Is a DVD-RW a CD-RW?

[Ellen Hall]

I don't work with DVDs at this point, but if I buy a DVD-RW drive will it
also serve as a CD-RW drive?

Are the DVD-RWs considered not as reliable as a DVD-R, the way I've read
that CD-RWs do not offer as reliable a media as CD-Rs?

Do the + and - of the DVD technology affect the CD-RW media at all?

Thanks for any thoughts,
Ellen

[MCheu]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:10:29 GMT, "Ellen Hall"
<ellen_hall_@hotmailnospam.com> wrote:
I don't work with DVDs at this point, but if I buy a DVD-RW drive will italso serve as a CD-RW drive?

Yes. The specs on the back or side of the box will confirm this.
Are the DVD-RWs considered not as reliable as a DVD-R, the way I've readthat CD-RWs do not offer as reliable a media as CD-Rs?

Maybe. If you actually used CDRWs as permanent storage (burn once,
never erase), CDRWs are actually considered more stable than CDRs. I
doubt anyone actually uses them that way, but that's really the only
way the comparison would actually be valid.

As for DVD-RWs and DVD+RWs, their reliability is open to debate at
this point. For sure, the answer can vary a lot depending on the
media employed, the drive involved, and the storage conditions before
and after burning.
Do the + and - of the DVD technology affect the CD-RW media at all?

Nope. They only apply to the DVD stuff. CDR and CDRW (with or
without the dash, same thing) all fall under the common standard by
Philips.


---------------------------------------------

MCheu

[smh]

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Ellen Hall wrote: I don't work with DVDs at this point, but if I buy a DVD-RW drive will it also serve as a CD-RW drive?

All current crop of DVD burners also support CD-R/RW.
Are the DVD-RWs considered not as reliable as a DVD-R, the way I've read that CD-RWs do not offer as reliable a media as CD-Rs?

The "unreliability" of CD-RW presumes from the fact that the archival
life is less than half that of CD-R's 100 years. And from the reports
of problems when used with DirectCD (or Drag-to-Disc) that were caused
by the bugs of DirectCD, but were silimily attributed to the supposed
unreliability of CD-RW.
Do the + and - of the DVD technology affect the CD-RW media at all?

Don't understand what you mean here, but I say no. For example, DVD and
CD use different laser wave length.

The slimeball Mike Richter's wise words on the reliability of CD-RW and
DVD-+RW:

==================================================
Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin SOB) spewed (7/16/04): Note that results so far suggest that DVD-RW and DVD+RW are no more reliable than CD-RW.

Thus, DVD-+RW is unreliable, I presume?

Anyhow, what results are those? What's the source? Did you just
dig that out of your ass?

Is CD-RW unreliable, Mikey?

Once upon a time the supposedly *inherently* flaky, fragile,
forgetful, unreliable CD-RW media was good enough for BACKUP,
of all things, even when combined with the supposedly *inherently*
flaky, fragile, faulty, unreliable packet "format" -- according to
none other than Mike Richter:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (Acraptec Shit)
Date: 9/1/99

You may back up ...to a DCD-formatted erasable.
=====================
I strongly recommend using write-once discs if jetjock hopes to have the backup readable later.

Why is that Mikey? Have you established that DVD-+RW are
unreliable? All you presented -- without substantiation,
only on your say so -- is that DVD-+RW are no more reliable
than CD-RW.

If DVD-+RW are indeed unreliable --as you slimily intimate here--
why don't you dig it out of your ass and explicitly say so?
===================================================

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------

--------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

[Ellen Hall]

MCheu,

When you said, "If you actually used CDRWs as permanent storage (burn once,
never erase), CDRWs are actually considered more stable than CDRs" is it the
ERASE part that may make them vulnerable, and not just CHANGES in saved
files? I use CDRWs like a big floppy for data, so I'm often changing files
and then saving them again. Is that part not even a factor in this line of
thought about reliability?? And when you talk about erase, do you mean
FORMAT, or anything less than a full disk kind of action/deletion (like
individual files)?

