Quote:
Originally Posted by kayos
But the PS3 games are on Blue Laser Media. Those type of formats are there to expand the space of storing things. With more storage the capabilities increases.
|
Well, there's a falicy with that. There were several new games released recently that supposidly took up something like 17 megs. Once the disk was extracted and the "filler" files were removed, the total space taken up by all legitimate game files was a meager 4.7 gigs. Certainly nowhere near enough usage to warrent Blu-ray over DVD since DVD can hold 7gigs. There's also several other games just exactly like that which have been proven to easily use less than a standard DVD. So Blu-ray is just overkill. Don't believe me? Research it on Digg and several other sites. There's multiple cases where this has been proven over and over again.
Quote:
|
I could understand you like your flash memory, but flash memory do collapse.
|
Collapse?? Explain this. If you're talking about failure rates, yes, flash memory fails, but only after something like 100 million *writes*, not reads. Flash memory has a nearly infinite amount of reads and a minimum shelf life of 50 years. Again, easily provable with a quick google dive.
Quote:
|
I have an external HD but I prefer to back up my vitals on burnable discs. So with Blu Ray or HD DVD I could drop at least 5 to 6 DVD+R files and burn it for safe keeping. The disc cannot crash like HD or Flash HD.
|
Sorry to say, but compact disks are far more succeptible to "crashing" as you claim than hard drives are. And flash even less so. The media companies don't like to tell you this, but DVD's, cd's and HD disks of all kinds that can be burned only have an expected shelf life of 2-5 years. Pressed disks only have a 10 year expected shelf life, possibly 20 if you took REALLY good care of them. Again, easily provable by a google search.
Quote:
|
I would have to object on this issue as well. Whether or not flash will take over the tech industry I'm not sure but I know most people will prefer to back up their media on hard discs. Even the photographers I know prefer to back their photos on discs instead of a drive. Everyone knows over a period of time a drive will fail and there goes everything that's not backed up on disc.
|
Yes, I'll agree that it's better to backup on something other than the hard drive if you plan to store something for the long term, but you have to check the stability of the disks every couple of months and after 2 years you need to back them up again to a new disk or print them out into negatives. Flash memory on the other hand can be written to now, and assuming that the format doesn't die out, they can be read again 50 years from now with no risk of loss. Compact disks of any variety can't claim that.
I work in the tech industry and have to deal with this stuff on a daily basis, so I've already done a lot of my homework on this stuff, so I speak from experience. Really, if a digital photographer wants to keep his photos for a LONG time, he's going to eventually need to backup everything to flash. Actually, no. I think it should go this way.
Regular access: Hard Drive with cd secondary backup.
Longer term storage of 2-5 years. CD or DVD.
Very long term storage. Flash. Hands down.