I have a Benq 1640 with “default” BSMB firmware and was wondering which firmware is best to upgrade to for now ? I also have some troubles with buffer decreasing while burning dvds which sometimes results in burning speed decreaseing. Decreasing from 8x to 4x of burning speed occurs just sometimes when there is a lot of buffer fluctuations. Buffer fluctuations are caused by “working” of a hdd filing up windows page file i think… I dont know how to fix this hdd virtual memory background work becuase it seems to be the cause of the burning problems… I have 256mb ddr ram and page file is windows default … I thought problems with speed could maybe be the quality and compatibilty of dvd blank media, but still there is the question of buffer. i only used to brands for now and it they are samsung pleomax dvd-r 8x (optodisc) and 01ne dvd-r 8x (www.01ne.com) Problems with speed only occured with 01ne blank media. I thought i could give it a shot with new firmware maybe it would help. Anyone has any idea or maybe i should by more ram ?
Its not the firmware its the 01nes with borrowed mid codes.
Hi vladimirfv and welcome to the forum
Your problem can be caused by a disabled DMA. You should enable DMA and can read more informations on this issue here
I suggest you to use also better quality media. Pleomax and optodisc are not the very best
Regarding firmwares, the best one for you can be determined only doing some tests with media available for you. Do some tests and see what give you best results. One of the more popular firmwares here in the forum is BSLB, but many people have best results with latest firmware BSOB, so the only way is to do some tests and see results.
You can flash any firmware on your burner without dangers, Be only careful to avoid power interruptions during firmware flashing, so avoid to flash firmware during a stormy weather
That is [B][I]very[/I][/B] good advise.
That is the advantage of battery backup, though I haven’t needed it yet…
i am not addressing the appropriateness of the following where your burning problems
are concerned…you have to be the judge whether it will help you or not…there are many variables involved.
the concepts below generally apply to all operating systems, but the example is for XP.
if you want to manage your paging file (a good idea unless you are severely restricted to the amount of disk
space you can afford to give up to it)… in XP it is pretty easy:
briefly, for non computer folks, the paging or swap file is used as a cache, essentially sitting between your physical memory
and the hard drive filesystem (not to be confused with the memory cache(s) sitting between the processor and physical
memory) and is managed by the virtual memory management system as part of the implementation of virutal memory
address spaces. There are many ways to tweak this management but few are exposed to the end user.
Windows, by default, allocates the swap file dynamically, growing it
when it needs to be bigger, usually at the least opportune time, like when you are doing some realtime critical thing
like burning or sucking in a dv tape . it also depends on what else you are doing that is making demands on the swap space.
you have the option to avoid this dynamic allocation by telling windows you want to set it to one size exactly.
a good rule of thumb is to set it to twice (2x) the size of your memory. i, for instance, have 640 MB on my system
so i set the swap space to 1280 MB. you set the minimum and maximum size the same.
if you set it too low you will thrash, ie, kick pages out of the cache that ought to be kept, just to make room
to bring in a more critical page. if you make it too big you just waste disk space. in either case you eliminate
the dynamic nature of the allocation that windows ships with.
Note: this also addresses defrag issues (again making no claim this helps with burning etc). as the swap file
is dynamically allocated, it frags up the file space and if it shrinks back you wind up with holes that later
get filled with pieces of files…a very efficient fragger of your filesystem. i don’t know the details of what windows
does with this stuff, i am basing this on past experience with other operating systems and the concepts
are over 40 years old.
Adding more physical memory would help alot too, as it reduces the need to cache things in the swap file.
a gif is attached as an example:
my computer>properties>advanced>performance settings>advanced>virtual memory change.
so, as you suggest, you can eliminate the dynamic allocation of your swap file and see if it helps.
good luck, phil
Thats very colorful chok0.