MP3 music on one, would the
>CD player on my stereo play all of it, or my DVD player on the TV?
>I sort of get the feeling to just never use more than 650 to be safe
>(just a guess).

There are two modes in which a CD can be recorded: audio CD mode, and
data mode. Most burning software can do both - certainly Nero, ECDC, and
burn4free (IIRR) can; I don't know about the one you've got. You can
make an audio CD with any blank - the only place you'd _need_ a "music"
blank is one of those stand-alone audio CD recording devices which
refuse to work with data blanks; I haven't seen such a deck for years
(they were big "audio separates" kind of things). Once an audio CD is
recorded, it should play in any audio CD player. (Some very early ones
didn't work reliably with the slightly different _colour_ of burnt,
rather than pressed, CDs; I'd _suspect_ that would apply to "music"
blanks too, though I may not be right there.) In general, yes, the
standard audio CD can be used for music: you just have to select "audio
CD mode" in the burning software.

If you put mp3 data onto a CD, you are making a data CD. An audio CD
must contain audio data in a prescribed form (44.1 kHz, stereo, 16 bits
per channel, uncompressed.)

The audio player in your stereo can _probably_ only play audio CDs,
unless there's some mention of mp3 in its handbook or printed on it.

Most DVD players can play audio CDs. Most of them can also look at data
CDs, too, and if there are files there of a relevant type, they can
often do something with that, too: mp3 audio files (sometimes wma as
well), jpg images, and even some video file formats such as avi
(sometimes only some kinds of avi - video formats are a whole new kettle
of worms). To see what types of data the player can handle, look at its
handbook - or, sometimes, the range of logos printed on the player: if
that includes mp3 and jpeg, then they should play OK. Note that some DVD
players can play files from a data disc, but only the ones in the root
directory.

Have you _tried_ either of your home-burnt discs in the DVD player yet
(assuming the files on them include at least one it might be expected to
make something of, such as an mp3 or jpeg)?

One final source of further confusion: some burning software, when
operating in "audio CD" mode, can be fed with mp3 files, but don't think
that that means it is burning them onto the disc _as_ mp3 files: it will
convert them back to the raw (much bigger) audio format needed. I don't
think this is likely in your case - I think your software predates the
mp3 format altogether, so the only way it'll be able to burn an mp3 file
is onto a data disc. (It can burn _any_ type of file onto a data disc,
since it's just data: the burning software doesn't have to know what the
data represents. It needs the _player_ - the DVD player, or _some_
modern audio players - to be able to know how to decode an mp3 file.)
>
>Well, back to trying to figure out Win2K. In some ways it's like 98,
>but in others it can be puzzling. For instance, some of the nicer
>wallpapers that come with 2K require switching to "Active Desktop"....
>WTF???? (I hate webpage looking desktops). Yet, I can use some of my

I'm with you there (hating weblook).

Search the disc for .bmp files; I'll be surprised if the ones you like
aren't there as pictures, though probably addressed via HTM files.
[]
>However I do sort of like Win2k in some ways. It's much better than
>XP. but 98 is still easier... But now I have both to play with.

Hmm. I've had very little experience with 2k; I've found it less easy to
get on with than XP (XP with all the bells and whistles turned off and
set to "classic mode", that is), but that could be just a matter of
familiarity.
>
>I cant believe that MS still did not include any ZIP software like
>Winzip in their OS, I had to install that program right away, and 2K
>did not even complain that my version of Winzip is from 1998, because
>I have never understood why Winzip needs to be upgraded. It only does
>2 things, zips and unzips......
>
>LM
>
Later versions of WinZip could handle: long file names (yours probably
can do that, earlier ones couldn't); differing encryption standards;
more compression formats (such as .rar).

XP has .zip support (though I've found that how it handles .zip files
varies: sometimes it treats them as a pseudo-directory [folder], other
times it doesn't).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda - Craig McLean on Nigel
Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008

 

In message <uN4gjqcuJHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, dadiOH
<dadiOH@invalid.com> writes:
[]
>> and then they sell MUSIC CD blanks. Does music
>> really need these special blanks, or can the standard CD-r be used for
>> music?
>
>They sell "music " blanks because years ago some group got their nose out of
>joint and a portion of the higher price of "music" blanks goes to them.
>There is no physical difference in the media.

Well, there is a difference with _some_ of them: they will work in the
standalone CD audio recording devices that won't work with ordinary
blanks. I'm not aware of these having been sold for some time, though.
>____________________
>
>> Then too, if I was to put 700m of MP3 music on one, would the
>> CD player on my stereo play all of it, or my DVD player on the TV?
>> I sort of get the feeling to just never use more than 650 to be safe
>> (just a guess).
>
>Neither of them would be able to play *any* of it unless the device
>contained a chip to decode the MP3 to wave.

