Speeding up hard drives?

June 10, 201014 yr

On 06/09/2010 02:39 PM, Frank wrote:

> On 6/9/2010 2:12 PM, Bill Baka wrote:

>> On 06/09/2010 09:36 AM, The poster formerly known as 'The Poster

>> Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' wrote:

>>> On 6/4/2010 7:07 PM, Canuck57 wrote:

>>>> On 04/06/2010 9:40 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>

>>>

>>>>>

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

>>>>> Take more drugs.

>>>>

>>>> Many are ditching MS Windows for OSX and iPads.

>>>>

>>>> There was a time MS only had a 12% market share.

>>>>

>>>

>>> iPads suck too. They are even more locked down and less open than

>>> Windows Pcs. And iTunes has hellacious bloat as well. I don't disagree

>>> with you, but I think that windows/MS is the lesser of 2 evils here.

>>

>> I'm using Linux (ubuntu) mostly because my XP and Windows 7 don't like

>> to play nice with each other.

>

> Then you don't know what you're doing.

Sure I don't. I have been using them since the 70's when I took an

acoustic modem terminal home and got my wife hooked on playing a Star

Trek game against the mainframe at work.

>

> I just had a software update in the

>> background and didn't have to stop and reboot like windows usually

>> wants.

>

> Windows Vista/7 does not always need to be rebooted after an update,

> like XP does. But who really give a shit about a reboot.

Me, if I am doing something else in a different window.

>

> I have to have windows for my HP scanner with no linux support or

>> any support of any kind, plus I am doing some stuff with the patent

>> office and their software assumes you have windows (last time I checked).

>> For disk to disk file transfers I tried both XP (NTFS) and Linux (EXT4)

>> and found that the linux was about twice as fast as windows using the

>> same drives but different partitions.

>

> Twice as fast? I seriously doubt that.

Noticeably faster, but I admit to having the NTFS drives compressed.

>

>> I still like windows since I get shareware updates from a few of my

>> magazines and find some nifty play-ware.

>

> So why are you here if you so dislike Windows and think linux is so much

> better?

>

I'm a system agnostic so I don't really care as long as it gets the job

done. I still have a small section devoted to DOS since there are some

programs that never made it to windows. The Borland C++ IDE and compiler

are my preferred poison when it comes to doing a quick program and if it

works I can transfer the source code to windows and make it pretty.

I don't even attempt to program in Linux.

Clear now?

Bill Baka

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 10, 201014 yr

On 06/09/2010 06:36 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:39:11 -0700, Frank wrote:

>

>> On 6/9/2010 2:12 PM, Bill Baka wrote:

>>> On 06/09/2010 09:36 AM, The poster formerly known as 'The Poster

>>> Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' wrote:

>>>> On 6/4/2010 7:07 PM, Canuck57 wrote:

>>>>> On 04/06/2010 9:40 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>>

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

>>>>>> Take more drugs.

>>>>>

>>>>> Many are ditching MS Windows for OSX and iPads.

>>>>>

>>>>> There was a time MS only had a 12% market share.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> iPads suck too. They are even more locked down and less open than

>>>> Windows Pcs. And iTunes has hellacious bloat as well. I don't disagree

>>>> with you, but I think that windows/MS is the lesser of 2 evils here.

>>>

>>> I'm using Linux (ubuntu) mostly because my XP and Windows 7 don't like

>>> to play nice with each other.

>>

>> Then you don't know what you're doing.

>>

>> I just had a software update in the

>>> background and didn't have to stop and reboot like windows usually

>>> wants.

>>

>> Windows Vista/7 does not always need to be rebooted after an update,

>> like XP does. But who really give a shit about a reboot.

>>

>> I have to have windows for my HP scanner with no linux support or

>>> any support of any kind, plus I am doing some stuff with the patent

>>> office and their software assumes you have windows (last time I checked).

>>> For disk to disk file transfers I tried both XP (NTFS) and Linux (EXT4)

>>> and found that the linux was about twice as fast as windows using the

>>> same drives but different partitions.

