dvd+r dl discs are the best thing for long term data storage?
In '23, I copied a lot of data off a big pile of old (some ancient) discs I had, both CD and DVD. After getting everything copied over and backed up, I vowed I would never return to optical media storage ever again.
Well, that's changed.
I bought a 50-pack of DVD+R DL discs. DL means Dual Layer. A regular DVD+R holds 4.7GB while a DL holds 8.5GB. In this day and age, 8.5GB doesn't sound like much, but that's well more than enough to hold thousands of documents and photos. It's not a BDXL level of optical storage, but I'll get to that in a minute.
The bitter truth about flash drives
You can get 512GB flavors all day for real cheap. That used to be over $100, then it was $50, and now well below that.
It's very tempting to just stuff everything on a flash drive, put it in a box or whatever, forget about it, then retrieve it later when you want the files on the thing.
Bad idea.
The flash cells over time will bleed charge. If the flash storage sits too long unused, guess what? Dead drive. And yes, this can happen with SSD as well.
What you're supposed to do is periodically plug in the drive even if no files are read or written to charge the thing. This is annoying because it means you have remember to do this. You go get the flash media out of storage, plug it in for 20 minutes, disconnect properly afterward, put back in storage, repeat once a month.
But let's say you do the exact opposite and use the flash drive all the time, reading and writing files to it as you normally would. Everything is good, right? Wrong. That decreases the lifespan of the memory and you can (and most likely will) end up with a dead USB stick.
Ideally, a USB stick is best used sometimes. Use it a few times a week and no more than that to make the drive last as long as possible. The cells keep a charge, and file system remains stable... hopefully. But trying to figure how much use is too much or too little is also annoying. What's the correct amount of use? Nobody knows.
What this basically means is that flash media absolutely sucks for long term data storage, and this leads to...
The DVD+R DL disc
DVD+R DL has been around since 2004, so it's obviously a very mature storage technology. If you have an optical drive, it probably already has the ability to read and write DVD+R DL discs, especially if it was made in 2012 or later.
In Windows, a freeware utility you can download called Nero InfoTool will tell you the media types your optical drive will support. It's old, but still works.
In Linux, libcdio (and probably libcdio-utils) needs to be installed so you get the cd-drive command line utility.
Run that, and right near the top it states yes, the drive does have DVD+R DL support.
If I had some seriously crusty old optical drive that didn't have DVD+R DL support, plenty of external USB DVD burner drives are out there for cheap.
Why bother with DVD+R DL?
DVD+R DL is, as far as I can tell, the cheapest way to get long term data storage that actually works.
What do I mean by long term? Ten years.
Why use the disc and not a CMR hard drive like a Seagate Barracuda Pro? CMR HDD is an option, but with DVD of the non-RW variety, the files cannot be messed with once written. Once they're there, it's permanent. Also, the only thing you have to do to store DVDs properly is put them in a cool, dry place. DVD is a true "put away and forget it" media.
And one other thing. If a CMR hard drive just outright dies, your only option to get that data back is to send the drive to a data recovery service, pay a big chunk of money, and hope for the best. If an optical drive dies, the data can be moved physically. Take the disc out, use another drive that works.
Why not Blu-ray?
There is archival grade M-DISC BDXL media, but it is not cheap. At the time I write this, it's over $10 per disc. True, each disc can hold 100GB. But you need a Blu-ray burner with M-DISC support, which is also not cheap. But even if you have the burner and the discs, any time a burn doesn't go quite right, you're out 10 bucks each time that happens.
The alternative cheaper media for Blu-ray is BD-R and BD-R DL discs. With BD-R you get 25GB per disc, and BD-R DL bumps that to 50GB/disc.
Blu-ray at cheapest is the BD-R 25GB flavor, and that roughly translates to 90 cents/disc if you bought a 50-pack of them.
DVD+R DL is about 60 cents/disc when bought as a 50-pack.
But then there's the cost of the drive. Getting multiple drives for DVD is way, way cheaper compared to Blu-ray. 60 vs. 90 cents per disc isn't much, but $30 for a DVD burner vs. $100+ for a decent external Blu-ray burner can add up real quick. There are ones cheaper than $100, but they won't last. External DVD drives are the better deal.
