Question for you computer geeks

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Dec 26, 2007.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    OK, geeks, listen up.
    Here is my current computer system right now.
    Windows XP Pro
    3.2MHz Pentium 4
    2GB Memory
    Hard drives as follows:
    C: 120Gb SATA
    D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
    F: DVD
    G: DVD-R
    H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
    A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
    L: 160 GB SCSI
    Most of my disks are almost full.

    OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
    I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
    I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.

    What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
    install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
    my drives onto the big drive.
    I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
    new OS?
    Or is there a better way of going about it?
    What would you do?
    Annika1980, Dec 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980 wrote:

    > What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
    > install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
    > my drives onto the big drive.
    > I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    > memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
    > new OS?
    > Or is there a better way of going about it?
    > What would you do?


    In your case is would be best to dump all the trash you accumulated over the
    years and put your best images on a 3.5" floppy. There's no fucken reason
    to warehouse all that garbage. I don't know why you want to put the OS on a
    1TB drive when you can use a much smaller drive and save the big one for
    your garbage and apps. All your cracked programs should work fine on
    64-bit. I'm not sure if your kegens will work.





    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 26, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Dec 26, 6:56 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >  I don't know why you want to put the OS on a
    > 1TB drive when you can use a much smaller drive and save the big one for
    > your garbage and apps.  


    That's normally what I try to do, but inevitably the C: drive gets
    filled up anyway. I hate it when some programs automatically download
    onto the C: drive without asking. I figured if I could clear out one
    of my smaller drives I could use it for a scratch disk or something. I
    suppose I could partition the big drive for that purpose, but I might
    lose some performance. Plus, I hate having so many drive letters and
    partitions. I'd rather have just one or two drives if possible.
    Might make things easier on the power supply as well if I could lose a
    few drives.
    Annika1980, Dec 27, 2007
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:38 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >OK, geeks, listen up.
    >Here is my current computer system right now.
    >Windows XP Pro
    >3.2MHz Pentium 4
    >2GB Memory
    >Hard drives as follows:
    >C: 120Gb SATA
    >D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
    >F: DVD
    >G: DVD-R
    >H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
    >A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
    >L: 160 GB SCSI
    >Most of my disks are almost full.
    >
    >OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
    >I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
    >I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.
    >
    >What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
    >install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
    >my drives onto the big drive.
    >I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    >memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
    >new OS?
    >Or is there a better way of going about it?
    >What would you do?



    I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
    dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #4
  5. "Annika1980" <> wrote:

    > I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    > memory.


    I thought so too, but Dell will blithely sell you a 32-bit XP box with 4 or
    8GB. The 32-bit XP limit is 2GB (or 3 GB) per either thread or process, and
    it _should_ be possible for the OS to manage more memory than that directly
    addressable by the CPU running a single app. (The OS could live in its own
    1GB of physical memory and sets registers in the MMU when it switches apps.)
    If this happened on a per-thread basis, then a single app could use as much
    physical memory as the OS would give it.

    Of course, this assumes that the app is written with the assumption that the
    OS knows how to manage memory. But my understanding is that Photoshop (and
    presumably Lightroom) do their own memory management in their own scratch
    file.

    > My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the new OS?


    This review (the first link google found) claims you can.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/08/23/windows_xp_x64/index.html

    > Or is there a better way of going about it?
    > What would you do?


    I'm planning on buying a new machine next spring, and I'll probably stick
    with 32-bit XP.

    My approach is going to be to have three fast disks: One for the OS + OS
    page file, one for the Photoshop/Lightroom scratch file, and one for current
    data. It might be slightly better to have four disks: OS, OS page file,
    application scratch, and current data. But that gets silly.

    By the way, I wish you wouldn't crosspost to aus.photo. It would reduce the
    noise over here substantially.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 27, 2007
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    El Barto Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:38 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
    > <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >> OK, geeks, listen up.
    >> Here is my current computer system right now.
    >> Windows XP Pro
    >> 3.2MHz Pentium 4
    >> 2GB Memory
    >> Hard drives as follows:
    >> C: 120Gb SATA
    >> D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
    >> F: DVD
    >> G: DVD-R
    >> H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
    >> A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
    >> L: 160 GB SCSI
    >> Most of my disks are almost full.
    >>
    >> OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
    >> I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
    >> I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.
    >>
    >> What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
    >> install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
    >> my drives onto the big drive.
    >> I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    >> memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
    >> new OS?
    >> Or is there a better way of going about it?
    >> What would you do?

    >
    >
    > I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
    > dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.
    >

    So what's the Archive life of a Blu-Ray disk at the moment?
    for that matter what's the Archive rating for any of the optical mediums
    at the moment, even the highly valued "100 year" Kodak Archive quality
    CD's are starting to fail after only a few years.
    Use a HDD for archiving is the way to go, but follow the old adage that
    if one copy is good, several will be better, In other words, put your
    backups on at least 2 separate drives and store them in separate
    locations if possible.
    El Barto, Dec 27, 2007
    #6
  7. John Navas wrote:

    > I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
    > dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.


