The problem is there is no 10 year reliable media storage. The Vatican ceased a project to digitize it’s archives because they found that after 1 year the DVD’s storing the digital data had already begun to degrade. Again, I agree that formats will change and archive standards will develop, but there will need to be some sort of backward compatibility otherwise, we better go back to microfiche and dust off the shelves for all the new film. If there isn’t any backward compatibility, searching is not the 900 ton gorrilla, data conversion is. So let’s just start saying that the M-Disc is 100% stable for 10 years. Show me a media that can do that. Further show a media that can withstand everything up to incineration and have data available.

As for the cost, don’t you remember DVD-r’s costing $15 a pop in 1999 or 2000? To be frank, I would pay it to archive my family photos and documents. All it takes is a power surge and my HDD could be gone – even though I have 3X redundancy. It doesn’t take much.

Jim, there is absolutely no way to know in advance what the future holds for file formats or even the methods of storage of information. Nor can we determine decades in advance what sorts of applications will exist. Keeping information in an “as generic form as possible” is but a short term tactical band-aid that will buy a company some time but inevitably it’ll spend a fortune on ensuring outdated formats and storage methods are still usable well into the future, or migrate information into newer supported “generic” formats and improved (new form factors, new interfaces, more compact, higher density) media.

Bryce, I am saying the information that needs to be stored, will be stored. One way or another it’ll end up stored. But I am also saying there is a point of diminishing returns on media longevity and we’ve already passed it. If anything, progress with regard to density is far more important than longevity.

I mean seriously guys, what’s next? Media that will last 200 years? 500? Surely you understand the insanity of it? Just give us something that will reliably hold our data for a decade, perhaps two, and also provide us with the tools we’ll need to move our data to the “next big thing” when the time comes.

And should you still wish to develop media with even greater longevity, fantastic – go for it. Just make sure it doesn’t cost more simply because it lasts longer.

Where do you get this information? You are completely making that up. Read the report, there was no “cherry picking” involved. China Lake is an independent organization that performed the most rigorous, independent testing that has been done on archival digital storage media. The entire Department of Defense of the US government has approved the Millenial disc for purchase. Unless you have cites to back up your claim of “cherry picking,” I suggest you stop spreading falsities.

As for “good quality discs” that are a lot less than Millenniata discs, what are you talking about? All of the other discs tested did very poorly.

you bring a good point in making data searchable – however, I would think that most archived data will be in DB format and that is why back-ups seem critical. Really, the paperless storage is still very small and so I agree that this will be a huge undertaking and need in the near future. However, that doesn’t eliminate the need to store data. Access is secondary to storage – e.g. no data means data access is futile. So, they are two eggs in a nest that both need developing. To state that the Millinniata disc is a blip on the screen is seriously an understatement. Once consumers understand that all of their digital photos/media is at risk and little Jonny won’t be in HS before his 2 year b-day photos are corrupt will drive huge market growth (no tape player required – talk about PITA searching). So while there is a bigger hole in the search/find of data, the archivability of the data comes before the searching – if that weren’t the case, so many experts wouldn’t be excited about this technology.

Try to sell the 10 year threshold to those that have lost data in the last 5 years or less due poor quality optical or magnetic tape products (even ones that say archival quality) or viruses, power surges, mechanical or electronic failures that crash hard drives and servers.

Regardless of the threshold it is the importance of the data that is going to determine the amount of effort expended to store it and make it accessible, whether it is 2 years or 100 years.

In other words, an intact readable 50 year old Millenniata disc is only as valuable as the information that is stored on it. If the information is valuable, the interested party will take greater lengths keep the data in as generic form as possible and make sure that the data will be findable, viewable, and usable.

It doesn’t matter if Millenniata’s discs are readable for the next 100 years.

In my opinion, media longevity ceased to be a critical issue once durability sustainably exceeded the 10 year mark. The focus must shift to the findability, viewability and usability of the data on the discs. An intact, readable 50 year old Millenniata disc has no value if the data residing on it is rendered useless by our inability to find, view or use it. That’s where the challenge lies today.

Etching data in the disc as opposed to the traditional organic dye that most discs use lead me to believe that the data stored on the disc would have a much better chance of being safe and protected in terms of longevity. It looks like these discs also survive great temperature extremes with no detriment to the data quality on the disc.