Re: burncd(8) usability: why `-s max' isn't default?

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 12:50:31PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Maxim Sobolev <sobomax_at_portaone.com> writes:
> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > > Maxim Sobolev <sobomax_at_portaone.com> writes:
> > > > I wonder if there are any compelling reasons why `-s max' is not
> > > > default behaviour of burncd(8). IMHO, there is no point to have
> > > > default of 4. Usually, today's drives are smart enough to select the
> > > > maximum speed supported both by drive and by the medium.
> > > Plenty of drives aren't, especially with cheap media.
> > Do you have any evidence?
> 
> Yes.  My laptop's DVD/CD-RW drive (Hitachi something-or-other) turns
> out coasters if I try to use -s max with no-brand CD-R media.
> 
> >      You will have big problems finding any CD-R media (even very
> > cheap one) with rating < 32 on the market today, so that chances to
> > "overspeed" the media with those ancient burners are quite theoretical.
> 
> What planet do you live on?  Back here on Earth, the most widely
> available CD-R media is 16x or 24x, and prices rise steeply once you
> cross that boundary.  For CD-RW media, that boundary is even lower (8x
> or 12x).

He probably lives on the same planet as I, while you seem to live on
some alternate Earth.  
Around here the most widely available CD-R media is labelled as 48x,
and you do have to look around a bit to find slower media (and CD-R
media slower than 24x is almost impossible to find), and the slower
media is usually not noticably cheaper anyway. 
For CD-RW media it is true that most widely available media seem to be
in the 4x-10x range, but again the faster ones (labelled as 24x or 32x)
tends to be only slightly more expensive than the slower ones.

-- 
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013_at_student.uu.se