B
BeeJ
Looking for a free reliable .ISO burner.
P
Paul
K
Ken Blake, MVP
I'll second that recommendation.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
P
(PeteCresswell)
Per Ken Blake, MVP:
Then I'll third it.
One of those nice little apps that does one thing and does it
well.
I'm especially enamored with the UI and the way it pre-selects
the drive and reports progress.
Then I'll third it.
One of those nice little apps that does one thing and does it
well.
I'm especially enamored with the UI and the way it pre-selects
the drive and reports progress.
0
000-222-000
DeepBurner Free 1.9BeeJ said:
< http://www.deepburner.com/?r=download >
With DeepBurner you can just burner ISO,
and or you can add Files to the CD or DVD afterword's..
It good to be able to add File to a disks after burner,
And with DeepBurner you can make it,
back as a iso with your add file...
?????
DOS,
Windows,
Linux...
I can give you a DOS,
is you looking for some thing old
But New on live......
< http://www.opus.co.tt/dave/links.htm >
T
Tecknomage
I recommend CDBurnerXP (freeware)
http://www.cdburnerxp.se/
I use it at home and work (WinXP, WinServer 2003 STD).
See feature list at URL. Includes ISO burning, and very friendly GUI.
--
=========== Tecknomage ===========
Computer Systems Specialist
ComputerHelpForum.org Staff Member
IT Technician
San Diego, CA
M
Mayayana
| I recommend CDBurnerXP (freeware)
| http://www.cdburnerxp.se/
|
It should be mentioned that CDBurnerXP requires
the .Net framework, minimum v. 2. That's not a problem
for people who have .Net installed, but it means 70+
extra MB of support files for anyone who doesn't.
It also raises questions about the quality of the software.
..Net software is not necessarily bad, but, like Java, .Net
is a wrapper designed for making quickie applets. In other
words, the .Net programmer asks the .Net runtime to do
the job. .Net "wraps" the programming operations.
With a program like ImgBurn the author is actually writing
the code to do the job. So it's highly likely that the non-.Net
author has a greater understanding of the fine details of the
operation. (It's analogous to two cooks, one of whom
makes their own spaghetti sauce and one of whom buys
it bottled. We can't be certain that the sauce-from-scratch
will be better, but it's likely to be, and it's a very good bet
that the sauce-from-scratch cook is more knowledgeable and
experienced in the kitchen than his/her counterpart using
pre-prepared ingredients.)
| http://www.cdburnerxp.se/
|
It should be mentioned that CDBurnerXP requires
the .Net framework, minimum v. 2. That's not a problem
for people who have .Net installed, but it means 70+
extra MB of support files for anyone who doesn't.
It also raises questions about the quality of the software.
..Net software is not necessarily bad, but, like Java, .Net
is a wrapper designed for making quickie applets. In other
words, the .Net programmer asks the .Net runtime to do
the job. .Net "wraps" the programming operations.
With a program like ImgBurn the author is actually writing
the code to do the job. So it's highly likely that the non-.Net
author has a greater understanding of the fine details of the
operation. (It's analogous to two cooks, one of whom
makes their own spaghetti sauce and one of whom buys
it bottled. We can't be certain that the sauce-from-scratch
will be better, but it's likely to be, and it's a very good bet
that the sauce-from-scratch cook is more knowledgeable and
experienced in the kitchen than his/her counterpart using
pre-prepared ingredients.)
K
Ken Blake, MVP
Yes, but let me point out that 70MB is a *tiny* amount of disk space
these days. You can buy a 200GB drive for around $80 US. At those
prices, 70MB is around 3 cents worth.
And it's even less than that if you buy a bigger drive.
In my view, if anyone has a problem with using 70MB of disk space, he
has a serious problem for which the only real solution is buying a
bigger drive.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
T
Todd
This is my favorite one as well. I install it all overt the place.
Don't forget the "verify" option to make sure you got a good burn
-T
T
Todd
So many things require .net these days that I have
given up trying to find things that do use it.
CD Burner XP specifically required .net 3.5. Won't
work with .net 4
-T
K
Ken Springer
Or, maybe the author doesn't want to do the same work twice, and then be
responsible for maintaining that part of the code.