What can fit on DVD+R DL?
Everything but video.
Video files are, by far, the largest thing anybody has on their drive(s). Take away the video, and what you're left with images and documents for the most part.
Without video files taken into consideration, 8.5GB/disc actually ends up being plenty of space to back up photos and documents.
To put this in perspective, a big digital photo is about 4MB. You can fit over 2,000 photos that size on a single DVD+R DL. As for documents, a really big PDF over 100 pages long would be anywhere from 25 to 50MB. Yes, MB, not GB.
Aside from entire-system backups, video is pretty much the only reason anybody buys big-capacity data storage in the first place.
If you have tons of video, sure, get one or two 8TB Barracuda Pro CMR HDDs (the 8TB is the best deal going at the moment).
But for everything else that's for long term data storage? DVD+R DL all day.
Yeah, DVD+R DL is old tech, but proven, reliable, and most importantly there's no periodic maintenance required. Write the disc, verify to make sure it took, store, put away, done.
Now for some nerdy notes to ensure maximum compatibility for burned data discs.
Here's the 101 to ensure maximum compatibility with any DVD burned. This mainly concentrates on Linux, but also applies to Windows and probably macOS as well. All of this is optional. You can choose to follow it or not.
The decidedly ancient Yellow Book CD-ROM Mode 1 data standard all the way back from 1984 is what to use when you want your burned data discs to read everywhere. There are rules to follow, and they're fortunately easy.
Before I get into that, if you don't follow the rules, there's the possibility your burned discs will only read in certain operating systems and even certain optical drives but not others. In my personal experience, I had it happen where I burned a DVD in Linux, brought it over to an older Windows 10 laptop with a DVD-ROM (yes, ROM, meaning no write capability), and the disc absolutely would not read. The reason? I didn't use Yellow Book Mode 1.
What I found is that if I keep any individual file under 2GB, I can get away with multi-dot files (like file.whatever.ext) and long file names, provided I use both Rock Ridge (for Linux) and Joliet (for Windows) extensions.
Confused? I'll make it slightly easier.
If you don't feel like looking at all your files to check for over-2GB stuff, put everything in a split 7z archive. 7-Zip makes it stupidly easy to create archives that auto-split into 2GB chunks on creation.
7z a stuff.7z -v2g folder-with-all-my-crap
The above literally means "Launch 7-Zip, add to archive stuff.7z, auto-split to 2GB volumes, put everything in folder-with-all-my-crap into the archive".
Both will create stuff.7z.001, stuff.7z.002 and so on until completed. When you double-click the .001 file, if all the other pieces are present, it auto-joins and opens as if it were a single file. At that point you choose whether to extract it somewhere or not.
As for the Rock Ridge and Joliet extensions, for most people this is only a thing to take into consideration when using Linux to burn discs.
The Joliet extension is something any Windows disc burning software should automatically use since Microsoft has been directly supporting that since Windows 95. The Rock Ridge extension is for UNIX/Linux use to allow for things like very long file names, inclusion of per-file permissions, and so on.
Typically, Linux users use genisoimage to create an ISO first, then wodim to burn a disc with. (If you don't want to mess around with Terminal, scroll down to "Is there an easier way for Linux?" below.)
Using these terminal commands below will create an ISO and then burn a disc using both Rock Ridge and Joliet so it can be read in Linux or Windows with no issues:
genisoimage -rJ -V disc-name-not-over-32-chars -o /path/to/my-dvd-name.iso /path/to/dir-with-files
sudo wodim dev=/dev/srX -v -data -eject /path/to/my-dvd-name.iso
Note that /dev/srX in wodim is an example drive path. You need to run lsblk -p to determine the actual drive path. If using an external USB burner drive, it will most likely be something like /dev/sr0 or /dev/sr1.
Also note that /path/to/ is something you have to figure out. If you have the folder with all the files you want to put to ISO on the Desktop, then the path would be something like /home/your-username/Desktop/dir-with-files. If you also want the generated ISO on the Desktop, the path for that would be /home/your-username/Desktop/my-dvd-name.iso.
