Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #17102 > unrolled thread

So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference??

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11

Contents

  So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-17 00:39 +1100
    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-16 15:06 +0100
    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-02-16 15:45 +0100
      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 19:37 +1100
        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 19:43 +1100
        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2025-02-18 12:01 +0000
        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-18 09:41 -0500
          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-18 20:32 +0100
            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-18 14:51 -0500
              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-18 21:59 +0100
    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-16 09:59 -0500
    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2025-02-16 16:43 +0100
      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-16 16:21 +0000
        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Rick <rick@nospam.com> - 2025-02-16 11:33 -0500
          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 20:00 +1100
        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 19:56 +1100
          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-18 11:17 +0000
            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 18:02 +1100
              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-21 12:02 +0100
                Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 22:55 +1100
                  Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-21 14:16 +0100
                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-26 00:23 +1100
                      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-25 14:38 +0100
                      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-02-25 13:43 +0000
                        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-26 16:24 +1100
                          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-02-26 10:38 +0000
                            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-26 08:20 -0500
                          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2025-02-27 09:55 +0100
                      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-25 14:30 -0500
              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-02-21 11:07 +0000
              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-21 15:19 +0000
                Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-26 16:04 +1100
                  Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-26 18:15 +1100
                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2025-02-26 10:40 +0000
                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-26 07:08 -0500
                  Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-26 15:29 +0000
                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-27 19:00 +1100
                      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:52 -0500
                        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-27 11:24 +0100
                        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-27 13:57 +0000
                          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-27 09:53 -0500
                            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-27 15:31 +0000
                              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-27 13:27 -0500
                                Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-27 19:00 +0000
                                  Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-27 20:37 -0500
                                  Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-28 19:38 +1100
                                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-28 11:13 +0000
                                Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 02:36 +0000
                                  Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-02 00:51 -0500
                                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-02 18:59 +1100
                                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-04 23:32 +1100
                        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 22:13 +0000
                          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-03-01 22:27 +0000
                            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 00:41 +0000
                              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-02 01:06 -0500
                            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2025-03-03 10:22 -0500
                              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-04 19:26 +1100
                      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-27 14:05 +0000
                        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-28 20:06 +1100
                          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-28 11:24 +0000
                            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-28 14:50 -0500
    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-02-16 10:53 -0500
      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-16 14:04 -0500
        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-16 21:52 +0100
          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-17 19:40 +0000
        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-02-16 20:15 -0600
          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-17 21:05 +0100
            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-02-18 02:31 -0600
              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-18 13:29 +0100
                Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-18 20:29 +0100
              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-20 21:09 +1100
                Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-20 13:27 +0100
                  Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2025-02-20 17:46 -0800
                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 18:08 +1100
                      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-21 12:11 +0100
                        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:40 +0000
                          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-02-21 19:30 +0000
                            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2025-02-22 04:02 +0000
                            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-22 19:54 +0000
                              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-02-25 12:28 +1100
                          Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-21 22:37 +0100
                            Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-22 21:58 +0000
                              Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-25 14:19 +0100
                      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:36 +0000
                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-21 08:34 +0000
                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:31 +0000
                    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2025-02-22 03:53 +0000
    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Rick <rick@nospam.com> - 2025-02-16 10:54 -0500
      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-02-16 17:01 +0000
        Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-18 09:57 -0500
    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2025-02-16 10:34 -0800
    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2025-02-17 08:52 +0000
      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-17 14:49 -0500
      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 20:17 +1100
    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2025-02-21 10:35 +0000
      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 12:41 -0500
    Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2025-02-26 18:53 -0500
      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-26 20:14 -0500
      Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 02:39 +0000

