Does Vista use a file system when burning CD's that XP can't read?

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Talk' started by 98 Guy, Aug 22, 2008.

  1. 98 Guy

    98 Guy Guest

    If files are copied (drag'n'dropped) to a CD-R while using Vista, are
    those files accessible if the CD is put into an XP machine? I've heard
    of some first-hand accounts where this seems to be the case.

    Does Vista use a file system on burned CD's or DVD's that XP can't read?

    If so, does Micro$oft provide a driver for XP to be able to read them?
     
    98 Guy, Aug 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 98 Guy

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, 98 Guy.

    Where did you hear this?

    The only such incompatibility that I can think of is the long-standing
    occasional problem of mis-calibrated drives, so that discs written on one
    can't be read on another. But that is strictly a physical problem, not
    based on operating system or file system differences.

    Have a look in Help and Support and search for cd-rom. Item 7 (in my
    search) is "Which CD or DVD format should I use?" and it has a table of
    possible formats that can be read in other operating systems.

    RC
    --
    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    (Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)
     
    R. C. White, Aug 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 98 Guy

    98 Guy Guest

    Does Vista use a file system on burned CD's or DVD's that XP
    A friend of mine said that last weekend a friend of his with a vista
    laptop burns some files onto a generic CD-R disk. They take it over to
    an XP machine and it can't read the cd. They take it back to the vista
    laptop and it can read the files.

    My friend brings the CD to work and a few XP guys look at it but they
    can't read it either in their XP machines. The properties of the disk
    indicate that it's a blank CD - but it's capacity is reduced -
    indicating that there is something on the disk.

    I came across the following, which could be the reason why XP can't read
    the CD:

    Vista UDF 2.5 issue:

    http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPo...2&SiteID=17

    Possible XP driver might be here (I haven't tried this yet):

    http://files.digital-digest.com/dow...VDRom.UDF.Reader.v2.5.WindowsXP-BluePrint.rar

    But this issue pertains to CD-R's (not DVD-r's) so I'm not sure if this
    UDF thing would or might apply.
     
    98 Guy, Aug 23, 2008
    #3
  4. 98 Guy

    98 Guy Guest

    98 Guy, Aug 23, 2008
    #4
  5. 98 Guy

    98 Guy Guest

    So is the default setting 2.5?

    Is it just me, or is this issue (and the potential for Vista -> XP
    incompatibility) common knowledge?

    Is there a benefit in using 2.5 vs 2.01, or did Microsoft do this
    because it's their habbit of creating compatibility or
    intra-operatbility problems with older windows versions?
     
    98 Guy, Aug 23, 2008
    #5
  6. 98 Guy

    Bob D. Guest

    I think for regular CD's it's file system is CDFS. Not sure what they call
    it for a DVD.

    Bob
     
    Bob D., Aug 23, 2008
    #6
  7. 98 Guy

    Frank Guest

     
    Frank, Aug 23, 2008
    #7
  8. 98 Guy

    Ringmaster Guest

    You're a moron Frank. There is NO option to make something only play
    on THAT computer. What you just said above but surely you will try to
    climb up on a stack of bibles and pretend it wasn't what you meant.

    Again Frank illustrate why he's a total jackass, retard and putz.

    There is an option to use different file systems. One is backward
    compatible with older versions of Windows, the other is not. There is
    no "that" machine which in Frank's senile world implies you could burn
    a CD playable only on the machine that burned it. Frank has lots of
    difficulty writing English in a way you can understand what he
    babbling about. That's because Frank is severely brain damaged, senile
    and suffering from advancing dementia.

    Just excuse Frank, the old fool never knows what he babbling about.
    He's just some senile old fool.
     
    Ringmaster, Aug 23, 2008
    #8
  9. 98 Guy

    fb Guest

    You're that stupid? You can't figure out what I was talking about can
    you, you fukkin imbecile !
    OMG! Well, figures seeing as how you still can't get your one little
    install of Vista Business to run properly.

    What you just said above but surely you will try to
    You do so love to open your big fat pompous stupid mouth and stick both
    feet into it don't you mr drunken lying PIG!...LOL!
     
    fb, Aug 23, 2008
    #9
  10. 98 Guy

    fb Guest

    ringbastard can't get his one little install of Vista Business to run
    properly. He a stupid, incompetent fool.
    Pay no attention tho him.
     
    fb, Aug 23, 2008
    #10
  11. 98 Guy

    Flight Guest

    Great comment! Can you do it in a more decent way? Not everyone is a top
    crack like you are. You know: making mistakes is human. So we can surely say
    that HE is a human being. But you? I doubt it.
     
    Flight, Aug 23, 2008
    #11
  12. 98 Guy

    Canuck57 Guest

    True and not true. If you don't close the disk, the final directory
    information parts would not be written to the disk, thus making it unusable
    by other computers as in essence, it is a incomplete burn. The unburned
    data being retained on the hard drive for subsequent use.

    Problem though, if you reinstalled the OS or the CD drivers, these cached
    bits of directory data would get wiped out making the partially burned CDs
    useless.

