John,
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.
Bob
Check out my web page at:
<br><br><br>>From: John <ap@puresilver.org><br>>Reply-To:
alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca<br>>To:
alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca<br>>Subject: Re: Archival
CDs<br>>Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:34:35 -0500<br>><br>>On Fri, 24
Jun 2005 22:49:49 -0400, you wrote:<br>><br>> > I'm going to put on
my archivist's hat since the subject of damage to CDs<br>> > came
up.<br>><br>> Ya know, I'm not really into the digi-pic scene but
frankly I moved from<br>>CD-R to DVD media about 2 years ago. I can't
even imagine why R&D is still<br>>being spent on
it.<br>><br>> CD-R = 700MB @ $0.20<br>> DVD+R = 4.7GB @
$0.50<br>><br>> Hmmmm, holds 6.5X as much data and yet costs only
about 2.5X as much.<br>><br>>--<br>>John - www.puresilver.org<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