Thanks very much,
Ellen

"MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i9guu012et66mort3ojpcuiqqbv11utihc@4ax.com... On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:10:29 GMT, "Ellen Hall" <ellen_hall_@hotmailnospam.com> wrote:I don't work with DVDs at this point, but if I buy a DVD-RW drive will italso serve as a CD-RW drive? Yes. The specs on the back or side of the box will confirm this.Are the DVD-RWs considered not as reliable as a DVD-R, the way I've readthat CD-RWs do not offer as reliable a media as CD-Rs? Maybe. If you actually used CDRWs as permanent storage (burn once, never erase), CDRWs are actually considered more stable than CDRs. I doubt anyone actually uses them that way, but that's really the only way the comparison would actually be valid. As for DVD-RWs and DVD+RWs, their reliability is open to debate at this point. For sure, the answer can vary a lot depending on the media employed, the drive involved, and the storage conditions before and after burning.Do the + and - of the DVD technology affect the CD-RW media at all? Nope. They only apply to the DVD stuff. CDR and CDRW (with or without the dash, same thing) all fall under the common standard by Philips. --------------------------------------------- MCheu

[Mike Richter]

Ellen Hall wrote: MCheu, When you said, "If you actually used CDRWs as permanent storage (burn once, never erase), CDRWs are actually considered more stable than CDRs" is it the ERASE part that may make them vulnerable, and not just CHANGES in saved files? I use CDRWs like a big floppy for data, so I'm often changing files and then saving them again. Is that part not even a factor in this line of thought about reliability?? And when you talk about erase, do you mean FORMAT, or anything less than a full disk kind of action/deletion (like individual files)?

This is the one area in which my experience differs from MCheu's report.
Erasable CDs (CD-RW) are much more likely to 'forget' over time than
write-once media. The higher the rated speed and the more often erased,
the shorter the disc's life in my experience, but only the original
blanks (writable only at 2x - no higher, no lower) were free of increase
in error rate during months of storage.

Your use of fixed-length packets is unwise in the opinion of most. It is
the least reliable and most fragile CD format. When you change a file on
such a disc, you both erase and write in the most critical region, the
directory. (More precisely, you erase and write when you eject the disc
after having made changes; while the disc is in the drive, the changes
are logged in memory, which contributes greatly to the fragility of the
format.)

Mike
--
mrichter@cpl.net
http://www.mrichter.com/

[smh]

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Ellen Hall wrote: I use CDRWs like a big floppy for data

If you use DirectCD (or Drag-to-Disc), beware:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (Roxio Shit)
Date: 8/27/01
I'm a great fan of DirectCD "packet writing," which allow me to use CD-RWs like huge floppies. I've never had any problems with DirectCD.

Wait. You will.
=====================

Also, DirectCD is ditched by none other than a Roxio Shit:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (Roxio Shit)
Date: 8/19/02

I have used only DCD for packet writing,
have had no problems due to the software -
but too many due to the format itself

to bother with it any longer.

=====================
From: Mike Richter (Roxio Shit)
Date: 6/17/02

uninstalled DCD
when I stopped testing for Roxio
=====================

The above Mikey's statement is the first ever case in which a Shill is
rejecting the very product IT is shilling for.

With a Shill like this, Roxio doesn't need any critics!

-------------------------
Roxio, Eat Your Heart Out !!
-------------------------

But remember that the same Slimy Friggin SOB spewed this - when IT was
shilling for Take Two, supposedly a backup software, of all things:

=======================
From: Mike Richter (Acraptec Shill)
Subject: A note on Take Two
Date: 9/1/99

For Take Two to work ideally, your drive must support
packet writing and you must have DCD installed...to do it.

You may back up ... to a DCD-formatted erasable.
=======================

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------

--------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

[smh]

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin SOB) barfed: This is the one area in which my experience differs from MCheu's report.

Is that based on your so-called "extensive" experience that has *no*
body of experience, Slimy Friggin SOB?

======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin SOB)
Date: 11/28/02

I have had extensive experience with erasable media.

