Does anyone else think it really sucks that optical media has

They're unreliable and get scratched so easily. Those things are also not really that small to be considered "portable". Sure, there are smaller discs but their storage capacities are too low. Overall, I don't miss them at all.

>>59952736
- why not use an USB stick?
- why not just upload the data?
- why not use an external HD?
- why clinging to obsolete technology?
- there's no way you are NOT poor.

>>59952790
This.
Fuck OP and fuck old people.

>>59952736
>optical media has fallen out of use
But it's not, dude.
Don't you saw mr. Robot?

>>59952790
>get scratched so easily
By morons only.
Stop being this retarded, dude. It's 2047

>>59952736
>720Mb is a large amount of data

>>59952736
they're great for storing media for emulators, or backups of an OS/movies
aside from that though they're far too slow and unreliable.
bluray promised to fix both the speed and storage problems but has yet to be produced for the mass market sadly. (and has already fixed the easily damaged problem)

99.99% of /g/ are memester children, OP. Do you think the average moron here even know how reliable an average metallic layer BluRay disc is?

For the record, I use BD-Rs for backups and I can't hope any more for triple layer media to fall down in price faster.

>>59952837
Back to instagram hipster.

>>59952920
Doesn't really matter if you take care of them quite well. All you really need is one bad scratch and the thing's ruined. Back in the days, it's not that unusual for optical drives to act up and scratch cds.

File: Screenshot_20170418-104944(1).jpg (117KB, 419x375px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 419x375px

Indeed, I would trust an M-disc over even an SSD for long term storage desu.

>>59952736
I have stacks of DVD-Rs and while I don't use them that often I value them for their utility. I hope we never get to the point where physical media is obsolete.

Call me a tinfoil hat wearer but I much prefer physical storage to uploading my data to some server I'll never see or having my content streamed to me from some big corporation that requires me to make an account to use their service.

>>59952986
>bluray promised to fix both the speed and storage problems but has yet to be produced for the mass market sadly.
What use-case do you have in mind for the mass market? Because I can't think of one that wouldn't be way more impractical than already available cloud-based services like Backblaze or just good ol' external hard drives. Storage is cheap these days and people use more and more streaming services (as they should) while their computers don't even come with optical drives anymore.

>>59953204
>the cloud
cuck

>hdd
>trusting a storage device prone to spontaneous mechanical failure with your data

File: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.png (13KB, 648x699px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 648x699px

>>59953204
>people use more and more streaming services (as they should)
>as they should

>>59953232
All digital media is fragile and ephemeral, not to mention it's over reliance on propriety and complex machinery in order to read it. It's far more likely that we'll still have vinyl records long after the last SSD is usable, and the first punch card will last longer than the last blu-ray.

File: 1475816139899.jpg (40KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x384px

>>59953232
>cuck
Buzzword.

>mechanical failure
SSD.

>>59953245
That's a really good argument you got there; I might even change my mind because of it!

>>59952736
Right now I burn all my raw photos to blu ray and then a copy to an ext hdd and put it in the closet. Such a shitty way to goat 100+ gb a month and the desire to revisit older stuff occasionally. Too many discs and I don't trust the drives at all but they make for expensive convienence at least.

I could build or buy a nas but good lord lots of money just for photos.

I really wish tape was cheaper.

I liked the idea of having properly read-only copies of things, like you get on proper manufactured (not burned) CDs/DVDs. Was very nice from a security standpoint.

Which one of your friends has a blu-ray reader? When you can buy a 128GB USB drive for under $25, there's no reason to use optical media for general use cases.

Even for short or medium-term archival buying a couple hard drives and putting them in RAID would be a more cost effective solution. On amazon BD-R's are ~20GB/USD while HDDs are ~40GB/USD. Obviously it's more complex than that (power consumption, mean time between HDD failures, time spent writing tens or hundreds of blu-rays) but for anything else than archival over decade timescales hard drives really do it better.