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#17519

On Fri, 2/28/2025 6:24 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> On 28/02/2025 1:05 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2025 2:29 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>     Anyway, have you tried to just right-click the file in File Explorer,
>>>>> select Properties and look at the 'Details' tab? For a normal video
>>>>> file, File Explorer will mention the Length, Frame width and height,
>>>>> Data rate, Total bitrate, Frame rate and Audio specs.
>>>>
>>>> General Details
>>>> vid000.mp4 (name changed as suggested by others)
>>>> Type of file:   TS file (.ts)
>>>> Open with:      Media Player (Button "Change" which gives option to use Media
>>>> Player, VLC Media Player, Windows Media Player Legacy, Firefox, Notepad,
>>>> Word)
>>>> Location: On a sub-directory of my USB Drive
>>>> Size:   113MB (118,876,060 bytes)
>>>> Size on Disk:   113MB (118,882,304 bytes)
>>>> Created: Last Friday
>>>> Modified:       Last Friday
>>>> Accessed:       Yesterday
>>>
>>>    You say "General Details", but you mentioned info from the 'General'
>>> tab, while I referred to the 'Details' tab.
>>
>> Yes, you are quite correct, there are two tabs (Oh! My failing 
>> eyesight!!) 'General' and 'Details'
> 
>   Sorry, I hadn't yet seen this post when I wrote my '1. ... 2. ... 3.
> ...' post. Your post answers part of item1..
> 
>> Listed above is the info as presented by the *General Tab* . The info on 
>> the 'Details' tab includes ....
>>
>> Video
>> Length  00:00:00
> 
>   This is clearly wrong! If the length is zero, not wonder you don't
> see/hear anything when you play the file.
> 
>   So you must find out why the length is zero (but the size is 113MB).
> 
>> Frame width     730
>> Frame height    576
>> Data rate       5000kbps
>> Total bitrate   5000kbps
>> Frame rate      25.00 frames/second
>>
>> Audio
>> Bit rate
>> Channels        2 (stereo)
>> Audio sample rate       32.000kHz
>>
>> Media .... Contributing artists, Year, Genre .... all empty
>>
>> Origin ... Directors, Producers, Writers, Publishers, Content provider, 
>> Media created, Encoded by, Author URL, Promotion URL, Copyright .... all 
>> empty
>>
>> Content .... Parental rating, Parental rating reason, Composers, 
>> Conductors, Period, Moon, Part of set, Initial key, Beats-per-minute, 
>> Protected .... all empty.
>>
>> File
>> Name            Vid000.mp4.ts    <------
> 
>   That explains why the 'General' tab says "Type of file: TS file (.ts)",
> because the name was not vid000.mp4, as you said, but Vid000.mp4.ts.
> 
>> Item type       TS File
>> File location   My USB Drive
>> Size            113 MB
>> Date created    21/02/2025 5:16 PM
>> Date  modified  21/02/2025 5:16 PM
>> Attributes      A
>> Availability
>> Offline status
>> Shared with
>> Owner           Everyone
>> Computer        This one
>>
>> (and underneath all this there is a link to 'Remove Properties and 
>> Personal Information')
>>
>>>    Also see my response to Paul about the discrepancy between the .mp4
>>> extension of the file and you reporting "Type of file: TS file (.ts)"
>>
>> Yeap, as I highlighted above, so does that mean that (really) NOTHING 
>> with-in the file changed??
> 
>   Changing the extension does indeed not change the content of the file,
> but might (or might not) cause the player software to understand what
> type of file it is.

The Windows Properties filter is picking up some info and not others.
This suggests "selective encryption" is at work, and it is a .ts file.

If you feed the .ts filter a file which is not .ts in any way,
the output is blank. The filter does not populate the fields, without
some evidence it is a Transport Stream.

Daniels file is populating the fields, but with suspicious or outright
wrong values. Which suggests the Microsoft filter or libAV is not able
to read everything it needs to read.

The duration of 0:00:00 means it cannot read the timestamps
inside the frames. Maybe it is scanning for the last intact
frame in the stream, and hopes to extract a timestamp from it.

The datarate of the file, is highly unlikely to be a "round" integer
number. That's bullshit right there.

