I can practically feel the spittle.
I can practically feel the spittle.
You probably want the FAQ cretin section
Projection can cloud, as well as the wearing of to much nylon, must be the pom pom attire
The caveats that you throw in almost certainly show you have less the 100% backing for this process "(most likely) " "(note, not a guarantee) " Lets elaborate on "easily determine if their burn was (most likely) completed successfully" If nero does verify your burn you consider it a good burn fit for archival purposes, if it does not, what do you do, do you bin it?
So we are down to numbers now, 99-1 for non enthusiasts/enthusiasts, what do you base these figures on? It is not thorough it is bourne of tried and tested methods supported by the community, if I read that nero verify/pif/pie/jitter/trt was the way to go and was supported, I would do it, that is why I asked for a link. These "regular folk" you keep going on about, you know "the 99%" I would hazzard a guess that if they verify with nero, they probably have no idea that it can be unchecked, all blank media is created equal and there media will last.
Looks perfect, small tip file/options/transfer rate, change the max speed dvd to 17. Next try a pie/pif scan, nero cd-dvd/disc quality/select either 4x or 8x there is a train of thought that the lh/dh drives scan better at 4x
For non-critical data backups, yes I consider a successful Nero verification fit for archival. Since the vast majority of my burns fall into this category I do not perform further verification. It’s a simple balance of importance versus time in my books. My Nero verification failures are few and far between with decent media with a 1% failure rate being about right. For the sake of 1 in 100 CD’s or DVD’s being wasted or binned I’m not too concerned. Of the 99% that do pass Nero verification none have failed yet.
The numbers are arbitrary for sake of discussion but if you want to be anal about it, please feel free to produce alternate figures and we’ll re-evaluate the points if it proves to be significant.
The community you refer is made up of informed enthusiasts is it not? Reality check, not everyone is informed or an enthusiast nor do they wish to be. Am I arguing that your methods are not the best? No. Do I think it’s overkill for a lot of people? Yes. There are always different approaches to everything and doing it the best way is not always a priority or even of relevance to everyone.
Did anyone actually ask what the best way to archive data via optical media is? No, so I wonder why we’re even discussing this. To the OP, sorry that your thread has been hijacked and I hope you get to the root of your burning woes.
Non critical is not archival
You mean off the top of your head, with no substance. I have no need to produce any figures, I did not use them so have no need to "produce" would probably have been appropriate for afore mentioned caveat, saves the back pedling.
It is about whether nero verify is pointless or not, at this moment I have been given nothing to challenge/change/inform me otherwise, I reiterate if nero verify is an intergral part of scanning method and supported, I would like to read about it,what is so hard to understand about that request.
You and others are advocating if a disc fails nero verify, it is junk, that is just errenous
Erroneous results from this scan?
Do you have any proof that the Nero verification Scan is unable to do so reliably? I visit the same forums as yourself and have never seen this to be an issue. In fact if Nero were unable to get something so basic as a binary check between a file written to disk and one on the hard drive, I'd imagine it would make them the laughing stock of the community. It is after all little more than one or two standard programming functions in any language I can think of.
Oh, and since when did the "community" need to "support" an integral feature of a program for it to work. What part exactly does a community play in a few functions that cross check binary data between two devices?
There is simply no way I can "prove" that the Nero verification method works as intended, because quite simply, its not something that people are going to investigating unless there is someone bring an issue to light. People don't make posts on forums saying "Hey look, this part of the program works"....for any application unless it was previously broken.
Now, I've just spent the best hour of Googling and I can find absolutely nothing to suggest that the part of the program that deals with verification does not work properly. Ironically, this is the only thread I can find which makes reference to it.
Enthusiast benchmark for blank media? Please quote me on where I made such a statement.
By the same admission, you're the one as dismissed it as pointless, yet are still unable to answer the following points:
- Without verification by Nero, how do you propose that the user checks the integrity of the files written with the ones on the harddisk?
- Provide any evidence, at all, that the verification process of Nero has a problem
- Offer a reason on why you told the OP that verification is "pointless", then ask him to do a pie/pif scan....which would not show if the written data was valid.
What would you consider evidence that the verification process in Nero works fine, out of curiosity?
Do you have the same opinion of verification in Imgburn too, or does that program pass some criteria (and if so, which?) that Nero does not?
It is far from pointless, because as pointed out several times now, it offers a way for the user to be sure that the data written to disk is the same data that is on the harddisk.
Unless you can prove that there is an issue with the actual process of verification, please tell us why it is pointless.
Can you elaborate on this point a bit more please, as this is essentially what the discussion is about.
If I write data to a disk, Nero then checks this data and finds a discrepancy between whats on the disk and whats on the harddrive then as far as I am concerned the disk is junk. The data does not match what should be there.
Not an issue with Video as it'll just show an artefact / be ignored by the player / whatever, If however this is data in a finance spreadsheet for example and £10,000 suddenly becomes £1,000 due to an error writing the file, that is an issue for me. Granted, I would be using other methods to verify such important data was intact, I am using it just to illustrate an extreme here.
I'd be interested in hearing the defence as to why this data shouldn't be considered junk![]()
You keep asking for this magical link - then fail to say what you would like in it, what would make it valid, or offer any reasonable debate/input into previous comments you have made.
What's the point of posting on discussion forums if you're not willing to discuss anything, mealy make a statement then walk away with your fingers in your ears and ignore any other input offered?
Here was me thinking we were all here for the same thing: The pursuit of knowledge![]()
You can see around -3.0+ the huge spikes, can you see any blemishes/dark marks on the disc
Yes, and? How many people here archive their data based on your definition? How many actually care for day to day purposes?
Back peddling? That would imply their accuracy is critical to the discussion. I have already stated it is not.
What you’re missing is perspective. For Nero verification to be pointless it would have to serve no function. There have been plenty of examples of the benefit it provides, just reread the previous threads if you can’t see it. Is Nero verification pointless to you? Appears so. Is Nero pointless to others? Atleast on this thread it appears not. If you need me to spell it out using the evidence on this thread only: Some users believe Nero verification is useful enough to determine if a burn was successful or not.
No one has stated that Nero verification “is an integral part of scanning” so please stop introducing issues that no one is actually debating here. This goes a long way into explaining why no one has provided the proof you have requested since (listen carefully now) no one is debating that “fact”.
I’m not sure if you simply don’t comprehend or too busy trying to soap box to notice but NO ONE on this thread is advocating that if a disc fails Nero verification that it is junk. Do “I” treat a disc as junk if it fails Nero verification? Yes, because my time is more important than a few pence wasted on burning the disc again. Do I care that the burn may be fine and Nero has indicated otherwise? Not really for reasons covered in my previous post. Do you care? Maybe, seems so and that’s your prerogative.
For Nero verification to be deemed pointless the results of the verification would need to be irrelevant. This would suggest they’re random or so unreliable that it could not be trusted.
Agent (11-04-2008)
There are no marks on the disc that I can see.
Is any of this conclusive proof that the TDK media is mainly junk?
Actually, it seems Nero 6.6.0.1 potentially had a problem but we're going back to 2004/2005. Here's the first link I found on Google about it: Nero 6.6.0.1 Red Verify Errors! Please help... - Club CD Freaks - Knowledge is Power. There are lots more for that particular version but I don't think we're talking about version 6.x are we?I'm on Nero 7 and haven't gotten around to installing 8 yet.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)