DVD writer to DVD writer copy?

[fredpb]

I have two dvd writers on my PC.

I use WIN98SE. FAT32.

Is there a program like DVD Shrink that will copy a movie dvd (shrink it to fit on single sided dvd) from a dvd writer directly to another dvd writer in one operation?

[vioxx]

You are talking 'on fly' coping.

I don't think that DVD Shrink can.

InterVideo DVD Copy can copy DVD 'on fly', but not the CSS protacted DVD.

[jarvis1781]

You are talking 'on fly' coping.

I don't think that DVD Shrink can.

InterVideo DVD Copy can copy DVD 'on fly', but not the CSS protacted DVD.

that's why you remove the "protaction" just like you would before you copy any CSS "protacted" disc

[Gurm]

Any program that shrinks your movie will require at least 5GB of working space on your hard disk, regardless of whether it's burning "on the fly" or not.

As for "protaction", just use a "deprotactor" like AnyDVD if you want REAL on-the-fly copying.

- Gurm

[dxj40c]

Why are you using Win98se? I know it's a good program, but I think you would really get a boost, I know I did, if you switched to Win2k or Xp. It looks like your computer has all the right hardware for the 'switch'. I'm just curious as to why you are hanging on to the Fat 32 file system and 2GB file limitations?

I'm not being critical, because I have another computer that still has Windows 3.1 and a big 'ole 200mb HD, but it has a specific purpose (an old IR Spectrophotometry Program that only runs on that OS) and a few old DOS games. And, It's about owning a piece of computer history.

Just curious.

[wulf109]

Actually Win98SE/ME maximum file size is 4GB's. Unless your capturing large files I would stick with Win98.

[fredpb]

Just tried my RecordNow i use for audio and data cd's. It will also copy dvds!

Thanks for all replies.

[Gurm]

Why are you using Win98se?

Likely because he doesn't know any better.

I know it's a good program,

It was... in 1998.

but I think you would really get a boost, I know I did, if you switched to Win2k or Xp. It looks like your computer has all the right hardware for the 'switch'.

Bingo.

I'm just curious as to why you are hanging on to the Fat 32 file system and 2GB file limitations?

Again, it's probably a comfort level, a cost issue, or a "I don't trust those sneaky MS bastards" issue.

- Gurm

[fredpb]

LOL Gurm. How do you know why I keep WIN98SE? I don't "keep" it.

I installed it on my home built PC a year or so ago.

Why? I have my reasons, LOL.

[jarvis1781]

Why are you using Win98se? I know it's a good program

Hmmmm....in the language of boolean logic

Operating System != program

[Nitemare]

Actually, almost all aspects of video processing, editing, burning, encoding, playback, etc. are faster on win98. The only "drawback" is the 4 gig file limitation, and almost EVERY piece of software comes with a workaround for that built right in.

You can also buy the NTFS file system and run 98 on it if you're REALLY bugged about the file size limitation.

I'm not anti-XP or pro-98, I'm just stating the facts. (There is hard data to support these claims... I can't provide it myself but it does exist) I have a system with XP on it and I love it but I still do all of my video processing on a 98 machine... it's just faster. I know that XP is "current" but don't knock 98, man. It still rocks.

Respectfully yours,
Nitemare

[Gurm]

Win98 is buggy, unstable, and inherently bad.

It is based on 16-bit code, and you can crash it by looking at it funny.

Is it "faster"? On older hardware perhaps. On newer hardware, any "speed" difference (usually in the range of 1-2%) is easily overcome by WinXP's better drivers.

Given the current state of, say, video drivers for the latest nVidia and ATI offerings, the WDM drivers for XP blow away the VXD drivers for Win98. Benchmarks that show otherwise are usually not taking into account the higher processor load by default under XP.

Strip out the extraneous services, and a new OS beats an old one, hands-down.

- Gurm

[Nitemare]

Getting back on topic, perhaps purchasing the NTFS file system for WIN98 might be the best way for you to go. To answer the original question, no... it can't be done in one operation yet... however, if it must use the disc, eliminating the 4 gig limitation would be the easiest fix.

I am not interested in an OS war, I would only like to point out that providing Legacy support is not the same as WIN98 being based on 16-bit code. I hear this erroneous statement all the time. On a properly configured system with quality accessories (with good drivers... I'll give you that one ) WIN98 is stable, useful, and faster than XP. Of course, most people buy their PCs with pre-installed hardware which is almost always crappy.

Strip out the extraneous services, and a new OS beats an old one, hands-down.

I agree completely, but stripping those services out is not something most of the world knows how or cares to do. As it is, those services make XP slower than 98. Again, I am NOT anti-XP... I love XP. Then only reason I weighed in at all is because of this:

dxj40c wrote:
Why are you using Win98se?


Likely because he doesn't know any better.

You seem an intelligent guy, why insult someone like that? Especially when it's an inherently agruable statement? Respect and props to you, Gurm, but I just didn't see this as being very helpful to the original poster and it could seem confrontational to someone who was asking for help. I don't think you meant to insult anyone but it might appear that way.

I'll ammend my original statement. Win98 still rocks... when configured properly with good equipment.

Respectfully,
Nitemare

[Gurm]

When you really need those extra few cycles, Win98 is great. Sadly, it's soooooo dated.

- Gurm