|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
-R DL vs +R DL
Posted by J.Corbett
|
Re: -R DL vs +R DL September 20, 2007 05:04PM |
""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."
> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"
|
Re: -R DL vs +R DL September 20, 2007 10:21PM |
+ R DL has a much higher uptake than -R DL. Single layer it's the other way around.
|
Re: -R DL vs +R DL September 21, 2007 10:54PM |
I mean that +R DL has a higher compatibility with a greater number of machines than -R DL. In single layer, slighty more machines are happy with -R. Which is stupid and confusing.
I think the fact that the very popular Pioneers don't bother with -R DL is a significant contributor.
I think the fact that the very popular Pioneers don't bother with -R DL is a significant contributor.
|
Re: -R DL vs +R DL September 22, 2007 07:06AM |
It's not my burner we're talking about. J.Corbett said
"f i can only burn +R DL's how much of a problem will that be for the consumer/view compatibility?"
And I'm saying that +R Dual Layers are more prevalent than -R Dual Layers. Whereas in single layers, -Rs are more popular.
"f i can only burn +R DL's how much of a problem will that be for the consumer/view compatibility?"
And I'm saying that +R Dual Layers are more prevalent than -R Dual Layers. Whereas in single layers, -Rs are more popular.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
