Storing data on multiple hard-drives is the best way to go IMO... Actually, having a networked computer working as a dedicated server with a RAID array is the best way to archive anything. Yes, it's expensive... ish.. I built a P3 950 from almost nothing for about 250 dollars and I have it networked right now. I need to spend about 400 more to get a nice RAID array for redundancy purposes and then I'll pretty much be set for 10 years or so... (I made some case modifications and added in some extra fans and it's the only computer I've ever had that actually cools down as it's left on, so heat problems won't end up killing my system and losing my info...) Who knows how long a computer can really last anyhow?? The hard-drive I have on my main system is guaranteed for 100,000 hours of use. That's about 11 and a half years of continuous use, guaranteed. So as a minimum I would say a quality hard drive can last 10 years, and as a maximum maybe 15-20. But who knows for sure? I have an old 500MB Conner hard-drive that still works perfectly even to this day and it's about a decade old. Of course, at 500MB it's not worth the space it takes up in my computer, so it doesn't get used, but about 2 years ago I got an old 486 running again and installed Linux onto that ancient hard-drive, it worked like a charm.
The reason why people have hard drive trouble is because they buy cheap hard drives, and they are not properly cooling their systems. I've learned some lessons the hard way, with hard drives going bonkers on me every couple of years, then I decided I wasn't going to buy Best Buy's low quality crap anymore, I forked over the cash for a quality SCSI drive and haven't had a lick of trouble in over 2 years. Heat is a computers greatest enemy, do everything you can to eliminate it, within reason of course... Properly cooled, quality hard drives are extremely, extremely stable. -Shawn -----Original Message----- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Implications for Film May be old news to some... I found this Fuji white paper release interesting, especially it's implications for film in the future. This is just an excerpt of what is on www.fujifilm.com in an April report. Film use continues to decline. In 2004, 27% of digital camera users said that their film use has been completely replaced by digital, compared to 23% in 2002. Additionally, 43% of digital camera users believe that 100% of their photos will be captured digitally at some point in the future. As a result of the declining use of film, retail photofinishers need to build their photofinishing businesses effectively to respond to changing consumer needs. More users have been able to replace film technology with their digital cameras because they trust their digital cameras to capture important photos for keepsakes and memories. Just 42% of respondents indicated using their film camera instead of their digital camera for keepsake memories in 2004, down from 56% in 2001. This is good news for the industry because as digital camera users continue to capture more of their cherished memories with their digital cameras, they are more likely to want high-quality prints of these images. However, the fact that 72% of digital camera users also store their photos on their hard drive, means that they are at risk of losing some of their most important memories to a hard drive crash. Retailers and the digital imaging industry have a responsibility to educate digital camera users about the need to archive their digital photos. While CDs and DVDs are one way to archive digital photos, it is uncertain how long these formats will be available. Prints are a time-tested method of archiving photos, especially if they are stored correctly.