Most DVD players these days _can_ play mp3 data, though (sometimes only
from the root directory).
>
>MP3s ALWAYS have to be decoded to wave, you cannot play them in MP3 form.
>MP3s aren't music per se, they are more of a shorthand representation of the
>wave from which they were made; decoding them reconstructs - more or less -
>that wave and the wave can be played.
>
>
Indeed; mp3 is to raw audio data as JP(E)G is to bitmap. Including the
lossy compression - both throw away stuff which the human brain doesn't
notice under normal circumstances. (If you zoom in too much on _certain
parts_ of a JPEG image, or select too low a bit rate [and haven't
lowered the sampling rate enough] when making an mp3 file, the losses
become noticeable, then objectionable.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda - Craig McLean on Nigel
Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008

 

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:Sh6dauBxt03JFwHW@soft255.demon.co.uk:

<SNIP>

>>>a speaking style that suggests a dyslexic cockney Yoda -
>>>Craig
>>McLean on Nigel
>>>Kennedy (violinist), in RT 12-18 July 2008
>>
>>Nigel Kennedy is a very good musician but one of the
>>creepiest guys I've ever seen - thankfully only on TV.
>>Damn Canadians.
>
> (Eh? I thought he was London.)

Toronto. I lived in Canada when he entered the scene. Many
Canadians enjoy speaking with foreign accents because they know
it sucks to be Canadian.

> The .sig is from my random
> .sig file, from which a new one gets selected whenever I
> start Windows; what goes into the file are snippets I find
> interesting, amusing, or thought-provoking, usually these
> days from the RT. The same one can start to grate if I post
> a lot in the same session, though, sorry if that's so.

Excellent way of doing it. I /was/ wondering where you get the
patience to change sigs all the time!

 

Along with that....

You are continuing to over-look the STANDARD [yes, its actually written
down] for *data CDs* which still remains at 650 megs. for portability [the
ability to move that disk from any OS and software to any another OS and
software and ANY device since we moved from 2x speeds.

You CAN burn 700 meg blanks to the full amount, HOWEVER, they are NOT the
internationally recognized acceptable size for DATA.
Just as you CAN burn non-standard ISO and Joliet [indexing STANDARDS for
portability], and XP and VISTA will even allow you to BREAK the
extended/modified *sub-sets* OF "those *standards*" with file names and
directories with special characters AND EXTREMELY LONG file names, HOWEVER,
they WILL NOT be portable beyond XP and VISTA, because every other
intelligent person on the planet [generally meaning non-Windows users]
understands the necessity of STANDARDS compliance for compatibility among
the various OSs available.. for example Windows VISTA is such an openly
arrogant OS that it believes every attempted connection to it should follow
Microsoft's ideas on networking REGARDLESS of any compatibility and cross
platform issues [like Apple does/did, though its much easier to cross
platform connect]. And this REGARDLESS of the fact its special requirements
were HACKED long *BEFORE* the retail release and the OSs it has difficulty
networking with include Microsoft's own prior OSs.

The short::: Windows has always walked *outside* of the acceptable
internationally recognized STANDARDS, in part to make itself unique
[marketable], and in part to allow its users to NOT have to understand or
comply with international STANDARDS [which, in part, came about due to the
whining for things like LOOOOOOONG file names so users could remember what
the file contained [rather than a descriptive directory/folder or two with a
one or two word description for a file]]. So Windows users can have a
directory like c://USERS/awkmaster/My Documents/MY special folder for things
I do not understand/The World and its political arena/My special folder for
extra-special things I just do not get do to my arrogance and ignorance/Why
me/chemical imbalances and Why they make a difference to me.medical/people
just do not understand me/hey I forgot to take my
Thorzene/Why-I-feel-so-deeply-depressed-on-the_second_Tuesday-of-every
month_except_the-third-one-which-begins-with-a-M
AND-I-did_NOT_forget-to-take my medication and did NOT flip.out.doc and can
tell Wondows [wonder and Windows combined like a brain dead comatose
patient] to ignore any standards, yet those same Win*dows* users *won*der
why the CD doesn't work in anything BUT Windows XP or VISTA and burnt at 702
megs DATA [as if every CD drive and all software on the planet supports the
non-standard format JUST BECAUSE Wondows allows it and Wondows users expect
it]...

