Can I use the Sata port on my laptop to flash?

dred, I have yet to see you provided any needed information on any of the threads you've posted on. Do yourself a favor, if you're a know-it-all then POST SOMETHING USEFUL. Bashing other posts gets you nowhere.

 

posted by leerage

If you properly read the link that I have provided you know it isn't a single post. read it and then make up your mind, even a 15 year old can understand this. why don't you ?

posted by leerage

hey, don't need to repeat yourself, making a even bigger fool out of your self. let me highlight a sentence of your own posting:

posted by leerage

What has this to do in combination with the purchase of the probe, huh ?

 

dred05, you are taking my posts from different situations and trying to make it seem like you have a valid point.

livewires simply said "Can I just plug my XBOX 360 drive into it to flash it?". So I said "You can power the drive by the 360."

The reason I have to repeat myself is because you can't comprehend what I'm saying. Nothing was mentioned about "the xbox will flag this" until you showed up. You could have simply quoted me and said "Here is a link to some interesting info, there is a possibility that this could hold true. Who knows though as no physical evidence was posted." Instead you had to say I'm wrong and your right just because you believe this guy.

Why don't you go ahead and dig up more of my posts where I talk about having the CK3 connectivity as a convenience.

Most people just want to flash their own console and be done with it. They don't want to purchase additional equipment for a 1 or 2 time use over the life span of their 360. The OP asked a question of whether or not you could use the 360 as a power supply to flash the 360 drive, so I said simply answered his question. Yes, he can use his 360 to flash the drive.

He simply repeats himself in his other posts. I take it you didn't read his signature did you?

Mods: I'm sorry this thread has gone completely off topic. I'm done with this troll.

 

Yeah, leerage! Geeze!

¡Que estupido! ¡Que ignorante!

¡Este es un hecho que un niño de 15 años puede entender!

Ai, dios mio...


Sorry.... but Spanish just seemed to suit the mood so much better.

 

leerage, that guy has used the exact same tactics on me. He'll take sentences completely out of context, misquote you, ignore solid evidence yet accept the weakest of evidence if it backs up his own beliefs, and he'll quote something and imply that it backs up his point even if it does no such thing. Why he does this, I don't know (big ego perhaps?), but it's getting a little tiresome.

 

Yeah it is tiresome. Hopefully the mods will do something about it. If not, oh well... it gives me some good laughs.

 

how can i tell what chipset my laptop has?

 

Control Panel-->Device Manger-->System Devices

 

still lost it doesnt say anything bout via chipset in there maybe this help i have a dell inspiron 1720 wit vista ? thanks

 

so if i order this will it let me do it?Laptop PCMCIA To 2 Port 32bit Serial ATA SATA RAID Card

 

posted by leerage

yes, I actually do believe the poster on the 360Mods, that is my own right and no one else ..

posted by leerage

again that is your own interpretation of the situation, however the reality is a different story though.

hold on, I never misquoted some one, show me where I did. I am tired of that funksoulb person who cannot accept his own wrong ..

 

Let's look at the evidence: -

You claimed that you will be banned from Live if you flash your 360 a certain way. People asked for proof. You linked to a forum where a guy said that the console logs an error when you turn a 360 on without the DVD drive connected. That's all you posted. No proof of any bans, and no other evidence apart from some other guy on a forum saying it.

You claimed that wave 4 is a new "protection" by Microsoft. It's no such thing. It's merely a change in the video partition due to the new dashboard update being included in it. Wrong again. Not a good success rate so far.

Finally, you claim that discs should always be burned at 2.4X and that the two drives that I own (and you do NOT own) can burn Verbatim 8X discs at 2.4X. I showed you plenty of evidence that proves they cannot. I showed you other peoples' ImgBurn logs that shows that if you select a non-supported burn speed, ImgBurn will merely select the closest supported speed. I posted a link to a thread on the ImgBurn forums where the creator of ImgBurn was backing up what I was saying. You linked to a page on Verbatim's own site that says you can save a lot of time by burning their latest discs at 8X. Nowhere on that site did it say "well, these discs may be 8X, but always burn at 2.4!". That's 3 fails out of 3 for you up to now. Not good!

You are a troll spreading misinformation over and over again. Hopefully the mods will pick up on this and ban you, because you are not only giving out false information that may lead to people believing your bad advice, you are also pissing off the people that do know what they're talking about and are genuinely trying to help those that come here looking for help. Over the last day or so it's become pretty clear that you are doing this deliberately. You are the very dictionary definition of an Internet troll.

 

Creaky asked me to comment on the question of recording speeds and media since I have been in the design, manufacturing, and testing business for recording media most of my professional life. The question is whether or not it is advisable to record at the slowest speed for optical media to get the best results. The answer is: it depends.