If the filter had admitted the content was AAC encoded and had
a stardard bitrate, I might have believed it possible to play the
video. But I don't think enough info in that Properties is
correct, for any Windows tool [VLC, ffplay] to  play it.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17113

On 2/16/2025 8:39 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
> I've got a PVR who's HD is getting pretty full (90%+) with programs I'll 
> want to watch some day ... so I was thinking about coping some of the 
> 'Keeper' programs onto DVD which meant buying a spool of DVD's.... but 
> then needed to check if I needed DVD-R or DVD+R disks. (It is DVD-R)
> 
> Which got me thinking ...... What's the difference between DVD-R and 
> DVD+R??
> 

    I have no idea, but I've had trouble with + and never with -.
So I make sure to buy -. And I try to get Memorex. Once
again, I don't really have a good reason. It's just that I've never
had trouble with it. I once had a whole stack of Sony that were
useless. And I'm hesitant to try the bargain brands.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17124

On Sun, 2/16/2025 10:53 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 2/16/2025 8:39 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
>> I've got a PVR who's HD is getting pretty full (90%+) with programs I'll want to watch some day ... so I was thinking about coping some of the 'Keeper' programs onto DVD which meant buying a spool of DVD's.... but then needed to check if I needed DVD-R or DVD+R disks. (It is DVD-R)
>>
>> Which got me thinking ...... What's the difference between DVD-R and DVD+R??
>>
> 
>    I have no idea, but I've had trouble with + and never with -.
> So I make sure to buy -. And I try to get Memorex. Once
> again, I don't really have a good reason. It's just that I've never
> had trouble with it. I once had a whole stack of Sony that were
> useless. And I'm hesitant to try the bargain brands.

The brand on the disc, has nothing to do with the manufacturer.

For example, Maxell and Fujitsu, used to package Ritek discs
in a nice plastic cake box for you.

The actual companies, have names like CMC, Ritek, Tao Yuden.
Memorex buys lots of discs from a certain supplier, and
it's a different supplier than Maxell would buy from.

Philips doesn't make disks, and it buys whatever is available.

The media tag might make this clear, when you use your burning
software to read the tag. The tag is practically *never* going
to match the brand stamped on the cake box. The two layers of
the system are that isolated.

Now that the whole thing is collapsed, if I go to my computer
store, there are DVD R And DVD DL R left as media type. And
the quantity of media is so extensive, there were four cake
boxes under the cash, and I bought two of them. At first, the
staff didn't even know where the blank media had gone. But one of the
staff eventually figured out it was underneath
the cash register in the display case there.

That store used to have minimum of three cubic meters of media at one
time. They set up tables apart from the other display areas,
just so they could put more boxes of media under the table.
There was a wide selection of fake names for the branding back then.

The "cdfreaks" website is where you used to get information
on what was worth buying. They could tell you what was inside
the box, because a "Philips" cake box, did not say on the back
what brand of discs they were packaging. Someone had to buy a
sample so they could tell you what those are.

And "cdfreaks" had some pirates, and occasionally someone would
say "I burned 500 of those last week, very good". And occasionally
one of those people would tell you "I have seven drives set up in
parallel, burning away". That would give you some idea what
a pirate would do (make single layer media from a DL Hollywood pressing).
So what if the movie was blurry.

And if you think pirating is easy, that's a lot of work. There is
too much manual handling of materials to be a "success" at it.
It's more a state of mind, than a business.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17129

On 2025-02-16 20:04, Paul wrote:
> The actual companies, have names like CMC, Ritek, Tao Yuden.
> Memorex buys lots of discs from a certain supplier, and
> it's a different supplier than Maxell would buy from.
> 
> Philips doesn't make disks, and it buys whatever is available.
> 
> The media tag might make this clear, when you use your burning
> software to read the tag. The tag is practically*never* going
> to match the brand stamped on the cake box. The two layers of
> the system are that isolated.

There is a command in Linux that gives you the actual information on the 
disk, but I do not remember it an it is not in my notes under "DVD". Ah, 
it is "dvd+rw-mediainfo /dev/dvd".