>>59953326
>Which one of your friends has a blu-ray reader?
Most people I know don't have any disk drives whatsoever.

>>59953292
Buzzword or not it's true, remote storage served by a third party is a cuck measure, it's unacceptable for any free gentooman of the land.

>SSD
LMAO, that doesn't even belong in a thread about archival, if SSDs meet your needs then there's nothing to be discussed.

Plus, LMAO if cuck cloud meets your needs, you might as well use anything because you have so little data.

And double LMAO if you think most people even have the necessary connection and patience to deal with the slow ass speed of cloud storage.

It's the perfect redundant storage solution.
>one hard drive failure
>terabytes of data gone
>one optical disc scratched
>about 25 GB gone
Remember to store them properly though - little to no air and in a dark, relatively cold room. Also store far away. You wouldn't want to loose your cartoons in a house fire, now do you?

>>59952964
DVDs hold 4.7 GB and Bluray discs hold 25 GB, 50 GB, or 100 GB depending on the type.

>>59952986
>but has yet to be produced for the mass market sadly
??? Bluray costs less per GB when comparing similar quality BD-Rs and hard drives.

>>59953326
>Even for short or medium-term archival buying a couple hard drives and putting them in RAID would be a more cost effective solution
No, it's not. Only way to come close to Bluray for cost/GB is building a large enough RAID to justify using RAID 6 and using hard drives that hold at least 2 TB (due to small HDDs costing more per GB). If you're using a RAID 1 you're going to be looking at a bit over 2x the cost/GB.

>On amazon BD-R's are ~20GB/USD while HDDs are ~40GB/USD
Let me guess, you're comparing MDisc BD-Rs with Seagate HDDs.

>>59953447
Worth using DVDisaster at 10%.
20 GiB of data + 2 GiB of parity.

Bretty good, except for catastrophic corruption of the data, which is rare in organic layer media and even rarer in metallic layer BluRay.

>>59952736
>optical media
>comfy
I fucking hated cd/dvd because my country decided to tax them super hard, currently it's 0.35€ worth of tax for a blank cd and 0.90€ for a dvd.

>>59953530
€ 0,02 here for an empty blu-ray disc. Still cheaper and more redundant than HDD space.

>>59953530
You can thank the copyright cartel for that.

>>59953428
>cuck
>gentooman
>LMAO
There's no way you are over the age of 20 (aka an adolescent, aka "not to be taken seriously yet"). But, please, tell me: what precious data could you possibly have that justifies archiving on Blu-rays?

>>59952736
>>59952736

It's not remotely as comfy as just putting whatever you need on a USB.
Optical media is obsolete for a reason.

>>59953593
No storage solution is as safe as optical. If you write away tens of terabytes, you can literally put every disc somewhere else in the world. With a RAID setup one malfunctioning piece of hardware can destroy everything.

>>59953573
videos of your mom

>>59952736
i just bought a 100 piece of bd-r the other day.
:^)
>burn all of my chink cartoons bdmv and forget about it.
it will last 100 years. probably.

>>59953573
Oh look, the faggot playing the "Analytic Intellectual look-everyone-how-mature-and-behaved-i-am" act.

Spare us your bullshit manners.

And what does it matter what my "precious" data is in the first place? I can't believe you're resorting to arguing about the merit of archiving what I hoard, that's just too much faggotry.

>>59953593
>still produced, widely available and not yet superseded in all its uses
>obsolete
I don't think you know what that word means.
>USB
I don't think many people have used discs for sneakernet transfers for a good while now...

>>59953620
>No storage solution is as safe as optical
My 10 years old burned DVDs failed when I backed them up.

>>59953794
That's what you get for not buying glorious Taiyo Yuden.

