UDF102 or ISO-9660

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I'm backing up data to CD-R disks, using Roxio Easy Media Creator 7.

I'm given the options of UDF102 or ISO-9660.

I would like to be able to read the disks from multiple optical drives.

Which standard do you suggest that I use?

Thanks for your time.

WC
 
UDF if you have long file names in deep directories.

--
Dave




| I'm backing up data to CD-R disks, using Roxio Easy Media Creator 7.
|
| I'm given the options of UDF102 or ISO-9660.
|
| I would like to be able to read the disks from multiple optical drives.
|
| Which standard do you suggest that I use?
|
| Thanks for your time.
|
| WC
 
Hi Wiley,

ISO9660.

UDF is a packet writing format, basically treats the disk like a big floppy
disk. However, many systems will have trouble reading this format if they
don't have packet writing software installed.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
I was wrong. Rick is correct. ISO 9660 is better.

--
Dave




| Ok. We have 1 vote for each.
|
| Will someone please break the tie?
|
| WC
|
| "Wiley C" wrote:
|
| > I'm backing up data to CD-R disks, using Roxio Easy Media Creator 7.
| >
| > I'm given the options of UDF102 or ISO-9660.
| >
| > I would like to be able to read the disks from multiple optical drives.
| >
| > Which standard do you suggest that I use?
| >
| > Thanks for your time.
| >
| > WC
 
Wiley said:
I'm backing up data to CD-R disks, using Roxio Easy Media Creator 7.

I'm given the options of UDF102 or ISO-9660.

I would like to be able to read the disks from multiple optical drives.
Click to expand...

Use ISO-9660 for compatibility
 
I was wrong. Rick is correct. ISO 9660 is better.
Click to expand...

Why?

I burnt a disk just now using UDF 1.5 and there are no problems
reading it with Windows and disk access seems to work FASTER
than ISO; that with the longer file names allowed seems to
clinch it for me. UDF until someone comes up with some very good
reasons why not.

Does ISO have better error correction coding?, or are the
methods of error correction the same?
 
Hi,

It's a matter of portability. I agree that UDF has some facets that make it
desirable (LFN's and support for direct write/rewrite for starters), but for
the generic user ISO9660 is a safer bet. WindowsXP has some issues reading
disks created in UDF, enough so that a disk created on one machine may or
may not be able to be read on another without the same supporting program
installed. Not everyone has or wants to install burning software that
supports it. So for functionality, I generally recommend using ISO9660.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
Because most computers in the world can't read it. Windows 98 only supports UDF 1.02 and the ISO standard.
 
Because most computers in the world can't read it.
Click to expand...

But I'm not using the DVD I just burnt on "most computers in the
world".
Windows 98 only supports UDF 1.02 and the ISO standard.
Click to expand...

Likewise, I won't be using Windows 98 ever again if I can help
it.

PS: The disk I burnt 2 weeks ago (ISO standard) is still in my
drive with the drive light flashing chaotically 5 minutes after
I put the disk in !!! I'd say that lump of plastic (ISO disk)
was toast wouldn't you? Worse, Windows XP doesn't seem to know
how to handle a faulty ISO disk. [PS: since burning that I've
upgraded my burner's ROM so I hope it doesn't happen again]

Doh, I've had to "End Task" for explorer again because it can't
cope with the faulty (ISO) disk. Maybe I can retrieve some of
the data? Luckily it was just a backup, which has now been
superceded.

I'm recommending UDF to everyone I know in future to everyone I
know because the ISO standard is crap when there's a fault with
the disk.

At the end of the day it depends on what you want. If you
absolutely must have compatibility with "most computers in the
world" then you'll want to use ISO. If you've had enough of a
crap standard and you'll prefer to try something that could be
better you'll prefer to use UDF like me.
 
PS: The disk I burnt 2 weeks ago (ISO standard) is still in my
drive with the drive light flashing chaotically 5 minutes after
I put the disk in !!! I'd say that lump of plastic (ISO disk)
was toast wouldn't you? Worse, Windows XP doesn't seem to know
how to handle a faulty ISO disk. [PS: since burning that I've
upgraded my burner's ROM so I hope it doesn't happen again]

Doh, I've had to "End Task" for explorer again because it can't
cope with the faulty (ISO) disk. Maybe I can retrieve some of
the data? Luckily it was just a backup, which has now been
superceded.
Click to expand...

Poor explorer doesn't know what's going on with this ISO disk so
I have to kill the task. Later I put the very same disk back in
the drive and am able to read the same directory with no
problems at all. So what is wrong - explorer or the ISO
standard?

I prefer to take my chances with UDF in future because my
patience has be tried too often already. This is not an unusual
event but is typical of my experience with ISO disks.
 
Back
Top