If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
timeOday writes:
5.25" disks were never in widespread usage compared to CDs today. Computers themselves weren't in widespread usage them compared to now. True enough. Besides, things change. 20 years ago home computers couldn't even display photorealistic images (Amiga HAM mode notwithstanding), and there were a huge number of different manufacturers of incompatible computers and media. The technology has matured a lot. Yes. In the late 60s you could look back at the previous 30 years in aerospace and honestly say that *everything* had changed. That's how long it took to go essentially from biplanes to landing on the moon. Now, a little over 30 years later, we're still using airplanes very similar to the late 60s. Yes and no. There are *still* people flying wood-and-fabric airplanes, as a hobby. And there are still A&P mechanics certified to repair them. And that's *another* 40 years down the road. I cannot say for sure that's hapenning to computers, but I think it is. I think it *has*. I think CDs and jpeg and tiff and ASCII are the "wood and fabric airplanes", though -- which look like they're going to be supported on into the forseeable future. After reading the "Dirty little secret" article, I realize the author and I are looking at the same information and coming to different conclusions. I don't dismiss the author's opinions, I'm just stating some reasons why I think he may be mistaken on some things. On other things, I think he's right on, for instance I would *not* have confidence in being able to read a Microsoft Word or PowerPoint document 50 years from now. On the other hand I would be very surprised if this usenet exchange we're having doesn't outlast both of us. Absolutely agree on those two. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
timeOday wrote:
5.25" disks were never in widespread usage compared to CDs today. That's just flat out incorrect. For many years, 5.25" mini-floppy disks were the main means of distribution of software. It's all you could purchase on the commercial market when 8" floppies went away and before 3.5" micro- minis became popular. Wordstar, Liesure Suit Larry and GW BASIC were distributed on 5.25" mini-floppies. So were 1-2-3 and every other app from that era you can name. If you mean quantity as opposed to market share, well, that's true but meaningless. If you had data or applications during that period, it was on 5.25" mini-floppies, tape or a Winchester HD. If I were trying to preserve the US Constitution or the Leaning tower of Pisa or gigabytes of data from the Mars rovers, I agree that is a whole different ballgame. Those artifacts are worth millions of dollars. Money isn't the only measure of worth. To me, photos of my family are priceless, and I would like to hand my children images of our family that they can count on to remain usable. To a working press photographer, his back catalog is precious, even though on the market, it's not "worth millions." I think the transition period for CDs (maybe it has already begun) will be longer than for 3.5" disks, which was much longer than for 5.25" disks, and so on, because computers have become so ubiquitous, and the need for improvement is decreasing. That statement that is belied by the history of technology which predicts an opposite course. Remember the Patent Office director who foresaw no further technological developments since everything had already been invented? Look at the history of the automobile. Convergence into an aerodynamically similar shape was predicted just ten years ago. What happened instead was a fracturing into hundreds of model types, each with smaller market share. You say CD is safe. A few years ago, industry analysts were predicting that the 100MB Zip drive would be the removable standard. Ubiquity guarantees nothing. Even standardization guarantees nothing. What will the format be for dual-layer DVDs? I'd be willing to bet that when it's decided, it will become irrelevant because a new optical storage method has come into use. Here is what I do. I have two computers, and one makes nightly backups to the other. In what format? With what operating system and backup application? Will they both remain usable when XP goes away in a couple of years? MS backup systems are notorious for lacking backward compatibility. Use Ghost? Tried to restore from a five-year-old image? Backup is a short-term safety practice, not an archiving solution. Periodically, I copy my data to CDs. Ever had a CD delaminate on you? Do you store them in a temp-hum controlled area and periodically refresh them by copying? And in what format? What's your plan to translate and pull forward existing data when protocols change? Your plan must go far beyond simple backup of existing file formats. When I visit my parents, I take a copy of my backup CDs and leave them there. I expect to switch to DVD soon. Using what format? Single layer straight data copy? How long do you expect that hardware to remain active in the market? Tried to find a computer with a micro-floppy drive lately? Tried to use Zip disks at work? I'd bet that in ten years, your backup CDs are unreadable from age or lack of hardware/software to read them. Same for DVD. If you don't have a refresh/pull-through plan, your kids will inherit nothing from you but coasters. Tech boards are full of requests from people trying to read old manuals and docs created with obsolete word processing programs (Wang) that can't be read today. If they find someone with a copy of the software, it's on a medium nobody has a drive for. If you don't translate and pull forward periodically, you're left behind and the data becomes unusable. My wife puts prints of our favorite photos into scrapbooks Inkjet prints? Or prints from the drugstore? She using acid-free paper? What's in the adhesive? - not all of them, but perhaps our favorite dozen or 20 photographs each year. As a whole, I think this system is reasonable and I expect it to work, but my crystal ball is no better than anybody else's. I'd wager that your wife's scrapbooks -- assuming she's not using home-printed photographs -- will be of use to your children, but your CDs and DVDs will not. You sound like a home user with limited needs (20 photos per year), and there's nothing wrong with that, but you're scoffing without knowing that there are people with far more serious demands than yours. A working pro may have a library of hundreds of thousands of images on storage and in formats that are at risk, and needs to have a plan to convert and store those images so not to lose them. He's not going to be interested in the advice of someone who says "Just burn 'em on CDs, drop 'em off at the parent's house and quit worrying." A serious archiving plan must deal with formats, media, hardware, translation, indexing and storage conditions. Failing in any of those areas can result in loss of your images. Your plan appears to deal with none of them, and is therefore not a serious plan. You also sound like a newcomer to this issue. Those with a few decades of computer storage and archiving experience under their belts take the problem far more seriously than you do, because they've lost data and have had to deal with all the issues you take so lightly. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Oh no !!! 8" floppies are gone ??? I still have
several boxes of them and the Double Sided Double Density (1,2 megs !!) drives for them (maybe I'll start a museum ??) mikey "Farga Palenga Jengis" wrote in message news timeOday wrote: 5.25" disks were never in widespread usage compared to CDs today. That's just flat out incorrect. For many years, 5.25" mini-floppy disks were the main means of distribution of software. It's all you could purchase on the commercial market when 8" floppies went away and before 3.5" micro- minis became popular. Wordstar, Liesure Suit Larry and GW BASIC were distributed on 5.25" mini-floppies. So were 1-2-3 and every other app from that era you can name. If you mean quantity as opposed to market share, well, that's true but meaningless. If you had data or applications during that period, it was on 5.25" mini-floppies, tape or a Winchester HD. If I were trying to preserve the US Constitution or the Leaning tower of Pisa or gigabytes of data from the Mars rovers, I agree that is a whole different ballgame. Those artifacts are worth millions of dollars. Money isn't the only measure of worth. To me, photos of my family are priceless, and I would like to hand my children images of our family that they can count on to remain usable. To a working press photographer, his back catalog is precious, even though on the market, it's not "worth millions." I think the transition period for CDs (maybe it has already begun) will be longer than for 3.5" disks, which was much longer than for 5.25" disks, and so on, because computers have become so ubiquitous, and the need for improvement is decreasing. That statement that is belied by the history of technology which predicts an opposite course. Remember the Patent Office director who foresaw no further technological developments since everything had already been invented? Look at the history of the automobile. Convergence into an aerodynamically similar shape was predicted just ten years ago. What happened instead was a fracturing into hundreds of model types, each with smaller market share. You say CD is safe. A few years ago, industry analysts were predicting that the 100MB Zip drive would be the removable standard. Ubiquity guarantees nothing. Even standardization guarantees nothing. What will the format be for dual-layer DVDs? I'd be willing to bet that when it's decided, it will become irrelevant because a new optical storage method has come into use. Here is what I do. I have two computers, and one makes nightly backups to the other. In what format? With what operating system and backup application? Will they both remain usable when XP goes away in a couple of years? MS backup systems are notorious for lacking backward compatibility. Use Ghost? Tried to restore from a five-year-old image? Backup is a short-term safety practice, not an archiving solution. Periodically, I copy my data to CDs. Ever had a CD delaminate on you? Do you store them in a temp-hum controlled area and periodically refresh them by copying? And in what format? What's your plan to translate and pull forward existing data when protocols change? Your plan must go far beyond simple backup of existing file formats. When I visit my parents, I take a copy of my backup CDs and leave them there. I expect to switch to DVD soon. Using what format? Single layer straight data copy? How long do you expect that hardware to remain active in the market? Tried to find a computer with a micro-floppy drive lately? Tried to use Zip disks at work? I'd bet that in ten years, your backup CDs are unreadable from age or lack of hardware/software to read