internal or external dvd writer?

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:35:04 -0000, "Dave"
<hc010b5892_2.RemoveThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

 >was goin to get the internal drive as it is cheaper however had a
 >thought..if i get external would i be able to burn to my existing cd writer
 >and the dvd writer at the same time and could this also be done if was an
 >internal writer?
 >
 >thanks
 >Dave
 >

There is no benefit to having it external unless you need it portable,
and it will be slower on an external bus, but not much given it's an
optical drive.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: internal or external dvd writer? 

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:59:57 GMT Sat down laughing as it's habit to
keep on crying then kony <spam.RemoveThis@spam.com> wrote :

 >On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:35:04 -0000, "Dave"
 ><hc010b5892_2.RemoveThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
 >
  >>was goin to get the internal drive as it is cheaper however had a
  >>thought..if i get external would i be able to burn to my existing cd writer
  >>and the dvd writer at the same time and could this also be done if was an
  >>internal writer?
  >>
  >>thanks
  >>Dave
  >>
 >
 >There is no benefit to having it external unless you need it portable,
 >and it will be slower on an external bus, but not much given it's an
 >optical drive.

I don't know about that as I don't have an external USB Burner but USB
2.00 can handle a lot of bandwidth?



--
Free Windows/PC help,
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html</a>
email shepATpartyheld.de
Free songs download,
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm" target="_blank">http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: internal or external dvd writer? 

Shep© <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.net> writes:
 > On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:59:57 GMT Sat down laughing as it's habit to
 > keep on crying then kony <spam RemoveThis @spam.com> wrote :
 >
  > >On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:35:04 -0000, "Dave"
  > ><hc010b5892_2 RemoveThis @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
  > >
   > >>was goin to get the internal drive as it is cheaper however had a
   > >>thought..if i get external would i be able to burn to my existing cd writer
   > >>and the dvd writer at the same time and could this also be done if was an
   > >>internal writer?
   > >>
   > >>thanks
   > >>Dave
   > >>
  > >
  > >There is no benefit to having it external unless you need it portable,
  > >and it will be slower on an external bus, but not much given it's an
  > >optical drive.
 >
 > I don't know about that as I don't have an external USB Burner but USB
 > 2.00 can handle a lot of bandwidth?

You are correct. Hi-speed USB2 mode is 480Mbps which is faster than
a UDMA/33 IDE bus 33MB/s = 264Mbps

Comparing the specs of 2 popular 8x Plextor burners shows that the USB
model can actually burst faster than the IDE

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.plextor.be/english/products/PX708UF.html" target="_blank">http://www.plextor.be/english/products/PX708UF.html</a>
Data Transfer Rate
-- Burst USB 2.0: 480Mbps
USB 1.1: 12Mbps
IEEE 1394 (Firewire): 400Mbps

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.plextor.be/english/products/PX708A.html" target="_blank">http://www.plextor.be/english/products/PX708A.html</a>
Data Transfer Rate
-- Burst (UDMA/33) 33MB/s (that's 264Mbps)


All other read/write specs you can see are the same, and quite a bit
lower than the peak transfer rates of either the IDE interface or the
USB2 interface.

This leaves the question of "okay, what is the real world experience
of these specs?" The only variable we haven't accounted for is how
the drivers for UDMA differ from USB as implemented in Windows. I
don't know the answer to that question, but best i can tell, that's
the only thing that could possibly support the possibly-antiquated
notion of a USB-based writer suffering versus and internal one.

I go internal myself for the cost benefit, and relative stability of
the IDE bus. In my experience, the fewer things I hang off the USB
ports in Windows, the more stable my experience.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.toddh.net/" target="_blank">http://www.toddh.net/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: internal or external dvd writer? 

2 HD, 2 burning programs, burning 1 Cd with data from HD 1 and another CD
from HD 2 still asking to much from the system and a high likelyhood of
errors and burn failure?

"kony" <spam DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote in message
news:e3orvv8p351onp77j8k0s7r6a905l1mdoc@4ax.com...
 > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:35:04 -0000, "Dave"
 > <hc010b5892_2 DeleteThis @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
 >
  > >was goin to get the internal drive as it is cheaper however had a
  > >thought..if i get external would i be able to burn to my existing cd
writer
  > >and the dvd writer at the same time and could this also be done if was an
  > >internal writer?
  > >
  > >thanks
  > >Dave
  > >
 >
 > There is no benefit to having it external unless you need it portable,
 > and it will be slower on an external bus, but not much given it's an
 > optical drive.
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: internal or external dvd writer? 

"Dave" <hc010b5892_2 DeleteThis @blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

 > 2 HD, 2 burning programs, burning 1 Cd with data from HD 1 and another CD
 > from HD 2 still asking to much from the system and a high likelyhood of
 > errors and burn failure?

Hell, I don't even wanna run an mp3 audio player when I burn CD's or
DVD's in windows.

Yeah, I think that would increase the likelihood of burn failure, or
at the very least, dumb down the burn rate because of trouble keeping
the write buffers full on teh burn.

--
Todd H.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.toddh.net/" target="_blank">http://www.toddh.net/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: internal or external dvd writer? 