>>59952736
>Does anyone else think it really sucks that optical media has fallen out of use?
Maybe if we say the sky is green enough times, everyone will start saying it's green. Optical media is still quite relevant. There are applications that sometimes require it. USB has it's place, then again, so does optical technology, still. Deal with it. Everyone so quick to say something is dead or out of use. Folks should stop thinking their practices are the center of the universe.

Let us not forget USB technology can be exploited quite easily. Optical discs are written and cannot be changed unless they're re-writable.

>insert disc
>whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>4-10MB/sec
no, fuck that shit
even my internet is 1gbps

>>59952736
Just get cheap flash drives

>>59953910
Where can I get cheap 100GB flash drives?

>>59953886
>Put your Python in your mom
>Whirrrrr

>>59953975
Not in your 3rd world country

i have M disc capable optical drive just in case

>>59953975
A standard DVD can only hold 4.7GB and it's not rewiteable, while you can get 8GB Sandisk flash drives for 5$. If you are taking about blurays you can still get them, and they are pretty ok for long term storage from what I've heard.

>>59954076
Are you seriously assuming that I don't know how much a standard DVD can hold?!

>>59953496
>??? Bluray costs less per GB when comparing similar quality BD-Rs and hard drives.
No, it doesn't. When you're buying 1TB or 2TB drives maybe but if you're buying anything substantial HDDs are cheaper even for the sake of pure archiving with nothing ever being overwritten. The thing is they do a lot more, a lot quicker than you will with discs.
And with cheap discs you're not exactly doing your data any favors for archiving

File: 1430965125932.gif (923KB, 424x240px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 424x240px

>>59953696
The OP said nothing about archiving - this thread is about mass market applications; hypothetical scenarios where Blu-rays make sense are moot. He was also using words like "comfy" and "cheaply", as nostalgia blinded poor people usually do. And what the fuck kinda reaction do you expect anyway when you write like a teenager? Your "arguments" are nothing but empty phrases and wild speculation. Do you even know how cloud backup works? Are you aware that actual professionals within the tech industry use it? You also didn't answer my question and I suspect that's because you are aware how ridiculous the truth is. Give me one good reason why a normal person who doesn't deal with huge data-sets (like scientists, film makers, etc.) should prefer optical disks over the alternatives.

>>59954116
Maybe if you didn't ask stupid questions no one would assume you are dumb.

>$30 for 50 * 25GB drives
>$100 for 5TB HDD
hard choice when ones slow, can break, requires a lot more space, doesn't guarantee data integrity, etc

on that note I use btrfs, traditional raid is trash shit. JFS someday though

>>59954116
Don't forget a dual layer DVD can hold 8.5GB

>>59954128
except archiving is what single-write disks are for
its like if this thread were about shovels and OP was asking about which brand is best. We'd be talking about digging not using them as weapons, just because it's a use doesn't make it the primary use (or a good one at that)

>>59954164
It's not 9.4GB? What the fuck

>>59954164
Those are pretty rare in writable form though, but most pressed DVD films use them.

>>59953758

You can buy new production 8-track players too - that doesn't mean that 8-track isn't obsolete.

You seem to be confusing obselence with something having vanished entirely from existence.

USB sticks are smaller and cheap enough to buy in bulks, especially slower and smaller models - anything smaller than 4gb can be bought for price of a burger. For larger files, there are external HDDs or normal HDDs (docking stations are easy to get), one 500gb or one 1tb is usually enough for most people.

DVDs were good for making backups in the past but not anymore. World goes forward, sorry.

>>59954231
Those are entirely different. Movies are still released on disc. There exists NO replacement for Blu-Ray. DVD still matters where connections are bad. Rentals are still a thing. Audio CDs only recently fell down to less than 50% of all music revenue.

I worked with office supplies until last year. Blank media was shipped in nearly every order. Some hospitals chew through a lot of them for raw scan imagery and some regional courts have a huge hard-on for write-only media (time stamp and everything), but that's not niche.

Floppy disks are a niche case, you still need them for upgrading aircraft or CNC machinery firmware.