them. Same for DVD. If you don't have a refresh/pull-through plan, your kids will inherit nothing from you but coasters. Tech boards are full of requests from people trying to read old manuals and docs created with obsolete word processing programs (Wang) that can't be read today. If they find someone with a copy of the software, it's on a medium nobody has a drive for. If you don't translate and pull forward periodically, you're left behind and the data becomes unusable. My wife puts prints of our favorite photos into scrapbooks Inkjet prints? Or prints from the drugstore? She using acid-free paper? What's in the adhesive? - not all of them, but perhaps our favorite dozen or 20 photographs each year. As a whole, I think this system is reasonable and I expect it to work, but my crystal ball is no better than anybody else's. I'd wager that your wife's scrapbooks -- assuming she's not using home-printed photographs -- will be of use to your children, but your CDs and DVDs will not. You sound like a home user with limited needs (20 photos per year), and there's nothing wrong with that, but you're scoffing without knowing that there are people with far more serious demands than yours. A working pro may have a library of hundreds of thousands of images on storage and in formats that are at risk, and needs to have a plan to convert and store those images so not to lose them. He's not going to be interested in the advice of someone who says "Just burn 'em on CDs, drop 'em off at the parent's house and quit worrying." A serious archiving plan must deal with formats, media, hardware, translation, indexing and storage conditions. Failing in any of those areas can result in loss of your images. Your plan appears to deal with none of them, and is therefore not a serious plan. You also sound like a newcomer to this issue. Those with a few decades of computer storage and archiving experience under their belts take the problem far more seriously than you do, because they've lost data and have had to deal with all the issues you take so lightly. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill
I think he's working under some false impressions. One of the worst is where he talks about the development time and money needed to continue to put CD reading capability into future DVD drives. That's just wrong; the R&D's already been done. It's just a matter of bringing *already present* technology into the new DVD drives. With respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Keeping existing legacy technology in an advancing product is a difficult and destructive ball-and-chain around the ankle of development engineers. Look at all the problems caused in Windows, for example, trying to maintain DOS compatibility. As DVDs go from single to dual-layer capability, engineers would dearly love to drop the requirement to be able to read CD data. You can't just say "the R&D's been done." No, it hasn't been done for every new track width and velocity, every new rotational speed, every new pit-and-land configuration, every new laser frequency. Each time changes and advances are made in optical storage technology, the engineers have to figure out how they can squeeze a CD reader into the new box. Sooner or later, and I predict sooner, like Redmond finally shot DOS in the head with XP, Phillips and Sony and Toshiba, et alia, will shoot CD in the head and drop it in the dumpster. What's keeping CD alive? Installed base? No, the advantage to the manufacturers is in replacing the installed base. Music? MP3 and on-line distribution is killing the CD in the marketplace. It's not even an efficient distribution medium anymore, since the price of DVD has dropped below a dollar. Why hold onto a 650MB medium when a 4.7GB medium is almost as inexpensive? Software? It's already distributed on DVD, and there's no advantage to distributors in using CDs. What's keeping CD alive is economics -- the economics of replacement. As soon as enough people have saved up to replace their CD drives with DVD, and the computer makers have sold enough computers with CD-DVD combos, and then DVD alone, you'll see the balance tip and wave bye-bye to CD. I'd predict about three years before it starts to fall. Within six, it'll be gone. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill
I think he's working under some false impressions. One of the worst is where he talks about the development time and money needed to continue to put CD reading capability into future DVD drives. That's just wrong; the R&D's already been done. It's just a matter of bringing *already present* technology into the new DVD drives. With respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Keeping existing legacy technology in an advancing product is a difficult and destructive ball-and-chain around the ankle of development engineers. Look at all the problems caused in Windows, for example, trying to maintain DOS compatibility. As DVDs go from single to dual-layer capability, engineers would dearly love to drop the requirement to be able to read CD data. You can't just say "the R&D's been done." No, it hasn't been done for every new track width and velocity, every new rotational speed, every new pit-and-land configuration, every new laser frequency. Each time changes and advances are made in optical storage technology, the engineers have to figure out how they can squeeze a CD reader into the new box. Sooner or later, and I predict sooner, like Redmond finally shot DOS