Images Stored on a CD-RW

[phrehdd]

There is a lot of discussion on what is the best way to back up media files.
CD, DVD, Blu Ray, Tape, mechanical drive, "thumb" drives, SSD and so on.

The reality is that all of them can fail. CD storage gets a bad rap and deservedly so when one uses inferior discs. Sadly, most on the market discs that are popular by brand are bad choices. There are however (as with DVD) some very good choices. They are designed to be archival by nature.

The short version - CD-R etc. have unstable or low life dyes. Superior media may be produced with long life dyes that can offer far past 30 years. These include stabilized Cyanine, a combination with Azo dye and more.

I highly suggest you (and those unsatisfied with disc media) look at the following link that can explain far better the reality of disc media.

http://adterrasperaspera.com/blog/20...archival-media

This is a good starting point and mentions at least one company that is devoted to archival disc media.

I personally find when storing media, to use both asynchronous redundant drives and disc. The latter is "bulk" files (everything I can store) and the former is for potential return to use files. When I say asynchronous, I am suggesting rather than mirroring drives, use a good duplicating software that allows just the changes to be added to the second drive (including deletions and changes in files). CC Clone and SuperDuper are a couple of easy to use standard choices.

If you opt for mechanical drives, which can store far more than a CD or DVD, just realize if the drive goes bad far more files are lost. Thus, going redundant is important on hard drives.

I hope this helps a bit.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

It's people's ignorance and unwillingness to accept new technology which hinders adoption of the new and improved. This includes self-inhibition by policy. .....

On the other hand, sometimes it is with a complete understanding that some people don't adopt the newest technologies, because they know - from experience - that quite often the newest technologies fail in unpredictable ways.

A good chunk of the world's paper documents were archived to microfiche (very small film). A supposedly archival technology that would save massive amounts of space since an entire shelf of documents could be transferred to a single spool of film. A lot microfiche film failed in a couple of decades. The original documents had, of course, been binned long ago. Now... with experience and understanding, libraries tend to stay with their original paper copies.

Then there was that 'new' technology... Zip Drives. People started moving massive amounts of their data to this archival technology. Then the "click of death" made its debut. As I recall, after a Zip Disc had been used a number of times it built up a residue, which would crash the read/write heads. Nasty. However, initially this problem was not fully understood. When the heads crashed, they often picked up the residue which they transferred to the next Zip Disc inserted. If the Zip Drive didn't immediately crash on this next drive, then this 2nd Zip Disc now had a near fatal accumulation of residue, which it transferred to next drive. Meanwhile the 1st drive still had its load of residue, which caused it to fail in short order.

It was one of the earliest (if not only) cases of a hardware issue being passed around like a software virus.

People with an understanding and knowledge stayed away from the next few "better" versions of removable HDDs.

Then there was Windows ME, which was the latest and greatest at some point. And Bob, of course.

So.... before dismissing some of us as being stuck in the stone age - understand that some of us have been bitten more than once by 'new' technologies. So we are a bit cautious at times.

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by snberk103

On the other hand, sometimes it is with a complete understanding that some people don't adopt the newest technologies, because they know - from experience - that quite often the newest technologies fail in unpredictable ways.

A good chunk of the world's paper documents were archived to microfiche (very small film). A supposedly archival technology that would save massive amounts of space since an entire shelf of documents could be transferred to a single spool of film. A lot microfiche film failed in a couple of decades. The original documents had, of course, been binned long ago. Now... with experience and understanding, libraries tend to stay with their original paper copies.

Then there was that 'new' technology... Zip Drives. People started moving massive amounts of their data to this archival technology. Then the "click of death" made its debut. As I recall, after a Zip Disc had been used a number of times it built up a residue, which would crash the read/write heads. Nasty. However, initially this problem was not fully understood. When the heads crashed, they often picked up the residue which they transferred to the next Zip Disc inserted. If the Zip Drive didn't immediately crash on this next drive, then this 2nd Zip Disc now had a near fatal accumulation of residue, which it transferred to next drive. Meanwhile the 1st drive still had its load of residue, which caused it to fail in short order.

It was one of the earliest (if not only) cases of a hardware issue being passed around like a software virus.

People with an understanding and knowledge stayed away from the next few "better" versions of removable HDDs.

Then there was Windows ME, which was the latest and greatest at some point. And Bob, of course.

