[fuzzydude]

Hey everyone,

I'm on a 533DP with an upgraded superdrive. It isn't the standard Pioneer A03 that would have come with it, it is the A04 that is in all current macs that are now shipping.

I purchased some Verbatim DVD+RW disks thinking that I can format them, and copy stuff onto the disk (basically using it as an archive), then later erase them and start over. The problem is the Mac doesn't recognize the disks at all. I've tried putting it in while in the finder, also trying it in Disk Utility as well as Toast 5. The result is that the Mac says there is no disk - I can't seem to find anyway to format it. Any suggestions?

[Person Man]

Originally posted by fuzzydude:
<STRONG>Hey everyone,

I'm on a 533DP with an upgraded superdrive. It isn't the standard Pioneer A03 that would have come with it, it is the A04 that is in all current macs that are now shipping.

I purchased some Verbatim DVD+RW disks thinking that I can format them, and copy stuff onto the disk (basically using it as an archive), then later erase them and start over. The problem is the Mac doesn't recognize the disks at all. I've tried putting it in while in the finder, also trying it in Disk Utility as well as Toast 5. The result is that the Mac says there is no disk - I can't seem to find anyway to format it. Any suggestions?</STRONG>

The SuperDrive does not use the DVD+R/DVD+RW standard. That standard is a competitor to the DVD-R/DVD-RW standard that the SuperDrive uses. So, you would need a DVD-RW disk, not a DVD+RW disk.

[vasu]

I wouldn't even call the DVD+RW a "standard"

So yeah, you need DVD-R (singleuse) or DVD-RW (reusable) discs with that drive, not DVD+RW.

+RW is made by Phillips and is also used in Sony, HP, and Ricoh drives.

-RW is only made by Pioneer, yet is also more compatible with DVD Players. +RW isn't even considered really DVD by the DVD Consortium.

-vasu

[starman]

DVD+RW is not a "standard". All it has going for it is M$ is supporting it as an "official" format for Windows, but THAT'S IT. DVD-R/W has been around 18 months longer than DVD+R/W and is much more established.

DVD-R/W is more compatable with set-top boxes. I have 5 DVD players and my DVD-R/W discs work in all of them. A friend of mine in Calif. got a DVD+RW drive and his discs don't work in all but one set-top box (Panasonic).

Mike

[stupidFish23]

Let's all hope you're right. I just read in the last issue of MacFormat (UK), that +RW is more compatible and is considered the standard among DVD recorders. Who can clarify this for me?

[Eug]

Originally posted by stupidFish23:
<STRONG>Let's all hope you're right. I just read in the last issue of MacFormat (UK), that +RW is more compatible and is considered the standard among DVD recorders. Who can clarify this for me?

</STRONG>

Your DVD+RW discs will not work in the SuperDrive.

Additional comments:

MacFormat is smoking some good ganja. Actually, they've just probably been reading the press releases and not doing formal testing. Either that or their equipment just happens to be more DVD+RW friendly. Most info out there has DVD-RW and DVD+RW compatibility with DVD video players at being about the same, which is to say not very good. DVD-R and DVD+R compatibility are both much higher than DVD-RW or DVD+RW, but neither has 100% compatibility. DVD-R is probably &gt;90% and maybe DVD+R too, but it's still too early to say for the latter since it just came out recently. One important thing to note is that the Pioneer SuperDrive doesn't seem to like reading DVD+R discs according to a recent review. This is important considering a lot of recent Macs use this drive.

DVD+RW offers higher speeds, but DVD-RW has better support, especially on Mac side.

By the way, if you're in the market for a DVD+RW drive... If you had a PC, DVD+RW/+R is a good option, but IMO it is not a viable option for the average Mac user.

Check my sig for more info.

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Eug ]

[piracy]

It's also worth mentioning that DVD+R/RW is not "officially" even a DVD. Similar to copy-protected audio discs, which appear to be CDs but actually aren't, DVD+R/RW discs aren't DVDs. They can't even carry the familiar DVD logo:



The DVD Forum ( http://www.dvdforum.org/ ) is the official licensing entity for DVD. A note on the front page of their web site indicates:

Please note that the "+RW" format, also known as DVD+RW was neither developed nor approved by the DVD Forum. The approved recordable formats are DVD-R, DVD-RW and DVD-RAM.

In short, DVD+RW shouldn't really have the letters "DVD" in it, because it's not a DVD. This might all be semantics, but it's important because it really identifies the importance of standards. DVD+RW is clearly trying to confuse customers by co-opting the name DVD-RW...when pronounced, both obviously sound the same, unless you specifically say "DVD hyphen RW, and DVD plus RW".

This is another case of companies like Dell and Microsoft trying to force their proprietary "standards" (yeah, right) on the market. And they'll probably succeed. Just like Intel with Serial ATA and USB2 vs. FireWire.

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: piracy ]

[Eug]

Originally posted by piracy:
<STRONG>This is another case of companies like Dell and Microsoft trying to force their proprietary "standards" (yeah, right) on the market. And they'll probably succeed. Just like Intel with Serial ATA and USB2 vs. FireWire.</STRONG>

Microsoft is not a member of the DVD+RW Alliance, I believe. The format was developed by other companies. Microsoft just likes it, because it can use the Mt. Rainier format, while DVD-RW cannot, potentially making DVD+RW superior to DVD-RW in the future. Like it or not, DVD+RW is pretty good technology for certain uses. Furthermore, Microsoft ALREADY has OS level integration of DVD-RAM, which is a format of the DVD Forum, so it could be argued that they're biased toward the DVD Forum's formats. Now, although the future of DVD+RW technology looks promising, what people fail to realize however, is that currently no DVD+RW drive in existence supports Mt. Rainier. People will go out and buy a DVD+RW drive today only to find out it offers few benefits over DVD-RW, and less industry support at this time.

As for Dell, perhaps you're right, but the same can be said about Apple and Firewire, and their total non-support of USB 2. It goes both ways.

Also, USB 2 is succeeding partially because it's "free". USB 2 is nowhere near as good as Firewire, but $0.25 per Firewire port isn't chicken feed. Serial ATA IMO is superior to both USB 2 and Firewire for internal drives in today's market in most respects so I see nothing wrong with it.

In short, DVD+RW shouldn't really have the letters "DVD" in it, because it's not a DVD.

I agree and companies should clean up their literature. To be fair however, the official name has no "DVD" in it.

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Eug ]

[fuzzydude]

Well, crap. $30 down the tubes, but at least I know what to get the next time.

I can't believe all the confusion that has been created by this naming convention. The DVD+ people should be ashamed of themselves.

[Eug]

Originally posted by fuzzydude:
<STRONG>Well, crap. $30 down the tubes, but at least I know what to get the next time.

I can't believe all the confusion that has been created by this naming convention. The DVD+ people should be ashamed of themselves.</STRONG>

Eug walks into Radio Shack looking to get a 4.7 GB Type II DVD-RAM disc.

1) Gets handed a 4.7 GB DVD-R disc. "No thanks."
2) Gets handed a DVD-RW disc. "No thanks, I want the one that says 'DVD-RAM' on the cover."
3) Gets handed a DVD+RW disc. "No thanks." Eug repeats what he wants.
4) Gets handed a DVD-RAM 5.2 MB disc. "No thanks."
5) Gets handed a DVD-RAM 4.7 MB Type 1 disc. "No thanks. I want the one that says Type 2".
6) Radio Shack: "We don't have those." Eug: "I now see it hanging on the wall over there."

No wonder people are confused.

[piracy]

Originally posted by Eug:
<STRONG>Serial ATA IMO is superior to both USB 2 and Firewire for internal drives in today's market in most respects so I see nothing wrong with it.
</STRONG>

Serial ATA *is* better for internal storage devices, but Intel now wants it to connect to external devices as well, including digital video cameras. And now, Giga Information Group predicts that Serial ATA will supplant FireWire for digital video device connectivity (wtf???), so that's what I was talking about there. Here's a case where we have an already established standard (IEEE-1394), and Intel is going to force Serial ATA on the marketplace for tasks other than internal disk connectivity...

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: piracy ]

[Eug]

Originally posted by piracy:
<STRONG>

Serial ATA *is* better for internal storage devices, but Intel now wants it to connect to external devices as well, including digital video cameras. And now, Giga Information Group predicts that Serial ATA will supplant FireWire for digital video device connectivity (wtf???), so that's what I was talking about there. Here's a case where we have an already established standard (IEEE-1394), and Intel is going to force Serial ATA on the marketplace for tasks other than internal disk connectivity...</STRONG>

Hmmm... interesting. Didn't know that. Well, serial ATA does offer some advantages, not the least of which is speed. Max theoretical speed for the first iteration of serial ATA is 150 MB/s, which is three times the max speed of Firewire (although 100 MB/s could be out by then). This could be of importance in the case of ultra new hard drives and/or external RAID arrays. Furthermore, for stuff like external hard drives and DVD drives, it would mean potentially lower cost for all of us because the drives would be at least ATA anyway, and serial ATA is backwards compatible with the various versions of ATA. No USB 2 or Firewire bridgeboards required. And I see drives going native serial ATA long before going native USB 2 or Firewire. So in this regard, I would not complain too loudly if SOME external devices went serial ATA.

However, there are some BIG drawbacks. Serial ATA is not powered. Serial ATA is non-daisychainable. Serial ATA requires a controller for every device. These disadvantages IMO outweigh the advantages for external devices.

Now I'm no expert (just an interested end-user), but thus for the above reasons I would agree that Firewire 100 MB/s is probably still the best solution for external devices, based purely on technical reasons, so I'm not sure Intel and friends are justified in hoisting serial ATA on us for external stuff.