======================
From: Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin SOB)
Date: 5/12/04

the fragility of erasables means that I use them only for test,
so I don't have a body of experience to report.
======================
Erasable CDs (CD-RW) are much more likely to 'forget' over time than write-once media. The higher the rated speed and the more often erased, the shorter the disc's life in my experience, but only the original blanks (writable only at 2x - no higher, no lower) were free of increase in error rate during months of storage.

Guess that may justify this, Slimy Friggin SOB?

=====================
From: Mike Richter (Acraptec Shit)
Date: 9/1/99

You may back up ...to a DCD-formatted erasable.
=====================
Your use of fixed-length packets is unwise in the opinion of most. It is the least reliable and most fragile CD format.

How does that justifies this, Slimy Friggin SOB?

=======================
From: Mike Richter (Acraptec Shill)
Subject: A note on Take Two
Date: 9/1/99

For Take Two to work IDEALLY, your drive MUST support
packet writing and you must have DCD installed...to do it.

You may back up ... to a DCD-formatted erasable.
=======================

Did the format undergo a change for the worse since (9/1/99), Slimy
Friggin SOB?
When you change a file on such a disc, you both erase and write in the most critical region, the directory. (More precisely, you erase and write when you eject the disc after having made changes; while the disc is in the drive, the changes are logged in memory, which contributes greatly to the fragility of the format.)

In that case pressing the computer's RESET button will surely result in
a disaster, won't it, Slimy Friggin SOB?

------------------------------------------
Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(i)
------------------------------------------

==============================
From: DeepOne
Subject: Re: CD-RW Disc broken on DirectCD
Date: 7/9/00

I've watched the disc write lights on my Plextor drives when ejecting a
DirectCD CD-RW disc, and the drive never does any writing at that time.

Once, in an attempt to prove this, I wrote a bunch of files to a
DirectCD CD-RW disc. As soon as the write pulses ceased,

I pressed the computer's RESET button.

After the computer restarted, the CD-RW disc was fine, and all the files
I had just written were fully accessible.


Mike Richter (Slimy Friggin SOB) barfed: When you load a fixed-length packet disc, the directory information is read from the disc and translated in RAM. When you write to the disc, the data are recorded immediately but the directory is updated only in RAM. When you eject the disc or shut down Windows properly, the directory information is transformed and written back to the disc. Therefore, from the time you change something in the (RAM) directory until that writeback, you can lose the directory if you have a failure. That failure can be a power transient or a system lockup or even forcing the disc to eject (in spite of the lock) using hardware.
==============================

----------------------------------------
Mikey, you are the Slimiest Friggin SOB!
----------------------------------------

--------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

[MCheu]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:39:21 GMT, "Ellen Hall"
<ellen_hall_@hotmailnospam.com> wrote:
MCheu,When you said, "If you actually used CDRWs as permanent storage (burn once,never erase), CDRWs are actually considered more stable than CDRs" is it theERASE part that may make them vulnerable, and not just CHANGES in savedfiles? I use CDRWs like a big floppy for data, so I'm often changing filesand then saving them again. Is that part not even a factor in this line ofthought about reliability?? And when you talk about erase, do you meanFORMAT, or anything less than a full disk kind of action/deletion (likeindividual files)?Thanks very much,Ellen

I meant to say that if you use CDRWs as WORM (Write Once Read Many)
media, just as you use CDRs, then they're more stable than CDRs. That
is, when the disc is new, you write something to it, and that's it.
You never touch it again except to read from it.

My point was not that you shouldn't think about rewriteability in your
thoughts about reliability, but that the comparison of CDR vs CDRW is
flawed as their being used for different purposes. To make the
comparison fair, you have to use the same criteria for both CDR and
CDRW. Since you can't rewrite to CDR, I do not believe it is
appropriate to take rewriting into account when fairly comparing the
two formats.

(warning: the wording of the following paragraph isn't well worded,
and may cause insanity)

In theory, whenever you make a phase change modification to an area of
the disc that has previously been phase change modified, you introduce
a certain amount of degradation. By that, I mean that when you
flip-flop the discrete phase states back and forth, you never quite
return 100% to the way it was originally. Eventually, this will
result in the disc's failure. It won't happen all at once, it may
just be that one or more small areas of the disc will show a higher
error rate than the rest of the disc at some point. It doesn't matter
why you instigated the phase change modification, whether it's
rewrite,erase,format or whatever.