The "best" speed is the one that provides a recording with the highesst signal to noise ratios, fewest errors, and lowest jitter. The rated speed of a disc that matches the rated speed of a drive, particularly a new drive, will give good results if the design engineers created suitable recording firmware for that disc. A 52X CD-R recorded at 52X in a 52X drive will generally be well recorded; and a 16X DVD+/-R recorded at 16X in a 16X drive will also be well recorded, presuming the firmware is appropriate. Reducing the recording speed by half often produces better results simply because the drive is running below its maximum threshold: the recording laser diode runs at reduced power and the motor is also below its upper limit threshold. Firmware engineers generally design their drives to operate at a half rated speed. They can also include lower speeds, and sometimes they do. But these days the few firmware engineers left are forced to cut corners, and a 16X drive may only have suitable firmware settings for 16X, 8X, and 4X. Recording at 2.4X, 2X, or 1X may pose a problem (except in consumer video recorders whose designs always include 1X real-time settings.)

There is a further problem in the ability of dyes to properly record at speeds out of their design range. Faster reacting dyes are used for higher speeds, and at very slow speeds they may be "overburned" with marks that have larger, low-contrast edges that are associated with jitter and higher error rates. That is certainly the case with phthalocyanine dyes used in high-rated CD-Rs. They simply cannot be well recorded in 1x stereo machines with any good result. It is also true with the very limited ranges of rewritable discs whose narrow speed ranges limit them to 1-4X, 4-12X, 12X-24X, and so forth. It is the combination of fast reacting dyes designed for high speed recording and high speed drives with limited or no provisions for slow speed recording that create the problem of higher error rates for 16X rated media recorded at 2.4X in a modern high-speed drive.

DL media are a slightly different case. The pressure to lower prices has encouraged a number of DL producers to use a different method of manufacturing known as "inverse stack" or IS. Unlike the photo polymer method ("2P") that uses a temporary plastic stamper from a photo polymer that is hardened by UV light, then pulled off and discarded after creating the inner tracking groove for a double layer disc, the IS method creates the groove "upside down" on the layer applied to the disc substrate. This causes a problem for all but the latest DL drives that do not have firmware for recording this upside down layer. The developers knew that, so they have restricted IS DL discs to 8X speeds in the vain hope that retailers would keep both 4X and 8X DL discs on their shelves. That has not happened. So many people with older DL drives, or even with newer DL drives with limited firmware support, are finding problems with 8X DL discs. The prices have fallen dramatically because there is no 2P plastic to throw away and at least two manufacturing steps eliminated with IS production, and the yields and consistency are better. The problem for consumers as that these discs do not work well on older drives, and they do not work well at 2.4X because their design is focused (pun intended) on good response at 4X or 8X. For 8X DL media, 4X is the wisest speed, assuming that a drive can handle IS media in the first place.

The situation is a mess, and the fact that retailers limit their shelves to as few versions as possible (with limited technical knowledge of the products they are selling) makes things worse. This has been a problem for Verbatim who is forced to keeping higher prices because their 2P production process is more expensive, and to Taiyo Yuden who has been reluctant to get into DL production because of cost and because a late start means little to no firmware support and, consequently, a hit on their reputation when their newly introduced DL discs don't work.

In short, using the slowest speed is not the best recommendation for recording optical media. Using half the rated speed is more likely to produce a good recording as well as extend the life of one's drive.

 

thanks, I really appreciate some inside know-how ..

posted by JoeRyan

and

I have always learned that slow is best. what about a burner that is only capable of burning at 2,4 - does that mean the recorded media is wrong if rated 8x ?

 

dred - if the burner only burns at 2.4x and the disc is rated at 8x, even if it is a very high quality disc, the burn will be of bad quality.

I have a burner that will only burn at 2.4x and when I use Verbatim 8x discs they will not even play in my 360 at all due to the high jitter.

 

posted by qwert99

I've send an e-mail to R&D of Verbatim with the question whether a burned DVD+R DL at 2,4 rated 8x has a good outcome ..

 

I love you, man.

 

A 2.4X burner will not have the firmware for recording an 8X disc. The original idea behind recorders was to have them record test signals on an isolated section of a disc to determine the proper power levels and pulse rates for that disc. Early burners did have that feature; but with the price wars forcing manufacturers to take shortcuts, fixed settings based on the recognition of a series of MID codes is all that's left.

A 2.4X burner may be unable to record an 8X disc, or may attempt to record it with poor results, or--in some lucky combinations--be able to record with acceptable results. The laser diode in a 2.4X burner will be capable of far less power output than today's faster burners, particularly the DL drives. The dyes used in high-speed discs are tuned for fast reaction by chemical modifications as well as thinner dispersions. Sometimes the power supplied by a laser diode at 2.4X might work well with an 8X disc (single-layer only, of course) or even a 16X disc. I have run hundreds of compatibility tests of high speed discs with all sorts of drives, however, and I don't remember a case in which an older drive with fixed settings delivered good results.

 

Would you say then in summary joe, that its not always best to burn at the lowest speed?