🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43ivef$jb4@panix.com>,
	fishman@panix.com (Harvey Fishman) writes:
> 
> I think that you are missing the point of what MO is all about.  It is not
> really important because of the density and removability, but because of
> the expected data life in excess of 30 years.  This is the thing that no
> purely magnetic recording method can match because of self-erasure.  If
> you need reliable archival storage of data, then MO and WORM are the only
> viable methods presently available.  And there does not seem to be
> anything else on the horizon.
> 

Interesting point, but even ignoring the problems of traditional magnetic
recordings, hands-up those who still have the mechanisms to read 30-year
old discs today.

The nearest analogy I can think of is the 8 inch hard sectored floppy disc
(although I'm not sure even this goes back that far). So now you have to
find a mechanism (working), cables, controller (that fits a current bus,
- SCSI?), driver software, etc.

In 30 years time, your MO will be like the hard sectored 8 inch floppy
(only your 30 year old MO mechanism is a lot less likely to still be
working than a 30 year old floppy disc drive :-) ).

I could just about imagine CD-ROMs being readable in 30 years time,
because they have gained such a large market penetration to date, both
inside and outside the computer industry (after all, it's easier to
play LP records now than read 8 inch flopppies). I don't see any of the
other technologies being usable in even ten years. There are too many
of them, market penetration for each (or even all in total) is miniscule
compared with that of the CD-ROM, and technology quickly makes them
obsolete. The CD-ROM (now 15 years old?) seems to have survived its
technology being obsolete, due to its very large market penetration.

Some food for thought...
-- 
Andrew Gabriel                        Home: Andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk
Consultant Software Engineer          Work: Andrew.Gabriel@net-tel.co.uk