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:28:35 -0000 Sat down laughing as it's habit to
keep on crying then "Dave" <hc010b5892_2 RemoveThis @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote :

 >2 HD, 2 burning programs, burning 1 Cd with data from HD 1 and another CD
 >from HD 2 still asking to much from the system and a high likelyhood of
 >errors and burn failure?

If you mean at the same time?Then who knows.Try it on some CDR/W disks

Push the envelope :O


 >"kony" <spam RemoveThis @spam.com> wrote in message
 >news:e3orvv8p351onp77j8k0s7r6a905l1mdoc@4ax.com...
  >> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:35:04 -0000, "Dave"
  >> <hc010b5892_2 RemoveThis @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
  >>
   >> >was goin to get the internal drive as it is cheaper however had a
   >> >thought..if i get external would i be able to burn to my existing cd
 >writer
   >> >and the dvd writer at the same time and could this also be done if was an
   >> >internal writer?
   >> >
   >> >thanks
   >> >Dave
   >> >
  >>
  >> There is no benefit to having it external unless you need it portable,
  >> and it will be slower on an external bus, but not much given it's an
  >> optical drive.
  >>
 >



--
Free Windows/PC help,
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html</a>
email shepATpartyheld.de
Free songs download,
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm" target="_blank">http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: internal or external dvd writer? 

On 08 Jan 2004 17:46:30 -0600, comphelp.DeleteThis@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:


   >> >There is no benefit to having it external unless you need it portable,
   >> >and it will be slower on an external bus, but not much given it's an
   >> >optical drive.
  >>
  >> I don't know about that as I don't have an external USB Burner but USB
  >> 2.00 can handle a lot of bandwidth?
 >
 >You are correct. Hi-speed USB2 mode is 480Mbps which is faster than
 >a UDMA/33 IDE bus 33MB/s = 264Mbps

No, the spec, on paper AND in real life, DEMANDS that it always be
slower. Why? Because it's STILL an IDE device. It's constrained by
the IDE bus just as if attached to the motherboard, then futher slowed
down by processing, buffering of the USB bridge chip, and then again
on the USB bus.



 >Comparing the specs of 2 popular 8x Plextor burners shows that the USB
 >model can actually burst faster than the IDE

There are 3 (or 5) possible reasons for this).

1) ATA66 drive

2) SCSI drive (would be faster than USB2 using native SCSI interface,
eliminating USB as with the IDE drives).

3) Windows buffering caused misleading results.

4) They intentionally misrepresented the data rate.

5) Noting the 480Mbps they listed, they were not trying to imply that
it can actually burst at full 480, nor sustain it... there's always a
bit of overhead even if it could "try" to burst high enough to
saturate the bus. "480" is ONLY the speed of the bus, not the drive's
throughput.

 >
 >http://www.plextor.be/english/products/PX708UF.html
 > Data Transfer Rate
 > -- Burst USB 2.0: 480Mbps
 > USB 1.1: 12Mbps
 > IEEE 1394 (Firewire): 400Mbps
 >
 >http://www.plextor.be/english/products/PX708A.html
 > Data Transfer Rate
 > -- Burst (UDMA/33) 33MB/s (that's 264Mbps)
 >
 >
 >All other read/write specs you can see are the same, and quite a bit
 >lower than the peak transfer rates of either the IDE interface or the
 >USB2 interface.

As I wrote previously, that's only the speed of the USB2 bus, not the
drive, and especially not when bridging ATAPI to USB2 then
transferring to the motherboard.

 >This leaves the question of "okay, what is the real world experience
 >of these specs?" The only variable we haven't accounted for is how
 >the drivers for UDMA differ from USB as implemented in Windows. I
 >don't know the answer to that question, but best i can tell, that's
 >the only thing that could possibly support the possibly-antiquated
 >notion of a USB-based writer suffering versus and internal one.

NO, as I already mentioned, even with a perfect hardware support with
no additional drives, USB2 would be slower.

IF the drive's I/O is lower than the sustainable I/O of the USB2
controller (both motherboard and bridge chip in external encloser,
which typically peak at 21MBps but often less with cheaper chips),
then there's primarily the latency from bridging the two busses. It's
not a huge difference but only because optical drives are relatively
slow... on a HDD it's much larger difference.


 >I go internal myself for the cost benefit, and relative stability of
 >the IDE bus. In my experience, the fewer things I hang off the USB
 >ports in Windows, the more stable my experience.
 >
 >Best Regards,

I'm not knocking USB2, it's a great alternative for lowest cost
external drives, but to be clear it's not possible to be higher
performance nor even same performance, but possibly only a very tiny
bit slower than direct IDE or SCSI.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: internal or external dvd writer? 

