Cost of DVD as data storage versus HDD (UK)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:31:02 +0100, half_pint wrote:

"guv" wrote in message
So use some catalogue indexing software. Or is the issue you cant find
the discs because they are all over the place?


Whatever I have tried alll that, its too much hassel and it
doesn't get done when you are in rush and it is a job in it self.
How many hours (days more like) will it take to catalogue 300 DVD?

And then you cannot reorganise your files as you can on a HDD

There are some legitimate reasons to keep stuff on a hard drive rather
than put it on DVD or CD, but these reasons don't cut it. Any kind of
simple database makes it far easier to find stuff then doing directory
searches on a hard drive. If you are putting things in reasonable folders,
a few simple scripts of one kind or another can read the directory structure
of a CD/DVD and spit out something you can import into a database
with very little effort.

Most likely I would still use the database even if I was keeping everything
on hard drives.

You don't generally have to do 300 DVDs at a time. I catalog each disk
right after I make it.

Well I find HHD's infinitely more reliable so I will invest my money
in that direction, incidently that is not the original CD drive, the
original failed within the first year and I got a free replacent. So in
My experience they are not very reliable (also have a failed
portable CD radio thing).
And whilst it *may* be my fault they failed, none of my
HDD's have ever had a single problem!!!

When your cd drives failed did you lose any data? I'll bet you consider
your data to be more valuable than the 20 dollars or so it costs to
replace a cd drive.


LIfe is too shor to burn media!!!

Since a 52X burner will take a few short minutes, how is that too
short?

How long will it take you to find a file on 300 DVD's?
A month?

Nope. Seconds. They are all in keep cases (apart from the 2nd back up)
and on a shelf and clearly marked.

Seconds? you have to read 300 lists, you must be a quick and flawless
reader, like my PC find files function.
It is a major hassle manintaining allyou lists and puting the corect
CD in the correct box.

You keep your lists on a computer and you use the computer to seach through
them. You can query a database in much more creative ways than you can
search through directories on a hard drive.

It takes seconds for me to find which disk contains what I want. Putting a
CD back in a box is no big deal.

I don't expect you to change how you are doing things, but your explanations
are not very convincing.

Isaac

"Arno Wagner" wrote in message
...
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage half_pint wrote:

"guv" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:20:49 +0100, "half_pint"
wrote:
[...]
Oh ok guys. Wait for 3 years and all will be well.

Well I ws mainly talking about CD's but DVD have the same problems.

I cannot use my computer whilst burning and thats a problem.

My older cd drive dont work anymore either (occasionally works).
Its just too much hassle.
LIfe is too shor to burn media!!!

How long will it take you to find a file on 300 DVD's?
A month?

I think that is the key issue here. Of course you can do copies
of all data to 2 or more media. of course you can verify all
your media once a month and re-burn those with problems.
(Incidentially I do complete surface scans of most of mu HDDs
once a month, but that is completely automatised...).
But how much time will that cost? How mind-numbing will the
process be? Better get a job flipping burgers in that time
and buy external HDDs for the money earned!

Yes I wonder how much I could have earned in the
time it takes to burn cd's.

I am 100% certain that for what I could earn in
the time spend trying to back up a music CD I could have
ernt out and bought serveal backup copies!!
My experience is 4-5 hours and 5-6 coasters per
successful recording!!!!!

I have a big box full of floppies, another full of CD's
do i want another full of DVD'S?

I recently copied all my ATARI ST floppies to one MOD. Took
almost forever but now I can find stuff and there is no
media decay anymore.

Yes I will try that maybe, as ST disks are readable from a
PC floppy drive I believe. Probably gonna take all day though!
I should really bin them as I have not used them for many years.

My ST is almost an antique, the spectrum I had before that
probably is not a genuine antique. (And what a wonderfully
reliable machine that was!)


As for CDs, I find that I burn very few. Most of those are boot-CDs
(Knoppix), making copies of my (bought) music CDs or copies of student
theses to be included in the printed versions. I recently started
putting Knoppix on CD-RW (700MB CD-RW finally being available) so it
will be even less now.

