“Burning” a CD means copying it. Idk why. I used to have someone in my family who would burn movies for everyone so we didn’t have to pay to rent or own.
Just a small correction (that makes things worse):
It is sort of surreal to see someone so young they don’t know what burning a CD is writing an article about a game older than CD burners.
The person asking the question here is correct, the phrase in the article makes no sense, and it’s likely written by someone who heard the lingo “burn” in reference to discs but it’s too young to have use it themselves (otherwise they would have said they ripped the intact CD, or they burned copies of it)
Edit: Also I think CD burners came out around the same time (I remember a store that sold copies in my city back in the 90s), although I personally didn’t had a disk burner for many years (but also I didn’t played Half-life for many years after it came out, so I guess it evens out)
CD-Rs and CD burners were first available in the early 90’s but they were “we’ll take the helicopter out to the yacht” expensive. By 1998 they were starting to become normal consumer-grade equipment. I had one as a teenager in the year 2000, along with a Rio CD-MP3 player.
I’ve still got the computer I had in later high school and college, a Pentium 3 rig that I plan on turning into a sleeper PC for my midlife crisis. It has a DVD-ROM drive and a CD burner. I wonder if they’re SATA or some older “we don’t do it this way anymore” buses? I remember that machien talking about SCSI during boot-up.
My drives in the early 2000s were SCSI, the connector was a flat wide grey cable. I remember my first SATA disk as being a great improvement, still had jumpers though.
In any case, the game is not older than CD burners, like I said, I was buying burned CDs before that, and I lived in a small South American city, so they should be very accessible for North American/European folks.
Yeah I would read “managed to burn the disc” to mean “managed to create a new CD-R copy of the original.” “Managed to rip the disc” would mean successfully created an .iso file.
Exactly. I even still have a bunch of blank DVDs and maybe a few blank CDs sitting in storage somewhere. I used to use them to burn Linux ISOs every couple years, but ISOs are now bigger than a DVD, so I now have to hunt down the USB drive each time (I’m always losing those).
I haven’t thought about burning CDs in a long time, man that takes me back. Remember Nero Burning ROM?
I think the etymology of the term is that when you’re writing data onto a disk you’re shooting a laser onto it to alter the chemistry and change its color, for which “burning” the data into it makes sense.
It wasn’t the colour, you would burn little bubbles into the disk. The bubbles would deflect a laser and flat parts would not. This would give the 0 or 1 bits.
There were CD- and CD+ versions. I don’t know which is which but one would create a divot, and the other would create a bubble. Either way the laser is diverted away from the sensor.
CDs like laserdiscs before them are read with an infrared laser.
DVDs use a red laser, and Blu-ray does indeed use a blue-violet laser. The smaller wavelengths, plus the ability to do multiple layers, are indeed how they cram more data more densely onto a disc of nearly identical size.
What I ment was that bruning a disc is the secondary step to making a copy if a disc, you first need to rip the original disc into an ISO file.
I remember when we got our first CD burner, it was a black and copper colored Philips unit, it was back when you made sure to leave the computer alone when burning a CD because you you didn’t want to risk buffer underrun.
“I burned the original disc” would never mean “I made a copy of the original disc to another CD-R” to anyone that actually knows what burning a disc is.
It would either mean “The original disc is a CD-R that I burned an image to”, or “I threw the original disc in a fire”.
It’s the difference between “I borrowed some money” and “I loaned someone money”. They mean different things, including people occasionally creating awful sentences like “I borrowed him some money” (shudder).
It’s another example of how related words are misused to provide another example. The author of the article decided to use a word they clearly didn’t understand. Are you trying to pull some reverse pedantry shit?
The least they could do is say that they burned a copy/blank or ripped the original instead of mixing it up and saying that the original was burned. It makes it sound like they were writing to the original.
Well, apparently lots of people here who are familiar with ripping and burning CDs found it confusing - so I don’t think it’s dumb to point out the confusing wording, especially to clarify for those who don’t know that burning means writing and ripping means reading. I at least initially recoiled in horror at the thought of burning data onto the rare find.
If you’re going to use technical jargon, use the correct jargon. Either that or get back to your job in middle-management, synergising the whatever meaningless buzzwords.
If you think the phrase the entire world uses to copy files onto a disc is technical synergizing jargon, there is no hope for you. I feel like I walked into dunceville with these replies. Do you even talk to people in person?
Please for the love of God do not bother replying more about this. This “conversation” is so absolutely dumb it’s beyond ridiculous. Enjoy your day.
When writing to a CD-R, the laser literally burns a chemical in the disc which causes it to change optical properties, which will cause it to appear to be the same as the pits and lands on a manufactured disc. “Burning a disc” meant to write it. It’s not the original that’s being burned, it’s the new copy. In casual conversation someone might say “I really like this album.” “Tell you what I’ll burn it for you.” short for “I’ll burn a copy of it onto a new disc for you.”