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:28:35 -0000, "Dave"
<hc010b5892_2 DeleteThis @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

 >2 HD, 2 burning programs, burning 1 Cd with data from HD 1 and another CD
 >from HD 2 still asking to much from the system and a high likelyhood of
 >errors and burn failure?
 >


Errors and burn failure aren't near as likely as having the drives
"burn-proof" feature kick in, that the laser has to stop and start
again a few times waiting for data. I don't recall trying to burn
with two programs and burners simultaneously so I don't know for sure
that it'd work, but if it didn't I suspect it'd be windows' fault more
than anything else.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: internal or external dvd writer? 

kony <spam RemoveThis @spam.com> writes:
 > 5) Noting the 480Mbps they listed, they were not trying to imply that
 > it can actually burst at full 480, nor sustain it... there's always a
 > bit of overhead even if it could "try" to burst high enough to
 > saturate the bus. "480" is ONLY the speed of the bus, not the drive's
 > throughput.

I do understand this. I encourage you to educate me further though on
one point.

  > >http://www.plextor.be/english/products/PX708UF.html
  > > Data Transfer Rate
  > > -- Burst USB 2.0: 480Mbps
  > > USB 1.1: 12Mbps
  > > IEEE 1394 (Firewire): 400Mbps
  > >
  > >http://www.plextor.be/english/products/PX708A.html
  > > Data Transfer Rate
  > > -- Burst (UDMA/33) 33MB/s (that's 264Mbps)
  > >
  > >

Don't overlook this:

  > >All other read/write specs you can see are the same, and quite a bit
  > >lower than the peak transfer rates of either the IDE interface or the
  > >USB2 interface.

All other drive speed specs are identical. For example, for DVD+R it's
6X-8X: 8.100-10.800KB/s (ZCLV) -- that's just 0.064-0.086Mbps. Both
drives cite this burn rate throughput. Now, this fastest burn speed
is 0.03% of the burst capability of the IDE interface, and and 0.02%
of the burst capability of USB2.

This is why I'm having a hard time understanding why a USB2 drive is
guaranteed to be slower--because the write data rates are a very tiny
fraction of the bus throughputs.

 > As I wrote previously, that's only the speed of the USB2 bus, not the
 > drive, and especially not when bridging ATAPI to USB2 then
 > transferring to the motherboard.

Unless bridging is going to make things over 100x slower, I still
don't see it.

  > >This leaves the question of "okay, what is the real world experience
  > >of these specs?" The only variable we haven't accounted for is how
  > >the drivers for UDMA differ from USB as implemented in Windows. I
  > >don't know the answer to that question, but best i can tell, that's
  > >the only thing that could possibly support the possibly-antiquated
  > >notion of a USB-based writer suffering versus and internal one.
 >
 > NO, as I already mentioned, even with a perfect hardware support with
 > no additional drives, USB2 would be slower.

Are we talking now about the bus speed? Or the drive's ultimate
performance?

 > It's not a huge difference but only because optical drives are
 > relatively slow...

Tada! You have reinforced the point of the spec analysis. All the
optical drive throughput numbers on the specs linked above are
identical, and both are much lower than the capabilities of the bus
speed measured.

So, it's quite likely that there could be no performance differences
between two DVD-RW drives that differ only in interface.

 > on a HDD it's much larger difference.

No doubt.

 > I'm not knocking USB2, it's a great alternative for lowest cost
 > external drives, but to be clear it's not possible to be higher
 > performance nor even same performance, but possibly only a very tiny
 > bit slower than direct IDE or SCSI.

If the relative throughput of the drive itself is X, and if interface
A is capable of sustaining, say 100x throughputs, and interface B is
capable of sustaining 150x, I'm still not clear on how/why you
maintain that a USB2 version of a DVD-R drive must necessarily be
slower.

I'd be very curious to see a side by side real world burn speed
comparison to settle this analysis-based disagreement we're having.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.toddh.net/" target="_blank">http://www.toddh.net/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: internal or external dvd writer? 

On 09 Jan 2004 10:37:16 -0600, comphelp RemoveThis @toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:


  >> I'm not knocking USB2, it's a great alternative for lowest cost
  >> external drives, but to be clear it's not possible to be higher
  >> performance nor even same performance, but possibly only a very tiny
  >> bit slower than direct IDE or SCSI.
 >
 >If the relative throughput of the drive itself is X, and if interface
 >A is capable of sustaining, say 100x throughputs, and interface B is
 >capable of sustaining 150x, I'm still not clear on how/why you
 >maintain that a USB2 version of a DVD-R drive must necessarily be
 >slower.
 >
 >I'd be very curious to see a side by side real world burn speed
 >comparison to settle this analysis-based disagreement we're having.
 >
 >Best Regards,

The rate of data transfer from the drive to the USB enclosure, is the
same as it would be from the drive to the motherboard, if directly
connnected. Add to that the time it takes to bridge and transfer on
USB. Because the drive's max sustainable througput isn't exceeding
IDE or USB througput, the "overall" burn process can proceed at full
speed. However, burst rates are not nearly the same speed, likely
around 50% lower (rough guess based on benchmarks of USB2 performance
with HDDs, typically around 17-21MBps dependign on the USB
chipset/integration used). Add to that the situation with the system
taking more time per data transfer, even though the drive can get the
data fast enough, it's tying up the system longer to do it... the
system could be doing other burning-related tasks if it had finished
transferring the data over the USB bus to the drive, already.
Multitasking would become more difficult also.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: internal or external dvd writer?