I think increasing music systems will become more like computers,
infact they already are (IPOD etc....) and disks of any sort (apart from
HDD) will
increasingly become a think of the past

Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

"Isaac" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:31:02 +0100, half_pint wrote:

"guv" wrote in message
So use some catalogue indexing software. Or is the issue you cant find
the discs because they are all over the place?


Whatever I have tried alll that, its too much hassel and it
doesn't get done when you are in rush and it is a job in it self.
How many hours (days more like) will it take to catalogue 300 DVD?

And then you cannot reorganise your files as you can on a HDD

There are some legitimate reasons to keep stuff on a hard drive rather
than put it on DVD or CD, but these reasons don't cut it. Any kind of
simple database makes it far easier to find stuff then doing directory
searches on a hard drive. If you are putting things in reasonable
folders,
a few simple scripts of one kind or another can read the directory
structure
of a CD/DVD and spit out something you can import into a database
with very little effort.

Well quite a bit of effort really, I have tried myself and largely given up.
It requires buying software or making do with inadaquare freeware.
Then will the CD always be in the correct box? Not in my experience
it won't unless I make considerable extra effort to ensure this.

Creating a playlist may require several CD changes.

Most likely I would still use the database even if I was keeping everything
on hard drives.


You don't generally have to do 300 DVDs at a time. I catalog each disk
right after I make it.

Well I find HHD's infinitely more reliable so I will invest my money
in that direction, incidently that is not the original CD drive, the
original failed within the first year and I got a free replacent. So in
My experience they are not very reliable (also have a failed
portable CD radio thing).
And whilst it *may* be my fault they failed, none of my
HDD's have ever had a single problem!!!

When your cd drives failed did you lose any data? I'll bet you consider
your data to be more valuable than the 20 dollars or so it costs to
replace a cd drive.

My hard drives have never failed and probably never will, not even one
bad sector. I would probably get some kind of warning anyway and the
data would still be 'there'

I find CD have a lifetime shorter than a prawn sandwich anyway.
to be absolutely sure I had a workinig backup would require
2 or 3 backups (at least!!).

Maybe DVD's are more practical now the prices have dropped
but I imagine they have the same scratch and dirt problems
that cds do, probably much worse given the higher data density,
am I correct?





LIfe is too shor to burn media!!!

Since a 52X burner will take a few short minutes, how is that too
short?

How long will it take you to find a file on 300 DVD's?
A month?

Nope. Seconds. They are all in keep cases (apart from the 2nd back up)
and on a shelf and clearly marked.

Seconds? you have to read 300 lists, you must be a quick and flawless
reader, like my PC find files function.
It is a major hassle manintaining allyou lists and puting the corect
CD in the correct box.

You keep your lists on a computer and you use the computer to seach
through
them. You can query a database in much more creative ways than you can
search through directories on a hard drive.

It takes seconds for me to find which disk contains what I want. Putting
a
CD back in a box is no big deal.

Delicate operation requiring he care of a surgeon!!!


I don't expect you to change how you are doing things, but your
explanations
are not very convincing.

Well I have no problems with HDD's, CDs are a differerent matter,
to many to list, £10 for a cleaning disc (didn' work)
£7 for a scratch removal kit (didn't work either and bacically was
just a couple of small cloths and a dab of polish, worth about 50p)
Thats not to mention the *hours* I spent trying to get the disk to
work (scratch removal), I think some of the 'backing had come off anyway).

Basically it is a time consuming nightmare when all is said and done.
Time and money spent on a HDD would have been a far more cost effective
option.

The big difference is HHDs are sealed units, free from the elements
and optical disks are not, one tiny scratch and its ready for the dustbin.

Isaac

"guv" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:31:02 +0100, "half_pint"
wrote:
snip

Not good for audio, even converting mp3 to.wav takes an age (on my
ancient
machine)

Eh? Is it the fault of DVDR media, that it takes ages to convert wavs
to mp3? Might that be the same process time storing to your HD?

