Come on Danny, digital information storage doesn't have a place on the sustainability bandwagon. True, information storage requires forethought and funding, but the effort that is put in to such systems is about furthering access to information, making it available for use.

Digital information isn't radically transformed when it's moved from a 3.5 inch floppy disk to a DVD or Hard Disk. Isn't this the beauty of digital information?

Older technologies just because they are outmoded aren't unusable, and backwards compatibility is almost never a problem.

Digital information storage is not so scary after all.

Sorry BrownWoman, I beg to disagree.

Have you tried accessing a 51/2in floppy these days? OK, that is a bit extreme, but since one statutory authority requires you to keep records for up to 7 (seven) years (yes, the Australian Tax Office), you had better ensure your software and data storage are capable of regurgitating the results when the ATO auditor demands. (Or you better have a dark, dry, silverfish-free storage room for all that paper!)

I agree with you that "Digital information isn't radically transformed when it's moved from a 3.5 inch floppy disk to a DVD or Hard Disk." I think the real point is that even these storage media degrade over time (e.g. floppys lose magnetic remanance, CDs/DVDs lose their storage capability since the storage is actually a UV/laser sensitive dye in the substrate).

As for othe forms of information, I would think the experts in records preservation at the National Archives might have a few pointers here.

As for "radically transformed"... well, file formats do change. Danny's point about backwards compatibility IS a valid one. Some software is simply incapable of reading older file formats, and there exists no "compatibility pack" for the data migration. In fact, a lot of IT work is simply spent in making these transformations (its called data exchage with a data dictionary !)

As for "older technologies"... have you tried getting a computer actually "repaired" these days. The usual answer is "hope you have a backup, you'd better buy a new one".

;-)

Storage media deterioration is a real but small problem. The advantage of digital data is that it can be faithfully copied, so as floppies and CDs become outmoded it is easy to copy the information to newer media. Discarded equipment (more than "consumable" disks) is a waste hazard, so *that* is one area where sustainability does need attention.

File formats are different. The article is unnecessarily pessimistic, even incorrect, to say Wordstar files are no longer readable and there's a risk that one day JPEG-format photographs will be unusable.

Wordstar was created when personal computers were simple beasts. The details of its file format were secret, but it was simple enough for a competent programmer to analyse. Copies of Wordstar still exist and are used by a few die-hards. Wordstar conversion filters are avilable, start looking here:

http://www.wordstar.org/wordstar/pages/convert_faq.htm

Newer "office productivity" programs are far more complex than WordStar, so the fear that one day old files won't work is well-founded. People on the Microsoft upgrade treadmill who have files created with Powerpoint in 1998 probably can't open them with the software they have now.

This has long been policy for software sellers, who have done all they can to sell new versions of old programs by offering "bells and whistles" and unnecessarily updating file formats.

But some formats, usually not defined by a business that wants to sell new programs, are clearly specified and documented in such a way that it will *always* be possible to write a computer program to read and write them. JPEG photos will never be out of date, and the oldest web pages will always work perfectly (no matter how retro they look).

The Open Document Format was created as such a standard for office software; it is used by numerous programs listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_software_comparison

Microsoft declined to join the ISO standards process or to support ODF in its own software, instead producing a rival "standard" which is criticised for referring to the behaviour of old Microsoft software.

At least one of these standards will probably become more-or-less as ubiquitous and consistent as eg. HTML.

This is an important issue, but I'm a little disappointed with some of the misconceptions in the article. Firstly, microfilm is alive and kicking. It is well proven archivally (provided it is not on acetate stock) and it can be digitised more easily than most originals. It is cheap (ca. 20c per page) and forms a good intermediary for later digitisation.

"The 2007 versions of Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint have been designed so they will not automatically read earlier versions of the same programs. That is, they are not backwardly compatible." Umm, actually my understanding is that these programs will open and read earlier Office formats (eg .doc for Word). They can also save in older formats. Unfortunately, by default they save documents in the new formats (eg .docx for Word). Older Office versions will not read the new formats, unless you download a translator. I'm still waiting for a Macintosh translator to be released, but fortunately haven't needed it yet.
All this is simply a device by Micro$oft to force software upgrades. Bill Gates didn't get rich by letting people avoid buying new software, did he?

"Some software programs are simply no longer readable, such as WordStar or WordPerfect. Even earlier versions of current software are sometimes unreadable." Actually I think Danny means some file formats, not "software programs". I work in archives, and format incompatibility is already a serious issue. But JPEG??! If JPEG isn't readable in 20 years time, I'll eat my hard drive.