From: Mateo (mateo@mateoleyba.com)
Date: 12/02/02-03:37:07 PM Z
on 12/2/02 12:49 PM, Judy Seigel at jseigel@panix.com wrote:
>
> 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.
> 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
>
For Mac users (OS X), an inexpensive and easy way to manage backup is to
invest in TWO large FW drives (<$500) and use the OS to setup a simple
mirrored RAID. This scenario gives you around 60G of redundancy without
taking time to do a backup. If you want a hard copy backup or need to use
the file offsite burn a DVD, or use another portable FW dive. As someone
said earlier a DVD and CD will be around a lot longer than a proprietary
Iomega disk.
mateo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:25 AM Z CST