in the head with XP, Phillips and Sony and Toshiba, et alia, will shoot CD in the head and drop it in the dumpster. What's keeping CD alive? Installed base? No, the advantage to the manufacturers is in replacing the installed base. Music? MP3 and on-line distribution is killing the CD in the marketplace. It's not even an efficient distribution medium anymore, since the price of DVD has dropped below a dollar. Why hold onto a 650MB medium when a 4.7GB medium is almost as inexpensive? Software? It's already distributed on DVD, and there's no advantage to distributors in using CDs. What's keeping CD alive is economics -- the economics of replacement. As soon as enough people have saved up to replace their CD drives with DVD, and the computer makers have sold enough computers with CD-DVD combos, and then DVD alone, you'll see the balance tip and wave bye-bye to CD. I'd predict about three years before it starts to fall. Within six, it'll be gone. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Mike F wrote:
Oh no !!! 8" floppies are gone ??? I still have several boxes of them and the Double Sided Double Density (1,2 megs !!) drives for them (maybe I'll start a museum ??) Heh. That's the way to keep any technology available -- store the media, the hardware, spare parts and manuals. Just recently, I purged all my 8" and 5.25" media and gear, and dumped almost all of my 3.5" stuff. I kept a few software items and some blank micro-floppies, but I fear it's a bit like putting lettuce into the fridge that you don't want to toss after making a salad. It's too good to discard -- I'll wait 'till it rots. I've already dumped the Sparq (!), Zip and Peerless gear. I have one Jaz drive left, and use it with fingers crossed since I only have one. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Mike F wrote:
Oh no !!! 8" floppies are gone ??? I still have several boxes of them and the Double Sided Double Density (1,2 megs !!) drives for them (maybe I'll start a museum ??) Heh. That's the way to keep any technology available -- store the media, the hardware, spare parts and manuals. Just recently, I purged all my 8" and 5.25" media and gear, and dumped almost all of my 3.5" stuff. I kept a few software items and some blank micro-floppies, but I fear it's a bit like putting lettuce into the fridge that you don't want to toss after making a salad. It's too good to discard -- I'll wait 'till it rots. I've already dumped the Sparq (!), Zip and Peerless gear. I have one Jaz drive left, and use it with fingers crossed since I only have one. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Farga Palenga Jengis wrote: Big Bill I think he's working under some false impressions. One of the worst is where he talks about the development time and money needed to continue to put CD reading capability into future DVD drives. That's just wrong; the R&D's already been done. It's just a matter of bringing *already present* technology into the new DVD drives. With respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Keeping existing legacy technology in an advancing product is a difficult and destructive ball-and-chain around the ankle of development engineers. Look at all the problems caused in Windows, for example, trying to maintain DOS compatibility. As DVDs go from single to dual-layer capability, engineers would dearly love to drop the requirement to be able to read CD data. You can't just say "the R&D's been done." No, it hasn't been done for every new track width and velocity, every new rotational speed, every new pit-and-land configuration, every new laser frequency. Each time changes and advances are made in optical storage technology, the engineers have to figure out how they can squeeze a CD reader into the new box. Sooner or later, and I predict sooner, like Redmond finally shot DOS in the head with XP, Phillips and Sony and Toshiba, et alia, will shoot CD in the head and drop it in the dumpster. What's keeping CD alive? Installed base? No, the advantage to the manufacturers is in replacing the installed base. Music? MP3 and on-line distribution is killing the CD in the marketplace. It's not even an efficient distribution medium anymore, since the price of DVD has dropped below a dollar. Why hold onto a 650MB medium when a 4.7GB medium is almost as inexpensive? Software? It's already distributed on DVD, and there's no advantage to distributors in using CDs. What's keeping CD alive is economics -- the economics of replacement. As soon as enough people have saved up to replace their CD drives with DVD, and the computer makers have sold enough computers with CD-DVD combos, and then DVD alone, you'll see the balance tip and wave bye-bye to CD. I'd predict about three years before it starts to fall. Within six, it'll be gone. Farga, I admire your fortitude, but you're doing your very best to invent a solution for a problem that just doesn't exist! An example, if I may? You suggest (and I agree) that CD's will die a slow death over the next few years. Will not *everyone* who has a vested interest in data stored on CD not copy it to DVD's sometime during that few years? Did you not (if you're old enough) copy your 5.25 360's to 3.5 720's before the 360's demise? Your 720's to 1.44's? Your 1.44's to 650 meg CD's and then 700 meg CD's? And now currently your CD's to data DVD's? Did you not copy your vinyl records to cassettes? And now your cassettes to CD's? Did you not copy your beta video's to VHS? Your old 8mm movies