So then no one really knows if 80's are less reliable? If this "reliability" issue is mythology, why
is so common on this forum? I ask because 650 meg media is becoming somewhat rare and oftem much
more costly. If there is no proven advantage then it is silly to insist on it, as some clients do.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Richter" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CD-R question
> Tom Fine wrote:
>> Does anyone have any recent science showing the 80's (700megs) are any less reliable than the
>> 74's (650megs) -- apples to apples on manufacturer and dye material?
> "Reliability" usually refers to probability of failure over time. Since the time spans involved in
> CD-R degradation are of the order of decades, there's little hope of getting meaningful results
> during the lifetime of the product line. Accelerated life test is wonderful - if there are reasons
> for believing that the relationship between acceleration and 'reality' can be established. I have
> seen no science, recent or otherwise, that suggests that altering a parameter by X is equivalent
> to multiplying test time by Y.
> I am reminded of a boss I once had who suggested accelerating software life test by running the
> computer in an oven.
> [log in to unmask]