ronmatt said:
Neo/Gausian; I only posted that 6-10 thingy as a guide to the fact that CD's aren't the 'end all' for saving and storing data.
Oh, ok.?
ronmatt said:
The problem is the chemical reaction effecting the 'disk side' of the [film?]occuring 'through' the disk material. it has nothing to do with the coating.
I never said that Ron. No, the chemical reaction is not the main risk factor. If you save these media under good conditions then they will last a lost long time. The main risk is the protective layer. If the protective layers are not "glued" properly then over time oxygen (enemy #1), other chemicals or bacteria can reach the main layer.
ronmatt said:
I just don't think it's worth the gamble to prove that one CD brand, or one writer is better than another.
What gamble? All digital data is a gamble. I also never advised to store a DVD and then look 10 years later if you can still read it, because yes, then you sure take a big gamble!?
But not only digital data is a gamble, everthing can be stolen or can be lost in a fire is a gamble. The whole idea behind my post is the reduce the gamble. I think it's a lot more of a gamble to store everything only on your hard drive. You only pick out one part of the post, like quality of the drive or media. I don't think you understand the complete picture that I'm trying to draw here.
Trust me Ron, I've done this at a much larger scale, major international companies for which I developed large disaster and recovery plans, plans that were needed to protect investments of tens if not hundreds of millions. There are better solutions than the ones I mentioned, but the problem is that these professional solutions are too expensive or complicated for the average Joe and Jane.
ronmatt said:
Many people think these things will last forever.
Yes and that's why it's good you bring this under the attention, but I don't think that CD/DVD deserves the picture of being a poor backup medium, because that's simply not true if you take the right precautions.