Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's



Hi Arthur


http://www.tdk-europe.com/products/uk/datastr/recordablecd/cdrwmoreinfo.html

"operational lifetime of more than 1,000 overwrite or 1 million read cycles,
with an expected archival lifespan of well over 30 years"

http://www.tdk-europe.com/products/uk/datastr/recordablecd/cdrmoreinfo.html

"Based on accelerated ageing tests, the lifetime of TDK's CD-R REFLEX has
been computed to be well over 100 years. "

I am sure have seen in various places that RW is more delicate and has
shorter expected lifespan.

If you want to catch up some CD meda information try:

http://www.cdmediaworld.com

Of course if the 30 years is accurate you need not worry as no doubt at some
time in the next 10-20 years you will be able to transfer several hundred
CD's onto the latest mass archival storage media.

Steve


----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@ampsc.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's


> Hi Steve,
>
> I'll ask the same question I just did of Michael.  Do you have any test
> reports or other sources I could go to that suggest CD-RW is not stable
> for archival storage, versus the stability of CD-R.  I have yet to see
> this, and was wondering what studies are showing.
>
> I am aware that CD-RW media is not as universally readable on CD-ROM
> units, but I haven't seen the info on loss of info on these disks.
> Since they come from the family of the PD, which claim a good shelf
> life, I'm rather surprised that they are not considered trustworthy.
>
> Art
>
> Steve Greenbank wrote:
>
> > Appologies if this arrives twice. Internet provider has been down - I
> > did try using an alternative account but this appears to have got
> > filtered out by the mailing list server.
> >
> >
> >
> > Re-writables are a very poor choice for anything you want to keep
> > long-term as they have relatively very poor archival properties and in
> > general are just not anywhere as reliable as writables. They are also
> > much more prone to damage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Re-writeables are also a poor choice for anything where you give the
> > disc away as writables are cheaper and
> >
> > some early computer CD-ROMs and many non-computer CD readers will not
> > read these discs at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > Re-writables are useful for :
> >
> >
> >
> >       short term temporay storage (particulary if used with packet
> > writing software [DirectCD,InCD etc])
> >
> >       moving some data from one machine to another where there is no
> > decent network or internet connection
> >
> >       possibly a rotatational backup system of critical files (eg use 4
> > discs in rotation - a different one every week)
> >
> >       some sort of test CD (eg one with auto-loading software that you
> > want to test before making the real disc)
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >     From: Photoburt@aol.com <mailto:Photoburt@aol.com>
> >
> >     To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk <mailto:filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> >
> >     Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:41 PM
> >
> >     Subject: Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
> >
> >
> >     I'm just getting started in CD burning.  I saw that my options in
> >     blank CD
> >     are between Rewritable and Write Once Only.  Is there any preference
> >     between
> >     the two for photographic image storage?  My inclination is to think
> >     that
> >     Rewritable would be preferable because of the possible need to
> >     adjustments in
> >     the image.
> >
> >     Thanks in advance for your input.
> >
> >                                            Burt
>
>
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.