>>59952736
>Not using 3.5in Floppy Disks
Filthy subhuman.

ITT: what is the internet

>>59954128
You're the sort of retard that always complain about nostalgia with the same old retarded arguments.

There's no such thing as blinded by nostalgia, by definition if you recognize it you understand that it is more about the memories than the actual quality of the object of nostalgia, whatever it is.

And quit your bullshit, you didn't ask any questions. And I never said normal people should use it, normal people by default have no place in a discussion about archiving, so why point it out?

>>59954517
A place where things can disappear without a moment's notice.

>>59954546
>not hosting your own data

Oh john you want some of these files, let me email you an ftp link to my server

vs

Oh john you want some of these files, let me burn a couple of dvds and then meet you in person so that you can then copy the files to your own computer


Maybe in 2002 this was a good idea when bandwidth was slow but modern broadband has obsoleted this

>>59954183
Oh, come on! Now you're all like "gee, of course we're only talking about X because Y doesn't matter"? Did you even read the whole thread? People talking about privacy, the OP specifically stating he wants to use DVDs to share data with friends, others arguing about costs per GB and privacy... Archiving might be the main application for optical storage media NOW (and even then only for a handful of use-cases) but it didn't used to be that way. The vast majority of private users make the reasonable choice with cloud backup or external HDDs but quite a few people in this thread would rather live in ye olde times and act like they're doing the smart thing.

>>59954578
You're still relying on your own hard drives. How the fuck did file sharing get here in the first place? Most of the posts in this thread are about dormant long-term storage and archiving.

>>59954620
did you read the OP?

>It's just really comfy to be able to write a large amount of data cheaply when you want to share something with a friend.

>>59954620
>You're still relying on your own hard drives.

>implying my raid 1 isn't 100x more reliable than an optical disc

>>59954657
Only REAL raid solution is ZFS zRaid.

I really hope you're not using hardware RAID, cause if then I'm LMAO'ing at your life.

>>59954657
>>implying my raid 1 isn't 100x more reliable than an optical disc
I don't fucking care. I only said the part about the hard drives when I referred to your statement about the internet as a storage platform without any other context.

>>59954720
>the internet as a storage platform

what did he mean by this?

>>59953232
>> What are error correcting codes?

>you will never live in an alternate universe where everything is as it is but a standard feature in all computers is at least one hotswappable SSD-like slot
>You will never load it with cool shit and ride a bike to your friend's house with the disk in your pocket
Zip drive come back

>>59952736
Getting your finger and toe nails pulled with rusty pliers is a nicer expirience than burning fucking CDs and DVDs. Glad this shit is gone.

>>59954543
>There's no such thing as blinded by nostalgia, by definition if you recognize it you understand
Jesus Christ, man, people who are blinded by nostalgia DON'T recognise what's happening - that's the whole fucking point of that phrase. And what's that bullshit about "normal people by default have no place in a discussion about archiving"? Who put you in charge of setting the topic or deciding who's allowed to discuss what? Most people nowadays have at least *some* data they want to archive - even if it's just 15GBs of holiday photos. Are they excluded because you just made up some arbitrary rules? All you do is moving the goalposts instead of refuting anything I say.

>>59954770
Something that won't fix the scratches made from a head crash.

>>59954819
What about Blu-rays? They have much better surface coating, have fairly high capacities, aren't subject to an array of mechanical failures and the data layers aren't made from organic material. They seem to be perfect for long-term storage that you probably aren't going to be touching for a long time but want to keep around like, family photos.

File: 81kc%2BFSv18L._SY355_.jpg (12KB, 355x355px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 355x355px

>>59954818

>>59954827
That's not archiving, that's a miserable amount of data to back up. You can use anything. One HDD and a couple of flash drives and discs a cloud service, it makes no difference, there's nothing to discuss, it's not me setting any rules, but what is there to discuss? It's about having some common sense.

And there's nothing to refute you lying piece of shit.

