Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why would I want a DVR if I have a VCR?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 1:10:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm just trying figure out the advantage of a DVR over the VCR if I am
recording analog video from my cable provider. If I don't plan on
saving the movies, shows, etc. for very long, what does it matter? I
won't have that huge mass of tapes lying around.

I know this might be a no brainer, but I was hooking up my computer to
my capture device and cable, etc. and was so happy my PC was capturing
live TV just like tivo, a dvr, whatever you want to call it and then my
wife says, "Hey, why don't you just tape it?" "I forgot I could do
that" (and yes it hurt.) I just wanted the VCR for the TV Tuner (cable
-> vcr -> canopus advc-100 -> PC (recording software (my setup)).

Thanks for comments.

More about : dvr vcr

Anonymous
September 17, 2005 1:34:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Does Tivo edit out commercials?
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 2:21:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

But you can't do the live tv thing on that one can you? Isn't that
just a tv tuner DVD burner combo?
Related resources
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 2:43:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

If I had that at least I could use it as a tuner instead of a VCR and
accomplish my tivo stuff on the PC and have this burner on the side
too. Maybe? What do you think?
September 17, 2005 4:24:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

A DVR makes higher quality recordings than a VCR. DVDs which you record are
quickly duplicated (with a computer) if you wish to make duplicates, which
are exact copies with no degradation. (Try doing that with a VCR). Blank
DVDs cost less than a quarter apiece in the U.S. and can hold 6 to 8 hrs of
programming at a small fraction of the cost of a video tape. A DVR can,
optionally, contain a hard disk which allows you to only record things to
DVD if you truly want to keep them, and, optionally, edit out commercials
before making the disk. (Try doing that with a VCR). DVDs allow rapid random
access to any place in the program, while video tapes require a lot of time
to wind and rewind.

Finally, DVRs can now be had for as little as $120 if you shop carefully.
They are modern devices with a lot of supporting infrastructure like 400
disk DVD juke boxes for $270. VCRs are a 20+ year old technology with a
rapidly dwindling supply of equipment and media.......There are other
benefits as well, but these are the ones which immediately come to mind...

Smarty



<needin4mation@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126930201.126893.74430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm just trying figure out the advantage of a DVR over the VCR if I am
> recording analog video from my cable provider. If I don't plan on
> saving the movies, shows, etc. for very long, what does it matter? I
> won't have that huge mass of tapes lying around.
>
> I know this might be a no brainer, but I was hooking up my computer to
> my capture device and cable, etc. and was so happy my PC was capturing
> live TV just like tivo, a dvr, whatever you want to call it and then my
> wife says, "Hey, why don't you just tape it?" "I forgot I could do
> that" (and yes it hurt.) I just wanted the VCR for the TV Tuner (cable
> -> vcr -> canopus advc-100 -> PC (recording software (my setup)).
>
> Thanks for comments.
>
September 17, 2005 5:13:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

My prior reply said that a DVR could be had for as little as $120 if you
shop carefully. I guess I was using last week's pricing.....

Walmart now has one for $98......

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=3...

Smarty



"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:auidnU5iGMoHB7beRVn-pg@adelphia.com...
>A DVR makes higher quality recordings than a VCR. DVDs which you record are
>quickly duplicated (with a computer) if you wish to make duplicates, which
>are exact copies with no degradation. (Try doing that with a VCR). Blank
>DVDs cost less than a quarter apiece in the U.S. and can hold 6 to 8 hrs of
>programming at a small fraction of the cost of a video tape. A DVR can,
>optionally, contain a hard disk which allows you to only record things to
>DVD if you truly want to keep them, and, optionally, edit out commercials
>before making the disk. (Try doing that with a VCR). DVDs allow rapid
>random access to any place in the program, while video tapes require a lot
>of time to wind and rewind.
>
> Finally, DVRs can now be had for as little as $120 if you shop carefully.
> They are modern devices with a lot of supporting infrastructure like 400
> disk DVD juke boxes for $270. VCRs are a 20+ year old technology with a
> rapidly dwindling supply of equipment and media.......There are other
> benefits as well, but these are the ones which immediately come to mind...
>
> Smarty
>
>
>
> <needin4mation@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126930201.126893.74430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm just trying figure out the advantage of a DVR over the VCR if I am
>> recording analog video from my cable provider. If I don't plan on
>> saving the movies, shows, etc. for very long, what does it matter? I
>> won't have that huge mass of tapes lying around.
>>
>> I know this might be a no brainer, but I was hooking up my computer to
>> my capture device and cable, etc. and was so happy my PC was capturing
>> live TV just like tivo, a dvr, whatever you want to call it and then my
>> wife says, "Hey, why don't you just tape it?" "I forgot I could do
>> that" (and yes it hurt.) I just wanted the VCR for the TV Tuner (cable
>> -> vcr -> canopus advc-100 -> PC (recording software (my setup)).
>>
>> Thanks for comments.
>>
>
>
September 17, 2005 5:38:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Yes, the $98 model does not have the hard disk / editing feature. For that
you will pay more.


My point was not that you can have ALL of the features by purchasing the
least expensive model. I merely want to illustrate that the DVRs and the
blank DVD media can be had for very little cost, and even the more deluxe
units with hard disks, editing, etc. are inexpensive.