That aside, I recently had a desktop where Imgburn simply would not run.
Never figured out why, so cut my losses in time and installed
CDburnerXP, and it ran without a hitch.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, just my experience with the
one desktop.
I don't know anything about Deepburner.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0
Thunderbird 10.0
LibreOffice 3.4.4
M
Mayayana
| > It should be mentioned that CDBurnerXP requires
| > the .Net framework, minimum v. 2. That's not a problem
| > for people who have .Net installed, but it means 70+
| > extra MB of support files for anyone who doesn't.
|
| In my view, if anyone has a problem with using 70MB of disk space, he
| has a serious problem for which the only real solution is buying a
| bigger drive.
I think it's a matter of opinion. But either way,
people have a right to know what they're getting
into. 70-500 MB is not much on an average disk,
but it's astonishing bloat in relation to the size of
Windows itself (which is about 1 GB for a basic
XP install.)
If you don't mind adding extra files willy nilly (with
possible extra security issues) that's up to you, but
to say that no one else should mind is like saying
that since your basement is packed with junk, everyone
should be happy to have their basement packed with
junk. After all, the space is just "going to waste", right?
And that stuff might come in handy some day....assuming
it doesn't cause a fire first.
| > the .Net framework, minimum v. 2. That's not a problem
| > for people who have .Net installed, but it means 70+
| > extra MB of support files for anyone who doesn't.
|
| In my view, if anyone has a problem with using 70MB of disk space, he
| has a serious problem for which the only real solution is buying a
| bigger drive.
I think it's a matter of opinion. But either way,
people have a right to know what they're getting
into. 70-500 MB is not much on an average disk,
but it's astonishing bloat in relation to the size of
Windows itself (which is about 1 GB for a basic
XP install.)
If you don't mind adding extra files willy nilly (with
possible extra security issues) that's up to you, but
to say that no one else should mind is like saying
that since your basement is packed with junk, everyone
should be happy to have their basement packed with
junk. After all, the space is just "going to waste", right?
And that stuff might come in handy some day....assuming
it doesn't cause a fire first.
M
Mayayana
|> We can't be certain that the sauce-from-scratch
| > will be better, but it's likely to be, and it's a very good bet
| > that the sauce-from-scratch cook is more knowledgeable and
| > experienced in the kitchen than his/her counterpart using
| > pre-prepared ingredients.)
|
| Or, maybe the author doesn't want to do the same work twice, and then be
| responsible for maintaining that part of the code.
|
Remind me not to go over to your house for spaghetti.
| That aside, I recently had a desktop where Imgburn simply would not run.
| Never figured out why, so cut my losses in time and installed
| CDburnerXP, and it ran without a hitch.
|
I've never seen problems with ImgBurn. It's hard to
imagine how it could not run, as there seem to be no
dependencies at all other than core system files. But I do
think it needs work on the GUI. It's confusing. I install
it for friends but then I have to show them how to
use it because the layout just isn't very intuitive.
| > will be better, but it's likely to be, and it's a very good bet
| > that the sauce-from-scratch cook is more knowledgeable and
| > experienced in the kitchen than his/her counterpart using
| > pre-prepared ingredients.)
|
| Or, maybe the author doesn't want to do the same work twice, and then be
| responsible for maintaining that part of the code.
|
Remind me not to go over to your house for spaghetti.
| That aside, I recently had a desktop where Imgburn simply would not run.
| Never figured out why, so cut my losses in time and installed
| CDburnerXP, and it ran without a hitch.
|
I've never seen problems with ImgBurn. It's hard to
imagine how it could not run, as there seem to be no
dependencies at all other than core system files. But I do
think it needs work on the GUI. It's confusing. I install
it for friends but then I have to show them how to
use it because the layout just isn't very intuitive.
