trouble installing FC5 - dont believe media check fail!

[Russell Golden]

Kam Leo wrote:

>On 4/19/06, Russell Golden <dragonite.wylie at verizon.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Kam Leo wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On 4/17/06, David Timms <dtimms at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Russell Golden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I downloaded Fedora Core 5 via BitTorrent, and when I burned the CDs and
>>>>>tested them, three of the five failed the media test. So I deleted the
>>>>>images off my hard disk and redownloaded, again via BitTorrent. The same
>>>>>three CDs failed the checksum again. Has anyone else had this problem,
>>>>>is the BitTorrent download corrupted, or is it just me? (please tell me
>>>>>it's just me)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>1. What you should do is run the checksums on the iso file *before*
>>>>bothering to burn the CD.
>>>>
>>>>2. The CD's media check fails sometimes even on good CD's.
>>>>
>>>>3. Use the CD's you first made; unless you have a near to failing CD
>>>>drive, it is highly likely that the CD's you already made are right to go !
>>>>
>>>>4. see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111952741800002&r=1&w=2
>>>>and also the fedora-test list for more recent discussions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Also burn at a slower speed. Your burner may be able to read/write
>>>media at 48x, but it does not mean that the installer drive will be
>>>able to read them. Believe me, I have created enough coasters because
>>>I did not pay attention and let the burner software use the default
>>>writing speed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>the computers in my house, except for my laptop, are crap. My max
>>writing speed is 24x (laptop), the other computer with a burner writes
>>at 12x. the laptop reads at 24x, the others read at 32x (yeah, newer
>>computer, slower drive. go figure). would it be better to write with the
>>12x drive?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, it would. Why? Because the 12x drive has the poorer/older
>algorithms for writing to various media. The laptop's drive, being
>newer, probably has improved electronics and read/write algorithms.
>Unless you have a dog of a drive the laptop drive can more readily
>read the older drive's output than the other way around.
>
>  
>
now /that/ makes sense. hm... my laptop dual boots Winblows XP and RHL9. 
The ones i've already burned were from XP. Since Red Hat Linux 9 is like 
five years outdated, if I burned the ISOs using the software on it (i 
haven't updated anything on that OS) with the newer drive, would it be 
still be difficult for the older drives to read?