Speeding up hard drives?

June 5, 201014 yr

On 04/06/2010 11:44 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:hubdjh$gna$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> Does it really matter?

>>

>> Of course it does. You're just too stupid to understand it.

>>

>>> What matters is that Windows 7 is selling

>>> millions and millions of copies.

>>

>> Not a whole lot of copies to people who've never used Windows. Ubuntu,

>> OTOH, is being used by former Windows users. See the trend?

>>

>>> Ubuntu is free yet most reject it.

>>

>> A lie.

>>

>>> Ubuntu is on less than one percent of the desktops.

>>

>> Yet there are millions and millions of new desktops so the real number

>> is different than you would like to mislead people to believe.

>>

>>> It doesn't matter

>>> how many updates there are, the fact of the matter is, Ubuntu can't even

>>> give itself away. Nothing else really matters in your quest as the

>>> Ubuntu Marketing Department.

>>

>> Another lie.

>>

>>>

>>> They (Ubuntu wanks) get what they pay for! LOL!

>>>

>>

>> Do you really think your lies are funny?

>>

>> --

>> Alias

>

> First of all, the statements are not lies. Second of all, they pay

> nothing for the software and what they use is worth exactly that: NOTHING.

>

> No magic there.

Yes they are. They were bundled sales, not sales of the product itself.

--

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

On 04/06/2010 5:19 PM, Death wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>> news:hub77o$l4q$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive

>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

>>>>>>>>>>>>> RPM or

>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files

>>>>>>>>>>>> disk

>>>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and

>>>>>>>>>>>> they all

>>>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

>>>>>>>>>>> to run

>>>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

>>>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone

>>>>>>>>> ditch

>>>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

>>>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying

>>>>>>>>> files may

>>>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

>>>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

>>>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

>>>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

>>>>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

>>>>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns

>>>>>>>> CDs

>>>>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

>>>>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

>>>>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

>>>>>>> anytime soon.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

>>>>>> chum.\

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

>>>>>>> Take more drugs.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

>>>>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>

>>>>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

>>>>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million

>>>> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have

>>>> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>> There you go again with that magical 12 million users. You have no way

>>> of knowing how many saps use that shitty OS. Just because 12 million

>>> were unfortunate to download that dribble, doesn't mean 12 million are

>>> stuck using that OS. That is your big lie.

>>

>> Wrong. The figure is based on updates, not ISO downloads.

>>

>

> So when you are sniffing off of someones wireless, you became two users.

>

>>>

>>> I know lots of people who purchased Windows 7 without it being

>>> preinstalled. So If know quite a few, then there are millions of others.

>>> Oops.

>>>

>>

>> Note I wrote, and I quote, "NEW Windows users". How many NEW Windows

>> users are there that didn't buy Windows with it preinstalled? Two? None?

>>

>

> 52,000,963 ... exactly.

Even if I believed that figure, and I don't, 52 million in the world for

an OS like MS Windows is pathetic. As a percentage that would mean

Win95 out sold in fair market sales no bundling).

--

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

On 04/06/2010 5:19 PM, Death wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>> news:hub77o$l4q$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive

>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

>>>>>>>>>>>>> RPM or

>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files

>>>>>>>>>>>> disk

>>>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and

>>>>>>>>>>>> they all

>>>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

>>>>>>>>>>> to run

>>>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

>>>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone

>>>>>>>>> ditch

>>>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

>>>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying

>>>>>>>>> files may

>>>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

>>>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

>>>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

>>>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

>>>>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

>>>>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns

>>>>>>>> CDs

>>>>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

>>>>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

>>>>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

>>>>>>> anytime soon.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

>>>>>> chum.\

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

>>>>>>> Take more drugs.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

>>>>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>

>>>>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

>>>>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million

>>>> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have

>>>> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>> There you go again with that magical 12 million users. You have no way

>>> of knowing how many saps use that shitty OS. Just because 12 million

>>> were unfortunate to download that dribble, doesn't mean 12 million are

>>> stuck using that OS. That is your big lie.