>>59954818
>>59954940
DUNN DUNN DUUUUUUN!

No. I'm eternally grateful that I no longer need an optical drive or stacks of disks. Flash memory is one of the greatest things to ever happen.

>>59952827
>an USB stick

>>59954185
damn lies have been told ...

I have a 20TB NAS that I use for online data, but I push things off to a Blu-ray based cold storage system frequently. Most things get pushed to regular 50GB discs, but things that I foresee having some utility in several hundred years -- ebooks, FLACs, ROMs, etc -- get archived to M-Disc, so that they'll actually be around then. I take them and put them in a storage box in my office. They're pretty safe against anything that isn't a house fire. It's not a bad system.

>>59952827

>Why not use a USB stick?

Longevity.

>Why not just upload the data?

Cold storage. Syncing can go south in a really bad way if you do something dumb.

>Why not use an external HD?

Longevity.

>Why clinging to obsolete technology?
>There's no way you are NOT poor.

Facebook's cold storage system runs on Blu-ray.

>>59953109
>M-Disc

My nigga. M-Discs are so underrated. These fags keep begging for non-volatile storage that lasts forever, and yet you shit on M-Disc because they're expensive and most of you are pathological cheapskates.

>>59953279
>the first punch card will last longer than the last blu-ray.

>I don't know what M-Disc is

>>59953296

Blu-ray is better than tape anyway. It scales more favorably for almost all use cases, provided you aren't already invested in tape-based infrastructure.

>>59954578

This is an idiotic use of discs. Doesn't mean there aren't good uses for discs.

>>59954948
>That's not archiving
Uh, yes it is? Or are you in charge of that too now? Whether it's archiving or not has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of data involved, and that's a fact. Saying "that's a miserable amount of data to back up" is completely irrelevant to the discussion because the amount doesn't matter. And that's not my opinion, that's the fucking definition of "archiving" as recognised by the dictionary. You're trying to make this about YOUR personal definitions of words - it's literally your only argument: "I decided X is the default and Y is excluded in this thread, therefore you're stupid and I'm right", but that's not how it works. That you try to pass this shit off as "common sense" is ridiculous!

And now I'm going to repeat the questions I've never asked, according to you:
>Do you even know how cloud backup works?
>Are you aware that actual professionals within the tech industry use it?
>Give me one good reason why a normal person who doesn't deal with huge data-sets (like scientists, film makers, etc.) should prefer optical disks over the alternatives.

>MFW when I can share >5GB files over dropbox faster than burning a dvd
retarded nostalgia is retarded

>>59955225
>>Give me one good reason why a normal person who doesn't deal with huge data-sets (like scientists, film makers, etc.) should prefer optical disks over the alternatives.
pedophiles and paranoid schizophrenics

>>59955165
>things that I foresee having some utility in several hundred years
For whom? You?? Mankind??? Why would you assume that the data won't be superfluous within only decades? I don't use anything I've burned on CDs/DVDs anymore, and that shit's barely 15 years old.

>They're pretty safe against anything that isn't a house fire.
Yeah, because THAT never happens.

>Doesn't mean there aren't good uses for discs.
I'm not him but nobody ever said that.

Optical media was trash. Flash storage and even just a network connection is way better to share data.

>>59955426
To share data sure but not for long-term storage though.

Find me a better long-term storage medium than a few 100GB blu-ray M-discs

>protip: you can't

>>59955644
AWS

File: 2017-04-18-12:57:57.png (218KB, 1445x527px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1445x527px

>>59955644
>500GB
>write once
>91 dollaroos

girlslaughing.jpg

I'd rather buy an enterprise 500GB SSD that is 50x faster, rewriteable, and just as durable

>>59952964
Only children think this way.
All you kids use the internet for is media. To you, data means audio, video and gaymes.

When you're not talking about audio or video, or gaymes, this is a massive amount of data.

