- Thread starter
- #21
P
philo
"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A83F010B66C0thanexit@66.250.146.158...
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:ubjab9EoIHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Hey nice seeing .
>
> Likewise.
>
> > My regular newsserver is down right now so I've been
> > hanging out over here.
>
> You don't get 24hour.hd on this one?
My regular newsserver is now back on line...
and I have already started one of my odd-ball posts already
>
> > I don't think XP and Vista have
> > specific settings for cdrom speed...
>
> Well, it was just a joke... I actually think they WOULD have
> changed the specific options, EVEN THEY. But it was a similar
> thing - all it did was set the read-ahead caching (or something
> like that).
>
LOL!
It's funny...considering that I've never yet said anything with any degree
of seriousness...
and few people can understand my warped way of thinking...
when someone tells me a joke...I'm usually just as naive as the next
person...
as the joke sails over my head!
> Funny how /now/ many people (I among them) use "slow-down
> software" for CD-R drives. What's the hurry? WHO /needs/ to burn
> an 800MB CDR in 90 seconds???????? (Well, pirates do, in their
> little towers, that's why their CD-R's never play, at best you
> can read the directory, and that after 20 tries. Bought an "all
> pre-95 win/Dos versions" once and that's what happened. I doubt
> I just had particularly bad luck. While I /do/ admit to bad
> luck, the CD was for someone else anyway, he just didn't want to
> go downtown.)
>
> > but I do know that
> > Win2k and I believe XP...have the old dos editor "edlin"
> > .
> > I doubt if that was used past the mdsos4.01 days!
>
> I read somewhere there is still code from the 80's in Vista but
> of course that can't be verified.
>
Well, I did a three month evaluation of Vista and was not too crazy about
it...
but then all my machines have been made from discarded junk...
so I really don't have the H/W to properly evaluate it...
All I can say is that it's still got a few bugs in it...
but with new H/W it would probably be OK...
(not that anyone who buys a new machine is going to have much choice in the
matter)
OTOH: What I really liked about XP was it's great legacy support.
It was said that when XP came out...only new H/W would work...
but I have used all kinds of ISA devices and found that XP pretty much
supported it all.
Even though the ISA devices were generally configured automatically...
The manual configuration process was simplified in that only valid
combinations of IRQ's and com ports (for example)
were listed as choices.
> > As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is the
> > preferable way to go.
> > I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It really
> > is more difficult to corrupt than fat.
>
> That could be - I hear a lot about fs corrupting, but it has
> never happened to me.
>
> > Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more
> > difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos
> > boot floppy
>
> I believe that's what the MVP was referring to do - very hard,
> sometimes impossible, to fix, so you lose a lot (or all) of your
> data but you are left with the good feeling that you were using
> a "superior' fs.
>
>
I do a fair amount of data recovery work and have had a considerably better
than average success rate...
simply because I have a very hard time giving up .
The biggest nightmare I had was when a friend of mine who is a professional
photographer mis-interpreted a S.M.A.R.T.
error. One of his 200 gig drives (NTFS) had developed a read/write error and
had been giving him a bios SMART error...
but ... as he had a film scanner that was called a "Smart Scanner" and he
thought the error code was concerning that.
I remember that he called me and simply said that his film scanner was
giving him an error code...
but it seemed to be working fine...and could I check it some time...no rush.
I did not get there for a few weeks and by that time the HD had developed
*extreme* problems.
He had hundreds of hours worth of Photoshop work and hundreds of hours worth
of scanned images from film
on that drive. Though all the originals were backed up and he still had the
film images for the rest...
He did not have the drive itself backed up.
Anyway...I eventually got about 98% of his data copied to another
drive...but perhaps 15% of the data were initially corrupted...
but the bottom line was that once the data were all copied over...even the
corrupted data were then usable.
Truth is I have never seen anything like that before...and don't know
why...but am quite thankful it turned out that way.
All I think of is that it was due to the NTFS ability to heal...due to the
more extensive MFT entries as opposed to fat?
Because most of my machines has removable drive bays...I have no problems
gaining access to any drive...
simply by popping it into one of my machines.
I consider NTFS as better...but hesitate to call it "superior" <G>
news:Xns9A83F010B66C0thanexit@66.250.146.158...