---------------------------------------------

MCheu

[Charlie]

"Ellen Hall" <ellen_hall_@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in message
news:93HHd.1386$cZ1.1044@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... I don't work with DVDs at this point, but if I buy a DVD-RW drive will it also serve as a CD-RW drive?

This has confused me in the past. Now I know they do also write/rewrite
CD's, and I assume they play DVD's too...then wouldn't you really only need
the one optical drive? I mean, they burn DVD's, they burn CD's and they play
your films back. This sounds fine to me, as I'm quite used to one optical
drive - I use a CD RW + DVD ROM combination drive. Of course, having two
drives is good for ripping from one drive to the other, but the speed my
drive burns an image to my hard drive, and then burns it to disc straight
after is so bloody fast, I wouldn't need two separate drives. So, people in
the know, can you get away with using the one DVD re-writer drive in this
way?

Also, I notice on many forums that many people favour a CD rewriter/DVD ROM
combi drive, like mine, but also have a separate DVD rewriter - why is this
so popular? Why don't they have a plain CD rewriter, and a separate DVD
rewriter ..............instead of the CD rewriter/DVD ROM combi with a DVD
rewriter?

[MCheu]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:15:27 -0000, "MisterChiversRegal" <no@spam.com>
wrote:
"Ellen Hall" <ellen_hall_@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in messagenews:93HHd.1386$cZ1.1044@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... I don't work with DVDs at this point, but if I buy a DVD-RW drive will it also serve as a CD-RW drive?This has confused me in the past. Now I know they do also write/rewriteCD's, and I assume they play DVD's too...then wouldn't you really only needthe one optical drive? I mean, they burn DVD's, they burn CD's and they playyour films back. This sounds fine to me, as I'm quite used to one opticaldrive - I use a CD RW + DVD ROM combination drive. Of course, having twodrives is good for ripping from one drive to the other, but the speed mydrive burns an image to my hard drive, and then burns it to disc straightafter is so bloody fast, I wouldn't need two separate drives. So, people inthe know, can you get away with using the one DVD re-writer drive in thisway?

Yes. Doing a drive-to-drive copy isn't really a good choice anyways,
as it inevitably hits a buffer underrun error that way, especially if
you've got both drives on the same channel. It's actually quicker to
read from the drive, buffer to the hard drive, and burn to the second
than it is to do an "on the fly" copy. However, it's not necessary.
You can certainly use one drive for it. Pop in the original for a
read, then eject and pop in a blank to continue.
Also, I notice on many forums that many people favour a CD rewriter/DVD ROMcombi drive, like mine, but also have a separate DVD rewriter - why is thisso popular? Why don't they have a plain CD rewriter, and a separate DVDrewriter ..............instead of the CD rewriter/DVD ROM combi with a DVDrewriter?

I don't think it's so much that people favor the configuration as many
might already have an older drive and don't want to just throw it out.
It's there, so why not use it. In the earlier days, it was
recommended to have a DVD/CD-ROM drive for reading and dedicate a
burner for burning chores to reduce wear and tear on the more
extensive burners. These days, burners are so cheap and reliable that
it's not really necessary now.

In my particular case, I've got 3 opticals. I keep my DVD-ROM drive,
simply because it's a Pioneer slot loader, and it's kind of neat to
have it slurp up a disc to eject/load a disc without having to deal
with a tray. If anyone ever came out with a slot loading DVD burner,
it would probably get retired. I guess it's not likely, so I'll
probably hang onto it until it stops working. Also, on some rare
occasions, it will read some discs that are very stubborn that the
burners won't read.

I kept my older slower DVD burner when I bought a nice fast 16x dual
layer DVD burner. The reason is what I gave above. It still works,
I'm not likely to get much for it if I sell it, so I may as well use
it. The fact that it is capable of error reporting and my newer drive
doesn't have that ability, just gives me one more reason to keep it.

