so its come to this: hard drives cheaper than dvd-r

Discussion in 'macOS' started by icedtea1996, Jul 6, 2008.

  1. icedtea1996 macrumors newbie

    Dec 19, 2007
    hello there!

    after spending the weekend archiving video material and other data on to dvd-r it just occurred to me now to check hard drive prices and it feels like theyve halved once again from what it was only a couple of months ago. now you can pay less per gigabyte when buying a hard drive rather than (good) dvd-rs. so heres my question: being that both hard drives (with the mechanics involved) and dvds (with the whole "look at me im so thin and shiny but nothing works after a while") are not perfect for permanent archiving (i guess those data tapes are the best bet, but im not rockafeller), which one is the lesser evil? i know archiving on hard drives, especially with the large amount (video) that im dealing with, would be easier, and this whole roxio toast splitting data on several dvds doesnt feel good either, but which one is more permanent? if i backup a full 750gb hdd disk and put it on the shelf for 10 years along with the same 750gb on dvd-rs, which will put a smile on my face in 2018?
  2. The General macrumors 601

    Jul 7, 2006
  3. JNB macrumors 604


    Oct 7, 2004
    In a Hell predominately of my own making
    In ten years, both will be fine assuming the storage is appropriate. Keep in mind that in both cases you'll have to have a way to read wither one.
  4. icedtea1996 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Dec 19, 2007
    i cant speak for the us, but over here in europe (and i assume not much different in the us) just a year ago you had to pay more for high quality dvd-r (using sony) than for same amount of gigabytes on a 3,5" hdd.

    but thanks for the useful info.
  5. HLdan macrumors 603


    Aug 22, 2007
    It's a no brainer, yes you will get more storage for cheap on a hard disk however you have much higher chances of hard disk failure and the DVD will remain in tact. To back yourself up important data on hard drives should be stored redundantly which requires the purchase of more than one hard disk so in this case the DVD would be better.
  6. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816


    May 5, 2007
    I Agree, use DVD's for important stuff, HDD's are ok for day to day but if the data or photographs that can't be replaced then a DVD is the best storage :)
    But the price of storage is getting cheaper everyday, Memory cards, Hdd's or DVD's but I still like to back up important stuff to DVD and file it away.
  7. Muncher macrumors 65816


    Apr 19, 2007
    SSDs should reliably hold data for 40 years at a time, but they're expensive. I don't see how a hard drive can fail if I lock it in a closet for ten years after I fill it up :p. I don't trust DVDs, reflecting the sun in my face like they're better than me... oh, sorry about that :p:D. :apple:
  8. Tosser macrumors 68030

    Jan 15, 2008
    Trust me, electronics not in use WILL go belly up. It's called corrosion. And in particular "fine", mechanical electronics like harddrives will be more prone than anything else.

    Btw, here, museums, and the National Broadcast Company (Denmark's Radio), have redundance, but they also re-archive digitally every five years, in order to be sure it will work.

    Five years. No matter if it's a HDD, or an optical media.
  9. icedtea1996 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Dec 19, 2007
    correct me if im wrong but isnt the disks that the mechanics are "hard"-working on just as electronical and thus also victim to corrosion?
  10. Tosser macrumors 68030

    Jan 15, 2008
    What do you mean? The optical disk drive, or the platters in the hdd?

    Anyway, if you mean that something is just as prone to corrossion if used, well, then you're wrong. It's the mere fact of non moving, non-heated, condensing part that'll get them sooner than if used. Now, of course, if used there's mechnical failure to worry about.

Share This Page