[Gllug] re: backups

[Robert P. McKenzie]

will wrote:
> Alain Williams wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 10:16:59AM +0100, Russell Howe wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sure I read something somewhere about writers laying down better
>>> quality tracks if you run them more slowly. Possibly a concern if you
>>> wish your discs to be readable by as wide a range of drives as possible.
>>
>>
>> Confirmation of this would be good. If you are writing a backup (to be
>> potentially/hopefully readable in a few years time) then an extra hour
>> in the writing is not really significant -- especially if it happens 
>> overnight.
> 
> 
> I had also heard this, but have seen no actual proof, I would be very 
> interested to hear if it is true.

While I've never used a CD burner for backups, I have had experiences with 
normal data CD's that support this.  Infact, the old laptop I gave away the 
other had had a problem with a cd burned at 24x but anything less then 8x or so 
seemed to be fine.  The 24x would work in all of my other machines just fine, 
but that laptop is from like '97 or '96.  I have also had problems with audio 
cd's burned at higher speeds working in cd players (like my car) .. the slower 
the burn the better they worked with no flaws in the music.

-- 
Robert P. McKenzie                 |   GammaRay Technical Services Ltd
rmckenzi at rpmdp.com                 |             rob at gammaray-tech.com
http://www.uk-experience.com       |      http://www.gammaray-tech.com
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug