 |
 |
CD-RW Bottleneck?
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lafayette, IN, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I just picked up a new 48x24x48x CD burner for my beige G3 (74� after rebate!  ), and surprisingly enough, it works beautifully with Toast Titanium. However, given the age of my computer, I can only consistently sustain burn speeds of up to 32x.
So here's the question: I've been planning to upgrade my computer with a 1-GHz G4 processor, anyway, and I'm wondering if that will rectify the situation. In other words, where's the bottleneck here? It's obviously not with the burner; it's rated for up to 48x. So do you think it's the 266-MHz processor or the 66-MHz bus that's causing me grief, here?
(By the way - please, no recommendations that I just give up and buy a new computer. The money's just not there.)
Thanks! 
|
|
“The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never tell if they’re attributed to the right person.”
—Abraham Lincoln
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Check your blank media, what speed are the CD-R's you are using rated to? That might be where the bottleneck is occuring.
Titanium Toast scans the media you are using and gives what it thinks your burn speed should be for the media in your drive.
If your CD's are rated to 48X you might have a bad batch. Go out and get a high quality CD rated for 48X and burn one to see if this is the case.
Your 66Mhz bus us more than enough to handle your drive's speed.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
it might be the connection between the hard drive and the cd burner that is causing the problems.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Riding Luke's saucy little back on Dagobah
Status:
Offline
|
|
Dear god who would burn anything important at that speed?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lafayette, IN, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I�m basing these numbers on Toast�s Tests. When I test the throughput, the highest I can set the speed at is 32x, without underrun errors. (I haven�t even tried burning at more than 8x, yet. All of my media was purchased for my old Yamaha 4x4x16 burner.)
btw- I�ve also noticed that 9.2.2 poops out before I even hit 24x, but Jag has no problem at all with 32x. I�ve also noticed that file duplication (HD to HD) is much faster in Jag. So whatever exactly is going on, Jag does a better job than 9 ever could.
|
|
“The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never tell if they’re attributed to the right person.”
—Abraham Lincoln
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus  Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
OS X is indeed much better at I/O.
But I think your 32x bottleneck is a limitation of total system performance, I doubt that anything you can do for less $ than buying a newer system isn't going to bring you up to 48x speed. That said, the actual time savings between 32 and 48x are minimal, so I wouldn't bother.
(FWIW, my blue and white G3/350 can just barely manage my 40x burner, and more frequently, I burn at 24x.)
tooki
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top