I can play from mp3 on my pc, I won't buy a cd player (.wav) ever again
only mp3 playing devices, so I will never need to convert.

Sorry, you've lost me! Where are these mp3s coming from? If you are
downloading them, then this all takes time.

Not on broadband it doesn't!! a minute or 2.

Then *you* have to burn to CD!

If you are buying pirate
discs - then they are on CD not hard drive? Im not sure on the point
you are making. My reference was to the fact if you are converting for
HD use or to burn on a disc, the time taken to do so will be the same.

Then there is huge problem of storing, locateing, indexing of the
CDs.......

Why is it a huge problem? The 200GB hard drive you mention, is only
40
discs. Go by yourself a 200 disc folder and have the equivalent of 5
of your 200GB hard drives.

I have about 80 cdr's finding a file on one of them could take
*hours*.

So use some catalogue indexing software. Or is the issue you cant find
the discs because they are all over the place?


Whatever I have tried alll that, its too much hassel and it
doesn't get done when you are in rush and it is a job in it self.
How many hours (days more like) will it take to catalogue 300 DVD?

Since the DVDs in question are films, they took less than 30 minutes -
and that includes links to imdb. Hardly a lot of time. Like someone
else has said, it doesnt take long to index. There is lots of software
out there that will take the sting out of it. For instance, if you are
talking about mp3s, do you use the CDDA database

Sounds like spyware to me!!

so it pulls in the
track titles and can be directly input when you convert to those .mp3
tracks? Then using simple database catalogueing software, it will do
the work for you in seconds. It does work and work well.

And then you cannot reorganise your files as you can on a HDD


Now start working out the costs.

200 discs will cost you £48, plus £50 for the burner.


How much will 5 200GB hard drives cost you? How much storage option
do
you get once they are full?

Oh I see I am talking about CD's not DVD's but the argurements are
the
same except DVD burners are very expensive.

Very expensive? Best not shop at PC world then. They are available
for
just over £30.


All you get from burnable media is grief and coasters.

You 300DVDs are 3 meters high and hardly portable!!

Your 300 DVDs hold 1,200GB of data. How many hard drives are you
buying? How are you going to connect them all?

I think burning media is a dying art, in 3 years time
a 200GB drive will be what? £20?

Oh ok guys. Wait for 3 years and all will be well.

Well I ws mainly talking about CD's but DVD have the same problems.

I cannot use my computer whilst burning and thats a problem.

So because you have an "ancient PC" that wont use burn protection,
that writes of DVDR as a media does it? I always do other things at
the same time I am burning and have yet to have one buffer underrun
through doing so.

Ah so I heed to add the cost of a new PC into the equation now?
Well thats another £500 minimum, mind you as it will have a HDD
inside I won't need to burn!!

Your choice, but suggesting disc media is useless because your own PC
isnt man enough for the job is hardly a good argument. What spec is it
anyway?

200 or 300mhz i think 128meg ram. it is idle 95% of the time.

My older cd drive dont work anymore either (occasionally works).
Its just too much hassle.

Sounds reasonable to suggest you get a new CD drive then. ;-)

Well I find HHD's infinitely more reliable so I will invest my money
in that direction, incidently that is not the original CD drive, the
original failed within the first year and I got a free replacent. So in
My experience they are not very reliable (also have a failed
portable CD radio thing).
And whilst it *may* be my fault they failed, none of my
HDD's have ever had a single problem!!!

But it is a fact your hard drives *WILL* fail. It is as certaining as
you in life paying taxes and dying.

Well I have lost more in CD data that the capacity of both my
HDDs (5gig) I would imagine, or pretty close to it anyway.
Say there is 500 meg on a CD I an sure I have lost about 10
of them already, and thats data CD's the audio coasters is another
story altogeather!

LIfe is too shor to burn media!!!

Since a 52X burner will take a few short minutes, how is that too
short?