    They did this so that you could add more files later as one you made the CD
    complete with writing the header/directory information you could no longer
    add for files to it using known formats that Windoze can use. That is,
    Windows does not have built in method of reading CDs in more than one
    partition. You can actually make a CD or DVD that in Linux can be seen in
    it's entirety, while on a MS-Windows system you only get part of the data.

    Frank is wrong if you consider it needs to be a complete and recoverable
    burn.
     
    Canuck57, Aug 23, 2008
    #12
  13. 98 Guy

    Frank Guest

    Truth is, he is a PIG!...plain and simple.
     
    Frank, Aug 23, 2008
    #13
  14. 98 Guy

    Ringmaster Guest

    I make assholes like you choke on the words you used. Don't blame me
    that you're too stupid to know how to write more clearly. Here's a bit
    of advice. If you want to communicate effectively, don't make people
    guess what you meant. In your case you really don't know which words
    to use as I've pointed out countless times simply because I know it
    embarrasses the crap out of you when I do it. LOL!
     
    Ringmaster, Aug 23, 2008
    #14
  15. 98 Guy

    98 Guy Guest

    Um, did none of you people catch the following information... ???

    You're all going off on crazy-ass tangents. The following is the most
    coherent explanation so far, but it does raise further questions:

    And the following questions remain unanswered:

    Is the default Vista setting to use UDF 2.5?

    Is it just me, or is this issue (and the potential for Vista -> XP
    incompatibility) common knowledge?

    Is there a benefit in using 2.5 vs 2.01, or did Microsoft do this
    because it's their habbit of creating compatibility or
    intra-operatbility problems with older windows versions?
     
    98 Guy, Aug 23, 2008
    #15
  16. You can't be for real. If you are, you're a fool.
     
    Paul Montgomery, Aug 23, 2008
    #16
  17. 98 Guy

    Ringmaster Guest

    I directed you to Vista's help system which explains what you asked in
    more detail. Being able to add more to a disc where you have already
    copied files to it would be considered a benefit by most people.
    Actually you could do the same under XP with some third party
    software. The default is the NEWER file system supported by Vista. You
    should automatically see a window pop up asking if you wish to change
    it to make your CD/DVD more backward compatible. You like many seem to
    have a serious reading comprehension problem. I notice that a lot. I
    can only dumb down what I say so much. I do sometimes forget this
    newsgroup is infested with computer illiterate dolts.
     
    Ringmaster, Aug 23, 2008
    #17
  18. 98 Guy

    fb Guest

    Translation: I'm an asshole who is chocking on my bubba's dick.

    Don't blame me
    Translation: I have no idea what you're talking about. Remember, I'm the
    incompetent idiot moron fool who can't get his one little install of
    Vista Business to run properly.

    Here's a bit
    Translation: Most people with a one brain cell know what Frank is
    talking about...of course that leaves me and a few others totally in the
    dark.
    We are that stupid!...LOL!
     
    fb, Aug 23, 2008
    #18
  19. 98 Guy

    98 Guy Guest

    I don't use or have access to a system running Vista.
    Is this one of the differences between UDF version 2.5 and 2.01?
    So you are confirming that Microsoft is not / will not make a UDF 2.5
    driver available for XP?
     
    98 Guy, Aug 23, 2008
    #19
  20. 98 Guy

    98 Guy Guest

    This page:

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070422083715451

    is a step-by-step series of screen-shots showing someone copying files
    to a CD-r on Vista, and no such warning window comes up:

    ---------------
    Now if I had clicked Next (“Volgende”), the CD would have been burned
    with Microsoft's Live File System format without informing or warning
    the user. This is Not Good, in my view, and smells a bit of sneaky
    lock-in. Instead, then, I click Show Formatting Options (“Opties voor
    formatteren weergeven”).

    The options are clear: the Mastered format is readable on any computer,
    the Live File System format only on Windows computers -- and even then,
    it depends on the chosen version (via “Versie wijzigen”) of Live File
    System, as the following screen shots show:

    All of a sudden, Live File System is called UDF, which is rather
    confusing. Is the resulting disk a UDF disk or not? Anyway, I stick with
    the default option (UDF 2.01), which should be compatible with Vista and
    XP. After I click OK, Vista says it needs to format the disk:
    -------------

    The format process seems to hang, and he's forced to perform a re-boot.
    You can read the rest of the long, sordid effort if you want.

    He refers to this web-page:

    http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/help/2af64e60-60aa-4d79-ab6c-3a5db5806cbe1033.mspx

    which says this:

    -------------------
    The latest version of Windows offers a new format, called Live File
    System.

    Discs formatted with the Live File System option:

    .... Are only compatible with Windows XP and later versions of Windows.
    ----------------

    But even that doesn't make any sense because there seems to be a big
    difference between UDF 2.5 and 2.01 as far as XP is concerned.

    The author makes the point that Micro$haft repeatedly uses their term
    "Live File System" for what is otherwise known in the industry as UDF
    (Universal Disk Format).

    He also says that "Vista clearly steers users away from the universally
    readable “Mastered format”, both by means of default settings that can't
    be changed and a warning message."
     
    98 Guy, Aug 23, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.