>>

>> Wrong. The figure is based on updates, not ISO downloads.

>>

>

> So when you are sniffing off of someones wireless, you became two users.

>

>>>

>>> I know lots of people who purchased Windows 7 without it being

>>> preinstalled. So If know quite a few, then there are millions of others.

>>> Oops.

>>>

>>

>> Note I wrote, and I quote, "NEW Windows users". How many NEW Windows

>> users are there that didn't buy Windows with it preinstalled? Two? None?

>>

>

> 52,000,963 ... exactly.

Even if I believed that figure, and I don't, 52 million in the world for

an OS like MS Windows is pathetic. As a percentage that would mean

Win95 out sold in fair market sales no bundling).

--

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

On 04/06/2010 5:01 PM, Death wrote:

> Most people don't care.

> They go to a store, buy a PC, and put music and photos on it.

Which is why iPads currenly outsell PCs in the N/A market. Yes, PC

sales have been on the decline in NA for a few years now.

> Most people don't use their PC for file transfer races.

True. But if you run servers... whole different ball game.

> Windows is safe on the web, dumbasses aren't, reguardless of the OS.

Agreed there. But out of the box, I would trust Ubuntu before I trusted

Vista/Win7.

> Another ubuntard with the boot times...just how often are you booting

> that shitty PC?

At last every 2 weeks I kick over the Vista media center. Leaks memory

like a sieve and eventually dies if I don't.

> If you install ubushit, the cost will far exceed buying a Win7 PC, and

> will actually work.

How is that possible? Ubuntu is free.

> Multiple Desktops...big whoop...weee, weee spin cube spin.

> If you can master the taskbar, you don't need that nonsense.

I have 3.

> It burns better?

> You mean a movie burned on linux now has a better ending?

No, just faster and at least as reliable. Easier to strip DRM crap out

too. Never seen a Sony music CD root kit do a Linux boxen.

> Give me your address, I'm gonna buy you an ubuntad t-shirt.

No need.

--

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

On 04/06/2010 5:01 PM, Death wrote:

> Most people don't care.

> They go to a store, buy a PC, and put music and photos on it.

Which is why iPads currenly outsell PCs in the N/A market. Yes, PC

sales have been on the decline in NA for a few years now.

> Most people don't use their PC for file transfer races.

True. But if you run servers... whole different ball game.

> Windows is safe on the web, dumbasses aren't, reguardless of the OS.

Agreed there. But out of the box, I would trust Ubuntu before I trusted

Vista/Win7.

> Another ubuntard with the boot times...just how often are you booting

> that shitty PC?

At last every 2 weeks I kick over the Vista media center. Leaks memory

like a sieve and eventually dies if I don't.

> If you install ubushit, the cost will far exceed buying a Win7 PC, and

> will actually work.

How is that possible? Ubuntu is free.

> Multiple Desktops...big whoop...weee, weee spin cube spin.

> If you can master the taskbar, you don't need that nonsense.

I have 3.

> It burns better?

> You mean a movie burned on linux now has a better ending?

No, just faster and at least as reliable. Easier to strip DRM crap out

too. Never seen a Sony music CD root kit do a Linux boxen.

> Give me your address, I'm gonna buy you an ubuntad t-shirt.

No need.

--

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

Canuck57 wrote:

> On 04/06/2010 5:19 PM, Death wrote:

SNIP

>>

>> 52,000,963 ... exactly.

>

> Even if I believed that figure, and I don't, 52 million in the world for

> an OS like MS Windows is pathetic. As a percentage that would mean

> Win95 out sold in fair market sales no bundling).

>

You must focus on the word "NEW" as Alias seems to be making a point

that no "new" users are buying Windows 7.

Of course they are.

Windows has 900,000,000 users.

--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

Canuck57 wrote:

> On 04/06/2010 5:19 PM, Death wrote:

SNIP

>>

>> 52,000,963 ... exactly.