>>>/v/

>>59955759
>finds bad price
>hurr it's expensive

kys

File: really.jpg (11KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x242px

>>59955283
>muh non-compliance with the normalfag crowd means ur a stinky pedophile "argument"

>>59955983
>finds bad price
>doesn't provide a good price

You can use them still if you like

>>59955225
>Do you even know how cloud backup works?
Yes.
>Are you aware that actual professionals within the tech industry use it?
Yes.
>Give me one good reason why a normal person who doesn't deal with huge data-sets (like scientists, film makers, etc.) should prefer optical disks over the alternatives.
I never said they should.

But yes, it is me who is full of shit, this is /g/ but who cares, it's about final Jane Doe consumers, not enthusiast level discussion. Whatever soothes your ego, you retard.

>>59955914
>Only children think this way.

Actually, it probably is children that are arguing AGAINST optical media itt. They've grown up with not using optical media for anything besides their Xbox or Playstation. It's just unfathomable to them that different media has different use cases and sees optical storage as old-fashioned.

>>59956098
A born in '90 relative of mine sperged out and insisted I was bullshitting when I told him last year data tapes were a thing, that LTO was big stuff and that just recently IBM released their new big ass turboproprietary tape format TS"something" I think. He insisted it sounded too old-fashioned to be true. Normies don't know shit about technology.

>>59956364
>He insisted it sounded too old-fashioned to be true

Lol yeah, I've had similar experiences. You tell them a single tape can store anywhere up to 6TB and they laugh. Then you let them know Google actually used tape to restore Gmail data from offsite and they glaze over.

http://www.tested.com/tech/1926-why-google-uses-tape-to-back-up-all-your-emails/

>>59952736
>Does anyone else think it really sucks that optical media has fallen out of use?

Only idiots like you.

>It's just really comfy

No it fucking isn't.

>large amount of data

By 2002 standards, maybe. This especially is where optical media suck balls and have next to zero room for improvement. Take off your nostalgia glasses.

>cheaply

USB drives have become so cheap this is no longer relevant. You can literally buy an equivalent of a stack of DVDs for lunch money.

>when you want to share something with a friend

Give said drive to said friend, he can give it back to you when he's done copying it to his HDD. Rinse, repeat. No one has to buy optical drives ever again, no one has to store hundreds of the stupid things on his shelf, no one has to juggle fifty at once when they want to find something they wanted, and no one has to jump through hoops protecting discs from damage during transport or in storage.

>m-muh backup

Get another HDD. They're more durable AND cheaper. And you don't have to spend ages writing permanent copies of shit you likely won't ever need.

I just gave away 50 blank cds, 100 blank dvd-r's and 25 blank dual-layer dvds

File: how-long-will-files-last.png (27KB, 500x413px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x413px

>>59952790
If they're so unreliable then why are they used for long term storage?

>>59956834

If you're using an HDD for long term storage, you don't leave it running, you mongoloid.

>>59956834
>HDD
>up to 5 years

>flash drive
>up to 8 years

I don't believe a word they say.

Also, 1000 years means jack shit since they won't survive a natural disaster like a good networked/distributed file backup approach will

>>59956834
>Hard Drive
>Up to 5 years
>I've been running a WD Caviar Black as a storage drive almost 24/7 since 2011 and it shows no signs of giving up at all

>>59953816
mitsubishi chemical is a safe bet too(verbatim and some other brands)
CMC magnetics and moser baer(Poo land) are coaster tier trash.

>>59956681
What if I want read-only media?

>>59956834
At least I know m-disk is spouting lies now.

My 10+yo 80gb Maxtor is still running fine,with all my shitty .wma songs on them.

>>59957066
Panasonic?

>>59956950
>>59957126
>anecdotal bullshit

>>59957126
>.wma songs
What, you mean this format was actually used outside of the sample music Microsoft shipped with Windows XP?