How long will it take you to find a file on 300 DVD's?
A month?

Nope. Seconds. They are all in keep cases (apart from the 2nd back up)
and on a shelf and clearly marked.

Seconds? you have to read 300 lists, you must be a quick and flawless
reader, like my PC find files function.

Who said anything about 300 lists?

It is a major hassle manintaining allyou lists and puting the corect
CD in the correct box.

I fail to see how it is a lot of hassle to put a disc back in the
correct place once you have finished with it. Perhaps this is where
you are going wrong? No sarcasm intended.

Well maybe for an organised person, but hat is not everybody
by any means!


Oh and another advantage is the fact my Hard drive doesnt fit in my
set top DVD player! ;-)

Yes but you don't need a set top DVD player as you can play
direct from your PC.

You've mentioned that your PC is pretty ancient and only has a CD
drive that is intermitently faulty. Can this PC play DVD films?

But I will be replacing it soon, my PC can play mpegs fine anyway
the newer formats are unnecessary anyway, they use excessive CPU
time for similar quality results.

I have a big box full of floppies, another full of CD's
do i want another full of DVD'S?

But all your floppies and CDS will fit on a couple of DVDRs so it
sounds like another box isnt necessary in your situation.

Dont think I would trust a CD or a DVD, wont take up
much space on a HDD though.

Hey, each to their own. If it works best for you, then thats fine. I
have only entered into this as you have slated the media is next to
useless. I disagree.

It is the most problematic storage format I have ever encountered
ok not useless, but too troublesome a road to go down, I prefer
the freeway (moterway) of HDDs than the clogged up country
lanes of CDs where there is a tractor or a huge pile of manure
around every corner!

What I would suggest though, is getting over to Tucows and get
yourself some indexing software, such as this one:

http://tucows.enta.net/preview/193523.html

Thnks but I will give it a miss and put the money saved to a HDD
I am basically too lazy to be looking through 100 cds
for the right one,and I have better things to do with my time.
I prefer point and click to dragging out my box of cds, searching thouugh
for the right disc (having previously located the filein my database),
getting the delicate media out of its case and putting it into
my drive (which now requires finding the case for the existing CD,
assuming I can actually get the drive door to open.
Then I have to wait whilst the drive spins up to speed
and if I am lucky reads the cd correctly.

TOO MUCH HASSLE!!!!

"guv" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:40:46 +0100, "half_pint"
wrote:

Eh? Is it the fault of DVDR media, that it takes ages to convert
wavs
to mp3? Might that be the same process time storing to your HD?

I can play from mp3 on my pc, I won't buy a cd player (.wav) ever
again
only mp3 playing devices, so I will never need to convert.

Sorry, you've lost me! Where are these mp3s coming from? If you are
downloading them, then this all takes time.

Not on broadband it doesn't!! a minute or 2.

But its quicker to convert! (Granted - not if you dont own the disc -
but you WERE talking about converting!)1

Sorry I think I have lost the what you are talking about here!


Then *you* have to burn to CD!

Until you started on CDs this was a DVD question. In less than 10
minutes, you could have 2000 tracks on one disc!

They are basically the same medium, a DVD is just bigger.
I was refering to audio CDs which use .wav files which can
be 64meg+ in size.


If you are buying pirate
discs - then they are on CD not hard drive? Im not sure on the point
you are making. My reference was to the fact if you are converting for
HD use or to burn on a disc, the time taken to do so will be the same.

Then there is huge problem of storing, locateing, indexing of
the
CDs.......

Why is it a huge problem? The 200GB hard drive you mention, is
only
40
discs. Go by yourself a 200 disc folder and have the equivalent
of 5
of your 200GB hard drives.

I have about 80 cdr's finding a file on one of them could take
*hours*.

So use some catalogue indexing software. Or is the issue you cant
find
the discs because they are all over the place?


Whatever I have tried alll that, its too much hassel and it
doesn't get done when you are in rush and it is a job in it self.
How many hours (days more like) will it take to catalogue 300 DVD?