>

> Even if I believed that figure, and I don't, 52 million in the world for

> an OS like MS Windows is pathetic. As a percentage that would mean

> Win95 out sold in fair market sales no bundling).

>

You must focus on the word "NEW" as Alias seems to be making a point

that no "new" users are buying Windows 7.

Of course they are.

Windows has 900,000,000 users.

--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

"Canuck57" wrote in message

news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>> Thomas

>>

>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>

> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

> disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>

> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,

> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

Funny, I ran a test.

894 mp3 files(3 GB) from one HDD to another HDD on same PC.

Fedora 12 = 1'35".

Windows Vista = 50".

I'll have to test 7 later, though I imagine similar results as I've never

seen this "horrible file transfer rate" issue.

--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

"Canuck57" wrote in message

news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>> Thomas

>>

>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>

> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

> disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>

> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,

> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

Funny, I ran a test.

894 mp3 files(3 GB) from one HDD to another HDD on same PC.

Fedora 12 = 1'35".

Windows Vista = 50".

I'll have to test 7 later, though I imagine similar results as I've never

seen this "horrible file transfer rate" issue.

--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

"Canuck57" wrote in message

news:rOgOn.33013$TL5.10137@newsfe24.iad...

> On 04/06/2010 5:01 PM, Death wrote:

>

>> Most people don't care.

>> They go to a store, buy a PC, and put music and photos on it.

>

> Which is why iPads currenly outsell PCs in the N/A market. Yes, PC sales

> have been on the decline in NA for a few years now.

>

>> Most people don't use their PC for file transfer races.

>

> True. But if you run servers... whole different ball game.

>

Well, if you are running servers, then Linux is right up your alley.

>> Windows is safe on the web, dumbasses aren't, reguardless of the OS.

>

> Agreed there. But out of the box, I would trust Ubuntu before I trusted

> Vista/Win7.

>

A biased opinion... you can't keep your PC safe?

Windows for Dummies is available at book stores :)

>> Another ubuntard with the boot times...just how often are you booting

>> that shitty PC?

>

> At last every 2 weeks I kick over the Vista media center. Leaks memory

> like a sieve and eventually dies if I don't.

>

>> If you install ubushit, the cost will far exceed buying a Win7 PC, and

>> will actually work.

>

> How is that possible? Ubuntu is free.

>

Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.

Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.

The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little extra.

Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.

>> Multiple Desktops...big whoop...weee, weee spin cube spin.

>> If you can master the taskbar, you don't need that nonsense.

>

> I have 3.

>

>> It burns better?

>> You mean a movie burned on linux now has a better ending?

>

> No, just faster and at least as reliable. Easier to strip DRM crap out

> too. Never seen a Sony music CD root kit do a Linux boxen.

>

That's really why most users delve into linux.

Trying to beat the system.

>> Give me your address, I'm gonna buy you an ubuntad t-shirt.

>

> No need.

>

Yeah, he's already got a bunch of 'em.

--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

"Canuck57" wrote in message

news:rOgOn.33013$TL5.10137@newsfe24.iad...

> On 04/06/2010 5:01 PM, Death wrote:

>

>> Most people don't care.

>> They go to a store, buy a PC, and put music and photos on it.

>

> Which is why iPads currenly outsell PCs in the N/A market. Yes, PC sales

> have been on the decline in NA for a few years now.

>

>> Most people don't use their PC for file transfer races.

>

> True. But if you run servers... whole different ball game.

>

Well, if you are running servers, then Linux is right up your alley.

>> Windows is safe on the web, dumbasses aren't, reguardless of the OS.

>

> Agreed there. But out of the box, I would trust Ubuntu before I trusted

> Vista/Win7.

>

A biased opinion... you can't keep your PC safe?

Windows for Dummies is available at book stores :)

>> Another ubuntard with the boot times...just how often are you booting

>> that shitty PC?

>

> At last every 2 weeks I kick over the Vista media center. Leaks memory

> like a sieve and eventually dies if I don't.

