201–204 of 204 posts
Is anyone using M-disks and what's your experience so far? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC https://web.archive.org/web/20130422110903if_/http://www.mdi...
I’m a huge fan of mdisk but I’m not sure it makes much sense in the era of cheap cloud storage. There are many companies now that will give TB of storage for 9$/month. Also there is cheap archival storage on AWS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100GB M-DISCs are still pretty decent archival means. All photos/videos I've ever generated are roughly 1.2TB so that's 12 of those M-Discs.
This is really good news! I thought M-Discs were no longer available after their manufacturer went bankrupt years ago.
The various Blu-ray M-DISC are "more widely compatible". The 25GB size from Verbatim survived outdoors when a normal disc failed: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www...
I am surprised that we're still stuck at Blu-Ray levels of data storage on disc. I would have thought we would be up to a terabyte or so by now, but everything has stagnated. Tape remains expensive for the home data hoarder, and there is a point at which cloud storage becomes more expensive than tape.
However, these don’t really have a use for consumers. CDs had music, DVDs and Blu-rays had television and films, but there is unfortunately no compelling use case given home media is turning to streaming. Additionally, for many, cloud storage is replacing the need for local storage in spite of its drawbacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For DVD (and the rare M-DISC CDR) yes. For BluRay there is nothing special about them.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Standard CD-R and DVD-R uses organic dyes for the recording layer, which are sensitive to light and humidity. M-DISC DVD-R used some proprietary inorganic layer, which was more durable in theory and in independent lab tests[1]. When BD-R was introduced, all discs used the same inorganic recording layer, including M-DISC BD-R. That, plus the lack of independent tests, plus the fact t…