Since the DVDs in question are films, they took less than 30 minutes -
and that includes links to imdb. Hardly a lot of time. Like someone
else has said, it doesnt take long to index. There is lots of software
out there that will take the sting out of it. For instance, if you are
talking about mp3s, do you use the CDDA database

Sounds like spyware to me!!

But it isnt.

Oh OK thats a relief coming from a reliable source, do you have
a legal document to back that up? I am sure you do and you will
post the link immediately to take the wind out of my sails!


so it pulls in the
track titles and can be directly input when you convert to those .mp3
tracks? Then using simple database catalogueing software, it will do
the work for you in seconds. It does work and work well.

And then you cannot reorganise your files as you can on a HDD


Now start working out the costs.

200 discs will cost you £48, plus £50 for the burner.


How much will 5 200GB hard drives cost you? How much storage
option
do
you get once they are full?

Oh I see I am talking about CD's not DVD's but the argurements
are
the
same except DVD burners are very expensive.

Very expensive? Best not shop at PC world then. They are
available
for
just over £30.


All you get from burnable media is grief and coasters.

You 300DVDs are 3 meters high and hardly portable!!

Your 300 DVDs hold 1,200GB of data. How many hard drives are you
buying? How are you going to connect them all?

I think burning media is a dying art, in 3 years time
a 200GB drive will be what? £20?

Oh ok guys. Wait for 3 years and all will be well.

Well I ws mainly talking about CD's but DVD have the same problems.

I cannot use my computer whilst burning and thats a problem.

So because you have an "ancient PC" that wont use burn protection,
that writes of DVDR as a media does it? I always do other things at
the same time I am burning and have yet to have one buffer underrun
through doing so.

Ah so I heed to add the cost of a new PC into the equation now?
Well thats another £500 minimum, mind you as it will have a HDD
inside I won't need to burn!!

Your choice, but suggesting disc media is useless because your own PC
isnt man enough for the job is hardly a good argument. What spec is it
anyway?

200 or 300mhz i think 128meg ram. it is idle 95% of the time.

So pretty ancient as you say! I thought 300Mhz was the bare minimum
for MP3?

Well maybe it is, I think mine is 300MHz and it does use a lot of CPU time
which is a problem, so sometimes I burn .wav files and play them as I
believe
this requires less CPU time as it does not have to decompress them, but I
could
be a a bit wrong.

Yes it a bit old but it is more than adaquate for most applications
(currently using 10% CPU). It is perfectly OK most of the time unless
I am using another CPU intensive application at the same time (java
application
for instance).

I will upgrade my PC soon, but maybe I will wait untill after Xmas as I
expect
to get more for my money then, DVD writers have dropped considerable
in price recently and will soon make CDRW drives redundant I would rather
pay £30-£40 than £200 for one, which seems sensible to me anyway!

I expect my PC to last 6-7 years as opposed to 2-3.
Having said that I expect to get several more years usage out of this one as
it is still a very powerful machine! which will still be fine 10 years down
the line.


As you may have guessed I am not a 'technology victim' who spends thousands
on the latest gadgets


My older cd drive dont work anymore either (occasionally works).
Its just too much hassle.

Sounds reasonable to suggest you get a new CD drive then. ;-)

Well I find HHD's infinitely more reliable so I will invest my money
in that direction, incidently that is not the original CD drive, the
original failed within the first year and I got a free replacent. So
in
My experience they are not very reliable (also have a failed
portable CD radio thing).
And whilst it *may* be my fault they failed, none of my
HDD's have ever had a single problem!!!

But it is a fact your hard drives *WILL* fail. It is as certaining as
you in life paying taxes and dying.

Well I have lost more in CD data that the capacity of both my
HDDs (5gig) I would imagine, or pretty close to it anyway.

Ye gods! 5 Gig! Ive thrown out bigger drives as being pointless! If
all your data fits on 10 gig inc OS and overheads, then great, but
thats just 2 dvds worth!