So.... before dismissing some of us as being stuck in the stone age - understand that some of us have been bitten more than once by 'new' technologies. So we are a bit cautious at times.

Replacing an operating system infamous for its ability to fail with one proven to be much, much better, especially with 3 years of experience to back Windows 7 up, warrants no excuse in my opinion.
Not to mention that Windows 7 has been superseded already by Windows 8, so it's not even the newest and the buggiest. If anything it's the culmination of Microsoft's efforts to eliminate all bugs found in XP and Vista.
So at least for people not upgrading from XP, their own ignorance is at fault by this point in time.

[MisterMe]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

Replacing an operating system infamous for its ability to fail with one proven to be much, much better, especially with 3 years of experience to back Windows 7 up, warrants no excuse in my opinion.
Not to mention that Windows 7 has been superseded already by Windows 8, so it's not even the newest and the buggiest. If anything it's the culmination of Microsoft's efforts to eliminate all bugs found in XP and Vista.
So at least for people not upgrading from XP, their own ignorance is at fault by this point in time.

Spoken like a college student.

In an earlier post, I stated that many firms stay two generations of Windows behind Microsoft's current release. This is not because their IT managers are stupid. Their companies health including the livelihoods of management, employees, investors, and customers depend on the firm's computers working properly. They do not have the luxury of using bad judgement and then blaming their bad judgement on others.

With the release of Windows 8 by Microsoft, these firms would have begun the roll-out of Vista. However, this would appear to be a non-starter because Vista was so irretrievably bad. Do they take a chance on Windows 7 or do they stick with XP for another cycle? Chances are that many of the systems required for rolling-out Windows 7 are not yet ready. Stick with XP, it is.

A word about CDs and DVDs. All of the faults that others have listed for these are correct. But there is one that had not been mentioned--CDs and DVDs are made of plastic. Content stored on prerecorded discs are pits stamped into an aluminum film mounted on a plastic substrate. Content stored on CD±Rs and DVD±Rs are phase changes recorded by photons in a dye that is mounted on a plastic substrate.

In the early days of CDs, it was believed that CDs would last for centuries. Now we know that this is not true. A CD will last a few decades at most. The plastic in the substrate will change. Plastic is a combination of hard brittle polymer and plasticizer. The plasticizer is a highly viscous liquid; it is not solid. Over time, the plasticizer separates from the polymer. As with every other plastic object that you have ever seen, the plastic in the CD and DVD substrate will develop cracks and warps. It will become unreadable.

In the case of recordable discs, they suffer all of the vagaries of plastic that the prerecorded discs are heir to. However, they also suffer the vagaries of a recording medium that is sensitive to light. Your precious archived files disappear into the ether if the CD±R/DVD±R disc holding them is exposed to light for a period of time.

The bottomline is that you can expect expensive recordable media to last longer than the cheap stuff. However, this like the passengers seated toward the rear of an airplane that crashes. The passengers seated toward the rear live longer than those in the front, but not much longer.

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Spoken like a college student.

In an earlier post, I stated that many firms stay two generations of Windows behind Microsoft's current release. This is not because their IT managers are stupid. Their companies health including the livelihoods of management, employees, investors, and customers depend on the firm's computers working properly. They do not have the luxury of using bad judgement and then blaming their bad judgement on others.

With the release of Windows 8 by Microsoft, these firms would have begun the roll-out of Vista. However, this would appear to be a non-starter because Vista was so irretrievably bad. Do they take a chance on Windows 7 or do they stick with XP for another cycle? Chances are that many of the systems required for rolling-out Windows 7 are not yet ready. Stick with XP, it is.

I'm sorry but that is simply not true. By your logic then all companies should have stuck with Windows 98 until 2007, 2 generations behind XP until the release of Vista. Obviously false, since by 2005 XP had been out a good 4 years to prove its worthiness over Windows 98, thus convincing most firms to switch to XP. By that time practically all computers were running either WinME or XP; hardly anyone used 98. By the time Vista rolled out most computers were running XP. They don't stay 2 generations behind; they instead stay 3-4 years behind.

(with the exception of Vista since it sucked so badly)

In fact it was impressive that the most popular version of Windows at the time of XP SP3 was, in fact, the latest version of Windows, polished over the course of 7 years; it is axiomatic then that Windows 7, which is a continuous development and the actual intended successor of XP, be as secure and modern as possible, worthy of corporate use, 4 years after its release, just as XP was.

Which comes back to my previous point that most IT departments resist change since it's too much effort, i.e. laziness, and they openly admit it, despite what PR releases, policies etc. might say.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

In the early days of CDs, it was believed that CDs would last for centuries. Now we know that this is not true. A CD will last a few decades at most. The plastic in the substrate will change. Plastic is a combination of hard brittle polymer and plasticizer. The plasticizer is a highly viscous liquid; it is not solid. Over time, the plasticizer separates from the polymer. As with every other plastic object that you have ever seen, the plastic in the CD and DVD substrate will develop cracks and warps. It will become unreadable.

CDs are made from polycarbonate, a plastic polymer on its own. It does not need a plasticizer, and CDs have none. This is why CDs are stiff and shatter easily; they have no plasticizer. In fact it makes less sense to put plasticizer since this increases the chances that the CD will warp. The plastic layer separating is due to the lack of adhesive holding the metal layer onto the plastic.
This also means a properly stored CD will be able to retain its shape over many decades, given there is no stress applied to the disc.

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

I'm sorry but that is simply not true. By your logic then all companies should have stuck with Windows 98 until 2007, 2 generations behind XP until the release of Vista. ...
Which comes back to my previous point that most IT departments resist change since it's too much effort, i.e. laziness, and they openly admit it, despite what PR releases, policies etc. might say.
....

For whatever reasons companies keep their OS a generation or two behind, it is not because the IT department is lazy.

They may resist change because they are understaffed. Because head office won't fund the training necessary to bring the workers up to speed. Because they don't have the budget to up-cycle the hardware.

Even in a small business, you don't just "upgrade" the OS. IT needs to test the new OS on the hardware actually being used. The need to test the new OS with the network connections, with the printers, and with the other peripherals being used. They need to make sure that the productivity applications being used will work with the new OS. Then they have to test the new productivity applications (because often the new OS doesn't play well with applications being used) with the document templates and document archives to make sure that the new productivity applications can work with the massive amount of documents that the company uses and has on file. Then they have to test to see if they can safely upgrade the library of saved documents and templates to work with the new productivity applications, that they need in order to upgrade the OS.

Then there is the custom written applications that need to be tested, and potentially rewritten to work with the new OS.

And then there are the hardware upgrades that will need to be made, because the new OS may not run on the oldest systems.

And then there is the time needed to train employees on the new a) hardware, b) OS, and c) applications.

When you consider that most corporate employees who are using an old OS are probably only using Office, a customized email solution, and one other application.... corporate HQ doesn't really see a big need to spend the money on all of the above ... just to keep the OS shiny and new.

Heck... I come from an IBM OS/2 background... and there are still companies using that OS in production just because it still works.

[mofunk]

Originally Posted by compuwar

That was true of punched cards, paper tape and cassettes too. There's always a period where you need to transition to the next storage medium.

Paul

Cassettes have been out long time. Its actually just another form of Reel to Reel, 8-Track, film etc. Cds really haven't had that long of a transition. I can't see them moving from it in a long time. Sure they are alternatives, but to add something new or eliminate CDs would be a waste.


I'm using a thumb drive to move files between my Quicksilver Mac and MBP. Sometimes it works and some times it doesn't. CDr works.

[compuwar]

Originally Posted by mofunk

Cassettes have been out long time. Its actually just another form of Reel to Reel, 8-Track, film etc. Cds really haven't had that long of a transition. I can't see them moving from it in a long time. Sure they are alternatives, but to add something new or eliminate CDs would be a waste.


I'm using a thumb drive to move files between my Quicksilver Mac and MBP. Sometimes it works and some times it doesn't. CDr works.

Reel to reel is an audio format, I'm talking computer storage (9 track tape would be the reel to reel equivalent.) CDs are dying quickly- more and more devices are coming without a CD drive. Flash technologies like SSDs, SDHC and thumb drives are the non-cloud alternatives these days. My plan is to transition off magnetic hard drives to SSDs in the next year for my photo storage. I've already gone PATA to SATA. More importantly for image storage, CD and DVD simply don't have the storage density necessary for raw digital images 30 images per disk on CD? That's not really feasible.

Paul