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______



"dadiOH" <dadiOH@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:uN4gjqcuJHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> letterman@invalid.com wrote:
>
> > NOW I find out that data disks are limited to 650. Now it makes sense
> > what went wrong. Maybe I'll have to plug it in again. I assume there
> > must be some *overhead* too, so I suppose my data limit should be
> > maybe 640? I now ask why they label them to 700, when they know that
> > they can only hold 650
>
> > (stupid advertising scam if you ask me).
>
> No, still clueless user.
>
> IF
> you have 700MB blanks
>
> AND IF
> you have a cd burner that isn't ancient
>
> AND IF
> you have a cd burning program that isn't ancient
>
> THEN
> you can burn 700MB of data
> __________________
>
> > Getting back to CDs, I still question why they put 700 if data CDs
> > only handle 650,
>
> see above
>
> > and then they sell MUSIC CD blanks. Does music
> > really need these special blanks, or can the standard CD-r be used for
> > music?
>
> They sell "music " blanks because years ago some group got their nose out
of
> joint and a portion of the higher price of "music" blanks goes to them.
> There is no physical difference in the media.
> ____________________
>
> > Then too, if I was to put 700m of MP3 music on one, would the
> > CD player on my stereo play all of it, or my DVD player on the TV?
> > I sort of get the feeling to just never use more than 650 to be safe
> > (just a guess).
>
> Neither of them would be able to play *any* of it unless the device
> contained a chip to decode the MP3 to wave.
>
> MP3s ALWAYS have to be decoded to wave, you cannot play them in MP3 form.
> MP3s aren't music per se, they are more of a shorthand representation of
the
> wave from which they were made; decoding them reconstructs - more or
less -
> that wave and the wave can be played.
>
>
> --
>
> dadiOH
> ____________________________
>
> dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
> ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
> LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
> Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
>
>
>

 

"MEB" <MEB@not@here> wrote in
news:O9ykVCguJHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

> Along with that....
>
> You are continuing to over-look the STANDARD [yes, its
> actually written
> down] for *data CDs* which still remains at 650 megs. for
> portability [the ability to move that disk from any OS and
> software to any another OS and software and ANY device
> since we moved from 2x speeds.

I have played my 700MB mp3 CD's on about 5 different devices of
various kinds with no problem. Technology DOES advance, you
know.

> You CAN burn 700 meg blanks to the full amount, HOWEVER,
> they are NOT the
> internationally recognized acceptable size for DATA.

But they work. And the stupid 74 minutes (WHO cares about
Beethoven's Ninth, not that I don't love classical music) was
STUPID.

> Just as you CAN burn non-standard ISO and Joliet [indexing
> STANDARDS for
> portability], and XP and VISTA will even allow you to BREAK

Well, anyone who uses Vista is out of their mind, but that is
not the thread subject.

> The short::: Windows has always walked *outside* of the
> acceptable

<SNIP>

>So Windows users can have a directory like
> c://USERS/awkmaster/My Documents/MY special folder for
> things I do not understand/The World and its political
> arena/My special folder for extra-special things I just do
> not get do to my arrogance and ignorance/Why me/chemical
> imbalances and Why they make a difference to
> me.medical/people just do not understand me/hey I forgot to
> take my Thorzene

Thorazine, and I don't take Thorazine, I am not psychotic, just
depressed, and this kind of personal attack is below you.

<SNIP>

 