Smarty



<needin4mation@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126934484.797323.214280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> But you can't do the live tv thing on that one can you? Isn't that
> just a tv tuner DVD burner combo?
>
September 17, 2005 5:55:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

The burner in the DVD recorder cannot be used as a general purpose DVD
burner (since it has no computer interface) so you should consider this type
of product if you want to make DVDs without the use of a computer. They are
fast, easy to use, and make good quality DVDs. They are not a computer
peripheral any more than a normal VCR would be (with some exceptions),

A PC with "Tivo stuff" is relatively easy to configure, and a number of us
on this newsgroup use SageTV (from Frey Technologies) or other similar
products to do exactly that. This will require a video capture card, extra
software, and a burner, with a total cost of maybe $200, assuming you
already have a mid power (or better) PC already. The video capture card is
$60, the software is another $80-$100, and the burner will add another $50
or so. There is no monthly fee whatsoever (unlike Tivo), and many features
which TiVo lacks as well.

I don't see the choice as being either a DVD recorder ***OR*** a PC with
"TiVO stuff". Many of us do both, and use the results from one to edit on
the other. But either can be a good choice by itself, depending upon what
you want to accomplish.

Smarty



<needin4mation@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126935820.551505.34860@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If I had that at least I could use it as a tuner instead of a VCR and
> accomplish my tivo stuff on the PC and have this burner on the side
> too. Maybe? What do you think?
>
September 17, 2005 3:12:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:

>Yes, the $98 model does not have the hard disk / editing feature. For that
>you will pay more.

For a person who just wants to time shift off the air
TV programs (analog)..... is the DVD burner unit with
NO hard drive OK?

Do I really need the extra expense of the units that
have a hard drive as well?
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 6:42:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:uvfoi15spsrtjagfv6g3tkgbqgbp28um5l@4ax.com...
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, the $98 model does not have the hard disk / editing feature. For that
>>you will pay more.
>
> For a person who just wants to time shift off the air
> TV programs (analog)..... is the DVD burner unit with
> NO hard drive OK?
>
> Do I really need the extra expense of the units that
> have a hard drive as well?

I find that the DVD Recorder without a Hard Drive is great
for transfers from other, analog, storage media such as
VCR or Laserdisk. A RW disk from these conversions to
a digital format is an easy way to provide this material to a
PC for further manipulation, in a digital state.

I have a reconditioned RCA DRC8000N for this, and it
is capable of "timeshifting" using the "Guide Plus" service,
but I've never used it that way. In fact I've never used its
tuner for anything. ( But I have the DirecTiVo unit for that.)
It should be pointed out that, to get the true benefit of
"time shifting", you need a scheduling service of some kind.
There are some that work with PC based setups, and I
seem to remember that some of those were free.

For "time shifting" the hard drive is hard to beat. I use
the hard drive in my DirecTiVo DVR, for that. Sometimes
the material that I have shifted, gets captured to a more
permanent format; DVD+R and/or "TeraStation" NAS
file.

The "TiVo" phenomena is not just a matter of the
equipment, but lies in its abilities to gather up the shows
you wish to watch/capture, with minimal instructions. It
can even display some AI and offer up "Suggestions"
based on your viewing habits.

The DirecTv version of TiVo, and the new DirecTv
DVRs have an additional advantage in that they can
simply record the outputs of their dual tuners to the
hard drive. The satellite signal is a form of MPEG
already, it's Digital all the way to the hard drive. So,
what you see off the hard drive is exactly what you
would see directly from the satellite, live.

Luck;
Ken
September 17, 2005 7:12:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

The least expensive DVR will do the time shift in the same manner as a VCR,
and thus avoids the hard disk / extra cost entirely.



<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:uvfoi15spsrtjagfv6g3tkgbqgbp28um5l@4ax.com...
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, the $98 model does not have the hard disk / editing feature. For that
>>you will pay more.
>
> For a person who just wants to time shift off the air
> TV programs (analog)..... is the DVD burner unit with
> NO hard drive OK?
>
> Do I really need the extra expense of the units that
> have a hard drive as well?
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:01:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I have a DVR that my wife purchased for my birthday last May. I now
wish that it had a hard drive in it. I will probably be getting a
Lite-On with a hard drive and replace one of my other DVD players at a
later stage. The Lite-On's appear to have a wide following of hackers
who update the firmware of the recorder to disable Macrovision
recognition and regional restrictions.

That said, the quality of the DVR is needed for my projection
television. VHS tapes looked washed out when playing on the 52"
screen. DVR plays back as well as the OTA material that was recorded.


I am another one who shall not go back to tape again.

Cheers...
September 18, 2005 12:14:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:

>The least expensive DVR will do the time shift in the same manner as a VCR,
>and thus avoids the hard disk / extra cost entirely.

A DVR has a hard drive in it, no?

You see..... I want the cheapest way to time shift
using off air signals as possible. No cable TV

