OK, I want to get a PC DVD Writer. Should I go for DVD+RW/+R or DVD-RW/-R? I.e. plus or minus, which one? I know each has merits over the other in some ways, but really all I want is a system that will not turn out to be the loser Beta format of DVD.

Beta was a marketing issue.
 
Go with Dvd+; but be prepared to pay extra for the media for about another year. It will remain double the Dvd- stuff, until dell/compaq/hp start putting dvd+ drives into their machines.
 
Which they will, and the corporate geeks will buy them. Which drives down the price of media.
 
 
 
 
And the MPAA will climb the gawd-dam walls, run across the ceiling, and back down the other wall...

 
Here's a great article on the current state of DVD recording. Pretty much deals with making your own DVD movies though.  
 
http://www.infoxpress.com/reviewtr [...] ge_id=1344
 
If you just want to burn data, go with DVD-R if you must have it now and you want to save some mooney.
 
For those who prefer DVD+R over -R.....why? I've seen others recommend that but I never saw a statement like "+R has "x" which -R does not"

Where does DVD RAM fit into all this? Any advantages or disadvantages?
 
-----------------------------------
Don't extract the urine.

Where does DVD RAM fit into all this? Any advantages or disadvantages?
 
-----------------------------------
Don't extract the urine.

I've always heard "go with DVD-RW".  Cheaper media and your videos will play on a home DVD player.
 
<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

DVD-RAM is really a non-issue. It was the first recordable DVD to appear, but it is not compatible with any DVD-ROM or home DVD player. Actually maybe 1 or 2 home players are equipped for DVD-RAM.
 
See, DVD-RAM is cartridge-based. The DVD is inside a plastic cartridge and can not be removed, hence the incompatibility.
 
DVD-RAM discs can hold a little over 9GB though, so for some businessed, it makes a handy backup tool.

True, a lot of people recommend that...and DVD-R/RW has it's advantages, but according to reviews, DVD+R media is very compatible with home players. And remember, DVD-RW is less compatible than DVD-R on home players (not sure by how much though).
 
The thing I don't get are people who like DVD+R & +RW. The facts are that the -R/RW drives are cheaper and are already on their 4th generation of drive. +R/RW still is somewhat new. As far as media prices, +R/RW was more expensive. (but I work for a retail company that sells computer product and I see some good brands are now even in price on the +R & -R types).
 
I've yet to see someone...either in a message board post or article....say +R/RW has "(insert feature here)" that -R/RW does not have. Even companies backing +R/RW haven't mentioned anything that I can remember.
 
So far, due to price, compatibility, & performance...I would spend my money on DVD-R.
 
But god knows what will happen around Feb. when i'm ready to actually BUY one

Actually the prices are evening out already. At my company, we sell Maxell DVD+R discs for $5 and DVD-R for $6 (both with the same cost, so I imagine they will both be $5 each when we get +R in stock). On the -RW/+RW, we have Maxell discs of each for $10 each. So it's dead even.
 
What I don't understand is why you recommend he go with DVD+. Just wondering on the reasoning behind it.

Thanks for the update.  I guess I'm a little behind on information.  I myself am not yet in need of this technology and won't invest until a format IS standardized, (unless this stuff becomes really cheap).
 
How cheap is the media now, -R (or even +R) vs -RW?  That's not really a question to you but it would be a concern if I were looking to buy.  Also, as someone mentioned, no one wants to end up with the next betamax or RCA video disc.
 
<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

No Problem.
 
Actually, I wish there was a standard as well, but honestly I've read of there being no serious talks between the two groups. As a matter of fact; Sony (a backer of +R/RW) just announced they will be putting drives out that support both standards. It will probably be to expensive, but I think it shows that there's no dialog between the two groups at all to come up with a single format.
 
As far as the media, I can tell you that my company sells Maxell +R, -R, +RW, & -RW media. -R discs are $6, while +R are $5 per disc. Sounds odd that +R is cheaper, but we still have those on order. I'm assuming when they come in, we will lower the -R by $1.
 
For -RW & +RW, both are $10 each.  
 
Also, I mention Maxell because they rated as the highest in compatibility (with -R) in that article I posted initally.
 
If you're wondering if $5 is a good price for a DVD disc, it's actually very good. A 4.5GB DVD will give you roughly 4.2GB of actual room. If you factor in a retail value of $1 for a 700MB CD-R, then 4.2GB worth of CD-Rs comes to $6.

I just thought of something.  What's the latest word on blue laser DVD?
 
<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

I was a bit fuzzy on the whole Blu-Ray thing so I read up on it a bit to refresh my memory.
 
Basically it looks like another cluster-[-peep-] as usual. On one hand you have Blu-Ray, the standard that is supported by Sony and about 6 other big companies. The defacto standard so far.....probably because the competitor just popped up on Monday and doesn't have a catchy name yet. Blu-Ray as you know, uses the blue laser and can hold about 23GB.
 
The competitor, announced on Monday, is being made by Toshiba & NEC. It hold a bit less...15-20GB, but it has advantages over Blu-Ray.
 
To boil it down...
 
Blu-Ray
-Will cost manufacturer's a lot to convert over so they can manufacture them
-Discs must be kept in protective "cartridges" (like DVD-RAM) so there's a fear of drives next year not being compatible with the DVDs we have. (if that's the case, I don't see anyone buy rich videophiles hopping on the Blu-Ray bandwagon)
 
Tohsiba/NEC
-Their standard costs manufacturer's less to create. They can use some of their existing equipment they say.
-Players can be made to support both red & blue lasers (for possible support for regular DVDs).
 
