Long term storage

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:24:43 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-> wrote:


> > Thanks, Ken, and the others who responded to this post. I guess there
> > is no way to put things like old family pictures away for future
> > generations to look at, like they did with those old paper photos in
> > the days gone by. I wonder why some innovative person or company
> > hasn't developed some means for such long term digital storage, along
> > with a reader/interface that could easily be connected to any future
> > computers. Seems possible???
> >
> > Gordon
>
> Well, don't feel too bad - even film photos fade with time.
>
> Silver corrodes and dyes lose color...paper oxidizes...acetate film
> liquefies...


Yes, yes, yes, yes.


> Geez - I've been raining on parades today :-)


Actually magnetic digital media is *best*, if you copy it
periodically. The copy is perfect, and even if doesn't last forever it
can last for a while,


And to reply to Antares, why not put the family pictures away on
magnetic media? There's no guarantee that they will be lost, and you
make periodic copies and ask the other generations to do the same,
they can kept forever,

"Antares 531" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:13:49 -0400, "Seth"
> <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Antares 531" <> wrote in message
>>news:...
>>> What is the best choice for long term storage of computer data files?
>>> I am running Windows 7 - 64, and have a lot of accounting, tax
>>> records, genealogy, pictures, etc., files that I would like to make
>>> back-ups onto some media that I could expect to be able to read on a
>>> new computer, 10 or more years in the future. Is there any storage
>>> media similar to the old style CDs that might be reliable for very
>>> long time spans?
>>
>>I have 2 laptop hard drives and 1 SATA/USB dock. I back up stuff to the
>>hard drive and the next time my wife is in the vicinity of the bank where
>>we
>>have a deposit box, she swaps drives.
>>
> This should work very well for short term storage. U use some USB
> Flash drives/Thumb drives, but I am very apprehensive about long term
> storage. Will my descendants be able to look at the genealogy files
> and photos that I have stored on these USB drives? I would like to
> find a storage medium that would let me put all these files onto it
> and feel sure that this storage medium could be read and the files
> opened some time far into the future. Is there any way to do this?

My storage medium is "refreshed" each time I update it. As technology
changes, I can just replace the storage medium while both are in
co-existence (as SATA/USB is phased out, it will still be in wide-use as
whatever is replacing it is just coming in).

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:41:32 -0400 Yousuf Khan <> wrote:

> ....
> The a second reason I say that is because neither burned CD's nor
> DVD's are good long-term storage, and rewritable versions are even
> worse. I've had many issues with reading both CD's and DVD's after a
> few years.
>....

A few years ???

I just had a re-writable DVD fail after just a few months!
It was used for data backup (not the only backup, fortunately), and about 10% of
the files became unreadable.

Two rather older CD's have also partially failed.

CD/DVD is NOT a good idea for long term data backup.

Ted.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:51 +0100 (BST), (Ted) wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:41:32 -0400 Yousuf Khan <> wrote:
>
>> ....
>> The a second reason I say that is because neither burned CD's nor
>> DVD's are good long-term storage, and rewritable versions are even
>> worse. I've had many issues with reading both CD's and DVD's after a
>> few years.
>>....
>
>A few years ???
>
>I just had a re-writable DVD fail after just a few months!
>It was used for data backup (not the only backup, fortunately), and about 10% of
>the files became unreadable.
>
>Two rather older CD's have also partially failed.
>
>CD/DVD is NOT a good idea for long term data backup.
>
>Ted.
>
I've had a number of the same kind of problems. I even bought some
hard drives and put them in external boxes. These worked very well for
about 5 years, then one of the drives failed, and all the data on it
was lost.

Why doesn't someone "invent" a really reliable, economically
practical, always readable backup system? I would think that something
similar to a USB hub could serve as an interface between any such
storage medium and all future computers. That is, when a new computer
would no longer communicate with this "hub" and the backup media, a
new hub could be purchased that would interface the new computer with
the very old permanent storage media.