Well send you drives to me!!!
Actually one drives main purpose is as a bootable and surfable
back-up should the main drive fail. One is 2 gig, the othe 3 gig
and I have over 1 gig free after a ruthless purge of data since I
got broadband because it will not take much time to reload
what previously took hours to download on dial-up.
I only use a fraction of my daily generous bandwith allocation :O)
and I could probably fill both drives in a few overnight downloads.


Say there is 500 meg on a CD I an sure I have lost about 10
of them already, and thats data CD's the audio coasters is another
story altogeather!

LIfe is too shor to burn media!!!

Since a 52X burner will take a few short minutes, how is that too
short?

How long will it take you to find a file on 300 DVD's?
A month?

Nope. Seconds. They are all in keep cases (apart from the 2nd back
up)
and on a shelf and clearly marked.

Seconds? you have to read 300 lists, you must be a quick and flawless
reader, like my PC find files function.

Who said anything about 300 lists?

It is a major hassle manintaining allyou lists and puting the corect
CD in the correct box.

I fail to see how it is a lot of hassle to put a disc back in the
correct place once you have finished with it. Perhaps this is where
you are going wrong? No sarcasm intended.

Well maybe for an organised person, but hat is not everybody
by any means!

Not to do with being organised, just taking good care.

Maybe but but I am not usaually very methodical.


Oh and another advantage is the fact my Hard drive doesnt fit in my
set top DVD player! ;-)

Yes but you don't need a set top DVD player as you can play
direct from your PC.

You've mentioned that your PC is pretty ancient and only has a CD
drive that is intermitently faulty. Can this PC play DVD films?

But I will be replacing it soon, my PC can play mpegs fine anyway
the newer formats are unnecessary anyway, they use excessive CPU
time for similar quality results.

Similar quality? You cannot be serious?

I find mpeg a good enough format, never had any complaints about it.


I have a big box full of floppies, another full of CD's
do i want another full of DVD'S?

But all your floppies and CDS will fit on a couple of DVDRs so it
sounds like another box isnt necessary in your situation.

Dont think I would trust a CD or a DVD, wont take up
much space on a HDD though.

Hey, each to their own. If it works best for you, then thats fine. I
have only entered into this as you have slated the media is next to
useless. I disagree.

It is the most problematic storage format I have ever encountered
ok not useless, but too troublesome a road to go down, I prefer
the freeway (moterway) of HDDs than the clogged up country
lanes of CDs where there is a tractor or a huge pile of manure
around every corner!

Your choice! ;-) But your HD will eventually fail. That is
guarranteed.

I will probably be dead before it dies, it is purring like a happy cat.


What I would suggest though, is getting over to Tucows and get
yourself some indexing software, such as this one:

http://tucows.enta.net/preview/193523.html

Thnks but I will give it a miss and put the money saved to a HDD
I am basically too lazy to be looking through 100 cds
for the right one,and I have better things to do with my time.

Fair enough. Just pointing out its not difficult to do.

I prefer point and click to dragging out my box of cds, searching thouugh
for the right disc (having previously located the filein my database),
getting the delicate media out of its case and putting it into
my drive (which now requires finding the case for the existing CD,
assuming I can actually get the drive door to open.
Then I have to wait whilst the drive spins up to speed
and if I am lucky reads the cd correctly.

TOO MUCH HASSLE!!!!

I dont use CDR any more. Too small in size - but then I have been
talking about DVDR - which stores as much as your hard drive on a
single disc! With that in mind, you wouldnt even need to take it out
of the drive!

I agree DVDs are more managable and a DVD writer for about £40
seems pretty reasonable as I could back up an entire drive on one, which
I cannot do on a CD.
However I doubt my current PC would handle.wav files on DVD
(if that is possible) as it struggles doing that on CD.


--
www.senaction.com

half_pint wrote:
"Arno Wagner" wrote in message
...
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage half_pint wrote:

"guv" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:20:49 +0100, "half_pint"
wrote:
[...]
Oh ok guys. Wait for 3 years and all will be well.

