Looking for good free burning software for XP

Custom / CUSTOM
January 17, 2010 at 11:08:04
Specs: Microsoft Windows XP Professional, 2.401 GHz / 2047 MB
Just wondering if there actually is good AND free burning software out there.

Problems I have is that an average 1 out 2 burning sessions fail, mostly for unclear errors, if any already. I was using BurnerXP (latest version), and apart from the above problem, this tool also has the following problem : all the way below, there is a graphic display of the space consumed by the selected files to be written. There is a specific (explorer like) window to show the selection of files. Problem is that when deselecting the files in the window, the graphic bar at the bottom, does not move at all. No big deal you think, but when you start adding files again to the explorer-like window, he adds that volume to the bar. Needless to say, the volume supersedes what is allowed for the disc ... and you cant remove anything ...


See More: Looking for good free burning software for XP

Report •


#1
January 17, 2010 at 11:18:02
You want to try "Imageburn" free, simple and knock on wood no coasters (failed burns)as of yet

Report •

#2
January 17, 2010 at 11:26:48

Report •

#3
January 17, 2010 at 13:46:08
Thanks, I'm trying ImgBurn now ... note that CDBurnerXP is also listed in there, but only with score of 70%.

This one (ImBurn) is much more communicative. I like it


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
January 17, 2010 at 13:47:45
Just another question : how do you guys decide what format to write in (Juliet, UDF, ...) ?

Report •

#5
January 18, 2010 at 12:26:29
Just googled to get a better link for clive's post, let see how this goes.

Best Free CD / DVD Burning Software

http://www.techsupportalert.com/bes...


Report •

#6
January 19, 2010 at 03:51:08
I`ve always had good luck with this free one: http://www.majorgeeks.com/Ashampoo_...

Report •

#7
January 31, 2010 at 08:07:46
Currently using ImgBurn ... which is very communicative, and I like that. Bad points :

- one disc (out of 5 in total) failed burning, no obvious reason
- a whole series of discs, he does not want to start even
- the program is pretty based on "images" (logical if you behold the title of it) and I don't ever use that .. bit of unnecessary menus and such


Report •

#8
January 31, 2010 at 10:34:13
Did you try Ashampoo as I suggested?

Report •

#9
February 1, 2010 at 05:09:05
That'll be the first to try next, as ImgBurn seems to produce as much failed discs as other software. It'll be the last thing to try, if that doesnt work, I'll be abandoning burning soft forever, and go for HD backups (since you have 1TB discs for pretty much not a lot of money) ... I've tried so many writers, writer software and writing media ... it just is unreliable. It's a shame. Besides of still not having any standard (the "minus" versus "plus", the Joliet ISO raw UDF whatever things, ...) it is just all still not working as it should.

Report •

#10
February 1, 2010 at 06:39:36
Try burning at less than maximum burning speeds. The drive reads what speed the disk is capable of but your burner may not be up to snuff or the disks may be fudging things a bit.

Could also be that your burner doesn't like the brand of disks you are currently using.

What brand is your burner and how old is it?

IMO the burning program usually isn't the problem.

Isn't Ashampoo shareware?

See what Wiki has to say about that program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashamp...


Report •

#11
February 1, 2010 at 08:55:38
OtheHill, note, the op states that he wanted a free burning software, so why would I give a link to a shareware.The link I gave is to MajorGeeks, Ashampoo Burning Studio 6 "FREE", not sharware, check the link out. Personally, I have used Nero(paid), and most of the free ones out there, and personally I like Ashampoo, and have it on all my computers. Now, if you want a "Super" burning software that does everything including making you toast and coffee in the morning, you are not going to get that for free. That said I am sure there are those that like a particular software, and those that do not for any particular reason. Personally, for me, it`s the end result, and the simpler/easier the better.

Report •

#12
February 1, 2010 at 09:04:45
I'll try the Shampoo one, although I have doubts it'll be much better. I just would be happy with a tool that has a failure of at max. 10%, preferrably 5%, but no matter what I use, I achieve 40% to 60% failure ... I have a recent Maxtor, different brands ... speed would be often max. speed, I guess ... I'm not going to change it cause the software cannot handle that problem, if it can't handle it, it's not worth my money. It only proves that the technical architecture is not adapted to day-to-day usage. Anyway, I'll report on Shampoo, I still have some disks to throw away in the garbage can.

Report •

#13
February 1, 2010 at 09:21:00
How old is your burner? What is the max. burn speed?

Ike

I did check out the site. Also read what wiki had to say about Ashampoo. Got burned by that company 10 years ago and have a long memory.