    And you'd be making a hell of a lot of expensive coasters. Only an idiot
    would recommend that shitty of an optical solution.






    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 27, 2007
    #7
  8. Annika1980 wrote:

    >> I don't know why you want to put the OS on a
    >> 1TB drive when you can use a much smaller drive and save the big one
    >> for your garbage and apps.

    >
    > That's normally what I try to do, but inevitably the C: drive gets
    > filled up anyway. I hate it when some programs automatically download
    > onto the C: drive without asking. I figured if I could clear out one
    > of my smaller drives I could use it for a scratch disk or something. I
    > suppose I could partition the big drive for that purpose, but I might
    > lose some performance. Plus, I hate having so many drive letters and
    > partitions. I'd rather have just one or two drives if possible.
    > Might make things easier on the power supply as well if I could lose a
    > few drives.


    There's always going to be programs that will dump system files onto the C:
    drive, but that doesn't mean that a lot of programs don't give you the
    choice. A shitty 120GB SATA for C: is more than plenty. The other thing you
    might want to consider is putting a server in the old basement closet. My
    house is full gigabit and everything attached is as well except for my laser
    printer. I can stream MP3s as well as movies effortlessly. This way you
    can keep a small high-performance desktop PC on your desk without all the
    clutter and clusterfuck you probably have now.





    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 27, 2007
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:39:20 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >"Annika1980" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    >> memory.


    It only does better with more than 4 GB.

    >I thought so too, but Dell will blithely sell you a 32-bit XP box with 4 or
    >8GB. The 32-bit XP limit is 2GB (or 3 GB) per either thread or process, and
    >it _should_ be possible for the OS to manage more memory than that directly
    >addressable by the CPU running a single app. (The OS could live in its own
    >1GB of physical memory and sets registers in the MMU when it switches apps.)
    >If this happened on a per-thread basis, then a single app could use as much
    >physical memory as the OS would give it.


    The 2 GB limit is per process, not per thread.
    Anything over 4 GB is wasted with 32-bit XP.
    64-bit XP currently supports up to 128 GB,
    and gives 32-bit apps up to 4 GB.

    >Of course, this assumes that the app is written with the assumption that the
    >OS knows how to manage memory. But my understanding is that Photoshop (and
    >presumably Lightroom) do their own memory management in their own scratch
    >file.


    Correct.

    >I'm planning on buying a new machine next spring, and I'll probably stick
    >with 32-bit XP.


    Why not Windows XP Professional x64 Edition??? Memory is cheap and
    getting cheaper.

    >My approach is going to be to have three fast disks: One for the OS + OS
    >page file, one for the Photoshop/Lightroom scratch file, and one for current
    >data. It might be slightly better to have four disks: OS, OS page file,
    >application scratch, and current data. But that gets silly.


    I suggest: (1) OS, (2) page + scratch, (3) data.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:40:21 +1100, El Barto <>
    wrote in <fkus9m$ohk$>:

    >John Navas wrote:


    >> I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
    >> dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.
    >>

    >So what's the Archive life of a Blu-Ray disk at the moment?
    >for that matter what's the Archive rating for any of the optical mediums
    >at the moment,


    50 years or more.

    >even the highly valued "100 year" Kodak Archive quality
    >CD's are starting to fail after only a few years.


    I've seen no credible evidence of high-grade optical discs failing when
    they've been stored properly. I've yet to have a problem reading any of
    my oldest CD-R discs.

    >Use a HDD for archiving is the way to go, but follow the old adage that
    >if one copy is good, several will be better, In other words, put your
    >backups on at least 2 separate drives and store them in separate
    >locations if possible.


    HDD has much shorter life than any high-quality optical media, on the
    order of only 5 years.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:41:25 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04
    @aol.com> wrote in <>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >
    >> I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
    >> dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.

    >
    >And you'd be making a hell of a lot of expensive coasters. Only an idiot
    >would recommend that shitty of an optical solution.


