this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2026
604 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

88514 readers
4307 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 days ago

I'm going to have to agree with the other guy. I have working VHS tapes and working CDs/DVDs that are both over 30 years old. That just means that you didn't abuse them and kept them away from bad temperature and humidity ranges. CDs were so much better than cassettes that it wasn't even funny. If you were abusing your CDs so much that they were getting scratched to hell, I can't imagine you weren't running into similar issues with your tapes. DVD were vastly better than VHS in much the same way. And the "better" wasn't even about durability which was probably a wash as they failed in different ways. CDs had better audio quality and better quality of life for the user. You had no need to rewind/fast-forward. The audio didn't get continually more staticy as time went on. They took up less storage space, especially if you used a CD wallet/book. You didn't need to clean the heads on a CD player. All these same issues applied to DVD vs VHS other than skipping around a DVD is less common than a CD as movies and shows tend to be viewed sequentially.