Explanation:
For genisoimage, -rJ is "Rock Ridge and Joliet", -V is the disc name you make up with no spaces that doesn't exceed 32 characters in length, -o is the output and ISO name of your choice, dir-with-files is where the files are that you want in the ISO. You may want to type that as /path/to/dir-with-files.
For wodim, find your DVD drive path first with lsblk -p. If it's an external DVD drive over USB (which it probably will be), it will most likely be /dev/sr0 or /dev/sr1. The -v outputs a little extra info while burning the disc, -eject automatically ejects the tray on completion, and lastly the ISO name tells wodim what to burn to disc.
Is there an easier way for Linux?
Yes. Use Xfburn - especially if you plan on using Blu-ray.
For whatever package manager you use, search for that and it should be available as it's in a whole bunch of different distros. You can burn direct-to-disc or make ISOs with it.
Xfburn is also smart enough to where if you drop in over-2GB files, it will give a soft warning that the disc may be incompatible with other systems (which basically means "probably won't work in Windows"). However, to ensure maximum compatibility, type in a volume name that's under 32 characters with no spaces just like you would with wodim.
And like I said, use Xfburn if you plan on doing the Blu-ray thing, since the software has built-in BD disc support.
Now for some even more nerdy notes about making super-ultra compatible CDs for vintage DOS computers.
Making super-ultra compatible CDs that will work with MS-DOS
In this scenario, you're using CD and not DVD, and the instructions below is my best guess on how to make the most super-ultra compatible CD for use on a vintage PC. Why just a best guess? I don't have an actual vintage MS-DOS PC to test with. But I do remember enough about MS-DOS to where this will most likely work.
ISO 9660 is understood by MS-DOS, so as far as I'm aware, the only real thing to look out for are directory and file name considerations.
Any file or directory follows 8.3 rules, which means 8 case-insensitive characters and optionally one dot followed by 3 case-insensitive characters. The allowed characters are A through Z and 0 through 9.
Allowed special characters are all these _^$~!#%&-{}@`'() and if DOSBox is to be believed, that actually works.
To avoid complications, I wouldn't bother with that and just stick with A-Z and 0-9.
One of the easier ways to get a bunch of files to CD for MS-DOS use other than just copying them over is using a ZIP. Other archive types exist, but ZIP is by far the easiest.
In Linux, zip gives you the optional -k flag, which in man zip is described as:
Attempt to convert the names and paths to conform to MSDOS, store only the MSDOS attribute (just the user write attribute from Unix), and mark the entry as made under MSDOS (even though it was not); for compatibility with PKUNZIP under MSDOS which cannot handle certain names such as those with two dots.
This means all you have to do in Linux is put all your files in a folder (and you can include subdirectories, also with files in them), navigate to that folder in Terminal, and run this:
cd /path/to/files
zip -r -k archive.zip *
All files and folders in the ZIP will be converted over to 8.3 that DOS can understand.
If the archive is too big, use the split utility in Linux to break it up, then CHUNK in DOS (search for "dos chunk file splitter" in your search engine of choice) to combine the files.
Splitting for DOS CHUNK use in Linux using 700k pieces (you can specify any size you want in b for byte, k for kilobyte, m for megabyte, whatever):
split -a 3 -b 700k -d archive.zip archive.
Yes, the dot has to be at the end. This will create archive.000, archive.001, archive.002 and so on.
This should go without saying, but I'll mention it anyway. Any utilities I mention below should be in PATH. If you don't know what that is.. um.. learn to DOS.
In DOS, put all the files in a folder and run CHUNK to combine and get the ZIP. If you put everything in C:\SPLIT, it would look like this:
C:
CD\SPLIT
CHUNK /C ARCHIVE ARCHIVE.ZIP
Preview the ZIP using PKZIP for DOS:
PKZIP -VM ARCHIVE.ZIP
Once satisfied with what you see, delete the old split files afterward:
DEL *.00*
Make a folder, go to it, use PKZIP for DOS to unzip that extracts folders along with any subdirectories and files within:
MD \EXTRACT
CD\EXTRACT
PKUNZIP -D \SPLIT\ARCHIVE.ZIP
Ultimately, whether you choose to write files as-is outright to CD, use ZIPs or split ZIPs, everything has to be to 8.3 spec if the intent is to use those files in MS-DOS. If all the data is "8.3'd" and the CD is written as Yellow Book data mode 1, DOS should be able to read and understand that without issue. I believe even an ancient MPC compliant PC like the Tandy Sensation should be able to read the disc.
is it weird i feel nostalgic for cfl bulbs now?