>>59952736
>4.5 gigabytes
>"Large"

>>59957151
wmp defaulted to ripping wmas so a lot of normies accumulated them on accident

>>59952736
>it really sucks that optical media has fallen out of use?
Absolutely not.

>>59952790
>They're unreliable and get scratched so easily.
I disagree. I decided to finally get rid of all the CDs and DVDs that I burned over the years earlier this year and I went through them to see if there was something interesting on them. Amazingly few were unreadable and I did copy some files that were written last century off a few. That's 17+ years of storage. The discs that were unreadable were mostly DVDs, so CDs were the better choice. Regardless, these things were pretty resilient.

>>59952827
>- why not use an USB stick?
You should use USB sticks but they don't hold very much data and wear out the more you use them.

>- why not just upload the data?
Gives someone else control over your data.

>- why not use an external HD?
External HDDs are a great way to move data from one place to another.

>- why clinging to obsolete technology?
(bad) investment is one. My brother has this DJ set thing with two CD players and a mixer. He paid a fortune for that ages ago. He still burns CDs so he can play them in that thing. He could just connect his laptop and play directly but since those CD players cost an arm and a leg and the re-sale value is close to zero he must use them (or something). Not sure. I just know he insists on using CDs.

>>59952736
not true, most laptops have optical drives and
discs get damaged over time

>>59954720
agrred.

>>59957223
I only knew that wmv was sorta common solely because it was the format that Windows Movie Maker used.

>>59957264
>most laptops have optical drives
Is this true? Not even most OEM desktops seem to have them anymore.

>>59952736
they have the same storage price as an HDD

>>59957289
Yup.
Looked up i7 kabylake laptops picked up 5 at random, all had dvd rw

>>59953004
>not romanticizing outdated tech is hipster

That's just backwards. See: record players, typewriters, etc.

>>59956950
>>59957126

The graph is shit but it obviously talks about the loss of magnetization in a HDD. You fucking retards are ignorant as fuck, stop browsing.

>>59957289
>Is this true?
It was true. As good as all laptops sold until just a year ago had DVD drives. Now it's become something you have to check for if you want it. Mine doesn't have one, and I'm fine with it. I don't even have one in my desktop even though I do have a computer in storage with both a working DVD-RW and a CD-RW drive. It's not like I ever go "oh gee, I should go get that system with a DVD drive so I can read or write some disc" ever.

>>59957423
I'll install an optical drive in my next desktop. I don't use it that often so I could make due with an external one, but since the case I'm going to use has a free 5.25 slot, I might as well use an internal one.

I honestly liked the idea of having that tiny thing just lay around with some sort of "backup". Even when heavily scratched that shit still kinda worked.

With flash drives, hard drives or even cloud services, while I get much more space, I tend to do less backups because I just don't think "hey this device is where I stored these things and it's never going away" since I can just fucking overwrite that.

>>59957270
it was also the only format that would reliably work in powerpoint

I remember so many applefags with qt movies shit the bed during presentations

>>59955759
>data magically disappears after a few years due to not being powered on
I said BETTER not worse.

I had binders full of anime DVD's and software, spindles of unused cdr and dvdr.

I tried to remember the last time I used one and couldn't, had to have been longer than a year.

The media decomposes and doesn't last longer than 5-10 years so I just threw it all away.

>>59957596
What if you use a brand new HDD and fill it with data and after leave it for 10 years?

>>59952736
Nope, magnetic tape is the superior format

>>59957729
Too bad that shit is prohibitively expensive.

>>59957662
What if it suffers a mechanical failure 40 years later a day after you just powered it on? What then smart guy?

>>59955644
Can't be trusted for shit. It's cold storage. The idea that it would be "fine" in 40+ years is something you can verify ... how?

You don't even get a contract backing this promise up at least with penalty / insurance money in cases of data loss.

Can't be trusted for shit.


The only way for long-term storage is online on HDD with replication and verification - modern form is the "data cloud". We KNOW that works, though of course you should run it in-house to have organizational guarantees.

