mull
No inquiries about dual layer discs? That, along with these stupid high burning speeds and Lightscribe, is one of the really f-in stupid bits of technology that these companies have been adding in a token fashion and then totally failing to support.
Who do you believe isn't supporting dual-layer and the other things - the hardware makers?
There are two issues with dual-layer as best as I can see.
One is that if you are trying to write a DVD to disc that needs to span the two layers - here I'm talking about a DVD created from your own camcorder footage, not a rip-off of a commercial movies - it took the disc-authoring software companies a LONG time to make that transition between layers seamless; they gave you no way to choose at which point in your video the layer-break would happen. That did, I believe, greatly slow down the uptake of dual-layer, even though hardware makers were quick to offer it as a feature.
The other issues is the differential in price between single-layer and dual-layer discs but there is sweet FA that Lite-On or any hardware maker can do about that - and I personally don't know whether this is a chicken-and-egg kind of result of media companies not selling much media and thus not enjoying economies of scale or whether it is (as I tend to assume) them stupidly wanting to get a bigger margin on dual-layer than single-layer and thus, effectively, putting up a barrier to the sale of dual-layer discs.
As Jelmer made clear when we talked - and as I think the article makes clear - the hardware makers have little choice but to add features such as dual-layer support and ultra-high burn speeds, just to make sure that when the buyer compares products, all the boxes can be ticked.
I know it's stupid, you know it's stupid and the hardware makers know it's stupid but it is the way of the world.
And, hand-on-heart, if you were buying a burner now, wouldn't you try to ensure that all the boxes were ticked? I know I would (though I'd make an exception for DVD-RAM).
I can remember back in the early 70s, when I was working in electrical retailing, Indesit arrived on the scene with a bang. It's washing machines were very cheap but they also had one unique selling point - a stainless steel drum, when everyone else's washing machines had enamelled drums.
The truth is that enamelled drums were fine and not really in any way inferior to stainless steel (when you consider the likely working life of a washing machine's mechanical parts and the point beyond which a machine becomes uneconomical to repair).
But, Indesit made massive play of its stainless steel drum, and this caught the public's imagination - so much so that the other makers were disadvantaged. They responded in a positive way - by switching to stainless steel - rather than dissing it and saying that enamel was as good or better.
mull
Oh yea, another pet peeve of mine; why are there no attempts to get slimline optical drives used in SFF machines? It still seems pretty rediculous to me that these tiny machines are lumbered with huge full size 5.25" drives. Why are there no more serious attempts to standardise on a smaller size? Obviously the cost is higher, but there would certainly be a bit of a market there for these things…
Again, I'm not sure that Lite-On is the right company to ask (or blame). My expectation, though, is that the higher price of slim opticals is the real barrier - makers of SFF PCs don't want to risk their machines being seen as over-priced and simply can't afford to swallow the differential themselves.
I would agree with you, though, that it would be great if optical drives were of standard size however, I suspect that the problem here is less to do with the size of the drives than the fittings.
Some drives are mounted in removable bays and these, it seems to me, are seldom if ever interchangeable between different makes of PC or even between different models from the same maker.
But that seems unavoidable - to me - when, in effect, each caddy has to be shaped to fit the particular design of laptop in which it's going to reside.
I honestly don't know whether the naked slimlines from different optical drive makers are actually massively different in size and, thus, not interchangeable - but I tend to think that is not the case, simply because the PC makers would end up being forced to buy only from a single source, and I don't see them being willing to put themselves in that position.
Of course, I may be utterly wrong on the size thing so I'd be happy if someone who knew the score for sure could either put me right or confirm that what I've said is true. I will, though, make a point of asking Jelmer.
Bob
