This is probably a silly question, but since both Nero and Adaptec offer a wnaspi32.dll, is either better for use with EAC?

Also, as far as ripping with EAC is concerned, why is ASPI better than the native Win32 interface?

Thanks.

Nero's ASPI works (when installed in the EAC dir) in cases where Adaptec's (system wide) doesn't (4.7.1.2). Not sure about the ASPI/Win32 thingy.

xen-uno

never had a problem with the native win32 interface in years

In the past I have gotten better speeds and less errors with the nero aspi.

I have used it with my Toshiba, Plextor, and Lite-On drives.

I must admit, I have not used double blind or abx methods. It just worked better for me.

Maybe we need a test. rjamorim?

I recently learned that there is no need to run the system-wide installer to use Adaptec's ASPI layer. Just download the installer from Adaptec, uncompress it to a temporary directory, use the Windows "expand" command to convert wnaspi32.dl_ to wnaspi32.dll, and drop it in your EAC folder just like with Nero.

ForceASPI (4.60.1021) was the one recommended when I started using EAC... and, well, I haven't had a single problem this far, so why change a winning story......?

I googled ForceASPI to find more information and this came up on one download site: "ForceASPI is based on an old Adaptec ASPI 4.61 version. Download the latest official ASPI instead."

Judging from the replies so far, both Nero and Adaptec seem to get the job done, and even the native win32 interface doesn't seem to cause trouble. Looks like it's hard to go wrong.

Try running EAC and see if it works with XP/2000 native SPTI. That is the best alternative. Next best is use Nero's ASPI. Avoid the Adaptec ASPI unless you have some other program (Like Diskdump) that just will not work with out it. Most modern burning programs either have their own ASPI or use SPTI. The Adaptec ASPI will slow your system down slighly on disk IO and just represents another possible source of incompatibility. I tested this with Eraser.

ForceASPI is ADAPTEC 4.60.1021 aspi with a special installer script added.
It was just that when I first checked it out Radifieds ASPI Guide and lot's of other sites and hits on the net claimed that version 4.60.1021 was much more tested than version 4.71.2, yes even that several bug reports suggested that 4.71.2 was much less reliable.... whether these claims holds water I don't know, since 4.60.1021 havent failed me yet I haven't done much testing.

Is SPTI the same as selecting "Native Win32 interface for Win NT/2000/XP" in EAC, or is it yet another library that must be installed/enabled? I thought ASPI was always preferred -- it even says right in the EAC dialog that the native interface is "buggy." Is this not true anymore? (Incidentally I'm running XP with a couple of Plextor drives, so all interfaces seem to work well for me.)

...Is it slower? What's Eraser? Will an Adaptec ASPI install represent any problems for programs that don't use it or an OS that use a different strategy alltogether? (It's not like it owerwites anything present, w2k/xp have no ASPI.) Should I rather use Native interface or throw Neros wnaspi32.dll into EAC directory...? Sh** why make this a problem, when there are no problems...? Do I worry to much??? Should I get a new life...? All these questions questions and choices to be made...

(And: yes I do have some proggys that demand Adaptec universal ASPI installed on system...)

OK. Finally someone has gone trough the troubles of doing the research necessary trying to clarify these issues. Relevant link here.