From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 12/02/02-01:49:49 PM Z
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Clyde Rogers wrote:
> > BTW, just for the record, a 4 X 6.5" scan of a color negative at 2400
> > dpi gives a raw file of almost 400mb. Think my most important need is
> > to replace the 100mb Zip drive with a 750mb version.
>
> Burn CDs---more reliable, more universal (it will be easier to read a
> CD than a 750 Zip 20 years from now), and much cheaper.
If the information is extremely important, I think maybe you want both
belt and suspenders -- I've had both systems (CD & Zip) go bad. Recently
transferring from CD's to new hard drive, on 2 out of 3 CDs I got message
of skipped individual files (I forget the wording, but it said in effect,
forgetabout it).
The next day I had a zip disk do so-called click of death -- continued
clicking in the tray and wouldn't transfer a file to hard drive -- though
it did eject. My internal zip drive still seems OK, so I assume it was
just that disk.
In both cases, I have other backups, and the old CPU also has the info &
can (theoretically at least) be accessed, but I point out that NO SCRATCH
or other visible manifestation could be detected on the CDs that bombed.
My theory is that ESPECIALLY with so much info, the CD is exceedingly
casual about any particular file.
The zip drive is also a much more practical back up for ongoing work --
after a day, or even an hour, of work I may have a relatively small file
that I wouldn't use a CD for (since they have to be done at one stroke),
but can in 5 seconds back on the zip disk always onscreen. In fact I hear
with amazement of folks whose hard drives crashed leaving them ENTIRELY
UNBACKED. I don't like to tempt the digitons who have a grudge against me
from a prior existence, but my thought is that those folks did NOT have a
zip at hand.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:25 AM Z CST