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Gi9oq$GtN23JFwlg@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <eyZVGwauJHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB@not.?.invalid> writes:
> []
> >> [Incidentally, I've always been a bit sad that the 3" size ones
> >> generally cost more, too; they're a handy size, not only
capacity-wise -
> >> 180-220 M or so, or about 21 minutes - but physically. But I suppose
> >> it's supply and demand.]
> >
> > Again, basically an Asian/Japan activity.
>
> On the mass-pressed side, it has had a resurgence of late, as a carrier
> for drivers for novelties, which are often packet in a box physically
> too small for a full-size CD. But the blanks for home use are still
> harder to find and much more expensive. (And try finding _labels_ for
> them over the counter - even online, they're not easy to find, though
> they do exist.)
> []
> Long discussion snipped: I think we'll just have to agree to disagree
> amicably. I think the only difference between 650 and 700 capacity discs
> is that the actual recording surface extends closer to the edge, with
> the spiral pitch and everything else being the same. (Obviously you have
> to have a _drive_ - and software - that lets you into that area.) You I
> think think otherwise. At least we are both agreed that the 900/90' ones
> _do_ achieve it by tightening the pitch, causing problems on many
> readers (let alone burners).
> []
> > Exactly. Reliability and portability means stay within the standards.
> > Take a XP or Vista burnt disk to another system and you find people
popping
> >into the groups whining because they don't understand its not standard,
with
> >stupid little comments like "it works in my other Vista machine, so how
come
> >it doesn't work in my friends Apple,,, or Win9X or Linux.... whatever..."
> >
> Hmm. Are you talking about the actual low-level disc structure, or the
> software it carries? Certainly I'd expect to be able to _read_ a disc
> prepared on any of XP/Vista/9x/Linux (and probably Apple) on any of the
> others, in terms of actually getting the data out of the files; whether
> I'd be able to _do_ anything with it (other than burn it to another
> disc, of course - or a pen drive, floppy, or network), then no.
> Obviously I wouldn't expect to run XP or Vista _software_ on my '9x
> system.
> []
> >> Indeed! (I don't think I'd ever even try to get 728M! If nothing else,
> >> having a bit left unused at the end gives a bit of physical
protection -
> >> I feel 728M would go so close to the outside edge that I'd feel I had
to
> >> handle it very gingerly! It tends to flake near the edge, especially in
> >> high-speed drives.)
> >
> > Well, we agree; exactly, what is the point; I certainly wouldn't
actually
> >use that size and expect to even potentially use it in the drive that
> >created it after it degrades. Flake??? what are you talking about?? Oh
you
> >mean speed and quality wise perhaps?
>
> No, physically: with some poorly-made blanks (and even pressed CDs), you
> can get your fingernail or similar in at the edge, or other foreign body
> can get in, and the reflective coating can detach along the perimeter.
> Not necessarily enough to be visible, but enough to affect the
> focusing/tracking ability of a player.
> >
> > I suppose I should have noted that I couldn't burn at standard drive
speed
> >[52X] and that size, I had to drop back to 16x or 8x {4X for some disks}.
>
> Out of interest: I remember some years ago reading about some
> experiments done - not with drives, more things like industrial
> grinders, which have suitable guards on them. The maximum speed the
> industry has settled on, of around 48-52x, is close to the physical
> limit anyway: the plastic discs have a tendency to disintegrate much
> above that.
>
> Also: because the data has constant _linear_ density, i. e. there's more
> per revolution near the outside than near the inside of the disc, the
> drives industry changed around the time they were passing through around
> 12x-14x: a modern "52x" drive is only doing 52x on parts of the disc
> (the outside edges I think).
>
> I remember the first x12 drive I encountered (in a machine at work):
> very noisy - not surprising if you calculate what speed they're actually
> rotating at! They seem to have managed to get the noise back down again
> as speeds continued to rise.
>
> >And I wouldn't suggest experimenting much beyond *90 minutes* with ANY
> >drive, you CAN physically damage the mechanism [I rarely go beyond 93
> >minutes for a 80 minute rated, even under the most extreme testing, in
fact
> >I now stop around 92.57 max].
>
> Interesting. Do you do this just for curiosity or part of your
> profession (you mention testing), or do you actually have requirement
> for 9x-minute audio?
> >
> > Since you're in the UK:
> >http://www.diskdepot.co.uk/acatalog/intenso-40x-cd-r-extra-long-90-minut
> >e-800mb-capacity-10-dis-intenso005.htm
> >
> Hmm - not a bad price: 32p each, but that does include cases. (I don't
> have any need for them - or probably hardware or software to use them -
> but nice to know they're still out there.)
>
> > Just remember you must be able to actually *use* the disks and NOTE the
> >warnings. And certainly don't expect them to be usable in other OSs or
even
> >drives.
> >
> Indeed. I'm surprised at the mechanism damage claims - I thought these
> achieved the _significantly_ higher capacity by making the spiral pitch
> finer, not extensive overburning: after all, we're talking a 14%
> increase here (from 700 to 800), as opposed to the 7% that 700 from 650
> means. Maybe its a combination of both, though.
> >>
> >> > When the blanks were labeled 650meg I could usually over-burn to
between
> >> >660 to 710, depending again, upon the batch and manufacturer. Do not
> >>
> >> 660 I could believe; 710, I would suspect were actually "700" discs
that
> >> for some reason (maybe quality control sample testing declared them a
> >> poor batch) had been labelled and sold as 650s. Rather like in the old
> >> days of floppies, when most had head-holes in both sides, but you
bought
> >> them as single-sided or double-sided, depending on the manufacturer's
> >> testing results; single-sided ones usually worked double-sided fairly
> >> well.
> >
> > No. These test were done on older 650meg disks, BEFORE the extended
> >standard [we're talking old 2x or 4x ONLY blanks].
>
> Interesting. I do wonder whether the ones that reached over 700 were
> manufacturers experimenting, though, even if it didn't say so on the
> "label".
>
> > And "not exactly" - for 31/2" floppies, not actually sided but DENSITY,
> >double density [1440/1.4] worked for either [tape over the other hole] or
> >just use the right command; and you MIGHT be able to reform a single
density
> >[720k] to 1.4 IF you bored a hole in the disk AND you used one of the
> >specialty format tools from the era, otherwise your success rate [using
MS
> >format] might have been dismal. Unless you are referring to the even
older
> >51/4"{5.25}.
>
> I was talking about 5.25" ones, and more the single/double sided ones. I
> don't think any manufacturer actually made single-sided ones: I think
> they all made them as double-sided, but labelled them as single- if more
> than a certain proportion in batch-testing failed on one or other side.
> (I guess the ones that failed on the wrong side might have been turned
> over, not sure about that.)
>
> The transition from single-density, to double-density, to high-density
> was a different matter though. Single to double _was_ just a matter of
> improved head and electronics, and coating quality - there was no hard