If I didn't already have these drives lying around, I probably
wouldn't bother having so many drives in my case.
---------------------------------------------

MCheu

[Charlie]

"MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kh4hv09k9p7rg3a3qiqs1cbeevfsk6ag0i@4ax.com... Yes. Doing a drive-to-drive copy isn't really a good choice anyways, as it inevitably hits a buffer underrun error that way, especially if you've got both drives on the same channel. It's actually quicker to read from the drive, buffer to the hard drive, and burn to the second than it is to do an "on the fly" copy. However, it's not necessary. You can certainly use one drive for it. Pop in the original for a read, then eject and pop in a blank to continue.Also, I notice on many forums that many people favour a CD rewriter/DVD
ROMcombi drive, like mine, but also have a separate DVD rewriter - why is
thisso popular? Why don't they have a plain CD rewriter, and a separate DVDrewriter ..............instead of the CD rewriter/DVD ROM combi with a
DVDrewriter? I don't think it's so much that people favor the configuration as many might already have an older drive and don't want to just throw it out. It's there, so why not use it. In the earlier days, it was recommended to have a DVD/CD-ROM drive for reading and dedicate a burner for burning chores to reduce wear and tear on the more extensive burners. These days, burners are so cheap and reliable that it's not really necessary now. In my particular case, I've got 3 opticals. I keep my DVD-ROM drive, simply because it's a Pioneer slot loader, and it's kind of neat to have it slurp up a disc to eject/load a disc without having to deal with a tray. If anyone ever came out with a slot loading DVD burner, it would probably get retired. I guess it's not likely, so I'll probably hang onto it until it stops working. Also, on some rare occasions, it will read some discs that are very stubborn that the burners won't read. I kept my older slower DVD burner when I bought a nice fast 16x dual layer DVD burner. The reason is what I gave above. It still works, I'm not likely to get much for it if I sell it, so I may as well use it. The fact that it is capable of error reporting and my newer drive doesn't have that ability, just gives me one more reason to keep it. If I didn't already have these drives lying around, I probably wouldn't bother having so many drives in my case.

Yes, I see your point.

I'm just about to buy my first DVD rewriter - I had not bothered until they
sorted out the various formats and compatibility issues - but they seem to
have brought them to a point where they are virtually all working on each
other's drives....and reached a sensible commercial pricing structure. I
think it's time to dip my toes in the water now. I'm just stuck with the
'which model to buy?' dilemma. I think I fancy a Sony/Lite-On (both the same
thing now) to match my Sony combi drive. I've been quite impressed with
their model CRX320E, CD-RW & DVD-ROM combi unit - having run tests in Nero
tools, so I may plump for one of their DVD rewriters.

Regards

[Matt]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:15:27 -0000, "MisterChiversRegal" <no@spam.com>
wrote:
"Ellen Hall" <ellen_hall_@hotmailnospam.com> wrote in messagenews:93HHd.1386$cZ1.1044@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... I don't work with DVDs at this point, but if I buy a DVD-RW drive will it also serve as a CD-RW drive?This has confused me in the past. Now I know they do also write/rewriteCD's, and I assume they play DVD's too...then wouldn't you really only needthe one optical drive? I mean, they burn DVD's, they burn CD's and they playyour films back. This sounds fine to me, as I'm quite used to one opticaldrive - I use a CD RW + DVD ROM combination drive. Of course, having twodrives is good for ripping from one drive to the other, but the speed mydrive burns an image to my hard drive, and then burns it to disc straightafter is so bloody fast, I wouldn't need two separate drives. So, people inthe know, can you get away with using the one DVD re-writer drive in thisway?Also, I notice on many forums that many people favour a CD rewriter/DVD ROMcombi drive, like mine, but also have a separate DVD rewriter - why is thisso popular? Why don't they have a plain CD rewriter, and a separate DVDrewriter ..............instead of the CD rewriter/DVD ROM combi with a DVDrewriter?

The old "standard" as things became established, went through several
phases of using the cheapest drive more than the expensive one, but
since my current DVD writer cost less than my CD writer which cost
less than my original CD-ROM, that's a rather old argument.

