I am sorry but I fail to see how higher speed and higher density archival
storage lessens the amount of time it takes to copy data from one media to
another, which I take it was part of Chris's point. As for your statement
that you probably won't be around in 50 years to worry about the error rates
on your CDRs might be true but it sort of begs the question. Libraries,
museums, future generations will be around and will be faced with the
problem. Isn't the whole point of archiving materials for the future uses
and generations to make such materials easily retrievable and useful in some
later time under different circumstances?
This in no way is intended as a criticism of your comments but only an
observation.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
Chris wrote:
>Surely longevity is the key word here and not pure capacity.
>As the amount of stored data increases we do not want to have to spend
>a bulk of our time copying all the library CDs onto the latest media,
>we want to be creating and storing the latest information/music/photos.
Er yes, but my point was (not elaborated very well) that with higher speed
and higher density archival storage, it's possible to copy data from lots
of CDRs to a lot less of some other medium - like DVD-RAM or some other
future medium. It would be nice never to have to copy these things at all,
I agree. I probably won't be around in 50 years time to worry about the
error rates on my CDRs anyhow.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
