Re: CD ROM drive????

Rodney R. Korte (rrk102@psu.edu)
Wed, 30 Apr 97 19:55:48 -0400


On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 16:13:43 -0700, Andrew James Alan Welty wrote:

>> There is certainly more than one advantage to CDR over DAT (or 8mm,
>> whatever) tape:
>
>> 1) CDRs are cheaper
>
>Not once you take into account DAT's larger capacity.

CDR drives are cheaper than DAT drives. CDR *media* is more
expensive/GB, to be sure. Rocke says he estimates that he'll
need 30 CDR disks. That's about $150-$200US. This amount is
smaller than the difference in price between DAT and CDR drives.
Therefore, the hardware & media costs for this project are
smaller for a CDR system and a DAT system. This may be a good
enough reason right there to choose CDR over DAT.

>> 2) CD-ROM drives are cheaper
>> 3) CD-ROM drives are everywhere; just about everybody has one
>> 4) CD-ROMs offer random access which results in *much* faster
>> access to specific data
>> 5) CD-ROMs are more permanent: both in linear time (as mentioned
>> above) but also, for all intents and purposes, completely
>> immune to degradation due to use, unlike tapes. Also more
>> hardier in harse environments.
>
>For the purpose of storing the Deschall logs none of those apply.

Really? And how do you know this? Perhaps they don't apply
to *you*, but they sure may apply to others.

Rocke must have had good reasons for his choice, and I gave you
several real good reasons he may have had. Only Rocke could give
you the right ones.

Anyway, this is getting quite off topic, and will be my last
post on the subject. A blanket statement was made, I refuted it.

Cheers,

Rod

--
Rodney R. Korte                   OS/2. Operate at a higher level.
korte@sabine.acs.psu.edu    ---> MIME, PGP (finger for key) welcome.
http://sharkbait.arl.psu.edu/

Crack DES NOW! http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm