On 06/11/2013, Tom Fine wrote:

> Agree they should have used a less-brittle kind of plastic, but I'm
> sure the cost factor figured in. Also remember that in the early CD
> days, discs were sold in cardboard long boxes, so less likely you'd
> get a damaged jewel case. If you break one at home, replacements are
> dirt-cheap.
> I really like the soft plastic Gaylord boxes that libraries use, but
> they are frosted semi-opaque, which makes reading the spine harder.
> As a matter of course, one should handle their CD collection with care
> because so many discs are now out of print. Fingerprints are toxic,
> and circular scratches often cause fatal read errors.
> Non-deep/non-wide scratches that go from center to edge (ie not along
> the circle) are less likely to cause read errors, but should be
> avoided. One problem with envelopes is that they can be conducive to
> scratches, especially in a dirty environment. I'm more and more of the
> mind that it's wise to rip our CDs to hard drives, not counting on the
> discs being playable long-term. I worry about players eventually not
> existing (not likely in my lifetime, but possible) and the discs
> getting unplayable from some aging process that we don't yet know
> about (plastic is, after all, plastic and thus not 100% stable over
> time).
Amber is chemically similar to plastics and lasts for millions of years.

Man-made plastics have varying lifetimes. Nylon, for instance, lasts a
few decades before crumbling.

I think polycarbonate is one of the better ones.

I don't understand why you think a hard drive will last longer.

Don Cox
[log in to unmask]