    You've either got an axe to grind or you've never actually used it.
    Which is it? ;)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #11
  12. "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > OK, geeks, listen up.
    > Here is my current computer system right now.
    > Windows XP Pro
    > 3.2MHz Pentium 4
    > 2GB Memory
    > Hard drives as follows:
    > C: 120Gb SATA
    > D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
    > F: DVD
    > G: DVD-R
    > H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
    > A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
    > L: 160 GB SCSI
    > Most of my disks are almost full.
    >
    > OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
    > I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
    > I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.
    >
    > What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
    > install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
    > my drives onto the big drive.
    > I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    > memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
    > new OS?
    > Or is there a better way of going about it?
    > What would you do?
    >
    >


    before going to x64 check out your hardware compatibility as XP 64 still
    have some major issues with peripheral hardware. Also look here for software
    compatibility (
    http://www.neowin.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t330290.html )
    personally I would stick with Pro. The speed differences you might see by
    going the x64 rout will probably be downplayed by software and hardware
    incompatibility issues :)

    With your setup I would be looking at making the SCSI drive the OS partition
    and then dumping all your other shit on the 1Tb drive in a couple of
    partitions, then turn the 400 into a scratch drive (as it is probably the
    fastest drive next to the SCSI and 1Tb drive, and being newer than the 120
    SATA) and turning the old IDE drive into an external drive cases are as
    cheap as chips now days)
    might do to just ad an extra gig of ram as that's all XP will be able to
    utilise as it has a practical limit of 3.1 gig.
    --
    "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
    Don Hirschberg
    Atheist Chaplain, Dec 27, 2007
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:38 -0800, Annika1980 wrote:

    > OK, geeks, listen up.
    > Here is my current computer system right now.
    > Windows XP Pro
    > 3.2MHz Pentium 4
    > 2GB Memory
    > Hard drives as follows:
    > C: 120Gb SATA
    > D: / E: 400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
    > F: DVD
    > G: DVD-R
    > H: / K: 250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
    > A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
    > L: 160 GB SCSI
    > Most of my disks are almost full.
    >
    > OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
    > I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
    > I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.
    >
    > What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
    > install the XP x64 on it. Then I could dump the contents of many of
    > my drives onto the big drive.


    The Pentium 4 is not a 64-bit CPU - it won't work. However, you can
    certainly copy files to the drive without it. BTW - MS 32 bit operating
    systems will not make full use of 4gb memory. They need to map address
    space etc. into the 4gb and you wind up with about 3gb that is actually
    usable. Linux, on the other hand, can be configured to access 64gb with a
    32 bit OS.

    > I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    > memory. My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
    > new OS?
    > Or is there a better way of going about it?
    > What would you do?


    If you want to run a 64 bit OS, you will have to get a 64 bit CPU - though
    as of today there is little advantage to it.

    BTW - if your system is not paging - kicking stuff out to swap space on
    disk - when you over utilize memory, then adding more will not make any
    difference.
    ray, Dec 27, 2007
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:41:25 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04
    > @aol.com> wrote in <>:
    >
    >> John Navas wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
    >>> dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.

    >> And you'd be making a hell of a lot of expensive coasters. Only an idiot
    >> would recommend that shitty of an optical solution.

    >
    > You've either got an axe to grind or you've never actually used it.
    > Which is it? ;)


    My new laptop came with a blu-ray burner but we don't know if it'll turn
    out like the 8-track tape yet.
    Paul Furman, Dec 27, 2007
    #14
  15. Atheist Chaplain wrote:

    > With your setup I would be looking at making the SCSI drive the OS
    > partition and then dumping all your other shit on the 1Tb drive in a
    > couple of partitions, then turn the 400 into a scratch drive (as it
    > is probably the fastest drive next to the SCSI and 1Tb drive, and
    > being newer than the 120 SATA) and turning the old IDE drive into an
    > external drive cases are as cheap as chips now days)
    > might do to just ad an extra gig of ram as that's all XP will be able
    > to utilise as it has a practical limit of 3.1 gig.


    Personally, I think the whole setup, if it really exists, is a total
    clusterfuck and makes little sense or has any practicality. Maybe this is
    just a fishing expedition, but I agree with you that the SCSI is the best
    solution for the OS. I would go all SCSI and did. SATA drives are just too
    unreliable and lack any performance. Anyway, whatever he's planning he
    needs to get a plan. SAS is a much better solution for him.





    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 27, 2007
    #15
  16. Paul Furman wrote:

    >> You've either got an axe to grind or you've never actually used it.
    >> Which is it? ;)

    >
    > My new laptop came with a blu-ray burner but we don't know if it'll
    > turn out like the 8-track tape yet.


    LOL!





    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 27, 2007
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:31:33 GMT, "Atheist Chaplain" <>
    wrote in <VfDcj.28070$>:

    >might do to just ad an extra gig of ram as that's all XP will be able to
    >utilise as it has a practical limit of 3.1 gig.


    XP can handle up to 4 GB, normally split 2 GB for applications and 2 GB
    for system, optionally split 3 GB for applications and 1 GB for system,
    depending on whether IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE value of the
    LOADED_IMAGE structure and 4-gigabyte tuning (4GT) are in use.
    <http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx>
    <http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx>

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
    John Navas, Dec 27, 2007
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Dec 26, 2:12 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:38 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
    > <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >OK, geeks, listen up.
    > >Here is my current computer system right now.
    > >Windows XP Pro
    > >3.2MHz Pentium 4
    > >2GB Memory
    > >Hard drives as follows:
    > >C: 120Gb SATA
    > >D: / E:  400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
    > >F:  DVD
    > >G:  DVD-R
    > >H: / K:  250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
    > >A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
    > >L:  160 GB SCSI
    > >Most of my disks are almost full.