So for abt $100 I can buy a DVD burner...with no hard
drive of course

Just not sure if NOT having any hard drive is viable
for time shifting tho. Is it?
September 18, 2005 12:52:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:VpSdneD-VJ2WO7benZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> My prior reply said that a DVR could be had for as little as $120 if you
> shop carefully. I guess I was using last week's pricing.....
>
> Walmart now has one for $98......
>
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=3...
>
> Smarty
>
>
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:auidnU5iGMoHB7beRVn-pg@adelphia.com...
>>A DVR makes higher quality recordings than a VCR. DVDs which you record
>>are quickly duplicated (with a computer) if you wish to make duplicates,
>>which are exact copies with no degradation. (Try doing that with a VCR).
>>Blank DVDs cost less than a quarter apiece in the U.S. and can hold 6 to 8
>>hrs of programming at a small fraction of the cost of a video tape. A DVR
>>can, optionally, contain a hard disk which allows you to only record
>>things to DVD if you truly want to keep them, and, optionally, edit out
>>commercials before making the disk. (Try doing that with a VCR). DVDs
>>allow rapid random access to any place in the program, while video tapes
>>require a lot of time to wind and rewind.
>>
>> Finally, DVRs can now be had for as little as $120 if you shop carefully.
>> They are modern devices with a lot of supporting infrastructure like 400
>> disk DVD juke boxes for $270. VCRs are a 20+ year old technology with a
>> rapidly dwindling supply of equipment and media.......There are other
>> benefits as well, but these are the ones which immediately come to
>> mind...
>>
>> Smarty
>>
>>
>>
>> <needin4mation@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126930201.126893.74430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> I'm just trying figure out the advantage of a DVR over the VCR if I am
>>> recording analog video from my cable provider. If I don't plan on
>>> saving the movies, shows, etc. for very long, what does it matter? I
>>> won't have that huge mass of tapes lying around.
>>>
>>> I know this might be a no brainer, but I was hooking up my computer to
>>> my capture device and cable, etc. and was so happy my PC was capturing
>>> live TV just like tivo, a dvr, whatever you want to call it and then my
>>> wife says, "Hey, why don't you just tape it?" "I forgot I could do
>>> that" (and yes it hurt.) I just wanted the VCR for the TV Tuner (cable
>>> -> vcr -> canopus advc-100 -> PC (recording software (my setup)).
>>>
>>> Thanks for comments.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Just to interject, i've been using DVR's for about 5 years now, I started
with ReplayTV's and kept upgrading
to better models and finally just sold them all and pay a low monthly rental
fee of $7 to my cable company for their
latest dual tuner model.
Using a dual tuner DVR is even a better step up than say going from a vcr to
a dvr to begin with.
Not only do I set series to record automatically whenever they are on, so
when a network moves a night or time, it's recorded automatically
but I no longer have to worry that when a show is moved i won't be able to
get it because of a previously scheduled show causing a conflict with
the one tuner, Now I never miss programs! That is the greatest freedom from
televisions scheduling. Even from season to season my shows are
remembered and I have it set to only record new episodes so I don't waste my
time with reruns.
I wouldn't go back to a VCR if they paid me $100 a month to use one,
seriously!!
AnthonyR.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:10:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Okay, you've convince me: I'm cheap.

But I have decided I want a mythtv box instead of tivo or replay. I
refuse to pay a subscription fee. I already pay for too much cable
that I don't watch. I do appreciate everyone's answers.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 10:06:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

me@privacy.net wrote:

> For a person who just wants to time shift off the air
> TV programs (analog)..... is the DVD burner unit with
> NO hard drive OK?
>
> Do I really need the extra expense of the units that
> have a hard drive as well?

In fact without the HD, you can still do something that is almost
editing (at least with my machine, not sure about the cheap ones).
If I use the more expensive RW disks, then I can go back ad mark
sections (commercials) for removal. Not technically editing as the
"removed" sections do not free up space for more recording, but on
playback, they are skipped. But, as I said, not sure if a $99 machine
can do that.

Dave
September 18, 2005 10:00:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<needin4mation@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127020208.457117.282010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Okay, you've convince me: I'm cheap.
>
> But I have decided I want a mythtv box instead of tivo or replay. I
> refuse to pay a subscription fee. I already pay for too much cable
> that I don't watch. I do appreciate everyone's answers.
>

LOL. I didn't wish to convince you of that at all, in fact i was trying to
impress how much easier life is made with the automatic program recording
and scheduling you get from the cable box dvr. I don't think any DVR with ot
without a hard drive that doesn't have both a smart program search guide and
dual tuners is worth a hill of beans.
Those are the two features needed in my opinion to really enjoy a PVR, DVR
or whatever they are calling it now.

Also let me give you an idea, call your local cable company, ask for their
DVR. Return your current box yourself and pickup the DVR from them, install
it yourself and they might even throw in a free month to try it. It won't
cost you a penny to swap boxes, use it for a month, two or a few to test it.
And if after 3 months, you are totally convinced you've changed your life so
much more, that you now have time to do more things, you can fast forward
commercials which saves me hours of time a week and pause live tv to cook or
answer phone or use bathroom etc, then just retuen it and go back to what
you had. Costs you nothing but the price a a happy meal at MCDonalds per
month.

In my opinion buying any equiptment nowaday, no matter how cheap, is a waste
of money since your tied to using that equiptment. And you don't want that.
You want to always have the latest for free! Renting gives you that.
My friend has DirectTV, he had to buy his own HiDef Dual Tuner DVR for $1000
2 months ago, he now owns that and if a new feature which requires better
hardware comes along, he is out the $1000 and needs to buy another box, if
he was renting like me, he would have gotten the new Scientific Atlantic HD
DVR for free, even swap, and no more monthly charges for HD programming
either as with some satillite co's charge. And in a year he could swap it
again if they make a mpeg4 box or whatever new technology comes along.
Renting this high tech gear is like legal stealing, you get the equiptment
use it and give it back for free!
What more could someone want, the extra monthly fee is like paying for tv
guide, it's been done for years now, nothing new paying for guide info, it
use to be a printed book now it's electronic, same thing.

Also tivo's and other DVR's that need to hook up to phone line and call in
every night for new data is NOT as easy as having the data transfer
instantly over the same high speed coaxial cable as the digital cable signal
is entering your home, even firmware updates to the box's software is done
occassionally automatically. they constantly add features.
The latest feature TimeWarner DVR added without telling anyone one was the
ability to skip ahead 15 minutes at a time using the left and right arrows
while fast forwarding or rewinding, this is great for skipping to the part
of a movie you want quickly. Plus the box remembers where you left off each
show at, that goes without saying.
It has screen saver that some DVR's don't have, so many features. Do the
test I told you, now matter how cheap you think you are, it will make your
life so much better, you will wonder how you lived without it! And you will
think wow, this was like going from a 9" b&w round screen to a 50" color ,
that's how much this technology affects how you perceive television watching
after you try it.
Not to mention, if you have kids, they can have their show being recorded,
your wifes show being recorded all the while you are watching something you
already had recorded now cause that's when you have free time. :) 

AnthonyR
September 18, 2005 11:36:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I now
>wish that it had a hard drive in it.