> and fast border, and there was a fair chance you could get away with
> using single-density discs as double-density. The high-density ones,
> however, used a _different_ coating (I think it was more chrome than
> ferric; it certainly looked a darker brown). As you say, with 3.5"
> floppies, they were able to design an extra hole and sensor into the
> standard, with 5.25" ones they couldn't. The higher-density ones
> required somewhat more magnetic field to change them: if you tried to
> use them in a lower-density _drive_ (which you'd rarely do, as the discs
> cost more), you'd have variable luck, even just deleting stuff - it
> depended on the individual drive. However, if you tried to format a DD
> one as HD, you might initially succeed, but you shouldn't rely on it
> lasting: the discs tended to lose the signal with storage, unlike the
> proper HD discs made with a different material.
>
> Interesting the densities, and how 5.25" gave way to 3.5"; initially,
> the two sizes were the same, with just more precise engineering (made
> possible by the metal hub and other aspects of the smaller format)
> giving the same on the smaller size initially. Initially binary
> progression, as the computer industry likes: 180K single sided (though
> I'm not sure SS 3.5" ever were common), 360K double-sided, 720K
> double-density. But when they went to high-density, though 3.5" went to
> 1440K as you'd expect, 5.25" only went to 1200K (or 1.44M and 1.2M) for
> some reason - probably there wasn't _too_ much effort going into the
> larger format by then. (Oh, and remember the 3" - not 3.5" - format? My
> Oric Atmos used it, as did quite a few machines - the UK101 I think, and
> certainly many of the early Amstrad machines - but it lost out for some
> reason.) But I digress, as I tend to do a lot ...
>
> > Here's another example of Microsoft not following standards and causing
> >issues... it used 1.8meg format for some of its distribution disks. Lots
of
> >people had difficulty with those. Supposedly all 31/2 drives could read
> >them, yet some couldn't for some reason [ an ahhh here ].
>
> Yes, I do (though I thought it was 1.7). I have some utilities somewhere
> that let me create them (IIRR once you'd created them DOS was then happy
> with them, BICBW). Can't remember when I last used any sort of floppy
> for anything though - not, I think, for two or more years.
> []
> > 650 DATA / 80 minutes MUSIC or something like Extended Music 80
minutes,
> >in fact for a short time, you could go down the Music isle in some stores
> >and find 700/80 Minute *MUSIC* CDs [labeled as such] for a high cost, and
in
> >the computer isle find 650 DATA / 80 Minutes [no music explanation or 74
> >Extended or 700 Extended with a Warning Capacity not be available in all
> >drives] for a few dollars less; WHY, because computer users knew their
> >drives required 650 meg CDs [we're talking DOS - 9X era here] and 700
megs
> >confused them [and many store clerks], and music burners thought they
were
> >getting a SPECIAL disk for music hence the higher cost [most consumers
> >generally aren't the brightest bulbs in the universe].
>
> There was also the added confusion that, for a brief period, standalone
> audio-recording decks appeared - you fed them with analogue audio, and
> they made a CD; they were the CD equivalent of the tape recorder, except
> that the write-once nature of the medium made them much less versatile.
> (They were pretty expensive, too.) Anyway, some if not all of these
> devices - due presumably to pressure from the recording industry - would
> only _work_ with "music" blanks: in particular, they would refuse to
> work with the ones sold for data or general use. Those blanks had some
> sort of coding in them that these special recorders recognised. Those
> blanks cost considerably more, with the extra _claimed_ to be
> distributed among the recording industry, I don't know how.
> []
> >> No, all of those contain _digital_ video data. The ones I'm thinking of
> >> - I think they might have been called "video single" - actually
> >> contained some _analogue video_ signal on the disc; they needed a
> >> special player. I suspect they were quite hard to manufacture (press)
to
> >> adequate yield.
> >
> > We are thinking of two different things here, apparently. Just a few
months
> >ago, yet another American "artist" [musician] included some special
> >materials and "shorts" on his released music CD [or was he the first for
> >DVD?]. Plays in a standard player, yet when placed in a computer
[possibly a
> >DVD player, not sure] you get the SPECIAL goodies.
> >
> Anything produced in the last few years will be digital. The analogue
> video singles I remember (reading about - I don't think I ever actually
> saw one) had raw video on the disc: I don't mean raw _digitised_ video,
> I mean raw analogue video, like you'd get straight out of a
> (non-digital) camera. Remember that was the age when just being able to
> play back digitised (but not compressed, no way) audio in the home was a
> marvellous thing: digitised video, where it existed at all, was the
> province of the broadcasters and needed racks of equipment.
> []
> >> If you talk about file extensions, you're talking about data format
> >> (blue book I think) discs. The data on an audio CD is not _in_ files,
> >> certainly not with extensions; it's one continuous stream. The simple
> >> directory near the start of the disc, which an audio player can read,
> >> contains the address of where, in the continuous stream of audio, the
> >> individual "tracks" start (and end, though I think it might be length
> >> rather than end that it stores).
> >
> > Ahh, its still a "format" and a "mode", the data has to arranged in some
> >logical order....
> >
> Yes, but "file extensions" - or even filenames at all - has no meaning
> in the context of an audio CD. The ".cda" apparent extension is created
> by the firmware in the drive and Windows Explorer working together, it
> doesn't exist (i. e. the three characters "c", "d", and "a" as adjacent
> bytes) anywhere on the CD, unlike the file extensions in filenames on a
> data CD.
> []
> > Glad you finally got around to that, I was was going to cut the
statement
> >apart and make a point of that...
> >
> Nice we agree (-:
> []
> >> Yes, I thought when you mentioned it that I remembered seeing some
> >> almost-prototype drive that used minidiscs for (non-audio) data; at the
> >> time it seemed quite tempting (I think it was quite competitive on
> >> price, plus the intrinsic reusability of the discs was attractive), but
> >> I didn't bite, and am grateful I didn't (-:.
> >
> > A Japanese company [Sony I think} just showed another example of
mini-disk
> >tech a few months ago, seems they are getting close to movie length
> >capabilities.
> > They already offer a retail 1 gig for music.
> >http://www.sony.co.za/product/hmd1ga
> >
> I think flash memory is gradually killing off all moving-media storage
> for portable audio and video; about time too - any motor, let along the
> phenomenally complicated mechanism of a video tape system (digital or
> otherwise), vastly reduces the time the battery/cell will last. The
> cameras can also be made much smaller and more robust, too. (Pity,
> though, that only the more expensive ones come with proper optical zoom
> - if they can do optical zoom on a £50 multimegapixel still camera, it
> shouldn't be impossible to do it to greater zoom on a movie one which
> requires far less lens quality, given it's not as high resolution [I'm
> not talking HD here]. But I digress again ...)