to DVD? Will you not just keep going, regardless of the direction that mass storage moves? Even when it *finally* moves away from mechanical devices? If you care enough, and your data is sufficiently worthwhile, then it's easy. The best of the holidays to you and to yours. Ken |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Farga, I admire your fortitude, but you're doing your very best to invent a solution for a problem that just doesn't exist! An example, if I may? You suggest (and I agree) that CD's will die a slow death over the next few years. Will not *everyone* who has a vested interest in data stored on CD not copy it to DVD's sometime during that few years? Did you not (if you're old enough) copy your 5.25 360's to 3.5 720's before the 360's demise? Your 720's to 1.44's? Your 1.44's to 650 meg CD's and then 700 meg CD's? And now currently your CD's to data DVD's? Did you not copy your vinyl records to cassettes? And now your cassettes to CD's? Did you not copy your beta video's to VHS? Your old 8mm movies to DVD? Yes, but Bill suggested that CD technology could easily be placed into DVD equipment, and that those who suggest that's a technology drag were blind to the fact that the R&D was already done. My point was that CD technology is already obsolete, and the difficulty is retaining backward compatibility. As to the recopying of existing data onto new media, yes, everyone does that, but that's not my point, either. My point was that recopying, backing up and storage are only part of an archiving solution. You must also be prepared to translate or migrate formats that go obsolete, and to index your data to make such a chore possible, and obtain batch software to accomplish it. You mention vinyl. I have LOTS of vinyl, and it is simply not feasible for me to tape it -- who uses tape anymore? It's difficult to find good metal tape anywhere. It's not feasible to record it onto CD, either. So I'm stuck with the vinyl. Some of my LPs aren't available on CD or the (inferior) MP3. So I keep a turntable and a stock of styli. Suppose you just ignore your collection of older images for a few years while tech marches on, and then go back to work on your archival Canon RAW images, only to find that the new RAW standard isn't compatible with your archived images. Suppose this is in 2015, not an unreasonable scenario. It's not enough to just have the data on a medium that is readable by your hardware. It has to be compatible with your software as well. If you have ever gone to the trouble of rerecording analog Hi-8 video to MiniDV (I have), you know what a major pain that is, and how time consuming. I have also converted 16mm film to VHS, then to MiniDV. The loss of quality from analog to digital is great. Factor in the time involved, the expense, and many people will simply not do this chore, and lose their data. Will you not just keep going, regardless of the direction that mass storage moves? Even when it *finally* moves away from mechanical devices? Because, as I've stated, it's not just having the data available that is the archivist's problem. It's being able also to use the data. Can you handle old Lotus PIC files today, from archived spreadsheets? How about PCX files? There are dozens of graphics formats that I have in my existing archived data that I doubt I could even view today, much less manipulate. If you care enough, and your data is sufficiently worthwhile, then it's easy. No, it's far from easy. It's very difficult. In order to truly archive all your data, you must routinely examine the entire index for formats that are marginal, translate them (if you can) into current standard forms, and re-archive them in multiple locations. This takes time, knowledge and skill. In library science, this is called "reading the shelf." Fail to do that, and you risk losing data accessibility for a portion of your collection due to obsolescence. Again, I'm not necessarily talking about the average home user with a few shoebox JPGs, but working pros and technicians dealing with thousands of images and the associated text, sound and log files. The best of the holidays to you and to yours. And to you and yours! Keep warm. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Don Lathrop wrote: Hi Don... snip Replying to a portion of your message - perhaps a bit off topic for which I apologize to the others... You mention vinyl. I have LOTS of vinyl, and it is simply not feasible for me to tape it -- who uses tape anymore? It's difficult to find good metal tape anywhere. It's not feasible to record it onto CD, either. So I'm stuck with the vinyl. Some of my LPs aren't available on CD or the (inferior) MP3. So I keep a turntable and a stock of styli. Don, I too have a large collection of old records - even a couple of old shellac 78's. And old 45's. I've copied them all to CD's, and am very pleased with the results. If you can hear/don't like the compression aspects of mp3, you can even do it uncompressed. If you'd like to consider taking the task on yourself, feel free to mail me; I'll be more than happy to share what I've learned. Take care. Ken |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 4 | December 22nd 04 07:36 AM |
Top photographers condemn digital age | DM | In The Darkroom | 111 | October 10th 04 04:08 AM |
Photo Preservation for Chemical & Digital Photographs (Product Info) | Steven S. | In The Darkroom | 7 | February 5th 04 11:30 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |