David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Yes, about 8x tighter, as I understand it. > Also we don't have as much experience with it, so I take what > information we *do* have with larger quantities of salt. Also, there's a complication with evaluating accumulated "experience": you may know that ten-year-old DVDs are working fine, but you're burning on to new DVDs that were manufactured this year. There's no way to know if some cost-cutting measure has changed their reliability. Myself, I've been using DVDs for backup largely out of laziness/convenience. I still have a DAT drive (SCSI, DDS-2... I think) that can do around 2 gigabytes on a tape, which I will probably switch back to for long term storage. As for "on-line" backups: I mirror my working files between workstation and laptop. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]