Why winxP does not have a built in DVD burner program?

**HorseArcher** · September 16, 2006, 11:11 PM

Or does it and I am just lost?

- If it doesn't....why? Anyone can enlighten me why microsoft decided for WinXP not to have a DVD burner program, just like the CD burner?

**Richard the Lionheart** · September 16, 2006, 11:20 PM

Windows XP does not have a DVD burner.

I know, it sucks.

But there are several free dvd burning softwares available.

http://www.download.com/CDBurnerXP-P...ml?tag=lst-3-9

**HorseArcher** · September 16, 2006, 11:32 PM

another question. I'm trying to burn an .ISO to a DVD, and after using up my 3rd DVD, I want to know why I get an error with Nero in the middle of the process, and also with "burnonCD/DVD". I don't want to throw away another DVD disk and certainly don't want to wait 15 minutes just to throw them away...

**Richard the Lionheart** · September 16, 2006, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Archer

another question. I'm trying to burn an .ISO to a DVD, and after using up my 3rd DVD, I want to know why I get an error with Nero in the middle of the process, and also with "burnonCD/DVD". I don't want to throw away another DVD disk and certainly don't want to wait 15 minutes just to throw them away...

Yes! I've had that happen before as well! It was rather weird in my case, but anyways...

If you have Nero, I would suggest using the Nero Express utility. From there, there is a drop down menue on the very top where you indicate whether you want to burn a DVD or a CD. You have to make sure that you indicate DVD.

P.S. Are you burning Vista?

**HorseArcher** · September 16, 2006, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Honor&Glory

Yes! I've had that happen before as well! It was rather weird in my case, but anyways...

If you have Nero, I would suggest using the Nero Express utility. From there, there is a drop down menue on the very top where you indicate whether you want to burn a DVD or a CD. You have to make sure that you indicate DVD.

P.S. Are you burning Vista?

I am burning Vista, but after 3 DVDs I'm going mad (with only 1 DVD disk I have left) and I try to figure out what is causing this.....
the disks are clean, no smudge and I never had problem burning DVDs before.

there is a drop down menue on the very top where you indicate whether you want to burn a DVD or a CD.

I know that, trust me. And as I said, i get the error in the middle of the process, after 10 minutes of burning, with another 10 minutes to go. ( I use the slowest speed to burn it)

Is it possible that this vista download is corrupted? The file is full (meaning, i downloaded it correctly with no probs and no stoppings and no error messages), so it's fine on my side, but I have faint memory reading, that microsoft managed to post a corrupted .iso file for the 64bit version.

**Richard the Lionheart** · September 16, 2006, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Archer

I am burning Vista, but after 3 DVDs I'm going mad (with only 1 DVD disk I have left) and I try to figure out what is causing this.....
the disks are clean, no smudge and I never had problem burning DVDs before.

I know that, trust me. And as I said, i get the error in the middle of the process, after 10 minutes of burning, with another 10 minutes to go. ( I use the slowest speed to burn it)

Is it possible that this vista download is corrupted? The file is full (meaning, i downloaded it correctly with no probs and no stoppings and no error messages), so it's fine on my side, but I have faint memory reading, that microsoft managed to post a corrupted .iso file for the 64bit version.

One DVD left?!

This is where DVD-RW or DVD+RW disks come in handy.

My first piece of advice would be to avoid the 64bit version. I have an Athlon 64 but I'm using the 32bit version.

Anyways, I'm guessing since you have only one disc left you can try one of two things. Either download and try to burn the 32 bit version, or possibly extract the ISO to a specific folder on your computer and then burn the whole contents of that folder on a DVD as a "Data DVD".

What exact error message do you receive? :hmmm:

**kshcshbash** · September 17, 2006, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Archer

Or does it and I am just lost?

- If it doesn't....why? Anyone can enlighten me why microsoft decided for WinXP not to have a DVD burner program, just like the CD burner?

Perhaps it's the nature of DVD burners. Most DVD burning problems arise from bad drivers, and there is a chance Windows just doesn't want the hassle of dealing with that?
I've never written device drivers so I'm just speculating here but maybe DVD burners are strange to interface with.

**Charok** · September 17, 2006, 01:48 AM

Why winxP does not have a built in DVD burner program?

Because Microsoft doesn't want another software monopoly lawsuit. That's why they don't do things like start making anti-virus software and getting Norton mad at them and, um... nevermind.

**wipeout140** · September 17, 2006, 02:05 AM

Could be the speed you’re burning them at, Microsoft does say on their website you need to burn at 1x, 2x, for best results

**HorseArcher** · September 17, 2006, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by wipeout140

Could be the speed you’re burning them at, Microsoft does say on their website you need to burn at 1x, 2x, for best results

but I am burning at the slowest speed. Read my previous reply.