Ah the drift...

Well, flash memory has its place and is certainly cheap, but long term
storage isn't its forte`.

> []
> >> >arrived, and now we find the government and business forcing it upon
the
> >> >people.
> >> >
> >> Forcing? You mean against their will?
> >
> > Basically, yes,, the standard broadcasts are being removed leaving only
> >HDTV broadcasts. The government offers a discount coupon for a converter
to
> >the old signal format for older TVs. We just got another extension before
> >the final shutoff, though many stations have already dropped standard
>
> Interesting! No sign, as far as I'm aware, of any intention to cease SD
> broadcasting here (UK): in fact the main "digital switchover", planned
> here to occur region by region from 2008 to 2012, doesn't have HD
> capability, and certainly much of the new equipment being sold
> (especially the ubiquitous "FreeView" or "set-top" "box", from about
> £16) doesn't have the capability, though most actual big tellies now do.

Well, rise up and DEMAND your rights to HD, hehehe,,,,,

> []
> >> If it's anything like here, the public (and most shops) don't know how
> >> to use even widescreen yet, let alone HDTV: they seem to feel that if
> []
> > Well, here its a matter of consumerism and "keeping up wit da jones",
big
> >HDTVs are almost a must have unless you want to *look* poor, heck its
almost
> >un-American [give it a few more months and it will likely be LABELED
> >socialist to not have one]]] Americans are so easily lead by the nose,
and
> >we certainly didn't get the BRIGHTEST of the world's emigrants]]]]....
>
> Oh, plenty of big tellies sold here too: my point was that I'd say
> they're more often than not not set up properly, i. e. the picture set
> to fill the screen regardless of distortion. (With some bellicosity
> evident if you try to point this out, too.)

I'd say that's universal,, you knowing more about the setup of someone
else's TV AND expecting to set up that parties TV, why that's an invasion of
privacy.... hhhhhhmmm, just who do think you are,,, how DARE YOU...

REALITY::: A large percentage of Americans now rely upon some installation
personnel from the store or a "Geek Squad" like entity to setup their
systems... they can punch buttons and click things, but much beyond that and
they're lost.

> >
> > Satellite had its heyday years ago here... now its cable and Dish [small
> >disk] satellite. Yes, some satellite is/was free here, but to get all the
> >goodies, like sports channels or movie channels, required/requires a paid
> >service [or a hack].
>
> Oh, yes, premier films, and much sport, cost here too, which IMO is fair
> enough - but there's a lot of ignorance, and I fear at least _some_
> deception by the retail trade, that you _have_ to pay to get satellite
> (or, in the worst cases, to get TV at all, beyond the licence fee that
> is), which is definitely not the case: even after "digital switchover",
> well over 90% of the UK population will be able to receive some tens of
> channels (including four BBC and plenty of commercial) _without_ having
> to pay anyone specifically for it.

