|
|
Posted by Charles Tomaras on 10/05/94 11:45
"William Sommerwerck" <gizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s8udnRSIap4J8drZRVn-jA@comcast.com...
>> Still think it will be much easier to resurrect a codec in the future
>> than
>> to reglue oxide to it's base. With all of the virtualization capabilities
>> that are upon us it shouldn't be too difficult to be able to run any OS
>> or
>> software in the future on any existing platform. It's much more difficult
> to
>> play a wire recording on a 1/4 tape deck. Maybe one should choose a codec
>> for archival purposes that is a little more mainstream than something
>> from
>> Matrox. While many might disagree with me, I've ripped all of my 1000+
> CD's
>> to WMA Lossless and feel pretty assured that if any codec is to be around
> in
>> 15 or 20 years it will be the one that had an encoder and player on
> millions
>> of PC's.
>
> As long as a codec is clearly documented, it's a straight-forward matter
> to
> write code that implements it. And if the code is written in a standard
> language (such as C), it's simple enough to re-compile it.
>
> Furthermore, it looks as if CD-sized optical media will remain the
> standard
> for the indefinite future. The tendency has been for most optical-media
> players to play all (or almost all) preceding formats. This is possible
> because the chips to do this are cheap. And if a new player can handle all
> your old disks, you're more likely to buy it.
>
Here's a story about new Kodak DVD and CD archival media. DVD has 80 - 100
year life, and CD has a 300 year life with gold substrate.
http://www.betanews.com/article/New_CDs_DVDs_Could_Last_300_Years/1145378116
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|