>>

>> Twice as fast? I seriously doubt that.

>>

>>> I still like windows since I get shareware updates from a few of my

>>> magazines and find some nifty play-ware.

>>

>> So why are you here if you so dislike Windows and think linux is so much

>> better?

>

> Hmmmm... there was a "Bill Baka" over in the Ubuntu group that

> slanders Ubuntu and extols Windows.

>

> Cheers,

>

> John B.

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

I've never slandered Ubuntu nor extolled windows. I use both, and DOS

too. I gave up on the Ubuntu group thanks to Dan C. He seems to want to

make a career out of slandering me. The linux is fun to play with and I

often use it because there are relatively few viruses that can affect

it. It's just a computer, not my sex partner.

Just for a laugh, I was at my doctors office the other day and they

called for William Baka, and another guy stood up. WTF? His name was

spelled Baca, but they both pronounce the same, and we had the same

doctor. What are the odds on that?

Smile, it doesn't hurt.

Bill Baka

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 10, 201014 yr

On 6/9/2010 6:53 PM, Canuck57 wrote:

> On 04/06/2010 9:42 AM, Alias wrote:

>> 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.

>

> And that does not include encroachment by the Macs.

>

> How many are picking iPads over Win7 looser laptops should be a hint

> where MS is going.

Hint: You're stupid. iPads are not a replacement for laptops, but only

an MS hating POS like would conjure up such a bullshit statement.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 10, 201014 yr

On 6/9/2010 6:50 PM, Canuck57 wrote:

> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, 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!

>

> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

>

Translation: canook doesn't have Windows so he forced to use that POS

toy os, up-yr-fucking-butt-too.

Oops!

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 10, 201014 yr

On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, 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!

>

> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

>

I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.

--

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 10, 201014 yr

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias

wrote:

>On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, 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!

>>

>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

>>

>

>I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.

Not to pick at you but why not just install another internal drive?

Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are

considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.

Cheers,

John B.

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 10, 201014 yr

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:42:15 -0700, Bill Baka

wrote:

>On 06/09/2010 06:36 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:

>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:39:11 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>

>>> On 6/9/2010 2:12 PM, Bill Baka wrote:

>>>> On 06/09/2010 09:36 AM, The poster formerly known as 'The Poster

>>>> Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' wrote:

>>>>> On 6/4/2010 7:07 PM, Canuck57 wrote:

>>>>>> On 04/06/2010 9:40 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>>

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

>>>>>>> Take more drugs.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Many are ditching MS Windows for OSX and iPads.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> There was a time MS only had a 12% market share.

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> iPads suck too. They are even more locked down and less open than

>>>>> Windows Pcs. And iTunes has hellacious bloat as well. I don't disagree

>>>>> with you, but I think that windows/MS is the lesser of 2 evils here.

>>>>

>>>> I'm using Linux (ubuntu) mostly because my XP and Windows 7 don't like

>>>> to play nice with each other.

>>>

>>> Then you don't know what you're doing.

>>>

>>> I just had a software update in the

>>>> background and didn't have to stop and reboot like windows usually

>>>> wants.

>>>

>>> Windows Vista/7 does not always need to be rebooted after an update,

>>> like XP does. But who really give a shit about a reboot.

>>>

>>> I have to have windows for my HP scanner with no linux support or

>>>> any support of any kind, plus I am doing some stuff with the patent

>>>> office and their software assumes you have windows (last time I checked).

>>>> For disk to disk file transfers I tried both XP (NTFS) and Linux (EXT4)

>>>> and found that the linux was about twice as fast as windows using the

>>>> same drives but different partitions.

>>>

>>> Twice as fast? I seriously doubt that.

>>>

>>>> I still like windows since I get shareware updates from a few of my

>>>> magazines and find some nifty play-ware.

>>>

>>> So why are you here if you so dislike Windows and think linux is so much

>>> better?