How come?
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 12:31:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

The biggest difference is quality. DVR's play back as well as the
original broadcast. VHS in SP mode is not even close, imho.

I have used the same DVD-RW at lease 10 times. I have read that they
are good for up to 150. Don't know if I will get warning when
re-initializing blank RW on my system.

For something that I wish to archive: capture to the RW disk, carry
back to PC (sneaker-net), copy to hard drive, edit with VideoRedo,
author with TDA, and burn to -R with DvdDecryptor. whew... Still
easier and higher quality than capturing to VHS and then capturing to
the PC with my Pinncable Moviebox USB.

There are legitimate concerns with DVD longevity. Smarty has had some
sobering warnings with his experience with early DVD blanks. But these
problems were there with early CD blanks as well. The future will let
is know.

However, for something that one really wants to keep, I would recommend
burning at least two copies to two of the best brand DVD-R. If the
chances of a DVD going bad are 1:20 in ten years due to a faulty DVD,
then the chances of both copies going bad in the same period should be
1:400. There are sites that discuss which brands are made by which
manufacturer, so that info could be used minimize the chances of the
same batch on the same copy.

I would also recommend the same for VHS though. I have had some of
those go bad over the past 20 years. I have copied some very important
personal VHS to DVD-R. Haven't tossed the VHS though. But the DVD-R
backup takes up a lot less space!

I have moved all of the kids Teletubby, Veggie Tale and Blues Clues
from VHS to DVD-R. Hope that they can one day enjoy with their
children.

Cheers...
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:26:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127100704.821576.18160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The biggest difference is quality. DVR's play back as well as the
> original broadcast. VHS in SP mode is not even close, imho.
>
> I have used the same DVD-RW at lease 10 times. I have read that they
> are good for up to 150. Don't know if I will get warning when
> re-initializing blank RW on my system.
>
> For something that I wish to archive: capture to the RW disk, carry
> back to PC (sneaker-net), copy to hard drive, edit with VideoRedo,
> author with TDA, and burn to -R with DvdDecryptor. whew... Still
> easier and higher quality than capturing to VHS and then capturing to
> the PC with my Pinncable Moviebox USB.
>
> There are legitimate concerns with DVD longevity. Smarty has had some
> sobering warnings with his experience with early DVD blanks. But these
> problems were there with early CD blanks as well. The future will let
> is know.
>
> However, for something that one really wants to keep, I would recommend
> burning at least two copies to two of the best brand DVD-R. If the
> chances of a DVD going bad are 1:20 in ten years due to a faulty DVD,
> then the chances of both copies going bad in the same period should be
> 1:400. There are sites that discuss which brands are made by which
> manufacturer, so that info could be used minimize the chances of the
> same batch on the same copy.
>
> I would also recommend the same for VHS though. I have had some of
> those go bad over the past 20 years. I have copied some very important
> personal VHS to DVD-R. Haven't tossed the VHS though. But the DVD-R
> backup takes up a lot less space!
>
> I have moved all of the kids Teletubby, Veggie Tale and Blues Clues
> from VHS to DVD-R. Hope that they can one day enjoy with their
> children.
>
> Cheers...
>

All good points. There is also the fact that any tape's recording and
playback is effected by the mechanical properties of the tape and the
mechanism used. If it were a digital recording to tape there is less of a
problem, but an analog recording or playback has to contend with not
only stretching of the tape but the imprecision of the drive mechanism
itself. With analog recording there is a waveform recorded that stores
some of its information based on the time interval between parts of the
waveform, so some of the information being recorded or played back
is changed, when the tape stretches, stutters or changes speed past the
heads in any manner. Over time this can become an even bigger issue.

There is also the vulnerability of magnetic domain storage in today's
electromagneticly saturated environment. The VHS packaging is not
much protection, in this regard. Hard drive are much better protected.

Luck;
Ken
September 19, 2005 4:53:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:auidnU5iGMoHB7beRVn-pg@adelphia.com...

> Finally, DVRs can now be had for as little as $120 if you shop carefully.
> They are modern devices with a lot of supporting infrastructure like 400
> disk DVD juke boxes for $270. VCRs are a 20+ year old technology with a
> rapidly dwindling supply of equipment and media.......There are other
> benefits as well, but these are the ones which immediately come to mind...

Just to play devil's advocate here, what's the dependability like with the
current generation of DVR's? All the DVD burning I've done to date is on a
computer. One thing I like about VCR's is that for the most part, they work
every time, especially with a better model. Pop it in, push a button, done.
Power flickers or goes out? The material being recorded is interrupted but
the VHS tape isn't trashed and rendered unusable. VCR's also aren't subject
to buffer underruns, etc.

Another thing is more or less infinite reusability with VHS tapes. Maybe
there's some point at which they wear out, but probably not with the kind of
use they're realistically ever likely to see with Joe and Jane consumer. To
be honest, I've had nothing but problems with Rewriteable CD's and DVD's.
Very low batting average. You can say "it's your burner" etc. etc. but VCR's
seem to get it done every time unless they're in need of repair. They also
don't seem to care what brand of tape you use, no "this burner doesn't like
the dye in this brand of disc" issues.

What about longevity of the media? The manufacturers can make all kinds of
claims, but DVD technology hasn't been around long enough to demonstrate it
will last any longer than VHS tapes.

Again, I'm certainly not anti-digital, just throwing out some thoughts.
September 19, 2005 7:07:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote:

>What about longevity of the media? The manufacturers can make all kinds of
>claims, but DVD technology hasn't been around long enough to demonstrate it
>will last any longer than VHS tapes.