>

>> If you install ubushit, the cost will far exceed buying a Win7 PC, and

>> will actually work.

>

> How is that possible? Ubuntu is free.

>

Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.

Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.

The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little extra.

Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.

>> Multiple Desktops...big whoop...weee, weee spin cube spin.

>> If you can master the taskbar, you don't need that nonsense.

>

> I have 3.

>

>> It burns better?

>> You mean a movie burned on linux now has a better ending?

>

> No, just faster and at least as reliable. Easier to strip DRM crap out

> too. Never seen a Sony music CD root kit do a Linux boxen.

>

That's really why most users delve into linux.

Trying to beat the system.

>> Give me your address, I'm gonna buy you an ubuntad t-shirt.

>

> No need.

>

Yeah, he's already got a bunch of 'em.

--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

On 04/06/2010 6:42 PM, Death wrote:

>

> "Canuck57" wrote in message

> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>> Thomas

>>>

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>

>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>

>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>

> Funny, I ran a test.

> 894 mp3 files(3 GB) from one HDD to another HDD on same PC.

> Fedora 12 = 1'35".

> Windows Vista = 50".

>

> I'll have to test 7 later, though I imagine similar results as I've

> never seen this "horrible file transfer rate" issue.

I know you are full of shit. As one of the Linux versions I used was

Fedora. For disk and network performance, Fedora blows over Win7 so

bad... Win7 will never catch up.

--

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

On 04/06/2010 6:42 PM, Death wrote:

>

> "Canuck57" wrote in message

> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>> Thomas

>>>

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>

>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>

>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>

> Funny, I ran a test.

> 894 mp3 files(3 GB) from one HDD to another HDD on same PC.

> Fedora 12 = 1'35".

> Windows Vista = 50".

>

> I'll have to test 7 later, though I imagine similar results as I've

> never seen this "horrible file transfer rate" issue.

I know you are full of shit. As one of the Linux versions I used was

Fedora. For disk and network performance, Fedora blows over Win7 so

bad... Win7 will never catch up.

--

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

"Canuck57" wrote in message

news:ulhOn.21537$7d5.8655@newsfe17.iad...

> On 04/06/2010 6:42 PM, Death wrote:

>>

>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>> Thomas

>>>>

>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>

>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>

>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>

>> Funny, I ran a test.

>> 894 mp3 files(3 GB) from one HDD to another HDD on same PC.

>> Fedora 12 = 1'35".

>> Windows Vista = 50".

>>

>> I'll have to test 7 later, though I imagine similar results as I've

>> never seen this "horrible file transfer rate" issue.

>

> I know you are full of shit. As one of the Linux versions I used was

> Fedora. For disk and network performance, Fedora blows over Win7 so

> bad... Win7 will never catch up.

>

No, that is exactly the results.

I have a feeling you cripple your Windows systems intentionally.

Maybe you better check for malware.

I did temp disable the AV on access scan... need me to tell you how to do

that?

What free AV do you use?

--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

"Canuck57" wrote in message

news:ulhOn.21537$7d5.8655@newsfe17.iad...

> On 04/06/2010 6:42 PM, Death wrote:

>>

>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>> Thomas

>>>>

>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>

>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>

>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>

>> Funny, I ran a test.

>> 894 mp3 files(3 GB) from one HDD to another HDD on same PC.

>> Fedora 12 = 1'35".

>> Windows Vista = 50".

>>

>> I'll have to test 7 later, though I imagine similar results as I've

>> never seen this "horrible file transfer rate" issue.

>

> I know you are full of shit. As one of the Linux versions I used was

> Fedora. For disk and network performance, Fedora blows over Win7 so

> bad... Win7 will never catch up.

>

No, that is exactly the results.

I have a feeling you cripple your Windows systems intentionally.

Maybe you better check for malware.

I did temp disable the AV on access scan... need me to tell you how to do

that?

What free AV do you use?

--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:28:56 +0200, Alias

wrote:

>On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>

>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>> Thomas

>>>>

>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>

>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>

>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>

>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>>

>

>It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but you're

>too fucking stupid to see that.

