Is Alcohol 120% better than Nero?

[d_unbeliever]

Is Alcohol 120% better than Nero? Why or Why NOT?

im looking for a better alternative to Nero 6 and im planning to try Alcohol 120%...

[Josef K]

Is Alcohol 120% better than Nero? Why or Why NOT?

Yes and no. Why or why not - only you can decide that based upon your needs.

im looking for a better alternative to Nero 6 and im planning to try Alcohol 120%...

When you say 'better alternative' be more specific. If you mean better for burning images then I'd say go with Alcohol. If you want to master your own CDs/DVDs then go for Nero. It you want to both master and burn images, though, I'd recommend you use both. Use Alcohol for burning images and Nero for mastering. Neither conflict with each other.

[d_unbeliever]

i will use it for backing up my original VCDs and DVDs

[Josef K]

I'd recommend using Alcohol in this case. For purely dealing with images (copying CDs/DVDs, etc.) Alcohol is a step ahead of Nero, especially with its larger buffer.

Just remember to change the preferences (File->Options->Data type setting) for VideoCD type to a lower speed that you know will burn VCDs that work on your standalone. I use 8x since that seems more reliable and coaster-free.

[d_unbeliever]

thanks Josef K...so im going to use 8X though it's quite slow since i'm avoiding coasters in my burning. i got 52x max cd burner...

i hate coasters...

can someone show me a guide for using Alcohol 120%?

will larger buffer means i need more RAM or memory?

[lordsmurf]

Is Alcohol 120% better than Nero?

No.

[Josef K]

can someone show me a guide for using Alcohol 120%??

Create image. Burn image. The important thing to remember here is the write speed as I mentioned previously.

will larger buffer means i need more RAM or memory?

The larger the buffer, the less chance of a buffer underrun. Nero only allows for 80MB while Alcohol gives you up to 128MB. That size is the total amount of your RAM that will be reserved for the buffer during burning.

No.

Explanation?

[Capmaster]

The larger the buffer, the less chance of a buffer underrun. Nero only allows for 80MB while Alcohol gives you up to 128MB. That size is the total amount of your RAM that will be reserved for the buffer during burning

This is not meaningful since the older drives with BURP will suspend writing until the buffer refills, regardless of the size.

The newer drives throttle back burning speed, until the buffer refills, while continuing to write. If it can't go slow enough to match the speed at which the buffer refills, then it will revert to the older method of suspending writing until the buffer is restored. Then it restarts burning and repeats.

[lordsmurf]

No explanation. It's not better. Just another software. That's all.

[indolikaa]

Alcohol 120% is great for circumventing copy protections on CD and DVD games. It's primarily an emulator, allowing you to run a CD from the hard drive image it creates, rather than the actual CD.

I'm not sure it would be accurate to compare it to Nero 6. They are, quite honestly, targeting a different user need.

[Josef K]

This is not meaningful since the older drives with BURP will suspend writing until the buffer refills, regardless of the size.

The newer drives throttle back burning speed, until the buffer refills, while continuing to write. If it can't go slow enough to match the speed at which the buffer refills, then it will revert to the older method of suspending writing until the buffer is restored. Then it restarts burning and repeats.

True. Since neither of us know how new or old d_unbeliever's writer is, neither of us know whether or not he has a capable, or new enough burner so suggesting a large buffer size is bad advice? I would still prefer having more of my image in RAM than to rely on hardware to compensate. Too many times I've seen BURNproof/JustLink/etc. kick in and then verified the disc only to find the burn didn't go according to plan. The laser makes very pretty patterns on the underside of the disc but they aren't always 100% readable. I would rather have more than enough in RAM to eak out to my burner than for it to have to second guess when my HD will choose to give it a few bytes more.

[Capmaster]

This is not meaningful since the older drives with BURP will suspend writing until the buffer refills, regardless of the size.

The newer drives throttle back burning speed, until the buffer refills, while continuing to write. If it can't go slow enough to match the speed at which the buffer refills, then it will revert to the older method of suspending writing until the buffer is restored. Then it restarts burning and repeats.