Given that I tend to agree with you

Do you feel that any digital video shot on miniDV
should be stored and archived on that tape itself
rather than burnt to a DVD and archived THAT way?
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 7:07:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

me wrote ...
> "Doc" wrote:
>>What about longevity of the media? The manufacturers can make all kinds of
>>claims, but DVD technology hasn't been around long enough to demonstrate
>>it
>>will last any longer than VHS tapes.
>
> Given that I tend to agree with you
>
> Do you feel that any digital video shot on miniDV
> should be stored and archived on that tape itself
> rather than burnt to a DVD and archived THAT way?

I feel MUCH safer keeping the original DV tape rather than
transfering it onto any kind of field-burnable optical disc. I
have video tape/cassettes from well before the VHS era
that can be played back as well as the day they were made.
OTOH, I have both CDR and DVDR discs that have failed
after only 2-3 years.
September 19, 2005 8:35:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote:

>In my opinion buying any equiptment nowaday, no matter how cheap, is a waste
>of money since your tied to using that equiptment.

I agree with what you say. Buying expensive
electronics now days is almost always a losing deal as
the price plummets or the technology advances so fast!

In the past I've always been a first adopter. I bought
VCR when they first came out and cost $1000. Same for
microwaves. Bottom line I've learned my lesson on being
a "pioneer". <G>

Having said all that I agree its better to "rent" a DVR
from your cable company if they offer them.

However.... what's a person to do if they get their TV
off the air only? No cable or satellite either one?

In that scenario.... I'm still tempted to stay with VCR
and tape just cause it so low cost

Do you agree?

And does tape actually perform better with off air
signals than a DVR would?
September 19, 2005 9:20:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:

>I feel MUCH safer keeping the original DV tape rather than
>transfering it onto any kind of field-burnable optical disc. I
>have video tape/cassettes from well before the VHS era
>that can be played back as well as the day they were made.
>OTOH, I have both CDR and DVDR discs that have failed
>after only 2-3 years.

OK

Reason I ask is cause I have lost of old 8mm film that
I want converted to digital....and the company that
does it want me to convert it to miniDV tape and
archive it THAT way rather than my original suggestion
of burning it to DVD

I take it you agree with them?

Sorry if this is off thread.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 9:56:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I did what you said and called the cable company. They want $14.95 a
month plus $29.95 just to bring it to my house (they wouldn't let me
come get it). No way. for $209 first year I will have paid for my
mythtv box almost twice over AND I get to feel real geeky inside.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 10:42:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Doc" <docsavage20@xhotmail.com> wrote in
news:x_nXe.422$vw6.175@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:

>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:auidnU5iGMoHB7beRVn-pg@adelphia.com...
>
>> Finally, DVRs can now be had for as little as $120 if you shop
>> carefully. They are modern devices with a lot of supporting
>> infrastructure like 400 disk DVD juke boxes for $270. VCRs are a 20+
>> year old technology with a rapidly dwindling supply of equipment and
>> media.......There are other benefits as well, but these are the ones
>> which immediately come to mind...
>
> Just to play devil's advocate here, what's the dependability like with
> the current generation of DVR's? All the DVD burning I've done to date
> is on a computer. One thing I like about VCR's is that for the most
> part, they work every time, especially with a better model. Pop it in,
> push a button, done. Power flickers or goes out? The material being
> recorded is interrupted but the VHS tape isn't trashed and rendered
> unusable. VCR's also aren't subject to buffer underruns, etc.
>
> Another thing is more or less infinite reusability with VHS tapes.
> Maybe there's some point at which they wear out, but probably not with
> the kind of use they're realistically ever likely to see with Joe and
> Jane consumer. To be honest, I've had nothing but problems with
> Rewriteable CD's and DVD's. Very low batting average. You can say
> "it's your burner" etc. etc. but VCR's seem to get it done every time
> unless they're in need of repair. They also don't seem to care what
> brand of tape you use, no "this burner doesn't like the dye in this
> brand of disc" issues.
>
> What about longevity of the media? The manufacturers can make all
> kinds of claims, but DVD technology hasn't been around long enough to
> demonstrate it will last any longer than VHS tapes.
>
> Again, I'm certainly not anti-digital, just throwing out some
> thoughts.
>
>

I like VCR's as they seem to be flexible and dependable as noted. I also
like the fact I can record whatever I want on it. This model of the DVD
burner from Wal-Mart has me wanting one however.

My setup is as follows:

Cable into the VCR via the CATV port. Connection via composite to the TV-
Card. Video Card output to an inline Scan Converter with a split to the
Monitor and Line 2 of the VCR composite-in. This effectively gives me a
loop so whatever I see on the Desktop shows up in the TV-Card - which is
useful if I want to monitor what the VCR is recording from the Desktop.

By obtaining a video switcher I could send the composite signal to the
DVD after editing it instead of the VCR. And of course since it plays
DVD's my TV-Card can pick that up for me.

But I would be limited to a standard NTSC signal for the DVD - not Hi-Def
so would that be a better viewing experience than VCR? Of course as
noted I could seek out the portion much faster I wanted to view on a DVD
than I can on VHS - which I use mainly as backup for my Hi8 tapes - so
perhaps the DVD's would actually be used instead of just sitting on shelf
like the VHS tapes do.

I definitely can see the advantage of increased storage - and the fact
that the video would be full-size - though I watch all videos at half-
size - except one in awhile.

