Thanks for the urls, I will investigate.
However, as you state, I am not worried about re-writing these disks 30
years from now. If I put information on them is it because I might wish
to re-write it in the next few years. Thirty years from now, very
simply, no one will be using CD-R or CD-RW.
Lastly, although TDK may have a potentially 100 year CD-R disk, many,
many others will not last that long.
So, based upon this admittedly cursory info, I think my decision ti use
CD-RW for anything that is in transition over the next several years
will not be a disadvantage and may have an advantage.
Now, just to toss one more wrench in the mix, I know PD disks used a
metal (Tellurium?) which was considered potentially hazardous. I don't
know what is used in the CD-RWs versus the CD-Rs and which is worse for
the environment.
Art
Steve Greenbank wrote:
> Hi Arthur
>
>
>
>
> "operational lifetime of more than 1,000 overwrite or 1 million read cycles,
> with an expected archival lifespan of well over 30 years"
>
>
>
> "Based on accelerated ageing tests, the lifetime of TDK's CD-R REFLEX has
> been computed to be well over 100 years. "
>
> I am sure have seen in various places that RW is more delicate and has
> shorter expected lifespan.
>
> If you want to catch up some CD meda information try:
>
>
>
> Of course if the 30 years is accurate you need not worry as no doubt at some
> time in the next 10-20 years you will be able to transfer several hundred
> CD's onto the latest mass archival storage media.
>
> Steve
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@ampsc.com>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 2:46 AM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
>
>
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I'll ask the same question I just did of Michael. Do you have any test
>> reports or other sources I could go to that suggest CD-RW is not stable
>> for archival storage, versus the stability of CD-R. I have yet to see
>> this, and was wondering what studies are showing.
>>
>> I am aware that CD-RW media is not as universally readable on CD-ROM
>> units, but I haven't seen the info on loss of info on these disks.
>> Since they come from the family of the PD, which claim a good shelf
>> life, I'm rather surprised that they are not considered trustworthy.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> Steve Greenbank wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Appologies if this arrives twice. Internet provider has been down - I
>>> did try using an alternative account but this appears to have got
>>> filtered out by the mailing list server.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Re-writables are a very poor choice for anything you want to keep
>>> long-term as they have relatively very poor archival properties and in
>>> general are just not anywhere as reliable as writables. They are also
>>> much more prone to damage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Re-writeables are also a poor choice for anything where you give the
>>> disc away as writables are cheaper and
>>>
>>> some early computer CD-ROMs and many non-computer CD readers will not
>>> read these discs at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Re-writables are useful for :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> short term temporay storage (particulary if used with packet
>>> writing software [DirectCD,InCD etc])
>>>
>>> moving some data from one machine to another where there is no
>>> decent network or internet connection
>>>
>>> possibly a rotatational backup system of critical files (eg use 4
>>> discs in rotation - a different one every week)
>>>
>>> some sort of test CD (eg one with auto-loading software that you
>>> want to test before making the real disc)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: Photoburt@aol.com <mailto:Photoburt@aol.com>
>>>
>>> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk <mailto:filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>>>
>>> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:41 PM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm just getting started in CD burning. I saw that my options in
>>> blank CD
>>> are between Rewritable and Write Once Only. Is there any preference
>>> between
>>> the two for photographic image storage? My inclination is to think
>>> that
>>> Rewritable would be preferable because of the possible need to
>>> adjustments in
>>> the image.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your input.
>>>
>>> Burt
>>
>>
>>
