What's the deal with CD burning in WinXP?

[Ribbit]

OK, yesterday I ended up having to figure out (from scratch) how to write CDs in XP twice, and found two completely different solutions. I seem to recall that easy CD-burning was one of XP's selling points, so I was a bit surprised.

BTW, I think these were both XP Home, but I'm not 100% certain.

The first machine was a Dell with XP preinstalled. We put a blank CD-RW in the drive, and XP gave us an empty 'fake D:\' to copy files into. We copied a few files in there, selected 'write CD' or whatever in the right-click menu, and it burned us a CD. Nice, easy, and fairly quick. I've found a page at Microsoft's site which suggests that this is the default built-in way of burning.

The second machine was an IBM laptop, also with preinstalled XP. This one was completely different - it didn't respond when we put a blank disc in the drive, and trying to copy to D: gave us a 'drive not accessible' error. Eventually we found something called 'IBM DLA' which let us format a CD-RW (which took ages), and appeared to be a Windows component which let us write and delete files on the media like it was a floppy.

Anyway, questions: I assume the Dell wrote an ISO-format CD which can't be appended to, while the IBM wrote a UDF-format CD. Does XP have a built-in way to make UDF-format (i.e. appendable, deletable, etc.) CDs?

I also thought that modern drives (Mt. Rainier) could format CDs as they went along? Can XP do this (by default)?

Simple answers and/or Gurm-style in-depth explanations both welcome.

While I'm here, the IBM owner told me he couldn't access his USB floppy drive unless he removed his account password. His account is an Administrator account, and the only one on the system apart from the disabled Guest account. Any ideas?

[Wombat]

When I try to copy onto a blank I think it asks me.

Most of the time, I use Nero.

[William]

DLA is a Veritas (Or at least was -some parts of Veritas CD writing department were sold off to one of the video editing software companies a while back, I can look up who bought what if you're interested, but it means digging through my archives). M is one of those things better avoided until everyone gets their act together better -many drives fail one or other or multiple Philips compliancy tests... And as things stand it still needs sotware supporting it. Mostly this is souped up (actually souped down, but that doesn't sound as good) versions of the old "drive letter access programs; DirectCD, InCD, DLA & IW. I think SoftArch have an M only writing tool, but it doesn't seem to have been hugely successful.

IIRC DLA will automatically disable XPs inbuilt CD writing when it is installed in much the way as the MS site describes. However, if you want to get that back, the best way is to uninstall DLA before restarting the service that is the inbuilt writing tool.

Depending on what you mean by append... I believe that XPs inbuilt writes TAO, closing the session, but leaving the disc open, meaning that you can create another session. Whether or not it will import the previous session or not, I don't know. But, yes the disc is still writable after XP is done (unless MS have changed it of course and I don't know about it. Most of what I'm saying is info I got from Roxio (they supplied the burn engine for XP) prior to the XP launch).

So to sume it all up: no; XP can't make UDF discs by default. M in theory does what you described. XP cannot do M by default.

[Gurm]

*ahem*

Ok, here's the deal. The Dell exhibited "default behavior" for Windows XP.

The IBM had crappy preloaded software that probably writes some horrifying UDF format. Yuk.

UDF = SATAN = EVIL.

I recommend just using Nero. And uninstall whatever SHIT is on that laptop. Yuk.

- Gurm

[Ribbit]

I guess my question was really about the state of burning support in XP...

Originally posted by Gurm
UDF = SATAN = EVIL.

Well I don't know any better so I'm not going to argue with you, but the IBM owner basically wants to use his CD-RWs as big floppies - i.e. write and delete files at will - and UDF is the only way to do that. A quick glance through the Nero manual tells me that it can't work that way, so unless someone has a better solution I think I'll be leaving the DLA software there. The only issue is the half-hour it takes to format a CD-RW, which I think is tolerable with a bit of forward planning.

Anyway, what do you have against the UDF format? I'll give you the 100MB or so capacity loss is a bit large, but apart from that? Or is it just a lack of maturity/standards?

William, I assume that by "M" you mean Mt. Rainier?

Thanks for the help. (Any ideas about the USB floppy issue?)

[Wombat]

Nero supports UDF.

Still, what I would do is burn the CD as a multi-session disc. Just keep adding to the CD, and it will re-write the table of contents. When the RW is "full", format it again.

[Gurm]

The thing I/we have against UDF is as follows:

1. It doesn't work on all PC's. You need "drivers" to make it run on most/all OS'es. Sadly, these drivers are notoriously unstable.

2. The apps that allow you to create these discs are HORRIBLE apps. They are crash-magnets. DirectCD is the worst offender, but they're all truly terrible. I'm not sure if it's the whole "look let's insert a device drivers with 1000 times the latency of any other driver... into the real-time portion of the driver stack" or just the piss poor code. Whatever it is, just say NOOOOOOOO!

- Gurm

[Fred H]

I had some serious problems with DirectCD.
No thanks, no UDF neither.
Nero does the best for me. But I am consequently using Nero, nothing else. In this way I can fill any earlier non-closed multi session CD with Nero. I never trusted the built in utilities in XP like CD-burner, firewall etc
BTW, the CD-RW as floppy is not a cheap solution. And it is slow.
I am using a dedicated hard disk to back up my files and reaching the 500-600 MB limit I burn them out to an ordinary CD-R.
Sometimes, with larger files, like a Ghost Backup I split them with WinSplit.
In the near future I plan to purchase a DVD burner and by this I’ll extend the 600MB limit.
But, basically I’ll continue to temporarily backup to HD. It IS cheap and fast.