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:ubjab9EoIHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Hey nice seeing .
>
> Likewise.
>
> > My regular newsserver is down right now so I've been
> > hanging out over here.
>
> You don't get 24hour.hd on this one?
My regular newsserver is now back on line...
and I have already started one of my odd-ball posts already
>
> > I don't think XP and Vista have
> > specific settings for cdrom speed...
>
> Well, it was just a joke... I actually think they WOULD have
> changed the specific options, EVEN THEY. But it was a similar
> thing - all it did was set the read-ahead caching (or something
> like that).
>
LOL!
It's funny...considering that I've never yet said anything with any degree
of seriousness...
and few people can understand my warped way of thinking...
when someone tells me a joke...I'm usually just as naive as the next
person...
as the joke sails over my head!
> Funny how /now/ many people (I among them) use "slow-down
> software" for CD-R drives. What's the hurry? WHO /needs/ to burn
> an 800MB CDR in 90 seconds???????? (Well, pirates do, in their
> little towers, that's why their CD-R's never play, at best you
> can read the directory, and that after 20 tries. Bought an "all
> pre-95 win/Dos versions" once and that's what happened. I doubt
> I just had particularly bad luck. While I /do/ admit to bad
> luck, the CD was for someone else anyway, he just didn't want to
> go downtown.)
>
> > but I do know that
> > Win2k and I believe XP...have the old dos editor "edlin"
> > .
> > I doubt if that was used past the mdsos4.01 days!
>
> I read somewhere there is still code from the 80's in Vista but
> of course that can't be verified.
>
Well, I did a three month evaluation of Vista and was not too crazy about
it...
but then all my machines have been made from discarded junk...
so I really don't have the H/W to properly evaluate it...
All I can say is that it's still got a few bugs in it...
but with new H/W it would probably be OK...
(not that anyone who buys a new machine is going to have much choice in the
matter)
OTOH: What I really liked about XP was it's great legacy support.
It was said that when XP came out...only new H/W would work...
but I have used all kinds of ISA devices and found that XP pretty much
supported it all.
Even though the ISA devices were generally configured automatically...
The manual configuration process was simplified in that only valid
combinations of IRQ's and com ports (for example)
were listed as choices.
> > As to NTFS, if you do use any form of NT...it really is the
> > preferable way to go.
> > I like it for it's fault-tolerance capabilites. It really
> > is more difficult to corrupt than fat.
>
> That could be - I hear a lot about fs corrupting, but it has
> never happened to me.
>
> > Of course, if a problem does turn up, it's a bit more
> > difficult to fix than by simply booting up with a dos
> > boot floppy
>
> I believe that's what the MVP was referring to do - very hard,
> sometimes impossible, to fix, so you lose a lot (or all) of your
> data but you are left with the good feeling that you were using
> a "superior' fs.
>
>
I do a fair amount of data recovery work and have had a considerably better
than average success rate...
simply because I have a very hard time giving up .
The biggest nightmare I had was when a friend of mine who is a professional
photographer mis-interpreted a S.M.A.R.T.
error. One of his 200 gig drives (NTFS) had developed a read/write error and
had been giving him a bios SMART error...
but ... as he had a film scanner that was called a "Smart Scanner" and he
thought the error code was concerning that.
I remember that he called me and simply said that his film scanner was
giving him an error code...
but it seemed to be working fine...and could I check it some time...no rush.
I did not get there for a few weeks and by that time the HD had developed
*extreme* problems.
He had hundreds of hours worth of Photoshop work and hundreds of hours worth
of scanned images from film
on that drive. Though all the originals were backed up and he still had the
film images for the rest...
He did not have the drive itself backed up.
Anyway...I eventually got about 98% of his data copied to another
drive...but perhaps 15% of the data were initially corrupted...
but the bottom line was that once the data were all copied over...even the
corrupted data were then usable.
Truth is I have never seen anything like that before...and don't know
why...but am quite thankful it turned out that way.
All I think of is that it was due to the NTFS ability to heal...due to the
more extensive MFT entries as opposed to fat?
Because most of my machines has removable drive bays...I have no problems
gaining access to any drive...
simply by popping it into one of my machines.
I consider NTFS as better...but hesitate to call it "superior" <G>