>>

>> Hmmmm... there was a "Bill Baka" over in the Ubuntu group that

>> slanders Ubuntu and extols Windows.

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> John B.

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

>I've never slandered Ubuntu nor extolled windows. I use both, and DOS

>too. I gave up on the Ubuntu group thanks to Dan C. He seems to want to

>make a career out of slandering me. The linux is fun to play with and I

>often use it because there are relatively few viruses that can affect

>it. It's just a computer, not my sex partner.

>Just for a laugh, I was at my doctors office the other day and they

>called for William Baka, and another guy stood up. WTF? His name was

>spelled Baca, but they both pronounce the same, and we had the same

>doctor. What are the odds on that?

>Smile, it doesn't hurt.

>Bill Baka

I've always wondered about DanC. Occasionally I read someone saying

that he used to write some good information but all I have ever seen

him write is "Windroid".

But the whole group is pretty much a dead end. I originally started

using them because I had some problems with a laptop and I got a lot

of interrogation about this and that and a lot of people that actually

argued about where an application looked for a config file when the

application itself would pop up an error message saying that it

couldn't find the file in /XXX.. I gave up on them as I finally

decided that as an overall assessment - they just didn't know.

"Baka" by the way means crazy in Japanese :-)

Cheers,

John B.

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 10, 201014 yr

John B. slocomb wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias

> wrote:

>

>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

>>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, 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!

>>>

>>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

>>>

>>

>> I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.

>

> Not to pick at you

Your favorite hobby.

> but why not just install another internal drive?

Are you serious?

> Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are

> considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.

>

> Cheers,

>

> John B.

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA

drives in external enclosures as well.

--

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 11, 201014 yr

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:12:58 +0200, Alias

wrote:

>John B. slocomb wrote:

>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias

>> wrote:

>>

>>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

>>>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, 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!

>>>>

>>>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

>>>>

>>>

>>> I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.

>>

>> Not to pick at you

>

>Your favorite hobby.

>

>> but why not just install another internal drive?

>

>Are you serious?

How so? It isn't rocket science, just four screws.

>

>> Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are

>> considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> John B.

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

>I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA

>drives in external enclosures as well.

If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

certainly run slowly.

Cheers,

John B.

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 11, 201014 yr

John B. slocomb wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:12:58 +0200, Alias

> wrote:

>

>> John B. slocomb wrote:

>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

>>>>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, 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!

>>>>>

>>>>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.

>>>

>>> Not to pick at you

>>

>> Your favorite hobby.

>>

>>> but why not just install another internal drive?

>>

>> Are you serious?

>

> How so? It isn't rocket science, just four screws.

>>

>>> Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are

>>> considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.

>>>

>>> Cheers,

>>>

>>> John B.

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>> I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA

>> drives in external enclosures as well.

>

> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

> certainly run slowly.

> Cheers,

>

> John B.

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

"estimated time" which is unreliable.

--

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 11, 201014 yr

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:41:36 +0200, Alias

wrote:

>John B. slocomb wrote:

>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:12:58 +0200, Alias

>> wrote:

>>

>>> John B. slocomb wrote:

>>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

>>>>>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, 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!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.

>>>>

>>>> Not to pick at you

>>>

>>> Your favorite hobby.

>>>

>>>> but why not just install another internal drive?

>>>

>>> Are you serious?

>>

>> How so? It isn't rocket science, just four screws.

>>>

>>>> Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are

>>>> considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers,

>>>>

>>>> John B.

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>

>>> I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA

>>> drives in external enclosures as well.

>>

>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>> certainly run slowly.

>> Cheers,

>>

>> John B.

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

>I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>"estimated time" which is unreliable.

If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

Cheers,

John B.

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 11, 201014 yr

On 06/11/2010 01:08 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:41:36 +0200, Alias

> wrote:

>

>> John B. slocomb wrote:

>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:12:58 +0200, Alias

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> John B. slocomb wrote:

>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

>>>>>>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, 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!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.