There's a shed where I live. It has electricity (ooh, fancy) and in there is a lone CFL bulb that's been in there for... 7 years or close to it? When turned on cold, it takes a good solid minute for the gas to charge so it achieves full brightness.
But once that gas is charged up...
...it still works. True, this CFL doesn't charge up as fast as it used to, but that electronic ballast is still doing its job 7 years later and the light still illuminates properly.
I remember back when CFL was a new thing. Everybody hated it, and I know exactly why. It was for two reasons.
First, early CFLs were unreliable because manufacturers were still trying to figure out how to make a ballast that lasts (they didn't, and failed too quickly).
Second, the color temperature was all wrong because they all had that bog standard fluorescent work shop light color. You know those 4 foot lights and what kind of light color they give off? Yeah, those things. Early CFLs had the same color temperature. Something like that is fine for department stores and garages, but absolutely awful on the eyes for use in the home.
Some time passes, the ballasts were improved, and thankfully the color temperature was adjusted to "warmer". Instead of that stark white/green-ish light color, now it was more yellow/orange, i.e. the "soft white" type. Okay, good.
But just when the CFL finally got to the point of being just right, LED came on the scene and displaced CFL seemingly overnight.
This of course made me wonder if household CFLs are still made now.
Oh, yes they are. Production of them never stopped.
And some of them actually look... cool? Have you see the triple tube and quad tube flavors? Looks kinda neat.
The quads in particular have the most variety for base type. Some are standard screw-in, then there's GX10Q-4, G24Q-2, and so on. I have absolutely no idea where these would be used, but I guess there are special applications where these pin type connectors are needed.
My favorite is, of course, is the standard "squiggly" spiral tube. I didn't like them back when they were new, but now I do. All the old ballast problems with them were fixed years ago, the color temperature is now correct, and they're visually more interesting compared to a plain LED bulb.
HOWEVER... the coolest looking household LED is what's known as the Edison bulb. Those things just look awesome. Possibly the best modern combination of art and function for a light bulb ever made.
Even so, I think there's still a place for squiggly CFLs. The CFL is one of those things that looked weird at first, kinda went away (but not really) when LEDs became available, and now I think they've come back around, stylistically.
fender standard stratocaster... yikes
This new guitar from Fender is not going over well, at least from what guitar players on YouTube are saying.
Yes, if you look up Fender Standard Stratocaster, this is a new model at the time I write this. You will see Fender on the headstock, and a price tag below that of a Fender Player Stratocaster. So what gives? Why so cheap?
Answer: The guitar is made in Indonesia. Not Mexico. Not America. Indonesia.
Is that a problem?
No.
The problem is that the price is a really big ask, especially when compared to a Squier Classic Vibe Stratocaster...
...but even more damning is something everybody forgot about. But I didn't.
Remember the Fender Modern Player Stratocaster HSS from 2012? No? I owned one personally, and it's a China-made Fender. That particular guitar was made every bit as good as a high-end Mexican Fender. It was honestly constructed very well. The sound didn't agree with me (which is why I parted with it), but it was HSS with push-pull to split the dual-coil to single-coil.
More importantly however is that the MP HSS "felt like Fender", even while being the lowest cost official Fender Stratocaster made at the time it was in production. Right weight, right look, no nasty stuff going on anywhere on the guitar, and just got it right. It was China-made but felt exactly correct. Again, it was just the sound (mostly the humbucker to be honest) that turned me off from it. Had the MP HSS been alnico V SSS with 250k pots, I'd probably still own it now.
Based on what I've seen in YouTube videos complaining about the new Indonesian Standard Stratocaster, the '12 Modern Player would absolutely wipe the floor with it.
