Bob Olhsson wrote:
> Jerome Hartke wrote:
>> Quantitative test results are evaluated in accordance with the appropriate
>> ISO standard.
>>
>> How do you define "far less reliable"? This sounds rather qualitative.
> 
> Around one in twenty have been bad. Sounds like this ISO standard is pretty misleading.
> 
One failure in twenty discs - if failure means replacing a file or a 
disc - is disastrous. It also signifies systematic error such as faulty 
media and/or excessive burn speed. (NOTE: While burning CDs at too low a 
speed invites trouble, my experience with writable DVDs is that while 
they are optimal at 2-4x, they take well to writing at 1x.)

Whatever is wrong, it may pay off for you to check your sources' 
operations to help them reduce failure rate. I get something like that 
error rate - but only because I'm mechanically incompetent and 
frequently put the disc into the drive cocked or drop it or otherwise do 
mechanical damage. I cannot recall a failure of a good disc properly 
handled - CD or DVD.

Of course, erasables are another story. Their reliability and fragility 
are deservedly notorious.

Mike
-- 
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mrichter.com/