>>>>>

>>>>> Not to pick at you

>>>>

>>>> Your favorite hobby.

>>>>

>>>>> but why not just install another internal drive?

>>>>

>>>> Are you serious?

>>>

>>> How so? It isn't rocket science, just four screws.

>>>>

>>>>> Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are

>>>>> considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>

>>>>> John B.

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>

>>>> I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA

>>>> drives in external enclosures as well.

>>>

>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>> certainly run slowly.

>>> Cheers,

>>>

>>> John B.

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>

> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>

> Cheers,

>

> John B.

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

Backing up to external media is computing 101.

--

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

On 10/06/2010 6:12 AM, Alias wrote:

> John B. slocomb wrote:

>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias

>> wrote:

>>

>>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

>>>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, 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!

>>>>

>>>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

>>>>

>>>

>>> I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.

>>

>> Not to pick at you

>

> Your favorite hobby.

>

>> but why not just install another internal drive?

>

> Are you serious?

>

>> Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are

>> considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> John B.

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

> I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA

> drives in external enclosures as well.

I think he was serious. But seriously stupid to rely on two drives in

the same boxen/OS. But shows how limited many a MS pundits think.

For our other readers as Alias already knows this.

Backing up to Linux device has the following advantages.

1) Absolutely faster. Given the same hardware and network interfaces,

disk and network copy on Linux is vastly faster and more reliable than

MS- Windows. The largest CIFS servers in the world are Linux/SAMBA and

can take loads MS Windows can't handle in their dreams. Vista to Samba

is faster than Vista to Vista, go figure.

2) Normally you would leave the maps and shares unconnected so if a

virus/tojan/worm messes up your MS Windows, it isn't likely going to get

by Samba to do in the Linux copy.

3) Far supperior to 2 disks in one OS because if the OS screws up, it

can and often does take out both drives when it scrambles itself good.

Having a different OS for the destination, not an issue.

4) If MS Windows has licensing issues, or some weekly patch blows it up,

your Linux bex is quite safe from Uncle Ballmer.

--

Liberalism - a disease of envy, greed, entitlement and KAOS.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias

wrote:

>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>>> certainly run slowly.

>>>> Cheers,

>>>>

>>>> John B.

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>

>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>>

>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> John B.

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

>Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

>drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

>Backing up to external media is computing 101.

I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a

computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power

supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main

board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still

serviceable.

And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)

dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If

you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two

sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off

site.

Cheers,

John B.

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

On 6/11/2010 5:45 PM, Canuck57 wrote:

> On 10/06/2010 6:12 AM, Alias wrote:

>> John B. slocomb wrote:

>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:41:13 +0200, Alias

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On 06/10/2010 03:50 AM, Canuck57 wrote:

>>>>> On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, 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!

>>>>>

>>>>> Don't trust MS Windows. Always backup to a UNIX/Linux box.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I back up to external hard drives, none of which are running an OS.

>>>

>>> Not to pick at you

>>

>> Your favorite hobby.

>>

>>> but why not just install another internal drive?

>>

>> Are you serious?

>>

>>> Over here the laptop drives (that's what they call 'em) are

>>> considerably more expensive then a full sized sata drive.

>>>

>>> Cheers,

>>>

>>> John B.

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>> I use "full size" SATA drives in external enclosures. I have a few PATA

>> drives in external enclosures as well.

>

> I think he was serious. But seriously stupid to rely on two drives in

> the same boxen/OS. But shows how limited many a MS pundits think.

>

> For our other readers as Alias already knows this.

>

> Backing up to Linux device has the following advantages.

>

> 1) Absolutely faster. Given the same hardware and network interfaces,

> disk and network copy on Linux is vastly faster and more reliable than

> MS- Windows. The largest CIFS servers in the world are Linux/SAMBA and

> can take loads MS Windows can't handle in their dreams. Vista to Samba

> is faster than Vista to Vista, go figure.

