I Need some opinions...

[Number 25]

Which do you prefer when formatting CD-RW's:

UDF 1.5 or Mount Rainier? Any significant differences between the two? Which is better?

[KCK]

Here are some results for my Lite-On LTR48125W VS08 on a CD-RW 80min/700MB 10x disc.

For standard UDF 1.50 formatting, physical format takes about 8 min and logical format takes about 3 min (i.e., 11 min in total). In contrast, initial CD-MRW formatting takes about 30 sec (the disc is usable at this stage), whereas background formatting takes about 9 min (without influencing copy speeds); in both stages, ejecting the disc takes several seconds. As for space, InCD reports 50KB used, 572MB free for UDF 1.50, whereas CD-MRW has 539MB free.

The copying and reading speeds seem to be comparable for both formats.

UDF 1.50 discs can be read in CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drives under WinXP SP1 natively (without installing EasyWriteReader).

CD-MRW is claimed to be more reliable because defect management is done via hardware; however, apparently none of the popular burners have passed the EasyWrite test.

I have been using both formats with quite cheap media, without significant problems so far. Still, packet writing to CD-RW discs is not reliable enough for primary backups.

[dodecahedron]

CD-MRW is claimed to be more reliable because defect management is done via hardware; however, apparently none of the popular burners have passed the EasyWrite test.

what do you mean by "the EasyWrite test" ?

[KCK]

See Mount Rainier Verification on Philips page

http://www.licensing.philips.com/information/mtr/

and the EasyWrite Essay in

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Article ... e&Series=0

The EasyWrite test was also discussed at www.cdfreaks.com quite recently, but I can't give a link because the CDFreaks forum is down.

[Number 25]

Thanks for the info, but my os is Win 98SE, so that advantage of UDF over Mt. Rainier doesn't apply to me. I just wanted to know which of the two (and not between packet writing or multisession writing) are more reliable and easier to use.

[KCK]

Native readability is advantageous only if you want to read your discs on other XP SP1 computers.

With InCD, there are no differences in ease of use (except for formatting times).

As for reliability, I have not seen any comparative results.

Yet another point is that some data recovery programs may work better with UDF 1.50 than with CD-MRW, or vice versa. I don't know, since I have never used such programs!

[Action Jackson]

Thanks for the info, but my os is Win 98SE, so that advantage of UDF over Mt. Rainier doesn't apply to me. I just wanted to know which of the two (and not between packet writing or multisession writing) are more reliable and easier to use.

My system is Win98SE too and KCK's formatting description's are what I also experience.