    >
    > >OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
    > >I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
    > >I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.

    >
    > >What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
    > >install the XP x64 on it.  Then I could dump the contents of many of
    > >my drives onto the big drive.
    > >I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    > >memory.  My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
    > >new OS?
    > >Or is there a better way of going about it?
    > >What would you do?

    >
    > I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
    > dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.
    >

    The last I check that cost per GB of blank Blu-Ray disks was very
    high, seems that for double sided disks you are looking at something
    like $0.60 /GB.

    Single sided disks are cheaper / GB, but still are running around
    $0.45/GB.

    DVDs on the other hand are less then $0.10 / GB.

    Even external hard drives are less then $0.30/ GB

    I am sure the price of blank Blur-Ray disks will come way down, the
    same way DVDs did and in a year or two might be a good cheap way to
    store a lot of data, but right now they are expensive and who can tell
    if Blu-Ray will win or HD DVD will win.

    Scott
    Scott W, Dec 27, 2007
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Paul Furman Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:31:33 GMT, "Atheist Chaplain" <>
    > wrote in <VfDcj.28070$>:
    >
    >> might do to just ad an extra gig of ram as that's all XP will be able to
    >> utilise as it has a practical limit of 3.1 gig.

    >
    > XP can handle up to 4 GB, normally split 2 GB for applications and 2 GB
    > for system, optionally split 3 GB for applications and 1 GB for system,
    > depending on whether IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE value of the
    > LOADED_IMAGE structure and 4-gigabyte tuning (4GT) are in use.
    > <http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx>
    > <http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx>


    Hmm, then WTF doesn't vista ultimate support 4GB? (or does it?)
    Paul Furman, Dec 27, 2007
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Dec 26, 2:40 pm, El Barto <> wrote:
    > John Navas wrote:
    > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:38 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
    > > <> wrote in
    > > <>:

    >
    > >> OK, geeks, listen up.
    > >> Here is my current computer system right now.
    > >> Windows XP Pro
    > >> 3.2MHz Pentium 4
    > >> 2GB Memory
    > >> Hard drives as follows:
    > >> C: 120Gb SATA
    > >> D: / E:  400GB SATA in two partitions (250GB / 150GB)
    > >> F:  DVD
    > >> G:  DVD-R
    > >> H: / K:  250 GB IDE in 2 partitions (125GB each)
    > >> A: / I: / J: USB Floppy reader w/CF card
    > >> L:  160 GB SCSI
    > >> Most of my disks are almost full.

    >
    > >> OK, I have 2 more sticks of memory that will get me to 4 GB.
    > >> I have a Windows XP Professional x64 disk.
    > >> I also have a new 1TB SATA hard drive.

    >
    > >> What I would like to do is to use the new SATA disk as my C: drive and
    > >> install the XP x64 on it.  Then I could dump the contents of many of
    > >> my drives onto the big drive.
    > >> I understand that the 64-bit OS makes better use of the 4GB of
    > >> memory.  My question is will I be able to use my current apps on the
    > >> new OS?
    > >> Or is there a better way of going about it?
    > >> What would you do?

    >
    > > I'd get a Sony BWU-200S Dual Layer Blu-Ray Writer ($600 at J&R), and
    > > dump a good deal of that data to 50 GB Blu-Ray discs.

    >
    > So what's the Archive life of a Blu-Ray disk at the moment?
    > for that matter what's the Archive rating for any of the optical mediums
    > at the moment, even the highly valued "100 year" Kodak Archive quality
    > CD's are starting to fail after only a few years.
    > Use a HDD for archiving is the way to go, but follow the old adage that
    > if one copy is good, several will be better, In other words, put your
    > backups on at least 2 separate drives and store them in separate
    > locations if possible.


    On a percentage biases I have seen more hard drives fail then either
    DVD or CDs.

    I have a large number of CDs that are 10 years old, a very small
    fraction show any errors.

    I have gone back to old hard drive, if they are not used from time to
    time they fail pretty fast. I have gotten some of them working again
    by banging hard on the drive, but HD are not good for archiving

    Scott
    Scott W, Dec 27, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. OurCompGuy

    Are You At The Mercy Of Computer Geeks?

    OurCompGuy, Jan 19, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    355
  2. Poker

    For the computer geeks....

    Poker, Jan 11, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    302
    tokyosky
    Jan 17, 2005
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    609
    SgtMinor
    Aug 19, 2007
  4. Collector»NZ

    Real geeks; are you really a geek

    Collector»NZ, Mar 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    553
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
    Mar 19, 2005
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    838
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page