I doubt the issue is the burning program anyway. Could be the burner doesn't even have burn proof technology. Burners are disposable hardware, IMO. 100 disks or so and they start to fail. Sometimes cleaning the lens helps.


Report •

#14
February 1, 2010 at 10:13:59
"I have some disks to throw away in the garbage can". Prime example as to why when I am diagnosing a problem with burning, whether it is software or hardware related, I always use cd+rw/dvd+rw, untill I resolve the problem. Thus, no cd+r or dvd+r in the trash, I just erase the rw`s, and they are always there for the next diagnostic.

Report •

#15
February 1, 2010 at 14:19:50
There's a point, but then you spend half a day writing one disc, or so ?

Report •

#16
February 1, 2010 at 14:24:02
> Could be the burner doesn't even have burn proof
> technology.
>

Possibly ... but it sometimes work ... so maybe my burner sometimes has got Burn Proof Technology ?!


Report •

#17
February 1, 2010 at 14:41:11
Burn proof technology (buffer underrun) means that the buffer can never go empty. The burner will slow down if necessary to keep that from happening. Older burners did not have this technology and made lots of coasters. If the buffer go completely empty the burn will stop right there and will not restart.

If your burner is like that then burning at a slower rate and also not taxing the computer while burning is about all you can do.

This has nothing to do with which burning program you use. I think you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

What is the model of your burner? Should show in the POST screens at start up. If necessary, hit the pause or scroll lock keys to temporarily freeze the screen. Tap the space bar to restart again.


Report •

#18
February 1, 2010 at 14:51:02
I think you need a new burner.

Ashampoo 2010 free

http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/download...
burning-studio-2009


Report •

#19
February 1, 2010 at 14:52:41
> Burn proof technology (buffer underrun) means that the
> buffer can never go empty. The burner will slow down if
> necessary to keep that from happening. Older burners
> did not have this technology and made lots of coasters.
> If the buffer go completely empty the burn will stop right
> there and will not restart.
>

It's actually a mistery how they actually ever thought that it would work without buffer. The ImgBurn software nicely shows this (unlike other software I've seen) and I saw the speed fluctuating ... and I also saw it very near zero, but not always when the session failed.

But what is more important, I acknowledge that speed IS very important to this matter ... but what about buffer size ? What if you - theoretically - set the buffer to at least the same size as the size of data you are writing ?

> If your burner is like that then burning at a slower rate and
> also not taxing the computer while burning is about all
> you can do.
>

I call this "unstable" software, it's not why multitasking was invented, to then have software that cannot handle peak CPU or memory usage.


Report •

#20
February 1, 2010 at 14:56:13
> This has nothing to do with which burning program you use.
> I think you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
>

I agree with that.

If the problem WAS the buffer, it's setting the size of the buffer that has a major impact on things. I see that on ImgBurn, the buffer is set to 40 megs.

Are they joking ? 40 megs ? That may work if you write a 600 meg disc (and even that is not very comfortable), but it is waaaaaaaaay too small for bigger formats, like DVD or DVD/DL. Here are some ppl asking the same : http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?...

Even the max. setting for ImgBurn, which is 512Meg, is still too low. In theory, the only way a buffer really works, if it is as large as the data you are buffering. If that is 8.5Gigs, then it is 8.5Gigs. Agreed that you may have lower memory in your system, but there is something called Pagefile ... but that is another discussion, and frankly, a pagefile is not good.

Anyway, it's always very visible, that these software vendors try to defend setting these buffers way too small, and even then try to defend that bad idea, blaming it on the fact that other processes take too much memory or disk I/O ... there IS NO issue when the buffer is large enough.

1. write buffer completely full
2. read from buffer and write disc

The memory I/O will ALWAYS be faster than any hardware burner/writer, that's a given. Harddisk I/O is unreliable consistent, and slow.


Report •

#21
February 1, 2010 at 15:04:40
> What is the model of your burner? Should show in the
> POST screens at start up. If necessary, hit the pause or
> scroll lock keys to temporarily freeze the screen. Tap
> the space bar to restart again.
>

It's a Plextor DVDR PX-810SA


Report •

#22
February 1, 2010 at 16:25:13
Well, I would have to say that unless that Plextor has lots of miles on it the drive is not your problem either. That is a top shelf unit. BTW this is from the specs "Buffer Under-run Proof technology prevents buffer underrun errors".

I would say the disks you are using are not up to the speeds you are probably burning at. Try slowing the burn speed down to at least one step lower than the rated speed of the media.

