s. keeling wrote:
I've never run across a CD I couldn't still read, and I've a few old ones. DVD, I would expect to be even better. For me, tape's good enough.
Why would you expect DVD to be better? I'd expect it to be worse, for the obvious reasons -- smaller physical bit representations, packed tighter. Also we don't have as much experience with it, so I take what information we *do* have with larger quantities of salt.
(Mind you, I'm using DVDs for my photo archives; CDs are simply too small to contemplate. Two copies, stored separately, and all the files stay on the disk (which is mirrored) and get backed up to external disks regularly. I can pretty easily afford for any *one* of the backups to fail.)
-- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info