By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - 360 DVD data limit is 6.8 GB

A summary from my perspective based on discussions.

Early XBox 360 drives were slower 12x drives, later 360 drives are faster and 16x drives are in use on the 360 today.

The inner most part of a 360 disc needs to be dual layer, is read first and includes video files and other stuff. The drive rotation speed remains constant across reading discs, thus data at the outer part of the disc is read faster than the inner parts. 360 games are thus optimised to place read speed critical data at the outer part of the disc (but thus involves higher seektimes, as normally a disc is read from the inner parts towards more outer parts of the disc).

There are many early XBox 360 games which only use a single layer (~3.4 GB), when creating an image file for storage onto the harddrive most likely this just involves one layer switch (faster like creating an image file of a 3.5 inch Amiga disc is much faster than normally copying a 3.5 inch disc scrammed with many files), layer 1 is read and copied then layer 2 for DL data (~6.8 GB, like Microsoft said). This is different from game data reading which involves lots of layer switching.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Around the Network
MikeB said:
A summary from my perspective based on discussions.

Early XBox 360 drives were slower 12x drives, later 360 drives are faster and 16x drives are in use on the 360 today.

The inner most part of a 360 needs to be dual layer, is read first and includes video files and other stuff. The drive rotation speed remains constant across reading discs, thus data at the outer part of the disc is read faster than the inner parts. 360 games are thus optimised to place read speed critical data at the outer part of the disc (but thus involves higher seektimes and more layer switching, as normally a disc is read from the inner parts towards outer parts).

There are many early XBox 360 games which only use a single layer for game data storage, this as layer switches (these delays are different from normal seek times involved with lens movement) aren't involved, thus single layer game data can be read faster.

Games on dual layer discs read data slower due to these layer switches. Generating an image file most likely just involves one layer switch, layer 1 is read and copied then layer 2. This is different from game data reading which involves lots of layer switching.

Apart from just saying it what concrete information do you have that they're 12x SL drives?

I've seen this disputed - do you have any sources that claim this? I mean apart from 3.4GB install sizes, which doesn't mean the disc uses DVD-5.

I'd love for you to prove everyone wrong but we need something more substantial than 'because I said so'...what I'm asking in case it wasn't clear before is can you provide any proof to your claims?

 



@ Fumanchu

Apart from just saying it what concrete information do you have that they're 12x SL drives?


Microsoft in the past have stated 12x for each layer, not 16x.

I've seen this disputed - do you have any sources that claim this? I mean apart from 3.4GB install sizes, which doesn't mean the disc uses DVD-5.


Considering statements that the inner part needs to be dual layer data, that I assume this is correct. Like stated above.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Can't help it if dumb 360 shits refuse to acknowlodge the truth. Even when it's given them on a platter, they simply dumb can't read and are total retards. This place sucks ball cos of this. Unless your pro 360 u can't have an opinion(classed as a troll or flaming0, I'm a PS3 owner and a follower of tech in general. Just cos I don't care to own a 360 does'nt mean I don't understand how it works.

BTW the 360 does indead read DVD at x12 and DVD9 at only x8. Just switching layers on DVD9 has a penatly.

 



NJ5 said:
@PS3 Fan: As I recall it you were banned for using blatant insults. Don't try to hide behind the opinion card.

 

 Yet, if it's not what you care to here. You cop out and ban people, rather than voice your opinion in a debate. How sad.



Around the Network

@PS3 Fan: How did I ban people if I'm not a mod? For the record I didn't even report you (but I'm tempted to do it now given that you continue to flame after returning from a ban).

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Ascended_Saiyan3 said:

I DID notice HEAVY trolling TOWARDS MikeB, though.  I witnessed people just dead set on character assassination, because he represented a threat to their current X360 beliefs.  And, THAT is cult behavior 101.

Hold on now Ascended.

You spoke before of using science/scientific method.  Using that, how did you exactly determine that I am a member of an Xbox 360 cult?

I own a gaming PC, a PS3, a Wii, and an Xbox 360.  I own Fallout 3 and Gears of War for PC, after all, why not buy them for $10 cheaper each than they are on the consoles.  Plus I get better graphics on my core i7 PC anyway.  I hardly am part of any Xbox cult.  I loved Uncharted: Drake's Fortune on my PS3 and have had a blast with Force Unleashed on Wii.  And as far as hardware problems, I've never had any horrible issue with current gen.  But last gen its my original Xbox that has been an annoyance with DVD read errors.  So if anything its Microsoft that has been a problem for me.

So why are you, on a console discussion forum dead set on assassinating my character (and others) when it comes to my background as a gamer?  To me that sounds like "did not do his homework 101".

