Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Back up files with a printer and scanner
Carol Haynes:
All I keep thinking: Blank DVDs are cheap. Printer supplies are expensive.
-Ralf Maximus (October 02, 2007, 02:22 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's what I was thinking too - I reckon that a single sheet (500Kb) would cost more than a blank CD which holds more than 1000 pages or even a blank DVD+R which would hold nearly 9000 pages (and a hell of a lot quicker).
If you have a Lexmark printer you could probably run to a dual layer disc for the same price!
Quick calculation - I think that if I backed up all my data this way it would cost more than my computer system - and take about 3 metres of shelf space!
mwb1100:
But what if you want to ensure that you can reconstitute the data 50 - or 500 - years from now?
Digital media is great for storing a ton of data cheaply, but it's not so great for getting the data back years from now - which is something paper's not too bad at. The author of PaperBack isn't seriously intending that his program be used except for curiosity or experimentation (at least that's my read of his webpage), and I'm certainly not suggesting that it be used for your normal backup (or even your abnormal backup). However there are some interesting problems with long-term data archival - will the media retain it's data for a long period of time? I don't know what the lifetime will be of CD-R's will be, but I'd bet it's less than my lifetime, and there are issues beyond the durability of the media. For example, the PaperBack author mentions that he still has some 8 inch floppies lying around. I imagine it wouldn't be particularly easy to find working hardware today that'll read those. In 20 years will there be anything that'll read my old DAT backups, and if there is will the tapes still actually be readable? For certain things, these issues may well be important, and they should be thought about.
You'll always be able to get an image of something on paper. And if that paper is stored with a printout of the program that can decode the image (a Rosetta Stone if you will), you'll have a shot at getting your data back.
Then you'll have to deal with the problem of deciphering the data into something useful (tip - store those long-term archives in something simple like ASCII, if that'll do the trick).
It is 2045, he suggests, and his grandchildren are exploring the attic of his old house when they come across a CD-ROM and a letter, which explains that the disk contains a document that provides directions to obtaining the family fortune. The children are excited. "But they've never seen a CD before - except in old movies - and, even if they found a suitable disk drive, how will they run the software necessary to interpret the information on the disk? How can they read my obsolete digital document?"
-http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/the-digital-dark-age/2005/09/22/1126982184206.html
--- End quote ---
his advice is simple: keep a hard copy. Or, assuming it's not already too late, make one.
-http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/the-digital-dark-age/2005/09/22/1126982184206.html
--- End quote ---
Ralf Maximus:
If you think decoding a CD or DVD in 50 years will stump our grandchildren, what will they make of 2D barcodes?
In any case, it's a moot point: paper degrades. Acid-free paper stored in a nitrogen environment lasts longer but still degrades, and is hardly cheap. I also doubt paper bonded with inkjet ink or toner holds up as long as "regular" print, so assuming the document can actually be read in 50 years is questionable. And not just readable -- but perfect enough to scan correctly. Hope your document contains some redundancy and/or solid CRC's.
FWIW archival quality CD and DVD media exists, and is actually reasonable cost-wise. Archival discs are rated at 100+ years retention, without any warranty that our alien overlords or radioactive mutant descendants will be able to comprehend the data formats.
In this particular case, the old ways are best. You want your data to last more than a few centuries? Carve it in granite, preferably in close proximity to a Rosetta stone. Anything else means you're lazy.
mouser:
In this particular case, the old ways are best. You want your data to last more than a few centuries? Carve it in granite, preferably in close proximity to a Rosetta stone. Anything else means you're lazy.
--- End quote ---
Carol Haynes:
LOL
But seriously - inkjet (or even laser) printout will be usable in 500 years time? Inkjet photos don't last 5-10 years without degradation, and that is with the best ink technology available. And who is to say there will be scanners in 500 years time?
People used to worry that film and TV archives (such as the BBC) would not stand the test of time because of the unstable media and the march of technology - and it is true that many programmes have been lost by neglect, accidentally or deliberately. But there are still some brilliant examples of programming surviving a hundred years later where the original technology is not in use. Granted it depends on a dedicated bunch of people meticulously maintaining, rebuilding or building new alternatives to the old technology but it happens.
I bet you in 100 years time there will be companies specialising in retrieving data from redundant technologies that we use today - which will be practically all of them (including paper).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version