The correct term for two layer DVD writing!

I’ve heard double layer, two layer, twin layer, dual layer.
It’s time to make a decision. Since CDfreaks is the largest CD/DVD community on the net, Our opinions are the most valid, and WE CAN CHANGE THE WORD!

ok, what is it?

i think dual

The box of the LiteOn 832S says Double Layer. So it looks like we were wrong all along calling it Dual Layer. :stuck_out_tongue:

everything is relative, so we call it like we want. cdfreaks allready know what we mean. :smiley:

Bah, don’t let those marketing suit-monkeys tell you how to call a technology :Z
It’s dual layer, end of story :bigsmile:

LiteOn has me transfixed! Must… resist… their powers… must…


resistance is futile.

Just type DL for now, or DVD+9 :iagree:

I would say Double, because otherwise you could get confused with dual-format.

So at the moment we have:

  • single format burners (only capable of -R/-RW writing or +R/+RW writing)
  • dual format burners (capable of -R/-RW/+R/+RW writing or -R/-RW/RAM writing)
  • triple format burners (capable of -R/-RW/+R/+RW/-RAM writing, LG I love you :bow: :bow: )
  • dual format, single format double layer write burners (capable of -R/-RW/+R/+RW/+R DL).

In the future we (might) have:

  • dual format double layer write burners (capable of -R/-RW/+R/+RW/+R DL/-R DL)
  • dual format double layer REwrite burners (capable of -R/-RW/+R/+RW/+R DL/-R DL/+RW DL/-RW DL)
  • triple format, single format double layer write burners (capable of -R/-RW/+R/+RW/-RAM/+R DL)
  • triple format, single format double layer RE-write burners (capable of -R/-RW/+R/+RW/-RAM/+R DL/+RW DL)
  • triple format, double layer write burners (capable of -R/-RW/+R/+RW/-RAM/+R DL/-R DL)
  • triple format, double layer Re-write burners (capable of -R/-RW/+R/+RW/-RAM/+R DL/-R DL/+RW DL/-RW DL)

I hope everything is correct.

Layer and Format is two different thing, if you manage to mix that up, you deserve to be slap like a Mac user.


Not everybody is a CDFreak, it also has to be understandable for the “normal” people (about 95% or more of the population). So I think it’s better to make a difference: dual format and double layer, just to avoid possible mistakes!!

The DVD+RW alliance uses the term double layer and since they are the organisation behind it you could say it’s officially double layer.

I say dual layer.

Multi-Layer - misleading could be any number
Binary Layer - right…
Paired Layer - many people will not realise what this is
I’m a siamese twin. I chose the (sex organs of choice) and my other half took the brain. - yes happened but i got it back

Dual layer - classic, always been used. :bigsmile:

The DVD+RW alliance is a small group of companies. CDfreaks on the other hand is a very large number of these companies customers. And the customer is always right (and must be punished for their arrogance, but another day!).

We can call binary layer writing whatever we decide!

Power to the People!
Viva La People!
Up the customers!

I’m sure companies use the last one anyway, but with an entirely different thought in mind :wink:

Unfortunately, it’s the company or a group of companies that decide what to do with their rights about patents and products. Yet. In the future, who knows?

What about Hyper-Layer? Intel’s Hyper-Tasking, or HT is actually double-tasking or dual-tasking at the most.

How about no???

I’ll just continue to call it DL like I have been :iagree:

I thought it was hyper-threading

It is.
It’s basically just a fast way to switch between threads. It still only has a single processing ability, but some threads tend to take a long time, either waiting for data from ram, or IO, or timer.

Function calling, or thread switching (basically changing tasks) is the most expensive activity that a CPU undergoes (timewise). It makes sense to implement a fast function switcher in hardware to remove this obstacle.

Hyper threading just provides a hardware method to allow the CPU to quickly switch between two threads. Rather than clearing instructions in the pipeline, it just saves the state of the pipeline and puts it back later :slight_smile:
It’s actually implemented partially in the motherboard as well.

Implementing hyperthreading in the mobo makes me suspect that hyperthreading is just glorified IO monitoring on the mobo.
Mobo sends an IO-active signal which causes the P4 to saves it’s current state and then load a new thread. When IO is complete, the signal goes to zero again and the CPU just feeds the saved instructions back into the pipeline.

Does anyone know exactly how hyper-threading works?

IIRC, HT grew more out of the inefficiency of Intel’s long pipelining. Longer pipelines == hard to fill the pipeline with instructions == processor not working as hard as it could == some of that can be harnessed as “hyperthreading”

I could be wrong, but Intel’s illustrations & diagrams gave me this impression…