You would know your own nation better than I,,, don't you pay a "TV Tax"
though??

> >
> >
> > ANYWAY,, to sum up the original related discussion material:
> >
> > We seem to have finally agreed 700 meg is NOT the standard for data, and
to
> >use it requires at least a drive and software that supports that extended
> >capacity.
>
> Not quite (-:. I am of the opinion that the standard for data (on an 8cm
> disc) is either 650 or 700 depending on the blanks, with the 650 almost
> unobtainable now, and you needing a drive that can go into the last 7%,
> which all from the last decade or more can. I believe the capacity (65x
> or 70x) is read, by the drive, from the blank, at the start of the burn
> (well, before that - when the disc is first inserted), and that _some_
> drives (when used with software that also allows it) can attempt to go
> beyond the nominal capacity (65x or 70x as may be), so-called
> overburning by writing past the nominal end of the spiral (NOT by any
> encryption/encoding); I further believe that even higher capacities are
> available by tweaking the pitch (and possibly overburning _as well_), at
> your own risk.

NO or not entirely accurate!!

The extended capacity came due to ink changes [finer grained], better
reflective properties, clarity [QC] of the actual plastic, better
acutator/laser control, changes in the disk format/tracks, changes in
encryption/decryption algorythms [certainly you don't think the data on a CD
or DVD is in the same form as on your hard drive], in PART from better ink
spread [your indication, though that actually relates to the ink used AND
QC], higher quality lasers and actual changes to the laser used [including
color/frequency/focal acuity], and several other progressions in CD/DVD
burning. These combined to allow faster read/write/burn speeds and increased
disk capacity. Think about it, just how do you think Sony gets a gig of
music on a *mini disk*... it sure "AIN"T cuz da ink iz spred beter" or "cuz
da pitcd wuz chagneded". And that kinda ingores DVDs which are the same size
yet hold a heck of a lot more.... AND which now use the SAME device in your
computer to "play"....

650 remains the "portability standard".....

>
> In order to settle this once and for all, one of us is going to have to
> read the Blue Book document (if I've got my colours right), and I don't
> think either of us has the patience to do that (-:.

Not me, I did WAAAAAYYYYY back when.... "wez gots lots mor new stuf ta
reed"...

> >
> > We have also apparently agreed that there are many different formats and
> >modes which also require at least a drive and software that can
> >use/recognize them.
> >
> Indeed.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

BTW: we have a TV program over here which tests "myths"; they tested CD
blanks to several THOUSAND RPM..... without breakage. You still have a
problem "over-there", you might want to look at the quality of your
imports....

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Kennedy

Mart


"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9BE97AA2915C4thanexit@85.214.105.209...
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:Sh6dauBxt03JFwHW@soft255.demon.co.uk:
>
> <SNIP>

>>>Nigel Kennedy is a very good musician but one of the
>>>creepiest guys I've ever seen - thankfully only on TV.
>>>Damn Canadians.
>>
>> (Eh? I thought he was London.)
>
> Toronto. I lived in Canada when he entered the scene. Many
> Canadians enjoy speaking with foreign accents because they know
> it sucks to be Canadian.
>

 

ahhh, why bother

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9BE98D1EA189Athanexit@85.214.105.209...
> "MEB" <MEB@not@here> wrote in
> news:O9ykVCguJHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>
> > Along with that....
> >
> > You are continuing to over-look the STANDARD [yes, its
> > actually written
> > down] for *data CDs* which still remains at 650 megs. for
> > portability [the ability to move that disk from any OS and
> > software to any another OS and software and ANY device
> > since we moved from 2x speeds.
>
> I have played my 700MB mp3 CD's on about 5 different devices of
> various kinds with no problem. Technology DOES advance, you
> know.
>
> > You CAN burn 700 meg blanks to the full amount, HOWEVER,
> > they are NOT the
> > internationally recognized acceptable size for DATA.
>
> But they work. And the stupid 74 minutes (WHO cares about
> Beethoven's Ninth, not that I don't love classical music) was
> STUPID.

Geeeeeezzz, let's just ignore ALLLLLLLL the prior discussion concerning the
WHY you can burn that size and WHY you CAN take them to the devices you
have.... but then YOU don't live in India or China or Africa do you, perhaps
using a discarded system from the late 80s or 90s.... OR an old perfectly
functioning CD player from that era,,, and you ARE using Windows and so were
those systems you took the disk(s) too, right WITH newer drives.... better
shine up that arrogance, its getting dull...