And then there were tables that told the quality of the disk based on 
that result, possibly in the links I posted earlier.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17170

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote at 20:52 this Sunday (GMT):
> On 2025-02-16 20:04, Paul wrote:
>> The actual companies, have names like CMC, Ritek, Tao Yuden.
>> Memorex buys lots of discs from a certain supplier, and
>> it's a different supplier than Maxell would buy from.
>> 
>> Philips doesn't make disks, and it buys whatever is available.
>> 
>> The media tag might make this clear, when you use your burning
>> software to read the tag. The tag is practically*never* going
>> to match the brand stamped on the cake box. The two layers of
>> the system are that isolated.
>
> There is a command in Linux that gives you the actual information on the 
> disk, but I do not remember it an it is not in my notes under "DVD". Ah, 
> it is "dvd+rw-mediainfo /dev/dvd".
>
> And then there were tables that told the quality of the disk based on 
> that result, possibly in the links I posted earlier.


For the computers I've had, I think only /dev/sr0 shows up for the disk
file.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17137

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:04:00 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>The "cdfreaks" website is where you used to get information
>on what was worth buying. They could tell you what was inside
>the box, because a "Philips" cake box, did not say on the back
>what brand of discs they were packaging. Someone had to buy a
>sample so they could tell you what those are.
>
>And "cdfreaks" had some pirates, and occasionally someone would
>say "I burned 500 of those last week, very good". And occasionally
>one of those people would tell you "I have seven drives set up in
>parallel, burning away". That would give you some idea what
>a pirate would do (make single layer media from a DL Hollywood pressing).
>So what if the movie was blurry.
>
>And if you think pirating is easy, that's a lot of work. There is
>too much manual handling of materials to be a "success" at it.
>It's more a state of mind, than a business.

That approach to piracy pretty much ended more than 25 years ago. No one
burns media anymore, and no self-respecting group would put their name
on a release that was "blurry". That was a good flashback, though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17174

On 2025-02-17 03:15, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:04:00 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> The "cdfreaks" website is where you used to get information
>> on what was worth buying. They could tell you what was inside
>> the box, because a "Philips" cake box, did not say on the back
>> what brand of discs they were packaging. Someone had to buy a
>> sample so they could tell you what those are.
>>
>> And "cdfreaks" had some pirates, and occasionally someone would
>> say "I burned 500 of those last week, very good". And occasionally
>> one of those people would tell you "I have seven drives set up in
>> parallel, burning away". That would give you some idea what
>> a pirate would do (make single layer media from a DL Hollywood pressing).
>> So what if the movie was blurry.
>>
>> And if you think pirating is easy, that's a lot of work. There is
>> too much manual handling of materials to be a "success" at it.
>> It's more a state of mind, than a business.
> 
> That approach to piracy pretty much ended more than 25 years ago. No one
> burns media anymore, and no self-respecting group would put their name
> on a release that was "blurry". That was a good flashback, though.

I don't know about burning, but there is a big department store here (El 
Corte Inglés) that does sell CDs and DVDs and BlueRays (and vinyls). 
They don't stock much, though, so whatever you want you have to ask for 
it and wait some days.

I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star 
Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime 
Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming". 
Of course, there are torrents.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17186

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:05:22 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2025-02-17 03:15, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:04:00 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> The "cdfreaks" website is where you used to get information
>>> on what was worth buying. They could tell you what was inside
>>> the box, because a "Philips" cake box, did not say on the back
>>> what brand of discs they were packaging. Someone had to buy a
>>> sample so they could tell you what those are.
>>>
>>> And "cdfreaks" had some pirates, and occasionally someone would
>>> say "I burned 500 of those last week, very good". And occasionally
>>> one of those people would tell you "I have seven drives set up in
>>> parallel, burning away". That would give you some idea what
>>> a pirate would do (make single layer media from a DL Hollywood pressing).
>>> So what if the movie was blurry.
>>>
>>> And if you think pirating is easy, that's a lot of work. There is
>>> too much manual handling of materials to be a "success" at it.
>>> It's more a state of mind, than a business.
>> 
>> That approach to piracy pretty much ended more than 25 years ago. No one
>> burns media anymore, and no self-respecting group would put their name
>> on a release that was "blurry". That was a good flashback, though.
>
>I don't know about burning,

To be clear, I was only referring to the well-known piracy release
groups, and I suppose all or most of the lesser known groups, as well.