 

 

 



Currently playing:  PC:  Wolfenstein  PS2:  Final Fantasy X  PS3: All-Pro Football 2K8 Wii:  Force Unleashed  PSP:  God of War: CoO Xbox 360:  Gears of War 2  

Most anticipated game:  Dragon Age Origins (PC)

MikeB said:

Exposed? I was always open with regard to my past. For example, my second ever post here at VGChartz (January 2007) states:

"I have been a moderator for more than 5 years at various popular portals, including OSNews.com. Moderating zealous fanboys can be a huge task and usually will make you more enemies than friends, I think for those interested should realize and ask themselves the following: Are you able to moderate people and blackout your own bias and is your skin thick enough?"

After that MorphOS preview, trolling by MorphOS backers against AmigaOS4 stories went through the roof on OSNews (other editors, not involved with the Amiga community fully agreed as well). At Amigaworld, various Moobunny regulars just signed up to troll, posting mass viagra ads, pictures of a gay person bending over...., threatening people, etc, this often after interviews with the people behind the development of AmigaOS4 or other such exclusive content. It was quite a task to keep the place clean and enjoyable.

So Mike lets get this straight, is it your contention that Neogaf is run by MorphOS backers and thats how you got banned there?  If thats true, why did they allow you to post there at all?  It would seem like quite the elaborate and labor intensive scheme for them to create a game console discussion site, hope you'd go there, let you post for some time, and then ban you.  (And to boot, keep it running after all that).  I'm betting that none of them likely know what MorphOS even is!

And if you were such a hero to Amigaworld.net why did you ever get a temp ban there (rhetorical question, it was for clearly breaking TOS by questioning moderation in public rather than private messages, its all documented in that thread) and why, since its still a very pro AmigaOS board do multiple mods there have to constantly set you straight in public there, even recently?  Clearly, they are not agents of Genesi or MorphOS.

And how does any of this tie in to getting called out here by multiple folks that have been here for quite a while, the kind kind of folks with the experience here of 8,000+ posts?  Again, folks who probably never heard of MorphOS.

 

 



Currently playing:  PC:  Wolfenstein  PS2:  Final Fantasy X  PS3: All-Pro Football 2K8 Wii:  Force Unleashed  PSP:  God of War: CoO Xbox 360:  Gears of War 2  

Most anticipated game:  Dragon Age Origins (PC)

MikeB said:

@ Fumanchu

Apart from just saying it what concrete information do you have that they're 12x SL drives?


Microsoft in the past have stated 12x for each layer, not 16x.

I've seen this disputed - do you have any sources that claim this? I mean apart from 3.4GB install sizes, which doesn't mean the disc uses DVD-5.


Considering statements that the inner part needs to be dual layer data, that I assume this is correct. Like stated above.

 

 

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

THE

 

 

 

XBOX 360

 

 

 

 

DVD DRIVES

 

 

 

 

 

ARE 12X

 

 

 

 

FOR READING

 

 

 

DUAL LAYER

 

 

 

MAYBE SINGLE LAYER IS FASTER

 

 

 

DUAL LAYER

 

 

 

IS 12X!!!!!

 

 

I HAVE PROVEN THIS

 

 

 

 

 

I KNOW THIS

 

 

 

 

LIKE I KNOW WHO MY MOTHER IS

 

 

 

 

ASK here....

 

 

 

 

http://www.xbox-scene.com

 

 

in the forums, you guys are some of the most ignorant self obsessed people I have ever met. Why do you continue with pointless graphs and what not.

 

 

The proof is as follows, it is proof, not a guess. PROOF. I've seriously had enough of you MikeB, you are a contrary awkard annoying chap who just doens't know when to stop.....

 

 

 

1. Installing a game to the hard drive takes the time it would if it was read at 12x

2. The noise the drive makes would is the volume of a drive spinning at 12x

3. All of the illegal ISOs available are on DUAL LAYER discs that are "stealth" and run on iXtreme firmware. iXtreme firmware is 12x. iXtreme won't boot the old dodgty single layer rips.

4. No original Xbox 360 game is available on an SL disc.

5. Stupid people who think that just because the game data is installed to the hard drive is less than 4.37GB means that the disc is single layer don't know what they are talking about. There's the video partition and the dummy partition also and all Xbox 360 discs are the same size.

6. I have ripped countless Xbox 360 discs and they are all the same size 7.05GB

 

 

Also MikeB

 

Stop peddlang your stupid information that isn't true and your assumptions are just pathetic. I don't expect to be banned because it's quite obvious you are talking utter shit....

 

"Early 360 drives were slower"!!!!!!!!!! - Please be quiet, you are making my brain hurt, my fingers hurt. and driving me round the TWIST!!!!

 

You know NOTHING, NOTHING at all PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't post.



it is best to ignore the idiots though occasionally when the mood hits me I'll mess with them just to be contrary.