For the average PC user disk access time is meaningless. For the

server farmer it is a very critical factor.

Having said that, I think it bears mentioning that you have repeatedly

stated that you are preaching to the average PC user.

John B. Slocomb

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:28:56 +0200, Alias

wrote:

>On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>

>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>> Thomas

>>>>

>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>

>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>

>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>

>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>>

>

>It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but you're

>too fucking stupid to see that.

For the average PC user disk access time is meaningless. For the

server farmer it is a very critical factor.

Having said that, I think it bears mentioning that you have repeatedly

stated that you are preaching to the average PC user.

John B. Slocomb

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

wrote:

>Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>

>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>>>> Thomas

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>>>

>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>>>

>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>>>

>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>>>>

>>>

>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Alias

>>

>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

>> Windows and move to Linux?

>

>Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

>

>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

>

>It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

>transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

>Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

>which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

>Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

>Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

>DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

>has going for it is using it for gaming.

Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed". And I have used your

Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added

at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for

government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I

have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of

interest try DOS. - lie #3

You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

of the screen - lie #4

Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however

price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I

checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free

up dates - lie #5

Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot

of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper

checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6

times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!

Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.

John B. Slocomb

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

wrote:

>Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>

>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

>>>>>> Thomas

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

>>>>>

>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

>>>>>

>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

>>>>

>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

>>>>

>>>

>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Alias

>>

>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

>> Windows and move to Linux?

>

>Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

>

>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

>

>It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

>transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

>Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

>which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

>Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

>Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

>DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

>has going for it is using it for gaming.

Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed". And I have used your

Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added

at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for

government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I

have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of

interest try DOS. - lie #3

You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

of the screen - lie #4

Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however

price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I

checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free

up dates - lie #5

Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot

of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper

checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6

times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!

Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.

John B. Slocomb

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 5, 201014 yr

Canuck57 wrote:

> On 03/06/2010 9:15 AM, Thomas wrote:

>> I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or

>> access to

>> the read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64 bit

>> machine. I have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor. I

>> don't understand a whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I

>> have seen seem to be missing or just not available. The drives are both

>> 7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary) and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a

>> method of speeding up the access/read/write of these drives?

>

> I have spent many hours trying to improve it, to no avail. But if

> running Linux or Solaris in a VM or native out of another partition it

> copies much faster, go figure. Seems like Win7/Vista is just hog slow

> at file copy.

>

Have you tried the HDTune benchmark ?

http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

"Supported operating systems: Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7.

Hardware requirements: hard disk (internal or external), SDD, USB stick, memory card reader.

Note: due to hardware limitations some drives may not support all functions.

Licensing information: free for personal use"

Do you get a reasonable sustained transfer rate demonstrated by that ?

If you did, that partially absolves your hardware from being responsible.

The blue line is the transfer rate, as a function of percentage of position

across the platter. The "max" here is 111MB/sec, which is typical for

a recent SATA drive. Is your graph radically worse ? Is your transfer

graph curved, or a flat line ? A flat line, means some bus in the

path, is slower than the media-limited transfer rate. (Flat line graphs

are also seen on SSD drives and USB flash sticks, because they don't

use spinning disks. Flat lines on things like an SSD, can be a bus

limitation, or a flash chip read/write rate limitation.)

http://www.hdtune.com/images/screenshot.png

Another factor might be anti-virus software, attempting to read and

scan any file opened by the file copying routine. My copy of Kaspersky

a few years ago, was pretty bad for that. It was the absolute worst,

when you tried to use the "Disk Cleanup" button, and when Windows

tried to compute the amount of stuff it could delete, the Kaspersky

engine activity in the background took eons. Kaspersky was scanning

every file that was about to be deleted.

Articles like this one, show how file copying is done. Part of the

complexity, is inter-operation with legacy OSes, on things like network

copies. I don't know if an article like this has been written for

Windows 7 yet or not.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/02/04/2826167.aspx

HTH,

Paul