Got me thinking... Great link..
September 20, 2005 2:29:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:6r9ui1hl8l997siget9ko2c1fqli6u31hr@4ax.com...
> "AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>In my opinion buying any equiptment nowaday, no matter how cheap, is a
>>waste
>>of money since your tied to using that equiptment.
>
> I agree with what you say. Buying expensive
> electronics now days is almost always a losing deal as
> the price plummets or the technology advances so fast!
>
> In the past I've always been a first adopter. I bought
> VCR when they first came out and cost $1000. Same for
> microwaves. Bottom line I've learned my lesson on being
> a "pioneer". <G>
>
> Having said all that I agree its better to "rent" a DVR
> from your cable company if they offer them.
>
> However.... what's a person to do if they get their TV
> off the air only? No cable or satellite either one?
>
> In that scenario.... I'm still tempted to stay with VCR
> and tape just cause it so low cost
>
> Do you agree?
>
> And does tape actually perform better with off air
> signals than a DVR would?

Hi, Thanks for explaining, well yes, in the case where only off the air tv
is used, then
you can continue with vhs if you are happy sure, or get a DVD recorder with
a build in hard drive
and use that for daily recording, I wouldn't suggest using the dvd as a
replacement for VHS but it
is better quality but the hard drive is so much easier because it doesn't
need changing every time you record a show.
I record at least 4-5 hours of stuff per day, I wouldn't be able to keep
track of so many dvd's.

I would suggest the early ReplayTV box which included free lifetime guide
info and dials up to receive it nightly,
maybe get a used one on ebay for a few hundred, they last forever and when
they do break, a simple hard drive change
and you're good to go.
Or RCA has something that can be used like a vcr and has a free guide but I
never tried it so i can't recommend it as I do the ReplayTV.
For off the air, single tuner, ReplayTV was years ahead of the rest, and 30
sec commercial skip is available on older units, it's grandfathered in.
:) 

Actually I just did an ebay search for the early model 2000 and 3000 series,
none being sold at the moment, sure with the free lifetime guide why would
anyone sell them? LOL
But plent of the new 5000 models real cheap, but you got to pay a monthly
guide fee to use them, so... :( 
AnthonyR.
September 20, 2005 2:29:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"AnthonyR" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>I would suggest the early ReplayTV box which included free lifetime guide
>info and dials up to receive it nightly,

I don't have any cable or satellite..... off air
reception only

Plus I don't have a wired telephone..... only a cell
phone

So a Replay or Tivo wont do me any good as it must
"phone home" for info. No?
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 4:09:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

me@privacy.net wrote in news:02dui15kp1c52jo3rifjr8mkhrag821bu1@4ax.com:

> "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:
>
>>I feel MUCH safer keeping the original DV tape rather than
>>transfering it onto any kind of field-burnable optical disc. I
>>have video tape/cassettes from well before the VHS era
>>that can be played back as well as the day they were made.
>>OTOH, I have both CDR and DVDR discs that have failed
>>after only 2-3 years.
>
> OK
>
> Reason I ask is cause I have lost of old 8mm film that
> I want converted to digital....and the company that
> does it want me to convert it to miniDV tape and
> archive it THAT way rather than my original suggestion
> of burning it to DVD
>
> I take it you agree with them?
>
> Sorry if this is off thread.
>

absolutely in my mind - tape is a medium that has proven itself - sorry
for jumping in. To give you an example without busting your chops - the
local drugstore is taking a hit on film developing since a lot of folks
now use digital - and the poster says it best:

In 20 years will you still have a negative you can make a print from if
the medium is digital? Will your CD/DVD even be around - or replaced by
something else? Do you want to remember Jenny and Johnny opening their
packages on Christmas with a photo that can be shared - handled - and
lasts forever - are do you really want to risk it? - to paraphrase from
memory.

Like others have stated - videotape that is 20 years old still hangs
around - but not many CD's do. Now I would like to add a point - if you
would invest in a CD stamper - even low-end at about $3-5 thousand
dollars - then your CD/DVD's will last like videotape. But the very
cheap burners most folks use - do not equal VCR's in terms of producing
industrial strength backup.

Sorry for butting in.


- P.S. By the way - maybe you could clue me in to some Newsgroup
etiquette.

I use Xnews and the the thread is presented in a tree-format - showing
what went where in terms of replies. My question is if I have a reply
that would answer several folks - is it acceptable to just answer each
different level of the tree with the same answer - or should I top-post
the answer - even though not totally within the first poster and starter
of the thread.

I think I should answer each person with the same answer that my answer
fits. Like in this question - a large number of underlying threads.
Been messing with Usenet for a number of years - since the 80's - but
never participated in a large scale thread before.

So is it OK to answer each folk - Usenet etiquette wise if it fits?

Thanks

BTW - sorry for butting in - I was wondering about such my self and my
system is basically analogue if you look at my threads in this piece.

cya
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 4:25:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

needin4mation@gmail.com wrote in news:1126930201.126893.74430
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> I'm just trying figure out the advantage of a DVR over the VCR if I am
> recording analog video from my cable provider. If I don't plan on
> saving the movies, shows, etc. for very long, what does it matter? I
> won't have that huge mass of tapes lying around.
>
> I know this might be a no brainer, but I was hooking up my computer to
> my capture device and cable, etc. and was so happy my PC was capturing
> live TV just like tivo, a dvr, whatever you want to call it and then my
> wife says, "Hey, why don't you just tape it?" "I forgot I could do
> that" (and yes it hurt.) I just wanted the VCR for the TV Tuner (cable
> -> vcr -> canopus advc-100 -> PC (recording software (my setup)).
>
> Thanks for comments.
>
>

In reading these threads - my thought is simple - if you want an
Industrial Strength backup of whatever you are recording - then videotape
is the only answer. CD/DVD's are a medium that are great - but the
burners most people use are poor. To be of quality - where you can count
on the CD/DVD being there - you need a CD/DVD stamper - which a low-end
can be purchased for about $3-5 thousand dollars. Five years ago they
were 20-30 thousand dollars. So like everything else in terms of
electronics - the price will come down as the demand for quality goes up.