The layout of DVD-ROM plus CD-RW was popular at one time, with a
cheaper option being the DVD-ROM/CD-RW combo drive, and earlier
examples were not great.

Older DVD writers tended to lag begind the CD-RW and combo drives in
their CD-R/RW speed, a very good reason for not using them for CD-R

You certainly CAN use just one DVD writer now, in fact, unless it's a
really cheapskate system, there's little reason to fit anything else.


The progression of my system, ignoring the earliest stage.

1. 12x CD-ROM drive
2. Added 2x CD-RW - (24x read, but "saved it" for writing)
New system build, my current machine
3. DVD-ROM and 12x CD-RW
4. 12x DVD writer added

DVD-ROM died, and being "old school" in my configuration, decided I
should have something else to read DVD, after agonising over leaving
that to the writer. Also wanted to have a non-writer, so that if I had
occasion to run a protected backup, I wouldn't need to hide CD-R media
with software... spot the deliberate mistake later.

5. Combo drive, CRX320E (Liteon 5232K rebrand)

Looked at the DVD-ROMs , and the guy had a couple of models that I
didn't really know, and this Combo was only a couple of pounds dearer,
and I immeditaely recalled that it was both a good DVD reader, and a
pretty good CD-RW as well.

However, that still leaves me with no "non-writer" drive.

6. So I buy a bog-standard CD-ROM next time.



Just HOW many drives do I have?

With only motherboard IDE's, The DVD writer and Combo share one
channel, and the old CD-RW shares with the HD (slowest drive, so least
problem fighting the HD for throughput on the one cable).

The CD-ROM checked, and then stored until I retire the old CD-RW - I
still have some hardware that likes only ONE type of media (down to
leftovers of it) written by that drive - that sets the time when it
will be retired, though with all the spare bits, I might throw
together a Linux box.

--
I may be dozzzy, but take the ZZZ's out to mail me
http://www.junkroom.freeserve.co.uk/jvc2080.htm - 2x2x24 CD-RW troubles

If you drop a cactus, don't try to catch it!

[Charlie]

"Matt" <m.t.day.ZZZ@ntlworld.com.ZZZ> wrote in message
news:dnsiv0po2ntbet589fi682hkvrs4qpma41@4ax.com... The progression of my system, ignoring the earliest stage. 1. 12x CD-ROM drive 2. Added 2x CD-RW - (24x read, but "saved it" for writing) New system build, my current machine 3. DVD-ROM and 12x CD-RW 4. 12x DVD writer added DVD-ROM died, and being "old school" in my configuration, decided I should have something else to read DVD, after agonising over leaving that to the writer. Also wanted to have a non-writer, so that if I had occasion to run a protected backup, I wouldn't need to hide CD-R media with software... spot the deliberate mistake later. 5. Combo drive, CRX320E (Liteon 5232K rebrand) Looked at the DVD-ROMs , and the guy had a couple of models that I didn't really know, and this Combo was only a couple of pounds dearer, and I immeditaely recalled that it was both a good DVD reader, and a pretty good CD-RW as well. However, that still leaves me with no "non-writer" drive. 6. So I buy a bog-standard CD-ROM next time. Just HOW many drives do I have? With only motherboard IDE's, The DVD writer and Combo share one channel, and the old CD-RW shares with the HD (slowest drive, so least problem fighting the HD for throughput on the one cable). The CD-ROM checked, and then stored until I retire the old CD-RW - I still have some hardware that likes only ONE type of media (down to leftovers of it) written by that drive - that sets the time when it will be retired, though with all the spare bits, I might throw together a Linux box.


Similar progression to my system - but I've not yet got into writing DVD's.
Same kind of progression with the CD drives though. I also have the Sony
CRX320E combo - it's a nice little unit. Great that it uses the LtnRPC
utility for Lite-On drives too - to get over the region protection. I also
discovered it was the Lite-On 5232K (but with latest Sony NYK5 firmware in
my case). The thing is though, I paid a quid more than I could have had the
Lite-On branded model....not knowing that they now make Sony's drives at the
time. S'only a quid though (Bugger! Grumble! Humbug!;).

Regards