The line “Jessup managed to burn the intact Half-Life CD”, in the context of “thought lost to disc rot”, I would extrapolate this to mean that the original old CD was thought to be damaged or destroyed due to age or mishandling, but he was successfully able to copy the data onto a new CD. Handling or using the fragile original my cause the data to be lost, so copying it to a new disc better preserves it.
The word “rip” is usually used to mean take all the data off of a CD and store it elseways. “I ripped the CD to my hard drive.” The nuance is, there isn’t a new optical disc, the data just exists on a computer’s internal storage. Which is probably what they actually did.
The term “burn” survived into the USB thumb drive age to differentiate writing the contents of a .iso file to a thumb drive replacing any file system or data that is currently there from simply storing a copy of the .iso among the existing file system. Often the same software you’d use for CDs would be used to image thumb drives as well so the “BURN!” button would be used to start both processes. Unlike on a CD-R nothing gets permanently altered on a USB drive.
Burning was originally used in the sense that to write to a disc you used the laser to “burn” in your data, at least irrc. It just started to be used interchangeably for copy and write operations. These days I think “rip” makes more sense.
Burning is creating disks by etching the data onto the metal disc below the plastic layer, and ripping is extracting the data into a digital format, like an ISO, or in the case of music or video discs, usable media files (often includes a transcode because who uses CD/DVD format anyway?).
I’ve burned dozens if not hundreds of disks in my day, but haven’t burned anything for years. I most recently ripped my entire DVD and Bluray collection onto my Jellyfin server so I don’t have to deal with those ancient discs that keep getting scratched anymore.
“Burning” a CD means copying it. Idk why. I used to have someone in my family who would burn movies for everyone so we didn’t have to pay to rent or own.
It is sort of surreal to see someone so young they don’t know what burning a CD is in an article about a game older than CD burners.
Just a small correction (that makes things worse):
The person asking the question here is correct, the phrase in the article makes no sense, and it’s likely written by someone who heard the lingo “burn” in reference to discs but it’s too young to have use it themselves (otherwise they would have said they ripped the intact CD, or they burned copies of it)
Edit: Also I think CD burners came out around the same time (I remember a store that sold copies in my city back in the 90s), although I personally didn’t had a disk burner for many years (but also I didn’t played Half-life for many years after it came out, so I guess it evens out)
CD-Rs and CD burners were first available in the early 90’s but they were “we’ll take the helicopter out to the yacht” expensive. By 1998 they were starting to become normal consumer-grade equipment. I had one as a teenager in the year 2000, along with a Rio CD-MP3 player.
I’ve still got the computer I had in later high school and college, a Pentium 3 rig that I plan on turning into a sleeper PC for my midlife crisis. It has a DVD-ROM drive and a CD burner. I wonder if they’re SATA or some older “we don’t do it this way anymore” buses? I remember that machien talking about SCSI during boot-up.
My drives in the early 2000s were SCSI, the connector was a flat wide grey cable. I remember my first SATA disk as being a great improvement, still had jumpers though.
In any case, the game is not older than CD burners, like I said, I was buying burned CDs before that, and I lived in a small South American city, so they should be very accessible for North American/European folks.
True, I actually misremembered Halflife as being from earlier in the 90s than it really was.
Half-Life is definitely not older than home CD burners. Now if you’ll excuse me, there’s some damn kids on my lawn again.
Lmao for real… way to make me feel old 🥲
Am i this old now 😂
Yes, yes we are.
Burning is writing a disc. Ripping is extracting data from a disc. Whoever wrote the article used lingo they don’t understand.
That is what I thought, I have burned many discs in my day, and I have never got an ISO from bruning a disc.
Yeah I would read “managed to burn the disc” to mean “managed to create a new CD-R copy of the original.” “Managed to rip the disc” would mean successfully created an .iso file.
Exactly. I even still have a bunch of blank DVDs and maybe a few blank CDs sitting in storage somewhere. I used to use them to burn Linux ISOs every couple years, but ISOs are now bigger than a DVD, so I now have to hunt down the USB drive each time (I’m always losing those).
I knew it had to do with putting data on a disc. I didn’t know the specifics.
I haven’t thought about burning CDs in a long time, man that takes me back. Remember Nero Burning ROM?
I think the etymology of the term is that when you’re writing data onto a disk you’re shooting a laser onto it to alter the chemistry and change its color, for which “burning” the data into it makes sense.
It wasn’t the colour, you would burn little bubbles into the disk. The bubbles would deflect a laser and flat parts would not. This would give the 0 or 1 bits.
There were CD- and CD+ versions. I don’t know which is which but one would create a divot, and the other would create a bubble. Either way the laser is diverted away from the sensor.
Ah, that’s what it was! I always thought it was just a different color for 0 and 1, today I learned! That makes more sense when I think about it.
CD - red laser
BlueRay - blue laser… shorter wavelength --> more data on same size disk
and inbetween there was DL - dual layer
light scribe - could etch a picture on the top of the cd
and RW - rewriteable CDs
(CD is short for compact disc)
CDs like laserdiscs before them are read with an infrared laser.