>but there is a big department store here (El 
>Corte Inglés) that does sell CDs and DVDs and BlueRays (and vinyls). 
>They don't stock much, though, so whatever you want you have to ask for 
>it and wait some days.

Where do the products come from? Are they legit? I suppose they must be,
since they're up for sale in a department store. I was only talking
about piracy, specifically video and audio.

>I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star 
>Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime 
>Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming". 
>Of course, there are torrents.

One of my mates uses a service that tells him which country has the
movie or TV program that he wants to watch, and which streaming service
is offering it. A couple of clicks later, his VPN has placed him in that
country and his normal login creds work as usual, and he's a happy
camper. If something disappears from streaming services in one country,
they often pop up, or remain available, in one or more other countries.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17198

On 2025-02-18 09:31, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:05:22 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-02-17 03:15, Char Jackson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:04:00 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "cdfreaks" website is where you used to get information
>>>> on what was worth buying. They could tell you what was inside
>>>> the box, because a "Philips" cake box, did not say on the back
>>>> what brand of discs they were packaging. Someone had to buy a
>>>> sample so they could tell you what those are.
>>>>
>>>> And "cdfreaks" had some pirates, and occasionally someone would
>>>> say "I burned 500 of those last week, very good". And occasionally
>>>> one of those people would tell you "I have seven drives set up in
>>>> parallel, burning away". That would give you some idea what
>>>> a pirate would do (make single layer media from a DL Hollywood pressing).
>>>> So what if the movie was blurry.
>>>>
>>>> And if you think pirating is easy, that's a lot of work. There is
>>>> too much manual handling of materials to be a "success" at it.
>>>> It's more a state of mind, than a business.
>>>
>>> That approach to piracy pretty much ended more than 25 years ago. No one
>>> burns media anymore, and no self-respecting group would put their name
>>> on a release that was "blurry". That was a good flashback, though.
>>
>> I don't know about burning,
> 
> To be clear, I was only referring to the well-known piracy release
> groups, and I suppose all or most of the lesser known groups, as well.
> 
>> but there is a big department store here (El
>> Corte Inglés) that does sell CDs and DVDs and BlueRays (and vinyls).
>> They don't stock much, though, so whatever you want you have to ask for
>> it and wait some days.
> 
> Where do the products come from? Are they legit? I suppose they must be,
> since they're up for sale in a department store. I was only talking
> about piracy, specifically video and audio.

Yes, certainly they are legit.

But I mean, if there are legit sales, means there is a market, and there 
will also be ilegit sales somewhere else, in some manner.

> 
>> I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star
>> Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime
>> Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming".
>> Of course, there are torrents.
> 
> One of my mates uses a service that tells him which country has the
> movie or TV program that he wants to watch, and which streaming service
> is offering it. A couple of clicks later, his VPN has placed him in that
> country and his normal login creds work as usual, and he's a happy
> camper. If something disappears from streaming services in one country,
> they often pop up, or remain available, in one or more other countries.

Wow. :-o  :-)


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17207

On 2025-02-18 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2025-02-18 09:31, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:05:22 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:


>>> I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star
>>> Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime
>>> Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming".
>>> Of course, there are torrents.
>>
>> One of my mates uses a service that tells him which country has the
>> movie or TV program that he wants to watch, and which streaming service
>> is offering it. A couple of clicks later, his VPN has placed him in that
>> country and his normal login creds work as usual, and he's a happy
>> camper. If something disappears from streaming services in one country,
>> they often pop up, or remain available, in one or more other countries.
> 
> Wow. :-o  :-)

What happens with languages? The target country might have the program 
dubbed to some local language. Assuming the original language of the 
program was English, do they always keep it?

