ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












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

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

[filmscanners] Re: Bad News on CD longevity



Based upon this info (I read what I could in English, but my Dutch is
just a bit rusty, and the article in Dutch doesn't seem to show the test
results in terms of each brand anyway) the questions that comes to mind
are these:

Did they test the 2001 product and current product using the same write
speed and same burner?

Is it better to use the 2001 product at the higher speeds available to
burn at today, or would 2001 year product be more likely to develop
errors if run beyond the "certified maximum speed" of the day?

If one has a lot of several year old blank CD-R media, will it "keep"
unrecorded better than the new stuff being sold?

Based upon this new info, are CD-RW still considered less reliable than
current CD-R product?

Art



Robert Logan wrote:
> http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7751
>
> bert
> --
> Linux - reaches the parts that other beers fail to reach.
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.