4 ms·
> What is Mount Rainier? > The Mount Rainier specification was developed in 2001 to provide the framework necessary for computer operating systems to seamlessl
by justsomehnguy 4y ago
> What is Mount Rainier?
> The Mount Rainier specification was developed in 2001 to provide the framework
necessary for computer operating systems to seamlessly rewrite data CD-RW discs in a
drag and drop fashion without the use of additional drivers or software. Through
enhancements over the abilities of conventional packet writing software, including
background formatting, recorder-based defect management, improved
interchangeability and greater ease of use, Mount Rainier’s goal is to make 3.5” floppy
diskettes obsolete by replacing them with CD-RW discs for everyday data storage and
interchange.
Guess it never caught on? I knew about UDF but not so sure about M.R.
> Do some CD-R recording speeds produce better results than others?
> Recorder and media manufacturers carefully tune their products to operate with each
other across a wide range of speeds. As a result, equally high quality CDs are created
when recording at almost all speeds. However, 1x presents a minor exception.
Generally speaking, the physics and chemistry involved in the CD recording process
seem to produce more consistent and readable marks in CD-R discs at 2x and greater
speeds.
!
- TylerE 4y agoIt never did because USB keys became cheap and ubiquitous (and larger!) right around the same time.
- justsomehnguy 4y agoThanks, I was there million years ag^W^W^W. I've seen a couple of times when people used drag-n-drop for the batch writing, but that was because they were totally clueless about how you should write data on compact disks. *grin* > became cheap and ubiquitous yes > and larger! No. Refer to [0] for a remainder on how large and fast they were. And that is 2005. Sure, by 2008 anyone who wanted or needed could had a 8/16GB one, but between 2001 of the spec, 2003 of the doc and 2008 there are 5-7 years. NB I worked as L1+ tech at that time and I had a CD-R with Ghost'ed WinXP, specifically so I could install it on an ancient PCs without a DVD drive. By 2008 my tools were on a bootable thumbdrive and I no longer took a 30+ CD case with me on a regular basis. [0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2005/04/flash2005/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2005/04/flash2005/ I also like what they tested bundled software and reported how much memory those program use in the RAM.
- TylerE 4y ago512MB is larger. I spent my college years (circa 2000) toting a 32mb drive around.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago> 512MB is larger I'm talking about CDs. And my memory isn't that bad (yet) to forgot 620/650/700MB capacity.
- bityard 4y agoNo, it never caught on because CD-RW drives came on the market soon after and were more or less the same experience without the drawback of "using up" the disc. Cheap 512MB and 1GB USB flash drives came much, much, later.
- kodt 4y agoExactly, little 32 - 128 MB flash drives were around not too much later and removed the need for floppy discs for saving documents and such. But for larger sizes CD-RW was more common. There were also Zip and Jazz drives but they weren’t as common due to cost.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoUSB keys have a big problem of being writeable. Sometimes you want something that is written once, and once only, and you know it has not been altered. CD's lend themselves to archiving the way paper does. You lend someone a USB, you don't know what they are returning on it to you.
- abofh 4y agoMaybe, but I seem to recall most CDR/RW only had a shelf life approaching double digit years. The rest of your point certainly stands though
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoM-disc CD and DVD media is good for much longer.
- hulitu 4y agoAnd how long do you think data lasts on a flash drive ?
- charlieyu1 4y agoDVD was the one that obsoleted CD based storage.
- bastawhiz 4y agoThe other commenter is also right, but CD-RW also had two fatal flaws: 1. It was notoriously unreliable. Data would fail to write and corrupt the disk. Disks would often fail after a few uses. 2. It was horribly slow, both to read and write (in my experience). In many cases it was faster to burn a CD-R with lots of files instead of moving individual files to a CD-RW. Maybe it was just my computer at the time, but CD-RW was more of a novelty than anything. It could have been good, but it simply just didn't do what it said on the tin.
- bombcar 4y agoI remember having a burning program that would let you “append” to a CD-R somehow, which took care of 80% of what I would have needed cd-rw for anyway.
- andrewmackrodt 4y agoWindows XP also supported this natively, i.e. track at once rather than disc at once behaviour.
- Scoundreller 4y agoI think that was DirectCD. Nice thing about it is that you'd never get buffer underruns for some reason. Can't use it for cd audio of course, but yes for mp3s!
- xen2xen1 4y agoDirectCD, that's a name I'd nit heard in many years...
- wkat4242 4y agoMulti-session the tech was called. Though marketed by vendors under different names.
- Multicomp 4y agoI still use the Mount Ranier style UDF drag n drop on disks since they are write once read many and therefore good offline storage for resisting ransomware. I wish I could do packet writing on Linux but I think the packages n such that it would enable that have rotted away over the years. Or at least I wasn't able to find them when I went looking for them.
- simoncion 4y agoThis is in the Gentoo Portage tree, so I'd expect it to work: * sys-fs/udftools Available versions: 2.3 Homepage: https://github.com/pali/udftools/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-udf/ Description: Ben Fennema's tools for packet writing and the UDF filesystem