Shoutbox

ISO v UDF - Printable Version

-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Skype & Technology (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Tech Talk (/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+----- Thread: ISO v UDF (/showthread.php?tid=50969)
ISO v UDF by rav0 on 09-27-2005 at 12:15 AM

What is the difference between an ISO CD and a UDF CD?

Is there any performance difference?

Can one give more capacity?

Are they both as compatible as the other?

Is one more scratch error resistant than the other?

What are the technicalities that make them what they are?

What are the different versions of UDF?

RE: ISO v UDF by prashker on 09-27-2005 at 12:30 AM

well all i knwo is that modded xbox's only read UDF's

so I would like to know also

RE: ISO v UDF by dotNorma on 09-27-2005 at 12:39 AM

ISO 9660 have been used as the main CD format for many years now. Most of the CD nowsdays still use this format, the benefit of this format is that it is readable by all CD drive or CD player, and can be shared between PC and MAC.

Universal Disk Format (UDF) is a newer file system for CD and DVDdeveloped and managed by the Optical Storage Technology Association as the successor to the ISO 9660 standard. UDF overcomes limitations of ISO 9660 and redirectors such as CDFS. UDF is used to ensure compatibility across platforms, as well as among various CD and DVD applications. UDF is required for DVDs, and is used by DVD to contain MPEG audio/video streams, UDF is also used by CD-R and CD-RW in a process called packet writing that makes CD writing more efficient in terms of the time and disk space required.

Just stick with UDF if you are burning media for a friend. (Its more compatible) :tongue:

-------------------[EDIT]----------------------

Can one give more capacity?
Its the method in which the files are written to the CD that defines it as ISO or UDF. Any CD can be an either file system.

Is one more scatch resistant then the other?
Read above.

RE: ISO v UDF by brian on 09-27-2005 at 01:04 AM

ISO's can't handle or have a single file with 2GB+ on it, where UDF supports more.

RE: RE: ISO v UDF by rav0 on 09-27-2005 at 01:27 AM

quote:
Originally posted by .Norma
ISO 9660 have been used as the main CD format for many years now. Most of the CD nowsdays still use this format, the benefit of this format is that it is readable by all CD drive
quote:
Originally posted by .Norma
Just stick with UDF if you are burning media for a friend. (Its more compatible) :tongue:
How does that work?

The filesystem will write extra data to the disk, I wanted to know which one will write less filesystem data, and leave more space to actually be used for files.

Is one more scratch error resistant than the other?
I know that CDs are written with some sort of error correction thingy (pairity?) so that if they get scratched, the data can still be read, unless the scratch is too long for it to work. Do ISO and UDF do this in the same way or is one more effective that the other at this.
RE: ISO v UDF by dotNorma on 09-27-2005 at 01:47 AM

quote:
Originally posted by rav0
Is one more scratch error resistant than the other?
I know that CDs are written with some sort of error correction thingy (pairity?) so that if they get scratched, the data can still be read, unless the scratch is too long for it to work. Do ISO and UDF do this in the same way or is one more effective that the other at this.

As far as I can the file system doesnt effect the parity or extra disk space. :-/

I may be wrong though, Im using google, google define and wikipedia for my sources. Its not like I actually know this stuff :tongue:
RE: ISO v UDF by rav0 on 09-27-2005 at 08:41 AM

Nero asks me to choose a combination of these:

UDF partition type:

  • Physical partition
  • Virtual partition
  • Sparing partition
File system version:
  • UDF 1.02
  • UDF 1.50
  • UDF 2.00
  • UDF 2.01
What do each of these mean and what are their effects?
RE: ISO v UDF by UnduTheGun on 09-27-2005 at 03:40 PM

Is that hard to go to wikipedia/use google? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format

RE: ISO v UDF by evil_panda on 09-27-2005 at 03:43 PM

ISO belive you cant open iso files normaly unless you have a program like alcohol 110% (i think that's the name of it)

RE: ISO v UDF by Millenium_edition on 09-27-2005 at 03:49 PM

quote:
Originally posted by evil_panda
ISO belive you cant open iso files normaly unless you have a program like alcohol 110% (i think that's the name of it)
which is the case with every file type, congratulations...
RE: RE: ISO v UDF by rav0 on 09-28-2005 at 03:36 AM

quote:
Originally posted by UnduTheGun
Is that hard to go to wikipedia/use google? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format
It isn't hard to post without unnecessary sarcasm.

I now know see that there are more versions of UDF than Nero allows, and that each each version of UDF is an improvement on the previous, without significant changes to basic structure (unless the article is inaccurate).

I still don't understand the difference between the different partition types, but I'm going to use physical (because it is set by default). If anyone has information on this, I'd still like to know though.