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.
[log in to unmask]