[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cassette Capacity
Alex Freed wrote:
winston19842005@yahoo.com wrote:
I've actually had good results with both C60s and C90s, and have found
both to be reliably readable after 28 years of storage. ;-)
Try *that* with your CDs and DVDs!
If you use the stone (as in a cave wall) as recording media and a piece
of flint as a recording tool the data retention rate has been shown to
be at least 20,000 years. Tooth marks on bone while not left there for
information storage remain for hundreds of millions of years.
Unfortunately high density recording methods have adverse effect on
longevity.
On a more serious note the pits on a "real" CD should be quite robust.
The CD-RW is likely a lot less so.
I agree completely.
My primary archival medium is at least two copies on recently-
manufactured hard disk drives, each of which is verified at least
once a year.
I find that any other medium is so much less convenient to use and to
verify that I do not verify them. Hard disks are now very cheap,
very dense, and very fast compared to the alternatives--and it's
trivial to migrate data to newer drives/interfaces every few years.
With 1.5TB SATA drives now regularly on sale for less than $90, it's
hard to justify any other medium.
-michael
NadaNet and AppleCrate II: parallel computing for Apple II computers!
Home page: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon
"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."