It failed again. it burns half way and then it says "failed burning at disk at once. error" then it says "error burning disk"

**Kaweh** · September 17, 2006, 10:13 AM

Maybe a corrupt download? Check the MD5 (sp) sum (should be stated at the download site, check it with Nero).

K.K

**Incinerate_IV** · September 17, 2006, 11:34 AM

Redownload the 32bit version, the 64bit version is a piece of crap, I have a 64bit processor and I downloaded the 32bit too. I think you just got a corrupted download, there are so many people downloading the thing that its probably causing some problems with Microsoft's servers. The same thing happened to me on Beta 2, I was able to burn it but it don't want to install, I just redownloaded it the second time and its fine.

**fatsheep** · September 17, 2006, 11:53 AM

If there's a bittorent download then try using that.

**HorseArcher** · September 17, 2006, 06:08 PM

I finally got it burned. what caused the previous 4 attempts (4 DVDs wasted) not to burn, I can't figure out. They were in good shape, just out of the wrapper and I did not interfered with the burn.

Right now, i'm typing this after a reformat of my hard drive. I am about get my final partition created, that makes 4 of them on my disk (230Gig HD). I have 3 partitions of 10 gigs and a 200gig for all the stuff I install and download. One of the 10gigs contain winXP, the other 2 are up for grabs, possibly to try out ubuntu and vista.

Anyway, what file system you guys use? (people with more than 1 partiton) FAT32 or NTFS ? I got 1 FAT32 and 3 NTFS.

**Richard the Lionheart** · September 17, 2006, 06:09 PM

NTFS is always superior. I see no reason to use FAT32 in the case of the newer windows, unless you're using some specific operating system that requires FAT32.

**HorseArcher** · September 17, 2006, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Honor&Glory

NTFS is always superior. I see no reason to use FAT32 in the case of the newer windows, unless you're using some specific operating system that requires FAT32.

in a non-gaming environment, NTFS is the clear winner in security and ability for file compression and recognition of large drives, but performance wise (read/write) FAT32 is faster.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...durham_fs.mspx

**Richard the Lionheart** · September 17, 2006, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Archer

in a non-gaming environment, NTFS is the clear winner in security and ability for file compression and recognition of large drives, but performance wise (read/write) FAT32 is faster.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...durham_fs.mspx

I always prefer NTFS. I personally prefer to have better overall security, reliability, and performance for my whole PC, than to just give my games a 2-3 fps boots.

What's So Great About NTFS?

FAT32 is a 32-bit version of the FAT file system used by MS-DOS and other Windows-based operating systems. FAT32 supports drives up to 2 terabytes in size, with maximum partition sizes up to 128 gigabytes each. The largest file that can exist on a FAT32 drive is 4 GB, which is probably larger than any file will ever be anyway. FAT32 was introduced with Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 and is also included in Windows 98 and Windows Me. If you upgrade to Windows XP, you'll be asked if you want to convert your file system to NTFS. If you perform a clean install of Windows XP, NTFS is the default file system. For more information, see the Description of the FAT32 File System.

In non-gaming applications, NTFS is clearly the superior file system for a number of reasons. NTFS is a much more robust file system. Charlie Russel discusses this in his Expert Zone column, NTFS vs. FAT: Which Is Right for You? The latest version of NTFS is supported by Windows 2000, Windows NT 4 with Service Pack 4, and Windows XP. It has all the capabilities of FAT, with advantages that include the following:

• File size is limited only by the size of the volume of a partition.

• File compression is native to NTFS. Files on an NTFS drive can be compressed without the need for third-party applications like DriveSpace.

• Files on an NTFS file system can be encrypted. Better still, the files can be encrypted as they're written and decrypted as they're read, making encryption transparent to the user.

• NTFS supports enhanced file security. Access rights to files and folders can allow users full, partial or no access.

• The theoretical hard drive size limitation pertaining to NTFS is a dizzying 16 exabytes.

Another key advantage of NTFS is that it's recoverable. NTFS keeps track of individual transactions: reads and writes. When a user invokes the disk repair utility CHKDSK under NTFS, it maintains a log of transactions so that if CHKDSK encounters errors, it need only roll back to the last recovery point in order to repair the file system.

Possibly the most important aspect of NTFS over FAT32 in terms of performance is this: under FAT32, as the number of files on a partition increases, the performance of the system slows. That's not the case in NTFS; its performance remains consistent as the number of files and the drive sizes increase.

**HorseArcher** · September 17, 2006, 06:27 PM

regardless, i'm gonna keep one FAT32. It's only 10 gigs. It's good for experiments.

on the operating system performances DOS is the fastest.

I think i'm hijacking my own thread....

**Richard the Lionheart** · September 17, 2006, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Archer

regardless, i'm gonna keep one FAT32. It's only 10 gigs. It's good for experiments.

on the operating system performances DOS is the fastest.

I think i'm hijacking my own thread....

Sure, but as far as Vista is concerned, I would strongly recommend NTFS.

*Thread unhijacked...sort of...*