>
> > Just as you CAN burn non-standard ISO and Joliet [indexing
> > STANDARDS for
> > portability], and XP and VISTA will even allow you to BREAK
>
> Well, anyone who uses Vista is out of their mind, but that is
> not the thread subject.
>
> > The short::: Windows has always walked *outside* of the
> > acceptable
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >So Windows users can have a directory like
> > c://USERS/awkmaster/My Documents/MY special folder for
> > things I do not understand/The World and its political
> > arena/My special folder for extra-special things I just do
> > not get do to my arrogance and ignorance/Why me/chemical
> > imbalances and Why they make a difference to
> > me.medical/people just do not understand me/hey I forgot to
> > take my Thorzene
>
> Thorazine, and I don't take Thorazine, I am not psychotic, just
> depressed, and this kind of personal attack is below you.
>
> <SNIP>

It wasn't directed AT *you*,,,,, read it again, in fact, re-read the
discussion, the same form was used previously just a dfifferent set of
descriptions. It goes HERE with "Wondows [wonder and Windows combined like a
brain dead comatose patient]" to which we could reasonably add "on life
support for the last ten years, why hasn't the plug been pulled" to give it
additional meaning and context.

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

 

"Mart" <mart(NoSpam)@nospam.nospam> wrote in
news:e8gqMHhuJHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Kennedy

I thought of checking myself, but got a little lazy.
I stand corrected, thank you. He SURE was on Canadian TV a lot
though, and he IS creepy as hell.

 

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:19:55 -0400, "MEB" <MEB@not@here> wrote:

>Along with that....
>
> You are continuing to over-look the STANDARD [yes, its actually written
>down] for *data CDs* which still remains at 650 megs. for portability [the
>ability to move that disk from any OS and software to any another OS and
>software and ANY device since we moved from 2x speeds.
>
> You CAN burn 700 meg blanks to the full amount, HOWEVER, they are NOT the
>internationally recognized acceptable size for DATA.

If thats the case why do I need to get a new burner or software? I
dont want to burn anything that is not usable on all drives, so there
is no sense even trying to use hat extra 50megs. It's not that much
more anyhow.

> Just as you CAN burn non-standard ISO and Joliet [indexing STANDARDS for
>portability], and XP and VISTA will even allow you to BREAK the
>extended/modified *sub-sets* OF "those *standards*" with file names and
>directories with special characters AND EXTREMELY LONG file names, HOWEVER,
>they WILL NOT be portable beyond XP and VISTA, because every other
>intelligent person on the planet [generally meaning non-Windows users]
>understands the necessity of STANDARDS compliance for compatibility among
>the various OSs available.. for example Windows VISTA is such an openly
>arrogant OS that it believes every attempted connection to it should follow
>Microsoft's ideas on networking REGARDLESS of any compatibility and cross
>platform issues [like Apple does/did, though its much easier to cross
>platform connect]. And this REGARDLESS of the fact its special requirements
>were HACKED long *BEFORE* the retail release and the OSs it has difficulty
>networking with include Microsoft's own prior OSs.
>
Just like a drug pusher, MS gets you hooked and you can never leave.
Here's a few sample pills, come back when you want more, and bring
lots of money.

> The short::: Windows has always walked *outside* of the acceptable
>internationally recognized STANDARDS, in part to make itself unique
>[marketable], and in part to allow its users to NOT have to understand or
>comply with international STANDARDS [which, in part, came about due to the
>whining for things like LOOOOOOONG file names so users could remember what
>the file contained [rather than a descriptive directory/folder or two with a
>one or two word description for a file]]. So Windows users can have a
>directory like c://USERS/awkmaster/My Documents/MY special folder for things
>I do not understand/The World and its political arena/My special folder for
>extra-special things I just do not get do to my arrogance and ignorance/Why
>me/chemical imbalances and Why they make a difference to me.medical/people
>just do not understand me/hey I forgot to take my
>Thorzene/Why-I-feel-so-deeply-depressed-on-the_second_Tuesday-of-every
>month_except_the-third-one-which-begins-with-a-M
>AND-I-did_NOT_forget-to-take my medication and did NOT flip.out.doc and can
>tell Wondows [wonder and Windows combined like a brain dead comatose
>patient] to ignore any standards, yet those same Win*dows* users *won*der
>why the CD doesn't work in anything BUT Windows XP or VISTA and burnt at 702
>megs DATA [as if every CD drive and all software on the planet supports the
>non-standard format JUST BECAUSE Wondows allows it and Wondows users expect
>it]...
>
>--
>~

There is a limit to long filenames. I found that out the other day
when making a backup. I had saved a weblink using the "Create
Shortcut" option in IE. The website had the most rediculously long
name. That file refused to copy, and kept killing my backup (using
"copy" in Win98). Worse yet, it would not allow me to rename it, or
delete it. Windows actually froze up because of that damn file. I
finally had to delete it from Dos. I probably could have renamed it
from dos too, but I was so pissed by that time I deleted it.