Talk:Packet writing

message: It is not a file system, should be removed from disk file systems category? — Claunia 22:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, packet writing is not a file system in itself. -- Tempel 12:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a file system 

message: Mount Rainier is not a UDF extension. — Jaevelig 12:11, 04 January 2006
:I don't know Mount Rainier, but its wiki article claims that it is a UDF extension. Can you explain why you think it's not a UDF extension?  -- Tempel 12:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mount Rainier 

message: I took the liberty to remove this part:
: This is further complicated by the fact that is nearly impossible to unformat a disc formatted specifically for packet writing thus rendering it unusable in computers that do not have support for the proprietary mode.
Reason: I've written packet writing software myself (DirectCD for Mac) and have no idea what this sentence suggests. It might relate to the fact that on CD rewritable media sectors "wear out" with use, some more, others less, and that it's difficult to preserve this information between reformats as the information is stored in the file system (in case of UDF) and would need to be preserved. But when one would reformat a CD-RW with a non-packet writing file system (e.g. ISO 9660) in between, this information would surely get lost, making the disk for further packet writing quite unreliable.
-- Tempel 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed an unspecific note about unformatting 

message: Let's expand what incompatible means for the different packet writing software. If I just use my one software always adding to multisession discs, I'll be completely fine right? I expect it's only when I mix one session from one software with another session from another source it all gets jumbled up. 
Another question is do these popular software start supporting this universal stuff yet? (Nero, Roxio drag-to-disc formerly directCD,..).  It's surprising in this age of highly compatible firefox gaining market, and other open ended projects, that this holdover from a time past isn't even mentioned as being up to date yet in this article. I'm looking for why to leave let's say Nero for let's say an unnamed unknown burning software I never heard of before. Let's expand this stub. Nastajus 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: packet writing worse how? and why switch?

message: Where exactly does it say this is supported?  I can not find any Free software that supports this.  From my point of view, this article sent me on a wild goose chase looking for that! 81.98.240.122 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't comment on free software, but there has been some paid for software that supports writing on non rewriteable discs.  I grant that not every packet writing utility supports it, but some does.  One of the frst packet writing utilities, Adaptec's Direct CD, certainly did.  109.153.242.10 (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding CDRs & DVDRs (NOT REWRITABLE) 

message: Please do not write what you do not know.--Dojarca (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that you mean "does not diminish ... rewritable ...", please explain why formatting a 700 MB CD-RW for UDF results in 512 MB of available "disk space". Instead of writing continuously, Packet writing needs to insert space wasting gaps between packets, just like between sectors on a HDD. A Pirard (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Packet writing DO NOT deminish disk space on a rewritale media! 

message: The linux kernel driver is marked as deprecated and it will be removed in the near future --Ismael Luceno (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux Kernel Driver deprecated