Edited:

Anyway, what do you have against the UDF format?

UDF made my W98 Explorer crazy in multiple installations, so I don't dare to install DirectCD again in my XP.

Fred H

[Wombat]

BTW, the CD-RW as floppy is not a cheap solution. And it is slow.

It's not expensive either, considering how much you can re-use a $2 CD-RW. And it holds a lot of data. I do it simply because a CD is so portable, and more likely to work than a floppy disk.

[Fred H]

I do it simply because a CD is so portable

You mean CD-RW is portable? UDF is portable?
I experienced the contrary (at the good old Win98 era)
Fred H

[Snake-Eyes]

There are several different UDF formats out there (basically about 1 per writing program, and in Adaptec / Roxio's case, 1 per version ). This is also why UDF requires drivers to be loaded before the disc can be accessed on other computers.

Now, as far as Adaptec / Roxio's version being evil.. Installation sometimes DOES feel like Hell, but once it's installed properly (as mine *finally* is) it seems to work great. Not only that, but by default the latest versions create discs that will install a compatible UDF reader on another system if the system attempts normal accesses of the disc (dunno the exact specifics, but I assume the installer is in a hidden standard formatted part of the disc that the drive sees unless the UDF reader is installed, in which case the PC only 'sees' the data from the UDF portion of the disc). And this DOES work, so long as the drive isn't so far out of date that it doesn't support UDF / CDRW discs at all.

Also, it's possible to have several different writing applications on the PC at once, but not advised. I currently have Nero (without it's UDF portion), EZ-CD Creator 5.x (and DirectCD), along with a couple others. I use the Nero because I like the flexibility it provides to create nonstandard VCD / SVCD discs (xVCD/xSVCD), while I use Adaptec for standard VCD / SVCD discs with more complex menu systems than Nero's 'just the basics' approach, along with backing up my current system drivers to CDRW's.

XP's built-in support was nice, but I found that I didn't really gain anything I wanted from it, so it had to go.

[William]

This will teach me to have Flu and not check MURC or a few days
Ribbit: Yes, that's what I mean by M.

UDF is not in and of itself a standard; there are diferent versions of it. And we're not finnished changing it yet either, so there'll be another new UDF standard at some point.

Chief reason why UDF is evil: the file system is crap. It just can't cope with errors. Nearly anything will cause it to puke up and destroy your data. Plus, as it's written onto your erasable discs, everything is intentionally fragmented -including the TOC (the equivalent of the FAT table) to decrease the number of occasions that each sector of the disc is overwritten, because the discs are crap and it was discovered that a disc would die very quickly if the TOC were stored at the beginning o the disc and overwritten each time a change was made. Finally, a lot o UDF programs keep this TOC in sytem RAM until you eject the disc, meaning that i you computer restarts, the TOC isn't written, so your data is on the disc; but because of how it's fragmented; almost completely innaccessible.

Wombat: the way Nero does UDF (and I presume you mean Nero; not it's companion InCD) is diferent (and somewhat more reobust) to what is needed to support drive letter access, which is what I think Ribbits friend really wants. Basically, Nero does a continuous write (as iff it were an ISO 9660 disc, but instead it does UDF. (glossing over the diferences between mastering and packet writing here).

Nero isn't actually rewriting the TOC; it's copying the contents of the previous one into the new one (less references to any files that you "deleted"

Gurm: He had some other considerations.

Fred H: Not all drives are created equal; see: http://www.arrowkey.com/cgi-bin/drivedisplay.cgi
on the speed issue

Snake-Eyes: Almost right on the issue of diferent UDF formats; but it's no as dire as the InCD situation was a few years back [William Shudders]

Right on where the UDF reader is put too

[Ribbit]

Originally posted by William
UDF is not in and of itself a standard; there are diferent versions of it. And we're not finnished changing it yet either, so there'll be another new UDF standard at some point.

AAARRGGHHH!!!! But at least the newer versions are backwards-compatible, right? pretty please?

Chief reason why UDF is evil: the file system is crap. It just can't cope with errors. Nearly anything will cause it to puke up and destroy your data.

Didn't they (you?) try to address this in UDF 2.0 or 1.5 or whatever? (I forget what the feature's called right now.) How well does that work?

Plus, as it's written onto your erasable discs, everything is intentionally fragmented -including the TOC (the equivalent of the FAT table) to decrease the number of occasions that each sector of the disc is overwritten, because the discs are crap and it was discovered that a disc would die very quickly if the TOC were stored at the beginning o the disc and overwritten each time a change was made. Finally, a lot o UDF programs keep this TOC in sytem RAM until you eject the disc, meaning that i you computer restarts, the TOC isn't written, so your data is on the disc; but because of how it's fragmented; almost completely innaccessible.

That's all done to keep from overwriting and wearing out certain sectors, so fair enough in my book. Anyway, I'll be sending my friend some warnings, and maybe doing some testing if I can.

[William]

AAARRGGHHH!!!! But at least the newer versions are backwards-compatible, right? pretty please?

Pah; the numbering scheme doesn't even go in the traditinal ashion.

Didn't they try to address this in UDF 2.0 or 1.5 or whatever? (I forget what the feature's called right now.) How well does that work?

The changes needed to fix it would essentially make a whole new spec; and since UDF was meant to be the new order o optical storage; that would be err, inconvenient shall we say (albeit it would give a chance to involve more Shakespeare in computing... Petruchio would be my vote or the name... The one that tamed the cursed Shrew