Talk:Mount Rainier (packet writing)

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The following is a criticism of an earlier version, it should probably be revised or erased: Choppingmall 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO Mount Rainier isnt "completely hardware-based" :)

The article itself is contradictory. It claims at one point that it is completely hardware based. In the very next paragraph that operating systems either support it or not, and that those that don't require additional software support.

More errors

- "Mount Rainier is an optical disc file system that adds packet writing to the Universal Disk Format (UDF)."
 - Mt Rainier is not a file system
 - it does not add packet writing to UDF. UDF Can do packet writing without MtRainier just fine
- "With the Universal Disk Format, it is already possible to use CD-RW discs like a floppy disk, but this is achieved by the use of specialized writing software."
 - MRW also requires specialized writing software

- "Mount Rainier will be implemented natively in Windows Vista"
 - Can I borrow your cristal ball ? Can someone confirm this is true for the recent public Vista beta ?

- "Already, the latest Linux distros support Mount Rainier natively."
 - AFAIK, linux does not support MRW due to IP conflicts.

xerces8

--213.253.102.145 10:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironing Out Some Ambiguities

xerces8 rightfully points out some article ambiguities, and I have re-written and readjusted the main article to address these points.

"Hardware Based"

the important point is that the defect management system is entirely controlled by the hardware and firmware in the drive, and it presents an essentially error free medium to the filesystem drivers at the OS level. Other defect management schemes (eg UDF 1.5) are controlled by the filesystem driver (in software.)

"A Filesystem"

as xerces8 points out Mount Rainier is designed to be filesystem independant. However, the article is technically correct in saying that mount rainier is an extension of the UDF format, but this is somewhat deceptive as it is only the physical format of a MRW formatted disc which is in UDF -- the drive hardware and firmware remapping is designed to make this transparent. The fact that it is in UDF format makes it easier for non mount rainier capable drives to read the data -- only a simple remapping software driver is needed to replace the remapping that would have been done by a capable drive.

"Requires specialized writing software"

The article makes this assertion in reference to the stated goals of the mount rainier designers (Phillips) that the necessary drivers for reading and writing will be embedded into the operating system so that it is as easy as accessing a floppy disc. To this end the additional commands necessary to communicate with a mount ranier drive are well standardized, and the implementation is expected to be much simpler than other packet writing software because the defect management system is fully transparent.

"Native Implementation"

Microsoft press releases confirm support in Windows Vista.

Linux already fully supports MRW, presents it as a block device and can write any Linux supported filesystem to it.

Packet writing software (eg. InCD) support MRW, but typically can only write UDF filesystems to it.

What is the best filesystem for a Mount Rainier formatted disc?

A filesystem which features defect management may be of little benefit on a MRW formatted disc given that this functionality is already transparently achieved by the drive hardware. As an example, UDF 1.5 would have no advantage over UDF 1.02 and in fact may give less useable space if it fails to recognize that it is being written to a defect managed device and reserves sparing space. (This happened to me before and I got 438 MB free on a UDF 1.5 filesystem on a MRW formatted disk.)

The same may or may not also be true for write levelling filesystems, but I am not familiar enough with the Mount Ranier spec to give an informed opinion.

Choppingmall 21:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is MRW dead?

History
As of 2007, MRW is practically dead. Since years, no new optical unit supports it
(they can only read MRW formatted media, but not write to them, except formatting them new without MRW).

A statement from user Xerces8.

I wonder if there is proof that "MRW is dead".
I would like to take this over to the german article about Mount Rainier, only some statements of source would be fine to support this bit of information, IMHO...

Greetings, Andreas 12:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Dead? Just bought a Samsung DVD recorder which supports it (at least InCD says it formatted it using MRW). But then again, InCD may be just wrong about it.
 201.11.107.237 11:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EasyWrite.jpg

Image:EasyWrite.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite strange to me that the DVD-Logo on the one side is free to be used in multiple articles, but this logo is not free, although it is also a logo for a technical standard to be used in a similar manner. What goes on here? --Andreas 13:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MtRainier logo.jpg

Image:MtRainier logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No disadvantages listed

In the section on Advantages and Disadvantages, no disadvantages are listed. I know nothing about this kind of technology, but no listed disadvantages makes me question the truthfulness of the entire article. Looks like a previous author said Mount Rainier was dead as a format, but now the article says it has no disadvantages. Looks like more of an ad for Mount Rainier MRW now, than an honest article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobster (talk • contribs) 04:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MRW details

What I would like to see is how the MRW format works on disc i.e. how it is implemented. I see no sources listed on the page. The closest thing I could find is this PDF DVD+MRW leaflet --Reinoud (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]