 |
 |
dual layer much faster?
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Right here
Status:
Offline
|
|
sounds like a dumb question i know...but i was just wondering if the new MBP burner was only 2x more then before or if the old MBP burner was was not dual layer. thanks 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
The original 15" MBP was single layer only. This was due to the availability of thinner (9.5mm) drives.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Right here
Status:
Offline
|
|
so its a LOT better now then?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
with the origional MBP, you can only burn single layer disks, or 4.7GB ... with dual layer, you can burn dual layer disks, or ~9.4GB. Speed wise its not that different, but twice the space.
|
|
15" MacBook Pro | 2.16GHz | 2GB DDR2 | 100GB 5400 rpm | 256MB X1600
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Frugle 
with the origional MBP, you can only burn single layer disks, or 4.7GB ... with dual layer, you can burn dual layer disks, or ~9.4GB.
8.5GB 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
vs. 4.38 GB for single layer.
Same calculation as with hard disk space.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
15" MacBook Pro | 2.16GHz | 2GB DDR2 | 100GB 5400 rpm | 256MB X1600
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
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