just a little excurse:
the mac goes through all files before copying them (counting ... xxx files with yyy MB), looks if there is sufficient room on the destination-device, and then starts to copy
windows starts to copy instantly and gets an estimation, how long the whole process will take - but it counts only objects, not the content of folders
so e.g. you have 3 folders containing each 10 files it will be handed like 13 objects - after having copied the first file, a oversimplified calculation takes place: 1 object 1 minute, 13 objects 13 minutes. this works until the content of the first folder is copied, then it goes to the second and (surprise, surprise) it contains another 10 objects.
now a recalculation takes place - as wrong as the one before - showing up unrealistic eg. 120,000 seconds. but you will notice the number decreasing in steps greater as a second - so any estimation about remaining time becomes completely useless if you're copying a large structure of folders, because every calculation has to be wrong using such a method.
just don't understand why this is still not improved somehow, just another senseless example for pseudo-optimization ....
i also had troubles in a first run with harp and trumpet, but as i mentioned before: my DVD-drive is not brand-new, heavily used and i'm smoking in this room - and that's what electrostatic laser-diodes are just waiting for [;)]
any new drive *should* give you a trouble-free access, but obviously this isn't the case - the specification for DVDs are very strict (means VSL-disk are not too thin, too heavy, whatever) so we will set up some statistic in which drives they are poorly readable - please feedback everybody
again i'd like to mention, double-layer DVDs do not reflect laserlight as good as single-layer - so the drive needs to read them more precisely.
anyhow - we'll keep track on that problem, because we do not enjoy seeing our users loosing their mind on such a boring task
christian