Things To Keep In Mind:
-Everything's to early and compatiblility & price are major issues not yet revealed. Will either player really support regular DVDs? If so, will they also support high-end discs? If so, how much will that raise the price? How much will new "high-end" media cost?
 
My big concern is: What Do We Get? Obviously they are using these to spearhead HDTV adoption. An HDTV quality DVDs will go a long way with HDTV owners. However other factors are slowing down that market. And with the higher resolution, how many extras can you then fit on these high-end DVDs?
 
I could go on & on (and have probably gone on WAYYY to much already ), but basically there's to many questions

20GB?  It would be nice to be able to back up an entire 80GB hard drive on just 4 discs.
 
HDTV looks great but I can't afford it and I'm not too crazy about paying the cable companies today for the infrustructure of HDTV tomorrow. The high cost does seem to be a pretty big barrier for HDTV.  
 
Perhaps HDTV will arrive by the back door, the PC industry.  PC Displays are already pretty high definition.  I wouldn't mind a blue laser DVD player to start (a writer later). An HDTV tuner/video card would be nice too. I'd also like to see widescreen computer displays. What is it that is needed, a 2.35:1 aspect ratio?  
 
<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 08/28/02 01:30 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

Yeah that would be nice, but remember the Blu-Ray stuff is all being geared for home video at this point. I haven't heard a peep about a large capacity DVD recorder for the computer. Even if they were able to put one out by next year, I doubt they would. There's going to be a lot of worry over people copying DVDs.
 
Yeah HDTV is very pricey. Personally I have a flat-screen 27" Panasonic. A good TV, but when I look at big screens there's one major problem other than price. Weight! I'd love a 40+ screen, but have no desire to try and get a 200+ lbs. device in my apartment. HDTV or not.  
 
I'd MUCH rather wait for Plasma to come down to a reasonable price. Less than 100lbs. & very thin...just two guys and you're set
 
Another giant problem with HDTV is the setup cost. Sure the TV is expensive, but how about the joy of buying a multi-hundred dollar decoder (a must have) and antenna. An antenna you have to lug up on your roof. No thank you.
 
I'd much rather the higher end signals come through my satellite dish. But they only carry a handful of HDTV channels currently. Do they have the bandwidth to completely switch to HDTV in the future? Does Digital Cable have it? If one does, then they are in good shape for the future. If neither does then we have a loooong way to go for HDTV.
 
Actually HDTV doesn't compare to PC's. The resolution you're viewing right now is better than an HDTV. Problem is, PC's monitor's aren't that big so TV watching isn't that desirable.
 
I'm not familiar with aspect ratio's where I can convert & figure out the math. No idea what it would be for a reasonable widescreen PC monitor. But being a gamer, I'd rather not have a widescreen monitor. Existing games would look really funky.

Only 200+ lbs for a 40" CRT.  That's pretty light. 10 years ago I put together a special PC config which included a 36" CRT for presentations.  It was only 800x600 capable but it was big (for the time) and it weighed 180 kilograms (about 400 lbs).
 
Don't know how HDTV will end up but I thought the initial phase was to be 720P format followed by 1080P.  If I recall, the infrustructure, the providers, cable, satellite, and broadcast are supposed to have some percentage (a majority but I forget the number) of coverage for digital TV completed by the close of 2003. (This means capability not actual customer base). Television manufacturing/sales was to be completely converted to digital TV by the close of 2006 along with the completion of the infrastructure (including customer base) with no analog televisions to be sold after 2006. I would hope the format of television is straightened out long before then. As far as I know, every provider that is ramping up for digital TV is simultaneously prepared for HDTV. (The time tables are for the USA TV only. Haven't heard about the rest of the world).
 
As for aspect ratios.  Look at your DVDs.  Some movies are 2.35 Widescreen.  That's where I got the aspect ratio.
 
As for widescreen PC displays, take a look at Apple's 24" LCD panel.  It's gorgeous (for an LCD).  See if you wouldn't like to play games on something that size.  I think it has a 2:1 aspect ratio.  (Normal PC displays are 4:3, 4 units wide & 3 units tall).
 
I agree. Economical plasma displays would be the ultimate.
 
<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

That government compliance only affects regular TV. Cable & Satellite providers are not part of that. Which is a big problem. And another problem is that they are only required to supply "digital", which is either 720 or 1080. To save bandwidth I can see very very few (or none) 1080 channels, which is where the real "wow" factor lies (and is the true HDTV).  
 
As far as TVs, they just have to be HDTV-compatible. You'll still need to shell out the money on a decoder. This will by default make HDTV the standard....eventually. Once people need to replace their TVs & as new consumers start buying theirs. But that's a long & slow process. The price & convenient setup is not there to make existing customers go "Hot damn, I have to have that".  
 
And as far as giving up the analog signals. That's neither here nor there. That only changes over the air broadcasts, screwing the non-techie's that still have rabbit ears & love Bob Barker.
 
Oh I know what aspect ratios are...16:9 & 4:3 is about the length of my knowledge though
 
Yep, i've seen Apple's Studio Display. A great looking monitor and I'd love to see how games are affected when run through it. Although I wouldn't buy an LCD screen to play games just yet, but that's a whole other issue.

Hmmm, I'll have to investigate what my cable provider is doing for the future.

I would hope that would mean 1080P capable but even 720P capable means progressive scan, no more crappy interlacing.

I can see that.  I wonder if digital transmissions have greater range.  Will customers who are getting weak analog signals now be getting clear digital or will they get nothing at all?
 
<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 
Most TVs that I'm seeing that are HDTV compatible are both 720 & 1080. I don't know for a fact, but I can only guess that you can't have one without the other inside the TV.
 
 

 
Now that is something I have no clue about. I wonder the same.