DVDs use a red laser, and Blu-ray does indeed use a blue-violet laser. The smaller wavelengths, plus the ability to do multiple layers, are indeed how they cram more data more densely onto a disc of nearly identical size.
I stand corrected. thx
I remember having one, but I never actually etched a picture onto the CD, it never seemed worth doing.
What I ment was that bruning a disc is the secondary step to making a copy if a disc, you first need to rip the original disc into an ISO file.
I remember when we got our first CD burner, it was a black and copper colored Philips unit, it was back when you made sure to leave the computer alone when burning a CD because you you didn’t want to risk buffer underrun.
not if you had one of those setups where you can burn right from a source CD to multiple target blanks
But the way the sentence is structured is saying that burning happened to the OG disc. Burning is what happens to the copy disc.
Did you want the person to detail every step they took?
No, but the verbage is still incorrect for what they were doing. The correct way wouldn’t be that much more words, just different words.
Not really. “The information on the original was burned into another new disc”
“I burned the original disc”
Lol this is the dumbest thing ive spent time commenting.
“I burned the original disc” would never mean “I made a copy of the original disc to another CD-R” to anyone that actually knows what burning a disc is.
It would either mean “The original disc is a CD-R that I burned an image to”, or “I threw the original disc in a fire”.
Friend with baggy jeans and a System of a Down CD says: “hey i dont have a computer, can you burn this disc?”
Is he an idiot? Does he not truly know what he is talking about? Can i stop replying to this comment chain?
It’s the difference between “I borrowed some money” and “I loaned someone money”. They mean different things, including people occasionally creating awful sentences like “I borrowed him some money” (shudder).
None of that has anything to do with burning a cd.
It’s another example of how related words are misused to provide another example. The author of the article decided to use a word they clearly didn’t understand. Are you trying to pull some reverse pedantry shit?
Yes. Because pedantry is all you guys are engaging in. Grow up.
The least they could do is say that they burned a copy/blank or ripped the original instead of mixing it up and saying that the original was burned. It makes it sound like they were writing to the original.
What does it matter? Everyone that understands context understood exactly what they meant.
This is dumb.
Well, apparently lots of people here who are familiar with ripping and burning CDs found it confusing - so I don’t think it’s dumb to point out the confusing wording, especially to clarify for those who don’t know that burning means writing and ripping means reading. I at least initially recoiled in horror at the thought of burning data onto the rare find.
🙄
If you’re going to use technical jargon, use the correct jargon. Either that or get back to your job in middle-management, synergising the whatever meaningless buzzwords.
If you think the phrase the entire world uses to copy files onto a disc is technical synergizing jargon, there is no hope for you. I feel like I walked into dunceville with these replies. Do you even talk to people in person?
Please for the love of God do not bother replying more about this. This “conversation” is so absolutely dumb it’s beyond ridiculous. Enjoy your day.
When writing to a CD-R, the laser literally burns a chemical in the disc which causes it to change optical properties, which will cause it to appear to be the same as the pits and lands on a manufactured disc. “Burning a disc” meant to write it. It’s not the original that’s being burned, it’s the new copy. In casual conversation someone might say “I really like this album.” “Tell you what I’ll burn it for you.” short for “I’ll burn a copy of it onto a new disc for you.”
The line “Jessup managed to burn the intact Half-Life CD”, in the context of “thought lost to disc rot”, I would extrapolate this to mean that the original old CD was thought to be damaged or destroyed due to age or mishandling, but he was successfully able to copy the data onto a new CD. Handling or using the fragile original my cause the data to be lost, so copying it to a new disc better preserves it.
The word “rip” is usually used to mean take all the data off of a CD and store it elseways. “I ripped the CD to my hard drive.” The nuance is, there isn’t a new optical disc, the data just exists on a computer’s internal storage. Which is probably what they actually did.
The term “burn” survived into the USB thumb drive age to differentiate writing the contents of a .iso file to a thumb drive replacing any file system or data that is currently there from simply storing a copy of the .iso among the existing file system. Often the same software you’d use for CDs would be used to image thumb drives as well so the “BURN!” button would be used to start both processes. Unlike on a CD-R nothing gets permanently altered on a USB drive.
Burning was originally used in the sense that to write to a disc you used the laser to “burn” in your data, at least irrc. It just started to be used interchangeably for copy and write operations. These days I think “rip” makes more sense.
I’ve literally never heard anyone use “burn” to refer to extracting data. This thread feels like someone trying to gaslight me.
Don’t worry, I’m old too, and I got you fam.
Burning is creating disks by etching the data onto the metal disc below the plastic layer, and ripping is extracting the data into a digital format, like an ISO, or in the case of music or video discs, usable media files (often includes a transcode because who uses CD/DVD format anyway?).
I’ve burned dozens if not hundreds of disks in my day, but haven’t burned anything for years. I most recently ripped my entire DVD and Bluray collection onto my Jellyfin server so I don’t have to deal with those ancient discs that keep getting scratched anymore.