s. keeling wrote:
I've never
run across a CD I couldn't still read, and I've a few old ones. DVD, I
would expect to be even better. For me, tape's good enough.
Why would you expect DVD to be better? I'd expect it to be worse, for
the obvious reasons -- smaller physical bit representations, packed
tighter. Also we don't have as much experience with it, so I take what
information we *do* have with larger quantities of salt.
(Mind you, I'm using DVDs for my photo archives; CDs are simply too
small to contemplate. Two copies, stored separately, and all the files
stay on the disk (which is mirrored) and get backed up to external disks
regularly. I can pretty easily afford for any *one* of the backups to
fail.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