>>59957807
why would it do that?

>>59957839
Because it's a mechanical drive. They can fail whenever they feel like.

>>59952736
>Does anyone else think it really sucks that optical media has fallen out of use?
Fuck no.

>>59957853
>fail whenever they feel like
just like women

>>59957814
Even if you ran your own server full of SSDs (HDDs can spontaneously have mechanical failures), they would have to be powered on every year just to be safe. What if one day you forget. What if you get a computer virus that fucks your shit up?

Anyway that m-disc will be sitting inside your safe, free of mechanical/electrical failures and won't be compromised by any computer viruses since it can't even be written to it again.

200 and eventually 1TB m-discs will be created some day too.

File: 1491333231477.png (222KB, 564x334px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 564x334px

>>59957874
pretty much

>>59957916
>one day of power-off
>muh bit rot

The autism is real.

>>59958133
okay m8, enjoy losing all that important data

As for me, I'm getting myself a few m-discs and a burner soon because I don't take my data for granted.

>>59958291
What's a good BR burner?

File: Screenshot_20170418-165230(1).jpg (164KB, 720x739px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 720x739px

>>59958361
Not sure, this one looks good though. Might go with this.

I always prefered an USB stick over optical media

>>59957916
> they would have to be powered on every year just to be safe
Yes, they're powered on either constantly or regularly for as long as it takes to re-verify and re-establish integrity.

Just as importantly, you will be porting it forward to new hardware and software and check if things still work.

> Anyway that m-disc will be sitting inside your safe, free of mechanical/electrical failures and won't be compromised by any computer viruses since it can't even be written to it again
Maybe it incurs biological or chemical failures.

No way to know ahead of time, this is very untested territory for an actual 40+ years. Maybe you actually needed to have humidity and climate control to not have buggers eat your disc or heat kill it over time.

Or maybe essential parts of the computer or drive or software you need to actually use the data fail or become incompatible.

> 200 and eventually 1TB m-discs will be created some day too

>>59952736
I used to have binders full of dvds when they came out. And my parents had a crap ton of vhs tapes with recorded tv shows.

DiGita is better. Hundreds of movies without worrying about if you remembered to put that disk in alphabetical order or if you lent it to a friend.

>>59958706
https://youtu.be/pekgrP-v5O0

skip to 8:00

Is external drives ZFS three way mirror a pretty good method to backup important data if you regularly plug in and scrub/verify integrity?

>>59957126
>.wma
fuck I feel old

>>59956660
I knew that data was stored on tapes in old computer but I never imagined they are still being used let alone have a capacity of up to 6TB. Thanks for the link anon-kun.

>>59954198
True, however I use them for ISO's larger than 4.7GB

That's correct Optical Tech ftw

>>59953041
Cheap ones did, I've never had a disc scratched by an optical driver

>>59953496
Don't forget about DVD9

File: 1402131515485.jpg (22KB, 425x292px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 425x292px

blu-ray laserdisc

>>59958429

genuine question /g/

does linux (mint) write M-discs natively ? ie brasero with no fucking round ?

I still use discs, mostly for burning the occasional cd/dvd for people who prefer physical things. I still burn a music cd once in a while for playing in my car (car stereo don't support mp3/ have aux imputs). CD's are cheaper than ripping out old stereo and buying a new one. For long term archival for my data it would be very time consuming & expensive to burn it all to dvd. (Currently got around 8TB). So I keep it stored on a Raid 5 file server + offline backup copy. When the price of 10TB drives fall I plan to buy one + an external usb enclosure to make a 2nd copy of all data (Taken from the backup copy as it's condition is pristine). It would be the most practical and cheapest solution.

>>59953296
Why the fuck would tape not be cheaper? Get a surplus LTO 4 Drive and start buying surplus disks on ebay. Your setup is like 500 bucks with tapes/cards, and you would be set for YEARS