I'm guessing the market for such a device would be humongous!

Gordon

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:09:13 -0500 Antares 531 <> wrote:

> *From:* Antares 531 <>
> *Date:* Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:09:13 -0500
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:51 +0100 (BST), (Ted) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:41:32 -0400 Yousuf Khan
> <> wrote:
> >
> >> ....
> >> The a second reason I say that is because neither burned CD's nor
> >> DVD's are good long-term storage, and rewritable versions are even
> >> worse. I've had many issues with reading both CD's and DVD's after
> a >> few years.
> >>....
> >
> >A few years ???
> >
> >I just had a re-writable DVD fail after just a few months!
> >It was used for data backup (not the only backup, fortunately), and
> about 10% of
> >the files became unreadable.
> >
> >Two rather older CD's have also partially failed.
> >
> >CD/DVD is NOT a good idea for long term data backup.
> >
> >Ted.
> >
> I've had a number of the same kind of problems. I even bought some
> hard drives and put them in external boxes. These worked very well for
> about 5 years, then one of the drives failed, and all the data on it
> was lost.
>
> Why doesn't someone "invent" a really reliable, economically
> practical, always readable backup system? I would think that something
> similar to a USB hub could serve as an interface between any such
> storage medium and all future computers. That is, when a new computer
> would no longer communicate with this "hub" and the backup media, a
> new hub could be purchased that would interface the new computer with
> the very old permanent storage media.
>
> I'm guessing the market for such a device would be humongous!
>
> Gordon

Nice idea, but I can't see it ever working. Whatever someone came up with, it would
soon be obsoleted by a "better" system, and the problem would just continue.

I think the technology just move too fast, and is getting faster all the time. It's
bad enough reading old data/hardware formats now, but what about in another 10
years time?

What would you do now with data archived on 8/5/3.5 floppies?

What about tape drives and all the various formats that now cannot be read? (even
assuming you still had the hardware to read them, would the drivers still work with
Windows 7 and later OS ?)

Can you still read MFM\SCSI\IDE HD's?

How long before new super DVD drives lose the ability to read "archaic" CD's

USB seems to be universal at the moment, but will probably die a quick death when
xxxx storage get invented.

If you want your digital photos to last a long time, maybe print them on very good
quality paper and just hope they last as long as photos taken with "old fashioned
cameras" used to.

Ted.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:39 +0100 (BST), (Ted) wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:09:13 -0500 Antares 531 <> wrote:
>
>> *From:* Antares 531 <>
>> *Date:* Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:09:13 -0500
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:51 +0100 (BST), (Ted) wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:41:32 -0400 Yousuf Khan
>> <> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ....
>> >> The a second reason I say that is because neither burned CD's nor
>> >> DVD's are good long-term storage, and rewritable versions are even
>> >> worse. I've had many issues with reading both CD's and DVD's after
>> a >> few years.
>> >>....
>> >
>> >A few years ???
>> >
>> >I just had a re-writable DVD fail after just a few months!
>> >It was used for data backup (not the only backup, fortunately), and
>> about 10% of
>> >the files became unreadable.
>> >
>> >Two rather older CD's have also partially failed.
>> >
>> >CD/DVD is NOT a good idea for long term data backup.
>> >
>> >Ted.
>> >
>> I've had a number of the same kind of problems. I even bought some
>> hard drives and put them in external boxes. These worked very well for
>> about 5 years, then one of the drives failed, and all the data on it
>> was lost.
>>
>> Why doesn't someone "invent" a really reliable, economically
>> practical, always readable backup system? I would think that something
>> similar to a USB hub could serve as an interface between any such
>> storage medium and all future computers. That is, when a new computer
>> would no longer communicate with this "hub" and the backup media, a
>> new hub could be purchased that would interface the new computer with
>> the very old permanent storage media.
>>
>> I'm guessing the market for such a device would be humongous!
>>
>> Gordon
>
>Nice idea, but I can't see it ever working. Whatever someone came up with, it would
>soon be obsoleted by a "better" system, and the problem would just continue.
>
>I think the technology just move too fast, and is getting faster all the time. It's
>bad enough reading old data/hardware formats now, but what about in another 10
>years time?
>
>What would you do now with data archived on 8/5/3.5 floppies?
>
>What about tape drives and all the various formats that now cannot be read? (even
>assuming you still had the hardware to read them, would the drivers still work with
>Windows 7 and later OS ?)
>
>Can you still read MFM\SCSI\IDE HD's?
>
>How long before new super DVD drives lose the ability to read "archaic" CD's
>
>USB seems to be universal at the moment, but will probably die a quick death when
>xxxx storage get invented.
>
>If you want your digital photos to last a long time, maybe print them on very good
>quality paper and just hope they last as long as photos taken with "old fashioned
>cameras" used to.
>
>Ted.
>
You are right on most of the above, but I still think someone or some
company could design a reliable, long-lasting storage media, then
design an interface similar to a USB hub (not a USB hub, but something
similar) that would handle any needed translation from old file format
to whatever the new computer could use.