Well I ws mainly talking about CD's but DVD have the same problems.

I cannot use my computer whilst burning and thats a problem.

My older cd drive dont work anymore either (occasionally works).
Its just too much hassle.
LIfe is too shor to burn media!!!

How long will it take you to find a file on 300 DVD's?
A month?

I think that is the key issue here. Of course you can do copies
of all data to 2 or more media. of course you can verify all
your media once a month and re-burn those with problems.
(Incidentially I do complete surface scans of most of mu HDDs
once a month, but that is completely automatised...).
But how much time will that cost? How mind-numbing will the
process be? Better get a job flipping burgers in that time
and buy external HDDs for the money earned!

Yes I wonder how much I could have earned in the
time it takes to burn cd's.

I am 100% certain that for what I could earn in
the time spend trying to back up a music CD I could have
ernt out and bought serveal backup copies!!
My experience is 4-5 hours and 5-6 coasters per
successful recording!!!!!

In which case you`re even thicker than I thought! A backup of a plain CD
takes ~5 minutes tops with no coasters.

--
What am I selling on ebay right now?
http://tinyurl.com/38yjc
Earn money reading emails!
http://tinyurl.com/2pcgm

So pretty ancient as you say! I thought 300Mhz was the
bare minimum for MP3?

My 170 MHz SPARCstation happily plays (and encodes) MP3
files. I daresay a 200 MHz Pentium could also work.

I back up my files to tape, although I've been known to put
additional copies of certain things on CD-R or CD-R/W.
Winchesters and RAID are handy for availability, but they're
not a backup medium. DVD?R has its uses, but doesn't allow
for unattended backups of larger data sets.

- Andy Ball

Andy Ball wrote:

So pretty ancient as you say! I thought 300Mhz was the
bare minimum for MP3?

My 170 MHz SPARCstation happily plays (and encodes) MP3
files. I daresay a 200 MHz Pentium could also work.

I back up my files to tape, although I've been known to put
additional copies of certain things on CD-R or CD-R/W.
Winchesters and RAID are handy for availability, but they're
not a backup medium. DVD?R has its uses, but doesn't allow
for unattended backups of larger data sets.

My 200 MHz Thinkpad has no problem with MP3s and also can play DVDs just
fine. Actually does a better job of it than a friend's new Athlon-64
machine.

- Andy Ball

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Andy Ball wrote:
So pretty ancient as you say! I thought 300Mhz was the
bare minimum for MP3?

My 170 MHz SPARCstation happily plays (and encodes) MP3
files. I daresay a 200 MHz Pentium could also work.

Any pentium will do, even a 486/66 (just about) manages to play
MP3s....

--
Mike

"Mike Redrobe" wrote in message
o.uk...
Andy Ball wrote:
So pretty ancient as you say! I thought 300Mhz was the
bare minimum for MP3?

My 170 MHz SPARCstation happily plays (and encodes) MP3
files. I daresay a 200 MHz Pentium could also work.

Any pentium will do, even a 486/66 (just about) manages to play
MP3s....

Mine is Cyrix MII 300 also called a Cyrix 6x86MX(tm)
Cyrix MII 300 runs at 233MHz (the 66 x 3.5 version)
I need to write this down here cos I keep forgetting!!
That 300 bit makes it sound faster han itis (marketing (lying) I guess).
I just tested it playing an MP3 128 kbs 44kHz and the CPU is at about 75%
I guess the results depend on the sampling rate of the original MP3.
I think the 300 bit is it's pentium equilivant rating (it all gets a bit
complicated).
What is a 486's 'P' rating?

I also tried a 160kbs MP3 (curiously also 44kHz) and thats still 75% CPU?

I guess ( I am no expert though) that the software may be clever enough to
enable it to play the MP3 at a lower quality if your processor cannot do
'the full monty' [well that is how I would have written the code anyway
:OP ]
Iif I had a couple of hours to spare :OP


--
Mike