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



Imation - 30 years 

http://www.imation.com/printversion/0,1091,1731-2,00.html#452

Ricoh - 100 years

http://www.ricoh.co.jp/cd-r/e-/e_asia/faq/media/media01.html#06

Verbatim - 30+ years

http://www.verbatim.com/news/cdmdia.cfm

AMC - 30+ years

http://www.amc-direct.com/products/products/amc_media.htm

Phillips - 70 years

http://www.srtl.co.uk/srtl/disks.html

HP - 30 years

http://www.dirtcheapdrives.com/tech/hp/hardware/media/specs/c4438a_spec.sh
ml

PNY - 30 years

http://www.shoplet.com/hardware/db/509736.html


Do you see a pattern developing?



artistic@ampsc.com (Arthur Entlich) wrote:

> 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.