On 9/12/02 23:12, "Craig Auckland" wrote: > Easy. If you have maybe 170 GB+ of images then CDs become slightly > cumbersome; 30-50 DVDs seems better than 200-300 CDs (per year!). Things > must move forward. And DVDRs cost about 45p so cheaper per mb than CD > storage. Speed may be an issue today; tomorrow it's no problem.
I understand the problem, very clearly. My archive is around the same size. DVD is still not the way to go though IMO. CD's, I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole! Do a proper cost analysis using Hard Drives, internal and removable. As someone else mentioned, drive prices are dropping faster than the proverbial stone. Last time I did this, the hard drives were a cheaper option than CD's, and DVD's used to be more expensive than CD's on a per MB basis. This method also has serious advantages over having a bunch of DVD's/CD's in a pile. Instant fast access being top of the list. Personally, I use large hard drives for my main archive, which is backed up daily to two sets of tape storage. (One usually stored off site). This covers most eventualities. However tape is now looking like quite a high cost route, and I would even consider changing to a fully hard drive back-up system, it would be faster and probably cheaper too. Are you already backing up your work to any medium? On how regular a basis? If you archive to DVD's are you going to make two copies of each and store one off site? Have you read into the reliability of DVD's, they used to be very bad. Paul -- Paul Tansley Fashion & Beauty Photography London +44 (0) 7973 669584 http://www.paultansley.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