In five years I predict no one with any thought for archiving on a CD/DVD
will even consider a lite-on burner for $28.00. It will be stamp the
CD/DVD like AOL does and other manufacturers of CD/DVD's do - or I won't
consider it.

Until that time - for safety of recorded material - only VHS offers true
industrial strength backup.


cya
September 20, 2005 4:25:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote:

>Until that time - for safety of recorded material - only VHS offers true
>industrial strength backup.

What abt miniDV tape tho?
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 11:19:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

me@privacy.net wrote in news:nnnui15kb3mfu2c6pa3t1fnc1djgre9ngl@4ax.com:

> evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote:
>
>>Until that time - for safety of recorded material - only VHS offers true
>>industrial strength backup.
>
> What abt miniDV tape tho?

Well, I was answering the guy about the original thread and his point of
wanting to know about VCR versus DVD - any tape medium is much better.

Tape has no concern about quality levels - as it judges itself by how long
a thing is - not how much bandwidth it has. It taks just as much tape to
record a poor recording as it does an excellent recording. So tape is
always King.

miniDV is just a new version of tape. In terms of proven quality - it is
brand new - so how it will stand the test of time compared to VHS - who
knows. But based on tape technology - probably OK, but I would want also a
VHS tape backup to be safe.

Contrary to popular belief VHS will still be around - even though you won't
be able to buy it from the shelf at Wal-Mart - because professionals will
demand it. It will just be tough to obtain it and a player for it - the
next 20-30 years as so much material is on VHS tape right now.

But a short answer - trust miniDV tape - but not exclusively as it is not
proven yet.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 11:19:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D7179E1DAEDeviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191...
> me@privacy.net wrote in news:nnnui15kb3mfu2c6pa3t1fnc1djgre9ngl@4ax.com:
>
>> evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Until that time - for safety of recorded material - only VHS offers true
>>>industrial strength backup.
>>
>> What abt miniDV tape tho?
>
> Well, I was answering the guy about the original thread and his point of
> wanting to know about VCR versus DVD - any tape medium is much better.
>
> Tape has no concern about quality levels - as it judges itself by how long
> a thing is - not how much bandwidth it has. It taks just as much tape to
> record a poor recording as it does an excellent recording. So tape is
> always King.
>
> miniDV is just a new version of tape. In terms of proven quality - it is
> brand new - so how it will stand the test of time compared to VHS - who
> knows. But based on tape technology - probably OK, but I would want also
> a
> VHS tape backup to be safe.
>
> Contrary to popular belief VHS will still be around - even though you
> won't
> be able to buy it from the shelf at Wal-Mart - because professionals will
> demand it. It will just be tough to obtain it and a player for it - the
> next 20-30 years as so much material is on VHS tape right now.
>
> But a short answer - trust miniDV tape - but not exclusively as it is not
> proven yet.

You guys are really amazing sometimes.

Point One: VHS records an analog signal.

Point Two: Digital Video (DV) tape has digital data recorded on
it.

Point Three: If analog signals are degraded, in any way, the audio
and video information is changed.

Point Four: Digital data must be unreadable before any loss
can occur. (And data formats have redundancies and error
correction) And the only change is the absence of that bit of data.

Point Five: drop a magnet on either one and you will have
problems. As long as the magnet doesn't scratch the DVD,
it will have no effect.

Point Six: Spill any sticky substance on a tape and you will
have problems. A DVD can be washed, don't try that with a
tape.

The US Government and many industries have many tons of
digital tape stored away in sealed controlled environments.
There is relatively no burned dye recorded optical storage,
currently in use for long term storage.

Luck;
Ken
September 20, 2005 12:58:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

needin4mation@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm just trying figure out the advantage of a DVR over the VCR if I am
> recording analog video from my cable provider. If I don't plan on
> saving the movies, shows, etc. for very long, what does it matter? I
> won't have that huge mass of tapes lying around.
>
> I know this might be a no brainer, but I was hooking up my computer to
> my capture device and cable, etc. and was so happy my PC was capturing
> live TV just like tivo, a dvr, whatever you want to call it and then my
> wife says, "Hey, why don't you just tape it?" "I forgot I could do
> that" (and yes it hurt.) I just wanted the VCR for the TV Tuner (cable
> -> vcr -> canopus advc-100 -> PC (recording software (my setup)).
>
> Thanks for comments.
>

Why? Why? Because taping is has a geek factor of, like, zero! I can't
believe you need to ask!
September 20, 2005 3:21:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

One point I would add:

DV tape was introduced about 10 years ago (in 1996) and is by no means new
or untested. To the contrary, it is an extremely robust and stable medium,
used pervasively for both consumer and pro use (DVPRO) and most recently for
high def content.

