Re: Archival CDs

From: Robert W. Schramm ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 06/26/05-07:54:35 PM Z
Message-id: <BAY106-F209BFC951CE30E7D81D6E6D0EE0@phx.gbl>


     I sometimes must think in terms of an archives full of 1000 s of disks.
Often the extra storage on a DVD is not needed. It takes longer to burn a
DVD. A CD is easier and quicker to copy The extra cost and time becomes
significant if you are making 5000 discs.


Check out my web page at:

<br><br><br>&gt;From: John &lt;;<br>&gt;Reply-To:<br>&gt;To:<br>&gt;Subject: Re: Archival
CDs<br>&gt;Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:34:35 -0500<br>&gt;<br>&gt;On Fri, 24
Jun 2005 22:49:49 -0400, you wrote:<br>&gt;<br>&gt; &gt; I'm going to put on
my archivist's hat since the subject of damage to CDs<br>&gt; &gt; came
up.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Ya know, I'm not really into the digi-pic scene but
frankly I moved from<br>&gt;CD-R to DVD media about 2 years ago. I can't
even imagine why R&amp;D is still<br>&gt;being spent on
it.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; CD-R = 700MB @ $0.20<br>&gt; DVD+R = 4.7GB @
$0.50<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Hmmmm, holds 6.5X as much data and yet costs only
about 2.5X as much.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;--<br>&gt;John -<br>
Received on Sun Jun 26 19:54:45 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 07/07/05-11:30:55 AM Z CST