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17265

On 18/02/2025 7:31 pm, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:05:22 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

<Snip>

>> I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star
>> Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime
>> Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming".
>> Of course, there are torrents.
> 
> One of my mates uses a service that tells him which country has the
> movie or TV program that he wants to watch, and which streaming service
> is offering it. A couple of clicks later, his VPN has placed him in that
> country and his normal login creds work as usual, and he's a happy
> camper. If something disappears from streaming services in one country,
> they often pop up, or remain available, in one or more other countries.
> 
Which came FIRST, The Chicken or The Egg??

Do Intel/etc throw greater capabilities into a uProcessor and the 
programmers then have to make use of that greater capability ..... or do 
the programmers tell Intel/etc that they want greater capabilities??

If our ancestors had been satisfied with drawing 'pictures' on Cave wall 
would we still be here?? ;-P
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17273

On 2025-02-20 11:09, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 18/02/2025 7:31 pm, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:05:22 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
> <Snip>
> 
>>> I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star
>>> Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime
>>> Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming".
>>> Of course, there are torrents.
>>
>> One of my mates uses a service that tells him which country has the
>> movie or TV program that he wants to watch, and which streaming service
>> is offering it. A couple of clicks later, his VPN has placed him in that
>> country and his normal login creds work as usual, and he's a happy
>> camper. If something disappears from streaming services in one country,
>> they often pop up, or remain available, in one or more other countries.
>>
> Which came FIRST, The Chicken or The Egg??
> 
> Do Intel/etc throw greater capabilities into a uProcessor and the 
> programmers then have to make use of that greater capability ..... or do 
> the programmers tell Intel/etc that they want greater capabilities??

I think both.


I remember the advent of the 386 which had many capabilities that were 
not used at the time. That CPU was amazing, compared with the 286 and 8086.

> 
> If our ancestors had been satisfied with drawing 'pictures' on Cave wall 
> would we still be here?? ;-P


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17307

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:27:09 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> I remember the advent of the 386 which had many capabilities that were 
> not used at the time. That CPU was amazing, compared with the 286 and 8086.
> 

I think that was the first one that didn't need a  
separate floating-point processor, right?

-- 
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA         
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17313

On 21/02/2025 12:46 pm, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:27:09 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> I remember the advent of the 386 which had many capabilities that were
>> not used at the time. That CPU was amazing, compared with the 286 and 8086.
>>
> 
> I think that was the first one that didn't need a
> separate floating-point processor, right?
> 
That rings a bell ...... but what had we done with out the 
'floating-point processor' previously?? Used a seperate, discreet, 
'floating-point processor', maybe .... which, I suppose, would make the 
process a bit slower.
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17324

On 2025-02-21 08:08, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 21/02/2025 12:46 pm, Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:27:09 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> I remember the advent of the 386 which had many capabilities that were
>>> not used at the time. That CPU was amazing, compared with the 286 and 
>>> 8086.
>>>
>>
>> I think that was the first one that didn't need a
>> separate floating-point processor, right?

No, the wikipedia cites the 80387 as a separate chip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X87#80387

>>
> That rings a bell ...... but what had we done with out the 'floating- 
> point processor' previously?? Used a seperate, discreet, 'floating-point 
> processor', maybe .... which, I suppose, would make the process a bit 
> slower.

Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not 
inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would 
raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction emulated 
in software by the program, which was significantly slower.


I think it was the Pentium which was complete. The wikipedia says for 
the 487:

80487

The i487SX (P23N) was marketed as a floating-point unit coprocessor for 
Intel i486SX machines. It actually contained a full-blown i486DX 
implementation. When installed into an i486SX system, the i487 disabled 
the main CPU and took over all CPU operations. The i487 took measures to 
detect the presence of an i486SX and would not function without the 
original CPU in place.[26][27][failed verification]

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17343

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[snip]

> Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not
> inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would
> raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction emulated
> in software by the program, which was significantly slower.

IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were 
programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo C 
compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call to a 
routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace that call 
with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to run that 
instruction, otherwise it would emulate it.

[snip]

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Error! No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17345

In alt.comp.os.windows-11 Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> [snip]

> > Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not
> > inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would
> > raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction emulated
> > in software by the program, which was significantly slower.

> IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were 
> programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo C 
> compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call to a 
> routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace that call 
> with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to run that 
> instruction, otherwise it would emulate it.

> [snip]

What about 386SX? IIRC, it didn't have a coprocessor like DX. I can't remember!
-- 
"Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!" --Isaiah 30:18. Slammy Friday after slower recent couple days?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
  /\___/\   Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
 / /\ /\ \                      Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o   o| |
   \ _ /
    ( )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17375

On 2025-02-21, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-11 Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>
>> > Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not
>> > inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would
>> > raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction emulated
>> > in software by the program, which was significantly slower.
>
>> IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were 
>> programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo C 
>> compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call to a 
>> routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace that call 
>> with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to run that 
>> instruction, otherwise it would emulate it.
>
>> [snip]
>
> What about 386SX? IIRC, it didn't have a coprocessor like DX. I can't remember!

386SX had an external 16 bit data bus, 386DX had 32 bit. inbuilt
co-processors started with the 486DX

-- 
 Jasen.
 🇺🇦 Слава Україні

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17395

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:30:50 +0000, Ant wrote:

> In alt.comp.os.windows-11 Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> [snip]
> 
>> > Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was
>> > not inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction
>> > would raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction
>> > emulated in software by the program, which was significantly slower.
> 
>> IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were
>> programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo
>> C compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call
>> to a routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace
>> that call with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to
>> run that instruction, otherwise it would emulate it.
> 
>> [snip]
> 
> What about 386SX? IIRC, it didn't have a coprocessor like DX. I can't
> remember!

No 386 had a coprocessor. You could add a 387 to the system (I don't 
remember if there was a 387SX). IIRC, it was also possible to use a 287.

The difference between 386SX and 386DX was a limited (24-bit instead of 
32-bit) address bus, and a multiplexed (32-bit) data bus.

It was with the 486 that the DX meant it had a coprocessor. There was also 
a 486DX2 that ran at a doubled clock speed.

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity." [Nietzsche,
Twilight of the Idols, "What the Germans Lack," aph. 2 (1889)]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17456

Groovy hepcat Mark Lloyd was jivin' in alt.os.linux on Sun, 23 Feb 2025
06:54 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.

> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:30:50 +0000, Ant wrote:
> 
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-11 Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> 
>>> [snip]
>> 
>>> > Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was
>>> > not inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction
>>> > would raise an exception, which would be attended and the
>>> > instruction emulated in software by the program, which was
>>> > significantly slower.
>> 
>>> IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there
>>> were programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right,
>>> the turbo C compiler would replace every floating point instruction
>>> with a call to a routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it
>>> would replace that call with the FPU instruction and return to a few
>>> bytes earlier to run that instruction, otherwise it would emulate
>>> it.
>> 
>>> [snip]
>> 
>> What about 386SX? IIRC, it didn't have a coprocessor like DX. I can't
>> remember!
> 
> No 386 had a coprocessor. You could add a 387 to the system (I don't
> remember if there was a 387SX). IIRC, it was also possible to use a
> 287.

  Yes, there was a 387SX. And co-processors (or FPUs, as they're more
correctly called) for PC family CPUs go right back to the 8087 to go
with the 8086/8088. So a PC/XT could have an FPU too.

> The difference between 386SX and 386DX was a limited (24-bit instead
> of 32-bit) address bus, and a multiplexed (32-bit) data bus.

  For anyone who doesn't know what that means; the 386SX had a 16 bit
data bus, the same as the 286. All 32 bit memory access instructions
had to "thunk" between the internal 32 bit registers and the external
data bus, meaning that a 32 bit memory access had to be done in two 16
bit accesses.

> It was with the 486 that the DX meant it had a coprocessor. There was
> also a 486DX2 that ran at a doubled clock speed.

  Right. There is also a 486DX4, which runs at 4 times the clock speed.
And the 486SX had no built-in FPU, so there is a 487SX to go with it.

-- 


----- Dig the NEW and IMPROVED news sig!! -----


-------------- Shaggy was here! ---------------
              Ain't I'm a dawg!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11

csiph-web