True. Since neither of us know how new or old d_unbeliever's writer is, neither of us know whether or not he has a capable, or new enough burner so suggesting a large buffer size is bad advice? I would still prefer having more of my image in RAM than to rely on hardware to compensate. Too many times I've seen BURNproof/JustLink/etc. kick in and then verified the disc only to find the burn didn't go according to plan. The laser makes very pretty patterns on the underside of the disc but they aren't always 100% readable. I would rather have more than enough in RAM to eak out to my burner than for it to have to second guess when my HD will choose to give it a few bytes more.

I'll be the first to agree that more RAM is always a good thing. But your reply was worded to suggest that a larger amount of BURP buffer wil decrease the likelihood of a failed burn from running out of buffer.

My point was that the buffer size is irrelevant - the writer will stop writing when it reaches the end of the buffer, and resume when the buffer fills back up. The size of the buffer has nothing to do with the success of BURP (or "burn-proof) since the main mechanism is the write suspend/resume function, or, in the case of a newer drive, write speed throttling coupled with suspend/resume if needed.

Your argument is valid only for the pre-BURP drives that only had buffer to stave off a bad burn due to the data stream drying up - reach the bottom of the buffer and your burn will fail.

[Josef K]

...your reply was worded to suggest that a larger amount of BURP buffer wil decrease the likelihood of a failed burn from running out of buffer.

My point was that the buffer size is irrelevant - the writer will stop writing when it reaches the end of the buffer, and resume when the buffer fills back up. The size of the buffer has nothing to do with the success of BURP (or "burn-proof) since the main mechanism is the write suspend/resume function, or, in the case of a newer drive, write speed throttling coupled with suspend/resume if needed.

Your argument is valid only for the pre-BURP drives that only had buffer to stave off a bad burn due to the data stream drying up - reach the bottom of the buffer and your burn will fail.

Whatever the new advances in hardware, I still like my writer to be fed by RAM rather than my HD. I still have my old Yamaha 6416s that I wasted many a disc on due to buffer underruns. Maybe it's my bad memories that make me want for the smoothest burn possible. After all, why tempt - out of a thousand, tens of thousands of burns - a few percent of bad burns hoping the writer has burned error-free. Do you verify bit-for-bit every single disc you burn? I know I don't and I don't have time to, either, so I go for the least problematic route.

[BSR]

Your argument is valid only for the pre-BURP drives that only had buffer to stave off a bad burn due to the data stream drying up - reach the bottom of the buffer and your burn will fail.

I had an old Lacie/Yamaha and when the buffer was gone it failed. I did not know that new burners would suspend and wait for info, I guess I can relax now when I see my buffer drop way down.
Thanks for the info.

[d_unbeliever]

i got ASUS 52x32x52 cd burner bought few months ago...

please explain it to me what are you talking about BURP thing ...is burning using 128 RAM in windows XP dangerous...i can't quite understand your discussion

[Capmaster]

...your reply was worded to suggest that a larger amount of BURP buffer wil decrease the likelihood of a failed burn from running out of buffer.

My point was that the buffer size is irrelevant - the writer will stop writing when it reaches the end of the buffer, and resume when the buffer fills back up. The size of the buffer has nothing to do with the success of BURP (or "burn-proof) since the main mechanism is the write suspend/resume function, or, in the case of a newer drive, write speed throttling coupled with suspend/resume if needed.

Your argument is valid only for the pre-BURP drives that only had buffer to stave off a bad burn due to the data stream drying up - reach the bottom of the buffer and your burn will fail.

Whatever the new advances in hardware, I still like my writer to be fed by RAM rather than my HD. I still have my old Yamaha 6416s that I wasted many a disc on due to buffer underruns. Maybe it's my bad memories that make me want for the smoothest burn possible. After all, why tempt - out of a thousand, tens of thousands of burns - a few percent of bad burns hoping the writer has burned error-free. Do you verify bit-for-bit every single disc you burn? I know I don't and I don't have time to, either, so I go for the least problematic route.

You completely missed my point. Oh well ....

But best of luck to you anyways