In other words, China did a lowest-tier official Fender Strat better. A lot better.
To be very clear, Indonesia can in fact make a good guitar, and proof of that is easy to find. Just play a Squier Classic Vibe '50s or '60s Stratocaster. The only problem with doing that is it makes the Fender Standard Stratocaster, which costs more, look bad.
The only good thing about the new Fender Standard Stratocaster is that it's the lowest price to get an actual real-deal Fender branded Stratocaster guitar...
...and that's all I have to say about that.
adventures with a crusty old crucial ssd
In my mind, "SSD" doesn't translate to "old", but yeah, that storage tech has been around for a long time.
One of the oldest SSDs I have is a Crucial CT256M4SSD2 that I bought direct from Crucial themselves back in 2012. I don't remember how much I paid for it, but it probably wasn't cheap. This is what that 256GB SSD looks like these days:
Over the years, that Crucial SSD has seen several operating systems (which included several reinstalls), been in and out of several laptops, and still works just fine. It was even dropped on the floor once, and hard, but again, still works.
Even though this thing is literally 13 years old, it's basically just as fast as it ever was.
Do I still use it? Yes, but not regularly, hence why it's out of a laptop right now. And oh yeah, I'm keeping it because it's still a good working piece of computer hardware.
Crucial obviously still makes SSDs, which still includes the venerable MX500 and BX500. Both of those are older models, but damned good ones. The only reason I don't buy those is because I have a Samsung EVO 860 and 870 (which are also damned good).
What amazes me most about my crusty old Crucial 256GB SSD is the amount of punishment it has endured, yet still works. I have not been kind to it over the years, but it still keeps on truckin' just like it always has.
floating taskbar in windows 11? nope. in linux? yes.
Right up front, let it be known this is an out-of-the-box STOCK feature in any modern Linux distribution with KDE Plasma. No plugins or special programs are even necessary to do what you're about to see.
One of the most annoying things about Windows 11 is the taskbar. It's at the bottom of the screen, but that's not the problem. The problem is that you can't move it, nor can you resize it. All you can do is adjust the alignment of stuff to center or left and enable or disable auto-hide. That's it.
There was a way to get a cool floating taskbar in Win11 at one point...
...but no longer. Maybe it will come back, maybe not. Nobody knows for sure. And, of course, many rumors are flying about saying it will come with Windows 12 for whenever that happens.
Just as a guess, I thought hmm, can my Linux OS do this since I have KDE? Let's try a right-click on the taskbar and see what happens, and...
There it is. Floating Panel. Can I center and resize this? Let's try that, and...
Done. And this is just one of several ways I can do it. Float it, have it whatever color I want, text descriptions or icons (my choice), tall or short, any size I want right down to the pixel, any width I want, pick any SIDE that I want (top, bottom, left or right of screen), whatever alignment I want, set to be always in front or allow windows to cover it, auto-hide or not.
The taskbar restrictions in Win11 are infuriating. In Windows 10 you could at least get a smaller taskbar and position it to top, left, bottom or right. No option to float as far as I know, but you could at least, y'know, move the thing, resize the thing and allow multiple rows if you wanted.
I'm not saying switch to Linux, nor am I saying to go back to Win10 if running Win11 now because switching operating systems is tedious, even if just from one version of Windows to another.
But I am saying that Windows has some catch-up to do in the taskbar department. A floating taskbar is a thing people like, and should be a standard setting for Windows. And by standard I mean no crazy stupid registry edits or third-party programs needed to do it. Floating taskbar should be an out-of-the-box standard thing Windows ships with that the user can set. Linux can float a panel easily, and MacOS has had a floating dock for a very long time, so why can't Windows float its taskbar?
Years ago, people would have accused Microsoft of trying to copy Apple with a floating taskbar. But I'm absolutely certain Windows users would very much welcome that feature now.
Not only does that bar need to optionally float, but also be able to be resized and positioned bottom, top, left or right, user's choice. Microsoft needs to copy Linux here and not Apple, because Linux is the only environment that truly gets it right. Let the user configure the taskbar any way they want. I'm positive adding that feature in would be well received.