Win 7 & DVR burning

For my uses, it's been more of a what the burner will do, and sale
prices for decent DVR blanks.
Lightscribe DVRs are more expensive than I'd like, and burning the label
can take some time.
Doubled layer DVD are still too high in price.
The usual DVR blank is a DVR-, only because they are more common, not
because they work better or worse on my systems.

On 5/18/2011 11:17 AM, Alias wrote:
> On 05/18/2011 05:16 PM, charlie wrote:
>> For my uses, it's been more of a what the burner will do, and sale
>> prices for decent DVR blanks.
>> Lightscribe DVRs are more expensive than I'd like, and burning the label
>> can take some time.
>> Doubled layer DVD are still too high in price.
>> The usual DVR blank is a DVR-, only because they are more common, not
>> because they work better or worse on my systems.
>
> And your question is?
>
OOPS!
should have been under the Windows 7 and DVR + burning chain! Sorry.

On 5/18/2011, charlie posted:
> For my uses, it's been more of a what the burner will do, and sale prices for
> decent DVR blanks.
> Lightscribe DVRs are more expensive than I'd like, and burning the label can
> take some time.
> Doubled layer DVD are still too high in price.
> The usual DVR blank is a DVR-, only because they are more common, not because
> they work better or worse on my systems.

Are you aware that DVR means Digital Video Recorder, such as a cable
oor satellite desktop box or a TiVo?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 5/18/2011 3:03 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On 5/18/2011, charlie posted:
>> For my uses, it's been more of a what the burner will do, and sale
>> prices for decent DVR blanks.
>> Lightscribe DVRs are more expensive than I'd like, and burning the
>> label can take some time.
>> Doubled layer DVD are still too high in price.
>> The usual DVR blank is a DVR-, only because they are more common, not
>> because they work better or worse on my systems.
>
> Are you aware that DVR means Digital Video Recorder, such as a cable oor
> satellite desktop box or a TiVo?
>
Yup!
I was in too big a hurry, other things were going on around me that were
demanding my attention.
So, Please sub DVD for DVR where found!

On 5/18/2011, charlie posted:
> On 5/18/2011 3:03 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On 5/18/2011, charlie posted:
>>> For my uses, it's been more of a what the burner will do, and sale
>>> prices for decent DVR blanks.
>>> Lightscribe DVRs are more expensive than I'd like, and burning the
>>> label can take some time.
>>> Doubled layer DVD are still too high in price.
>>> The usual DVR blank is a DVR-, only because they are more common, not
>>> because they work better or worse on my systems.
>>
>> Are you aware that DVR means Digital Video Recorder, such as a cable oor
>> satellite desktop box or a TiVo?
>>
> Yup!
> I was in too big a hurry, other things were going on around me that were
> demanding my attention.
> So, Please sub DVD for DVR where found!

Too bad. I was hoping I could get a LightScribe DVR :-)

BTW, I love LightScribe. Slow and monochrome, yes, but IMO, it makes
very satisfactory labels, much better than the old hand-written Sharpie
labels :-)

I don't burn enough disks to worry about the price difference. Also, I
won't use paste-on labels, for obvious reasons - and I already have a
printer that works well for me, so I don't want to buy an Epson just so
I could do disk labels. Besides, the cost for an extra (or new) printer
would buy a lot of LightScribe disks. Or Sharpie pens :-)

Still, I bet the Epson labels could be a lot prettier than what I do
with LightScribe.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 5/18/2011 5:27 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On 5/18/2011, charlie posted:
>> On 5/18/2011 3:03 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2011, charlie posted:
>>>> For my uses, it's been more of a what the burner will do, and sale
>>>> prices for decent DVR blanks.
>>>> Lightscribe DVRs are more expensive than I'd like, and burning the
>>>> label can take some time.
>>>> Doubled layer DVD are still too high in price.
>>>> The usual DVR blank is a DVR-, only because they are more common, not
>>>> because they work better or worse on my systems.
>>>
>>> Are you aware that DVR means Digital Video Recorder, such as a cable oor
>>> satellite desktop box or a TiVo?
>>>
>> Yup!
>> I was in too big a hurry, other things were going on around me that
>> were demanding my attention.
>> So, Please sub DVD for DVR where found!
>
> Too bad. I was hoping I could get a LightScribe DVR :-)
>
> BTW, I love LightScribe. Slow and monochrome, yes, but IMO, it makes
> very satisfactory labels, much better than the old hand-written Sharpie
> labels :-)
>
> I don't burn enough disks to worry about the price difference. Also, I
> won't use paste-on labels, for obvious reasons - and I already have a
> printer that works well for me, so I don't want to buy an Epson just so
> I could do disk labels. Besides, the cost for an extra (or new) printer
> would buy a lot of LightScribe disks. Or Sharpie pens :-)
>
> Still, I bet the Epson labels could be a lot prettier than what I do
> with LightScribe.
>

I'm thinking about a unit that runs win7, is sold as a DVR, has two
cable cards integrated into it, and a DVD burner. I suppose a DVD drive
with Lightscribe, Blueray, etc might be integrated/installed into it.
The unit is technically used, but was never sold or used. The OEM makes
several versions, and most are rack mount units. The cable cards are in
it, but I don't know what I'd be getting into with the local cable company.
Half the time, they cannot get the cards they sell/rent/whatever to work
properly!

Several years ago, we used a desktop with digital tuners, etc. to act as
a DVR. Then the cable company went nuts with the broadcast flag bit,
killing HD recording from just about anything but their rented DVR.
(Imagine that!). Even if the flag is set to permit recording, the mere
presence invokes the encryption schemes. Without the patented circuitry
inside a P/C, the user is locked out of recording.