Smarty


"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ZuednZ4vloF7XLLeRVn-jg@giganews.com...
>
> "evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96D7179E1DAEDeviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191...
>> me@privacy.net wrote in news:nnnui15kb3mfu2c6pa3t1fnc1djgre9ngl@4ax.com:
>>
>>> evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Until that time - for safety of recorded material - only VHS offers true
>>>>industrial strength backup.
>>>
>>> What abt miniDV tape tho?
>>
>> Well, I was answering the guy about the original thread and his point of
>> wanting to know about VCR versus DVD - any tape medium is much better.
>>
>> Tape has no concern about quality levels - as it judges itself by how
>> long
>> a thing is - not how much bandwidth it has. It taks just as much tape to
>> record a poor recording as it does an excellent recording. So tape is
>> always King.
>>
>> miniDV is just a new version of tape. In terms of proven quality - it is
>> brand new - so how it will stand the test of time compared to VHS - who
>> knows. But based on tape technology - probably OK, but I would want also
>> a
>> VHS tape backup to be safe.
>>
>> Contrary to popular belief VHS will still be around - even though you
>> won't
>> be able to buy it from the shelf at Wal-Mart - because professionals will
>> demand it. It will just be tough to obtain it and a player for it - the
>> next 20-30 years as so much material is on VHS tape right now.
>>
>> But a short answer - trust miniDV tape - but not exclusively as it is not
>> proven yet.
>
> You guys are really amazing sometimes.
>
> Point One: VHS records an analog signal.
>
> Point Two: Digital Video (DV) tape has digital data recorded on
> it.
>
> Point Three: If analog signals are degraded, in any way, the audio
> and video information is changed.
>
> Point Four: Digital data must be unreadable before any loss
> can occur. (And data formats have redundancies and error
> correction) And the only change is the absence of that bit of data.
>
> Point Five: drop a magnet on either one and you will have
> problems. As long as the magnet doesn't scratch the DVD,
> it will have no effect.
>
> Point Six: Spill any sticky substance on a tape and you will
> have problems. A DVD can be washed, don't try that with a
> tape.
>
> The US Government and many industries have many tons of
> digital tape stored away in sealed controlled environments.
> There is relatively no burned dye recorded optical storage,
> currently in use for long term storage.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 6:59:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I am an old fan of digital tape. I have some that have lasted years.

Just can't find an affordable tape drive to read a 9-track EBCDIC tape
on an IBM clone PC!

---

Gee my old 8-track sounded great! Those were the days!

(Apologies to "All In The Family" fans)

Cheers...
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 12:16:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:ZuednZ4vloF7XLLeRVn-jg@giganews.com:

>
> "evieg" <evieg@noway.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96D7179E1DAEDeviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191...
>> me@privacy.net wrote in
>> news:nnnui15kb3mfu2c6pa3t1fnc1djgre9ngl@4ax.com:
>>
>>> evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Until that time - for safety of recorded material - only VHS offers
>>>>true industrial strength backup.
>>>
>>> What abt miniDV tape tho?
>>
>> Well, I was answering the guy about the original thread and his point
>> of wanting to know about VCR versus DVD - any tape medium is much
>> better.
>>
>> Tape has no concern about quality levels - as it judges itself by how
>> long a thing is - not how much bandwidth it has. It taks just as
>> much tape to record a poor recording as it does an excellent
>> recording. So tape is always King.
>>
>> miniDV is just a new version of tape. In terms of proven quality -
>> it is brand new - so how it will stand the test of time compared to
>> VHS - who knows. But based on tape technology - probably OK, but I
>> would want also a
>> VHS tape backup to be safe.
>>
>> Contrary to popular belief VHS will still be around - even though you
>> won't
>> be able to buy it from the shelf at Wal-Mart - because professionals
>> will demand it. It will just be tough to obtain it and a player for
>> it - the next 20-30 years as so much material is on VHS tape right
>> now.
>>
>> But a short answer - trust miniDV tape - but not exclusively as it is
>> not proven yet.
>
> You guys are really amazing sometimes.
>
> Point One: VHS records an analog signal.
>
> Point Two: Digital Video (DV) tape has digital data recorded on
> it.
>
> Point Three: If analog signals are degraded, in any way, the audio
> and video information is changed.
>
> Point Four: Digital data must be unreadable before any loss
> can occur. (And data formats have redundancies and error
> correction) And the only change is the absence of that bit of data.
>
> Point Five: drop a magnet on either one and you will have
> problems. As long as the magnet doesn't scratch the DVD,
> it will have no effect.
>
> Point Six: Spill any sticky substance on a tape and you will
> have problems. A DVD can be washed, don't try that with a
> tape.
>
> The US Government and many industries have many tons of
> digital tape stored away in sealed controlled environments.
> There is relatively no burned dye recorded optical storage,
> currently in use for long term storage.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
>
>

I hear ya - First sentence of my reply stated my point - any tape medium
better. Last paragraph of your reply indicates my point that folks other
than myself agree else data would be stored on optical storage, So a
good answer - but just too long.

cya!
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 12:16:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:ZuednZ4vloF7XLLeRVn-jg@giganews.com:
>>
>> You guys are really amazing sometimes.
>>
>> Point One: VHS records an analog signal.
>>
>> Point Two: Digital Video (DV) tape has digital data recorded on
>> it.
>>
>> Point Three: If analog signals are degraded, in any way, the audio
>> and video information is changed.
>>
>> Point Four: Digital data must be unreadable before any loss
>> can occur. (And data formats have redundancies and error
>> correction) And the only change is the absence of that bit of data.
>>
>> Point Five: drop a magnet on either one and you will have
>> problems. As long as the magnet doesn't scratch the DVD,
>> it will have no effect.
>>
>> Point Six: Spill any sticky substance on a tape and you will
>> have problems. A DVD can be washed, don't try that with a
>> tape.
>>
>> The US Government and many industries have many tons of
>> digital tape stored away in sealed controlled environments.
>> There is relatively no burned dye recorded optical storage,
>> currently in use for long term storage.
>>
>> Luck;
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I hear ya - First sentence of my reply stated my point - any tape medium
> better. Last paragraph of your reply indicates my point that folks other
> than myself agree else data would be stored on optical storage, So a
> good answer - but just too long.
>
> cya!

So, it's a good answer because it includes parts that you
can agree with? It certainly isn't saying "any tape medium
better". It is saying that Digital Tape properly stored is
preferred over any die based (burned) DVD; for long term
storage.
/Ken
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 1:39:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Why would you want an automobile if you already have a bicycle?
!