Are you burning on the fly from one disk to another? If so, the other drive may not be able to keep pace with the Plextor. Commercial burning software matches the speeds so that isn't a problem. I don't know about freeware.

I am not hawking commercial burning software but the only burning software I ever bought was a copy of Roxio CD Creator 6 for $5. Most times I look for drives with bundled software. That usually is some version of Nero.


Report •

#23
February 2, 2010 at 03:12:18
I tried to more burning attemps, now with buffers maxed to 512Megs ... one succeeded, one failed. ImgBurn states "I/O error", some more details, and also : "L-EC Uncorrectable Error"

The disk itself, is an Emtec DVD+R Dual Layer

I had Nero in the past (bundled with some or another burner), but I can't recall more or less failed discs back then (keep in mind, back then the burning was even more challenging), so, that is not a comparison. I do have Nero 5.5, lying around, but it'll not work with DVD's, neither with my Plextor writer.

I like ImgBurn, it has got a very nice interface, but the burning itself is still as bad as with other software. I didn't mention yet, but I have a series of discs (Philips, DVD non-dual layer) which he doesn't want to burn even ... software should accept it, hardware should ...

Burning at lower speed IS an option, but I feel that burning at highest speed is already slow, I'm not prepared to give in on that. I did saw (on the last runs) is that on multiple occasions, the "device buffer" was occasionally at 0%. If I'm right, this is the 8MB buffer.

The "buffer", which I assume is the one I reset to 512MB, stayed at 100% all the time.


Report •

#24
February 2, 2010 at 04:54:56
What type of files are you burning?

Report •

#25
February 2, 2010 at 07:19:23
Ashampo burning studio 6, is now offered as a free program download. It works very well.

Report •

#26
February 2, 2010 at 08:08:10
tvc

I suggest you try running a thorough memory test from a boot disk to determine if your RAM is faulty. RAM can produce errors for a number of reasons. Wrong or insufficient voltage, dirty contacts, incompatible, or just bad.

You can check what voltage the RAM should use by running SIW. You can snap each RAM stick in and out 4 or 5 times to burnish the contacts.

Get SIW and memtest86 at the links below.

http://www.gtopala.com/siw-download...

http://www.memtest86.com/download.html

BTW, I downloaded and tested Ashampoo. I copied a factory CD that was slightly scratched using two drives on the fly. Copied sucessfully.

Over the years I have bought and used at least a dozen different drives. I buy the cheapest media on sale. I can't recall the last time I burned a coaster of any kind.

This is with 4 or 5 different rigs with different hardware and OSes from Win98, 2000, XP and now Windows 7.

So, from my perspective I find it unusual that you are having so many failures.

I am thinking that either you have a memory issue or source media issue.

Make sure all your IDE ATA drives are running an some DMA (Direct Memory Access) mode.


Report •

#27
February 5, 2010 at 10:59:55
I'll check my memory ... see what happens, but it would surprise me.

Downloaded and installed Ashampoo ... totally different from ImgBurn, but I like this one as well. Two attempts, both worked, so that is good.

Un-installed ImgBur because I had 4 failures, with 2 kind of different error messages.


Report •

#28
February 5, 2010 at 14:28:58
"Even the max. setting for ImgBurn, which is 512Meg, is still too low. In theory, the only way a buffer really works, if it is as large as the data you are buffering. If that is 8.5Gigs, then it is 8.5Gigs."

That's bulls**t. The burning software uses RAM for the write-buffer. How many people do you know with 8.5 Gigs unused RAM in their system? Nero allows no more than 80MB of RAM to be used for the buffer and it's always been enough for me even when burning 3-gigs of data to a DVD.


Report •

#29
February 5, 2010 at 14:54:59
As long as the buffer doesn't go empty you should be OK, no matter how large the buffer.

Report •

#30
February 5, 2010 at 15:22:52
> "Even the max. setting for ImgBurn, which is 512Meg, is
> still too low. In theory, the only way a buffer really works,
> if it is as large as the data you are buffering. If that is
> 8.5Gigs, then it is 8.5Gigs."
>
> That's bulls**t. The burning software uses RAM for the
> write-buffer. How many people do you know with 8.5
> Gigs unused RAM in their system?

That is non-relevant, your question should be : what can a computer run today, and what can it run next year, and the year after. And the year after that.

> Nero allows no
> more than 80MB of RAM to be used for the buffer and
> it's always been enough for me even when burning
> 3-gigs of data to a DVD.
>

As you say, enough for you ...


Report •

Ask Question