The translation hub would have to be replaced each time computers
changed enough to limit the ability to communicate with this
translation hub. But replacing the translation hub should not be
formidably expensive.

If I had a translation hub such as this, that was designed to read
those old 3.5 inch high density floppy discs, and if this hub was
designed to connect to my computer using a Firewire connection, I
could read those old floppy discs by putting them into an external
drive that was designed for them.

Then, when my present computer becomes obsolete and I replace it with
a new one that uses totally different technology, this translation hub
would have to be replaced. The replacement hub would still have to
interact with the old 3.5 inch floppy drive, but it would communicate
with the new computer by some new means.

Gordon

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:54:56 -0500 Antares 531 <> wrote:

> ......
> Then, when my present computer becomes obsolete and I replace it with
> a new one that uses totally different technology, this translation hub
> would have to be replaced. The replacement hub would still have to
> interact with the old 3.5 inch floppy drive, but it would communicate
> with the new computer by some new means.

It does sound like a really interesting idea, if only someone with enough money was
prepared to finance it's development.

Dragons Den ??? :-))

Ted.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:54:56 -0500, Antares 531
<> wrote:

>You are right on most of the above, but I still think someone or some
>company could design a reliable, long-lasting storage media, then
>design an interface similar to a USB hub (not a USB hub, but something
>similar) that would handle any needed translation from old file format
>to whatever the new computer could use.
>
>The translation hub would have to be replaced each time computers
>changed enough to limit the ability to communicate with this
>translation hub. But replacing the translation hub should not be
>formidably expensive.
>
>If I had a translation hub such as this, that was designed to read
>those old 3.5 inch high density floppy discs, and if this hub was
>designed to connect to my computer using a Firewire connection, I
>could read those old floppy discs by putting them into an external
>drive that was designed for them.
>
>Then, when my present computer becomes obsolete and I replace it with
>a new one that uses totally different technology, this translation hub
>would have to be replaced. The replacement hub would still have to
>interact with the old 3.5 inch floppy drive, but it would communicate
>with the new computer by some new means.
>
>Gordon

Why would you want such a thing? Who else would want such a thing? I
can't imagine enough would be sold to break even on the development
costs. I certainly wouldn't buy one.

Looking at storage from a pure capacity perspective, floppies
(8/5.25/3.5 inch) are obsolete because they just don't hold a
meaningful amount of data by current standards. For a short time,
archiving to CDs (650-700MB) seemed like a viable alternative, but
they very quickly became too small, as well. Then there was archiving
to DVDs (4.5-8.5GB), but that too was almost immediately too small to
be convenient. Only the most barren system can be backed up to a DVD
or two.

