Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > I *really* want disk storage that's larger than 4.7GB.
How old school. Chasing piles of flimsy media that holds 1/20th of a hard drive, need labeled, manually carried off site, cataloged, etc. I've not seen any media recently that made a particular amount of sense compared to a just shipping friends/family an external 1TB drive and using something rsync related (encrypted if you prefer). Not to mention that if you actually burn regularly seems like many of the burners don't have a particularly long life. I recall a post from someone running an apple lab that used burners daily and claimed that the drives died between 100 and 400 burns... no idea on the failure mechanism, for all I know cheap media was gumming up the works. > disks appear to be in the 7-8 dollar range. 25 or 50GB? In any case $0.15-$0.30, which doesn't sound too bad, till you count labor cost, reliability, and that by nature burned media ends up wasting quite a bit. If you do 40 hours of work and end up with 1GB... do you burn a disc? Oh, er, 2 so you can have one offsite? So you spend $15.00 a week to have a reasonable chance of not losing a weeks work? Will you even remember, especially when busy? Cron jobs seem to have excellent memory ;-). $15.00 a week buys quite a bit of Amazon storage. Say you have 100GB of storage, and a churn of 1GB a week. Amazon would charge $15.00 a month to store 100GB, and $0.17 a week to let you upload 1GB. For that cost you could have daily backups with offsite storage for the grand total of zero minutes of your time a month (once setup).... er, well you would have to approve your bill. At least for me, my most common restore is a single file/directory and it's quite nice to be able to browser and click instead of digging around on a shelf or drawer. I suspect you could find something to do with the other $250.. maybe this is all a justification for the ability to watch bluray movies ... or maybe you like the smell of sharpies? Robert Parker wrote: > CDs are extremely fragile. The recording layer is on the top of the > platter protected only by a layer of laquer which is easily > contaminated by fingers touching the top surface. A DVD in contrast > has the recording layer sandwiched between two equally thick > polycarbonate platters and so is not subject to the same contamination > as a CD. Otoh you can destroy a burnt DVD by dropping it on its edge > on a hard surface which can cause the 2 platters to delaminate. I'd > expect BlueRay to be at least as reliable as DVD Why? Same volume, higher density. Any physical defect is going to damage more bits. I hadn't heard they added any extra ECC. A DVD can take a fair bit of abuse and still have a bit perfect read (assuming good software). Even cloudy DVDs with tons of scratches seem to often work. 2nd hand reports seem to support more bluray problems with playback than DVD. I'm concerned with planned obsolescence, every increasing layers of DRM, quickly moving standards. Buy an HDTV players it's "future proof", never mind the HDTV standard, sure 1080P is nice, but I'm sure once the market saturates they will be pushing 2160p... and of course hollywood is pushing 3D these days. Will computers come with bluray drives in 4 years? Will you even be able to buy media/readers in 8? Do you ever in your life want to bother migrating from a stack of media type A to media type B? Seems like the industry is definitely trying to prevent long running standards like the CD and DVD and consumers who considered their collections long term investments. Now they want new standards often and are pretty pushing for pay per use, pay per computer, pay for a ring tone, pay per format.... alright enough ranting. _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
