Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
I saw an article in yesterday's New York Times about a company that
offers unlimited storage starting at $4.95 per month. I'm not sure I
understand their rate plan correctly, but it appears that the charge is
based, not on what you store, but rather on how much you download each
month.
$4.95 per month allows you to download 1 GB/month.
$9.95 per month allows you to download 10 GB/month.
$19.95 per month allows you to download 25 GB/month
$39.95 per month allows you to download 60 GB/month.
They even offer a FREE account, with no strings other than you are
limited to storing 10 GB and can download 100 MB/month.
I don't know what happens if you need to download more than your monthly
limit, but I suppose they charge you extra. The service is not as good
as a true online backup service, like connected.com, but it certaonly
might be a good backup service of last resort for those photogs that
want to have an off-site backup of their image files "just in case" the
very worst happens and their regular backup disks are destroyed, as in a
fire or flood, or become otherwise unreadable over time.
I don't think that this service would be economical for anyone that is
continually uploading and downloading, but it does offer peace of mind
for those that just want to have their image and data files stored in an
off-site location, just in case. The cost of getting those file back
might be worth it, if that is the only remaining back archive. It beats
losing everything, with no way to get them back at any cost.
I signed up for their free account, just to try it out. I may upgrade
to a paid account later. If anyone is looking for an unlimited
archiving facility, this may be worth looking into.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In article <MNdCe.2875$ph1.1556@trnddc06>, Jeremy <jeremy@nospam.com>
wrote:
> I saw an article in yesterday's New York Times about a company that
> offers unlimited storage starting at $4.95 per month. I'm not sure I
> understand their rate plan correctly, but it appears that the charge is
> based, not on what you store, but rather on how much you download each
> month.
>
> $4.95 per month allows you to download 1 GB/month.
> $9.95 per month allows you to download 10 GB/month.
> $19.95 per month allows you to download 25 GB/month
> $39.95 per month allows you to download 60 GB/month.
>
> They even offer a FREE account, with no strings other than you are
> limited to storing 10 GB and can download 100 MB/month.
>
> I don't know what happens if you need to download more than your monthly
> limit, but I suppose they charge you extra. The service is not as good
> as a true online backup service, like connected.com, but it certaonly
> might be a good backup service of last resort for those photogs that
> want to have an off-site backup of their image files "just in case" the
> very worst happens and their regular backup disks are destroyed, as in a
> fire or flood, or become otherwise unreadable over time.
>
> I don't think that this service would be economical for anyone that is
> continually uploading and downloading, but it does offer peace of mind
> for those that just want to have their image and data files stored in an
> off-site location, just in case. The cost of getting those file back
> might be worth it, if that is the only remaining back archive. It beats
> losing everything, with no way to get them back at any cost.
>
> I signed up for their free account, just to try it out. I may upgrade
> to a paid account later. If anyone is looking for an unlimited
> archiving facility, this may be worth looking into.
Honestly, I would not trust my data storage needs to strangers. A good
200 GB disk drive can be found for $150, or even less. If you buy two
drives, and use one as the backup for the other, you'll have a very good
archive system and for long-term storage, there's always DVD.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>
> Honestly, I would not trust my data storage needs to strangers. A good
> 200 GB disk drive can be found for $150, or even less. If you buy two
> drives, and use one as the backup for the other, you'll have a very good
> archive system and for long-term storage, there's always DVD.
I archive on DVD, but I have yet to find an uncomplicated solution to
storing them off-site. My DVDs and CDs are at home, and a disaster or
theft would wipe them out. Yes, I know that one can send DVDs to a
family member or friend for off-site storage, or place copies in a safe
deposit box. But, really, what percentage of photographers (especially
amateurs) actually do that?
I was not suggesting that the online service was a total solution, but
as a "backup-of-las-resort" it does offer an additional layer of
protection. Even if it cost an arm-and-a-leg to get the images back, to
some that might be better than the prospect of losing them all.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:53:38 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Jeremy
<jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:
>I archive on DVD, but I have yet to find an uncomplicated solution to
>storing them off-site. My DVDs and CDs are at home, and a disaster or
>theft would wipe them out. Yes, I know that one can send DVDs to a
>family member or friend for off-site storage, or place copies in a safe
>deposit box. But, really, what percentage of photographers (especially
>amateurs) actually do that?
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Jeremy <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
> >
> > Honestly, I would not trust my data storage needs to strangers. A good 200
> > GB disk drive can be found for $150, or even less. If you buy two drives,
> > and use one as the backup for the other, you'll have a very good archive
> > system and for long-term storage, there's always DVD.
>
>
> I archive on DVD, but I have yet to find an uncomplicated solution to storing
> them off-site. My DVDs and CDs are at home, and a disaster or theft would
> wipe them out. Yes, I know that one can send DVDs to a family member or
> friend for off-site storage, or place copies in a safe deposit box. But,
> really, what percentage of photographers (especially amateurs) actually do
> that?
Lets see, I maintain a copy in my safe deposit box, a copy at work, and a copy
in my house. I also have working copies on 2-3 separate computers, and of
course everything in reduced form is in my external web album.
> I was not suggesting that the online service was a total solution, but as a
> "backup-of-las-resort" it does offer an additional layer of protection. Even
> if it cost an arm-and-a-leg to get the images back, to some that might be
> better than the prospect of losing them all.
Not everybody has fast internet speeds for doing the upload.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.