The message <c2q8js$1v25te$1@ID-178504.news.uni-berlin.de>
from "howard" <nospambelch@freeuk.com> contains these words:

I buy the cheap ones on a spindle from PC World. None fallen apart yet.

Journalist said:
(snip)

----------

That was just general comment, Howard, for all the readers here. I keep
hearing the same comments, indeed even obsessions, here and elsewhere about
"archival quality" this and "archival quality" that (CDs, prints, inks,
papers, ect.) and for all practical purposes it makes absolutely no
difference between the nearly cheapest option and the highly touted
"manufactures' data" on longevity associated with the (high price spread)
products.

Any data carrier, including paper and ink-jet prints, will last long enough

The problem comes when advancing technology makes it impossible to recover
the probably perfectly preserved data on the media. A position you do agree
with.

I usually have a special sardonic grin reserved for the "arts" community
that pushes big-bucks Iris / Giclee "fine arts prints" with the headline
claim that they will last 100 or 200 or even 300 years. They are merely
digital image files transferred to certain kinds of paper or canvas in a
certain ways on a wide bed ink-jet printer. In fact, unless never handled at
all and stored or displayed in a humidity controlled environment (they are
NOT resistant to moisture)  they are little better, and in some ways worse,
than prints that come out of a £99 Canon desktop printer. Why bother making
something that will last hundreds of years (if it will - there is no proof
as the process has been around less then 30 years) when, if it is damaged or
degraded in some way, you can merely run off more copies?

On many of these issues I am really in the "bubble bursting" business when I
comment. I look back to the state-of-the-art technology of former days and
can't get excited about the technology of today in the sense of the term
"archival" - Nitro-cellulose film base? Falls apart in the can even stored
under controlled conditions. Technicolor films? One of the most
aesthetically beautiful processes ever in motion picture photography - too
expensive - so go for the cheaper option and screw the quality. Kodak
instant cameras? Good, that is until Kodak got sued by Polaroid-Land and
forced to leave millions of camera owners without a source of film. Computer
technology? Not much better then the rest.

Journalist

(snip)

----------

I don't disagree here Paul, only that the (originally stated) objective
should not be one of 100 year archiving but the surety of 100% reliable data
recovery from any particular medium. They are entirely two different things.

Journalist

Hmmm....I'm not too impressed with that 'ageing test', doesn't UV
come into the equation somewhere ?

Never mind, I'm going boil some for a week and leave them on the
roof till December, then I'll have a wee look.

I'll keep you posted  ;-)

H.