So that leaves us with hard drives and their spinning platters that
are fairly fragile, but it's still arguably the best we've got. Even
there, capacity is a big issue. The biggest capacity is currently only
2TB (1.8TB usable), so a system with a lot of data needs multiple
drives, and then another set of multiple drives for backups, and
perhaps a third set of drives for offsite backup, and so on. Flash
(SSD) drives are showing promise, but aren't mainstream quite yet.

I think the best you can do is, as others have said, stay on top of
the technology curve by migrating your data every so often to newer
technology so as to avoid stranding it on obsolete media.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:50:16 -0500, Char Jackson <>
wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:54:56 -0500, Antares 531
><> wrote:
>
>>You are right on most of the above, but I still think someone or some
>>company could design a reliable, long-lasting storage media, then
>>design an interface similar to a USB hub (not a USB hub, but something
>>similar) that would handle any needed translation from old file format
>>to whatever the new computer could use.
>>
>>The translation hub would have to be replaced each time computers
>>changed enough to limit the ability to communicate with this
>>translation hub. But replacing the translation hub should not be
>>formidably expensive.
>>
>>If I had a translation hub such as this, that was designed to read
>>those old 3.5 inch high density floppy discs, and if this hub was
>>designed to connect to my computer using a Firewire connection, I
>>could read those old floppy discs by putting them into an external
>>drive that was designed for them.
>>
>>Then, when my present computer becomes obsolete and I replace it with
>>a new one that uses totally different technology, this translation hub
>>would have to be replaced. The replacement hub would still have to
>>interact with the old 3.5 inch floppy drive, but it would communicate
>>with the new computer by some new means.
>>
>>Gordon
>
>Why would you want such a thing? Who else would want such a thing? I
>can't imagine enough would be sold to break even on the development
>costs. I certainly wouldn't buy one.
>
>Looking at storage from a pure capacity perspective, floppies
>(8/5.25/3.5 inch) are obsolete because they just don't hold a
>meaningful amount of data by current standards. For a short time,
>archiving to CDs (650-700MB) seemed like a viable alternative, but
>they very quickly became too small, as well. Then there was archiving
>to DVDs (4.5-8.5GB), but that too was almost immediately too small to
>be convenient. Only the most barren system can be backed up to a DVD
>or two.
>
I think you may have missed my point, here. I was not advocating the
use of floppies, or any other currently popular storage means. I was
using the 3.5 inch floppy as an example.

I was suggesting that someone or some company might develop a very
reliable, very long lived storage means (maybe something that operates
at the quark level) that could be used for decades or even centuries
without losing the stored data. This device obviously could not be
accessed straight forward by the later generation computers, but
perhaps something like a (again, for example) USB hub might be
developed as an interface means that could be replaced when the new
computers needed a different setup to read this storage means. We
could buy a new hub every few years, but would not have to buy new
storage means for a long time, and our back-up storage process would
be a lot less of a problem.
>
>So that leaves us with hard drives and their spinning platters that
>are fairly fragile, but it's still arguably the best we've got. Even
>there, capacity is a big issue. The biggest capacity is currently only
>2TB (1.8TB usable), so a system with a lot of data needs multiple
>drives, and then another set of multiple drives for backups, and
>perhaps a third set of drives for offsite backup, and so on. Flash
>(SSD) drives are showing promise, but aren't mainstream quite yet.
>
>I think the best you can do is, as others have said, stay on top of
>the technology curve by migrating your data every so often to newer
>technology so as to avoid stranding it on obsolete media.

You should back up to a 12-inch gold-plated copper disk designed to be
played by a cartridge and needle at 16 2/3 rpm. Should be good for about
40,000 years.

> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
> news:1ddb73dia96e1$.18c28evc68ht8$....
> Well, don't feel too bad - even film photos fade with time.
> Silver corrodes and dyes lose color...paper oxidizes...acetate film
> liquefies...
> Geez - I've been raining on parades today :-)
> Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)