N
Nil
I agree. I started using ImgBurn a few months ago, and I like it
because it has a lot of good options. I also dislike it because it's
got a lot of obscure and confusing (to me) options... and the obscure
and the common options all have equal visibility. I'm able to use it
anyway, and I'm slowly learning what those options do, but I certainly
wouldn't recommend it to someone who just wants to click 'n' go. If you
want the flexibility and don't mind fiddling, ImgBurn is an excellent
choice. If you just want the basics, I'd recommend CDburnerXP which
also seems to work reliably and is easier to use.
K
Ken Blake, MVP
Not much? As I said, it's a *tiny* amount- three pennies worth, or
less. You can't get a whole lot tinier than that.
That's irrelevant. Something is big or not big on its own--without
comparing it to something else.
Security issues is another subject entirely. We were talking about
size, not security issues.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
K
Ken Springer
I sure could have worded my post differently, so it would have been more
specific. My bad, sorry.
Yes, Imgburn would run, but it would not operate the drive, even after
updating the drive's firmware. It was a Sony of some model.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0
Thunderbird 10.0
LibreOffice 3.4.4
M
Mayayana
| > but it's astonishing bloat in relation to the size of
| > Windows itself (which is about 1 GB for a basic
| > XP install.)
|
| That's irrelevant. Something is big or not big on its own--without
| comparing it to something else.
|
| > If you don't mind adding extra files willy nilly (with
| > possible extra security issues)
|
| Security issues is another subject entirely. We were talking about
| size, not security issues.
"Big" is not a relative term? Wasn't your whole point
that .Net shouldn't be thought of as big because it's
small *in comparison* to the average disk size? ...And
security issues are not relevant? ...I'm not following your
logic.
You're offering a rationale for why people should accept
..Net. I'm not anti-.Net (or anti-Java). I'm just trying
to make sure people have access to the facts, so that
they can decide for themselves: Neither .Net nor Java
was ever meant for Desktop software. They're designed
for quickly written, locally used, corporate server applets.
There could be security risks. Most people can do without
..Net and Java. And installing them could add up to 1/2 GB
of support files for one 2 MB program. People have a right
to know all that up front and not have installers literally
sneaking 500 MB of runtime files onto their PC.
| > Windows itself (which is about 1 GB for a basic
| > XP install.)
|
| That's irrelevant. Something is big or not big on its own--without
| comparing it to something else.
|
| > If you don't mind adding extra files willy nilly (with
| > possible extra security issues)
|
| Security issues is another subject entirely. We were talking about
| size, not security issues.
"Big" is not a relative term? Wasn't your whole point
that .Net shouldn't be thought of as big because it's
small *in comparison* to the average disk size? ...And
security issues are not relevant? ...I'm not following your
logic.
You're offering a rationale for why people should accept
..Net. I'm not anti-.Net (or anti-Java). I'm just trying
to make sure people have access to the facts, so that
they can decide for themselves: Neither .Net nor Java
was ever meant for Desktop software. They're designed
for quickly written, locally used, corporate server applets.
There could be security risks. Most people can do without
..Net and Java. And installing them could add up to 1/2 GB
of support files for one 2 MB program. People have a right
to know all that up front and not have installers literally
sneaking 500 MB of runtime files onto their PC.
P
Peter Foldes
A bit of a OT here.
My first Hard Drive was a huge 1.25 Gigs capacity in 93. I thought it was quite
large at the time. Cannot go anywhere with that today.
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
K
Ken Springer
|> We can't be certain that the sauce-from-scratch
|> will be better, but it's likely to be, and it's a very good bet
|> that the sauce-from-scratch cook is more knowledgeable and
|> experienced in the kitchen than his/her counterpart using
|> pre-prepared ingredients.)
|
| Or, maybe the author doesn't want to do the same work twice, and then be
| responsible for maintaining that part of the code.
|
Remind me not to go over to your house for spaghetti.
But in the case of spaghetti, the work is consumed and you have to start
over.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0
Thunderbird 10.0
LibreOffice 3.4.4
P
(PeteCresswell)
Per Peter Foldes:
I'll meet your OT and raise it with the eight-hundred bucks I
paid to get a 20-meg hard drive on my first MacIntosh.
I'll meet your OT and raise it with the eight-hundred bucks I
paid to get a 20-meg hard drive on my first MacIntosh.