On Wed, 18 May 2011 17:55:23 -0400, charlie <> wrote:

>I'm thinking about a unit that runs win7, is sold as a DVR, has two
>cable cards integrated into it, and a DVD burner. I suppose a DVD drive
>with Lightscribe, Blueray, etc might be integrated/installed into it.

Sounds a little like my server that runs Win 7 and has a pair of
Silicondust HDHomerun connected via the local network. It records up
to 4 simultaneous digital programs at once, (HD or SD), but isn't
CableCard compatible so I use it for my local channels, whether OTA or
off the cable in clear QAM. If I needed to record encrypted channels,
I would go with the InfiniTV 4, mentioned in more detail below.

>The unit is technically used, but was never sold or used. The OEM makes
>several versions, and most are rack mount units. The cable cards are in
>it, but I don't know what I'd be getting into with the local cable company.
>Half the time, they cannot get the cards they sell/rent/whatever to work
>properly!
>
>Several years ago, we used a desktop with digital tuners, etc. to act as
>a DVR. Then the cable company went nuts with the broadcast flag bit,
>killing HD recording from just about anything but their rented DVR.
>(Imagine that!). Even if the flag is set to permit recording, the mere
>presence invokes the encryption schemes. Without the patented circuitry
>inside a P/C, the user is locked out of recording.

The Ceton InfiniTV 4 can record or play up to 4 HD streams at the same
time, and gets extremely high marks, from what I've read over at
AVSForums. Requires a CableCard in order to decrypt encrypted
channels.

<http://www.cetoncorp.com/products.php>


--

Char Jackson

On Wed, 18 May 2011 14:27:39 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
<> wrote:

>BTW, I love LightScribe. Slow and monochrome, yes, but IMO, it makes
>very satisfactory labels, much better than the old hand-written Sharpie
>labels :-)
>
>I don't burn enough disks to worry about the price difference. Also, I
>won't use paste-on labels, for obvious reasons - and I already have a
>printer that works well for me, so I don't want to buy an Epson just so
>I could do disk labels. Besides, the cost for an extra (or new) printer
>would buy a lot of LightScribe disks. Or Sharpie pens :-)
>
>Still, I bet the Epson labels could be a lot prettier than what I do
>with LightScribe.

For me, the Sharpie is still king since most of what I burn is just
for me. If I'm burning something for someone else, I use printable
media and run it through my Epson inkjet printer for sorta semi-pro
results in full color. I've only used LightScribe once and wasn't
impressed, if I may say so.

--

Char Jackson

On 5/18/2011, Char Jackson posted:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 14:27:39 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
> <> wrote:

>> BTW, I love LightScribe. Slow and monochrome, yes, but IMO, it makes
>> very satisfactory labels, much better than the old hand-written Sharpie
>> labels :-)
>>
>> I don't burn enough disks to worry about the price difference. Also, I
>> won't use paste-on labels, for obvious reasons - and I already have a
>> printer that works well for me, so I don't want to buy an Epson just so
>> I could do disk labels. Besides, the cost for an extra (or new) printer
>> would buy a lot of LightScribe disks. Or Sharpie pens :-)
>>
>> Still, I bet the Epson labels could be a lot prettier than what I do
>> with LightScribe.

> For me, the Sharpie is still king since most of what I burn is just
> for me. If I'm burning something for someone else, I use printable
> media and run it through my Epson inkjet printer for sorta semi-pro
> results in full color. I've only used LightScribe once and wasn't
> impressed, if I may say so.

You may certainly say so :-)

Especially if I still am permitted to like LightScribe ;-)

I would like the Epson, but can't really justify buying another printer
while my Canon continues to work fine (for my needs...).

I occasionally make a disk for a friend, and I'd rather give them
something that looks good, even if it isn't excellent. But heck, I'm
happier myself when my personal disks have LS labels.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Wed, 18 May 2011 21:26:52 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
<> wrote:

>On 5/18/2011, Char Jackson posted:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2011 14:27:39 -0700, Gene E. Bloch
>> <> wrote:
>
>>> BTW, I love LightScribe. Slow and monochrome, yes, but IMO, it makes
>>> very satisfactory labels, much better than the old hand-written Sharpie
>>> labels :-)
>>>
>>> I don't burn enough disks to worry about the price difference. Also, I
>>> won't use paste-on labels, for obvious reasons - and I already have a
>>> printer that works well for me, so I don't want to buy an Epson just so
>>> I could do disk labels. Besides, the cost for an extra (or new) printer
>>> would buy a lot of LightScribe disks. Or Sharpie pens :-)
>>>
>>> Still, I bet the Epson labels could be a lot prettier than what I do
>>> with LightScribe.
>
>> For me, the Sharpie is still king since most of what I burn is just
>> for me. If I'm burning something for someone else, I use printable
>> media and run it through my Epson inkjet printer for sorta semi-pro
>> results in full color. I've only used LightScribe once and wasn't
>> impressed, if I may say so.
>
>You may certainly say so :-)
>
>Especially if I still am permitted to like LightScribe ;-)

Absolutely!

>I would like the Epson, but can't really justify buying another printer
>while my Canon continues to work fine (for my needs...).

The Epson did come with a little utility just for printing CD/DVD
media, but really you can do the same with nearly any printing
program, I believe. I've run across templates for Word, Photoshop, and
a bunch more, and of course those would be printer agnostic unless I'm
missing something. Of course, you need to be able to physically feed a
disc through the printer, so that may be the 'stumbling bloch', to use
one of my favorite phrases. ;-)

>I occasionally make a disk for a friend, and I'd rather give them
>something that looks good, even if it isn't excellent. But heck, I'm
>happier myself when my personal disks have LS labels.

I was pretty amazed the first time I experienced LS, even though I
don't use it now.

--

Char Jackson