In article <vNednXrIMY3dh0banZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d.DeleteThis@giganews.com>, Lewis
<g.kreme.DeleteThis@gmail.com.dontsendmecopiesofposts> wrote:
> In article <140320081402506562%dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid>,
> sbt <dogbreath.DeleteThis@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I would love to
> > see models that eschewed the aesthetically-pleasing but
> > function-impaired slotloaders,
>
> function impaired? I what way?
They won't handle "business card" discs or the miniDVDs that so many
newer camcorders use. They're also slower than the current generation
of tray-loading drives (the faster ones are 8x as opposed to the 16x
and 18x that is common in current trayloaders.)
>
> > especially the not-quite-vertical ones
> > (way more susceptible to vibration/errors).
>
> Is that just a feeling you have or do you have anything to back that up
> (and I'm not talking about 1995 CD drives).
>
Just anecdotal experience and a suspicion based upon the physics
involved -- early vertically-mounted hard drives had problems until the
engineering caught up and those were sealed units, machined to much
finer tolerances than optical discs.
Anecdotally, I burned a DVD for my mother and it played fine in her
standalone DVD player and in her (horizontal) Macbook's drive, but got
"skipping" error messages in her brandnew 24" iMac. My neighbor's four
month old iMac also burned a lot of coasters until he switched to
burning in a tray-loading external drive. Another neighbor's iMac drive
works fine, so it's not a universal issue.
> I've never seen any difference in performance from a slot loading drive,
> regardless of orientation.
Performance? I think the speed differences qualify as "performance"
issues, but (as noted above), I've also seen reliability differences in
some units
--
Spenser
>> Stay informed about: New Macbooks and Macbook Pros