>

> 2) Normally you would leave the maps and shares unconnected so if a

> virus/tojan/worm messes up your MS Windows, it isn't likely going to get

> by Samba to do in the Linux copy.

>

> 3) Far supperior to 2 disks in one OS because if the OS screws up, it

> can and often does take out both drives when it scrambles itself good.

> Having a different OS for the destination, not an issue.

>

> 4) If MS Windows has licensing issues, or some weekly patch blows it up,

> your Linux bex is quite safe from Uncle Ballmer.

You are seriously desperate and obviously, mentally deranged!...Hahahah!

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias

> wrote:

>

>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>>>> certainly run slowly.

>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>

>>>>> John B.

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>

>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>>>

>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>>>

>>> Cheers,

>>>

>>> John B.

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.

>

> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a

> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power

> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main

> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still

> serviceable.

>

> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)

> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If

> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two

> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off

> site.

>

> Cheers,

>

> John B.

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.

Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...

works great and is secure.

--

Taxation, modern day slavery. The loss of economic freedom.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

On 6/11/2010 6:20 PM, Canuck57 wrote:

> On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:

>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias

>> wrote:

>>

>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>>>>> certainly run slowly.

>>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> John B.

>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>

>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in

>>>>> as a

>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>>>>

>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers,

>>>>

>>>> John B.

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>

>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.

>>

>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a

>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power

>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main

>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still

>> serviceable.

>>

>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)

>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If

>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two

>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off

>> site.

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> John B.

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

> Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.

>

> Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...

> works great and is secure.

>

What a great way to waste your buddy's time.

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

John B. slocomb wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias

> wrote:

>

>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>>>> certainly run slowly.

>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>

>>>>> John B.

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>

>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>>>

>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>>>

>>> Cheers,

>>>

>>> John B.

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.

>

> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a

> computer and all the internal drives would go south.

I can think of three:

1. Malware

2. Your computer is stolen.

3. A fire or, if you live in such a place, an earthquake.

> I had a power

> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main

> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still

> serviceable.

I have had the same experience but I felt I was lucky.

>

> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)

> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If

> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two

> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off

> site.

>

> Cheers,

>

> John B.

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

I don't think that's all that necessary. I have been updated my way now

for a decade and I've never lost a byte. I do, however, keep one of my

hard drives off site.

--

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:20:57 -0600, Canuck57

wrote:

>On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:

>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias

>> wrote:

>>

>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>>>>> certainly run slowly.

>>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> John B.

>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>

>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>>>>

>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers,

>>>>

>>>> John B.

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>

>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.

>>

>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a

>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power

>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main

>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still

>> serviceable.

>>

>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)

>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If

>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two

>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off

>> site.

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> John B.

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

>Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.

>

>Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...

>works great and is secure.

I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra

drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The

back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and

directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a

virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.

Cheers,

John B.

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:04:47 +0200, Alias

wrote:

>John B. slocomb wrote:

>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias

>> wrote:

>>

>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>>>>> certainly run slowly.

>>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> John B.

>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>

>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>>>>

>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers,

>>>>

>>>> John B.

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>

>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.

>>

>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a

>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.

>

>I can think of three:

>

>1. Malware

>2. Your computer is stolen.

>3. A fire or, if you live in such a place, an earthquake.

>

Since my "desktop" is in the house I'm not too worried about someone

stealing it. If they do I undoubtedly will have more to worry about

then just the computer. The laptops, I make a point of not keeping any

data on them that I would worry about losing and never back them up.

If I lose one then my major complaint is that I've got to buy a new

computer.

Malware... I hear you talking but frankly I have never had any

problems with that. 15 or so years ago I got a Trojan from a bootleg

copied disk and I occasionally have seen cookies the report back to

somewhere else but the really damaging virus I read about I have never

seen. I have used a firewall for ever and ever and generally a scanner

frequently. The router/modem has a rudimentary firewall and I am

fairly cautious what I download or what I open on line.

>> I had a power

>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main

>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still

>> serviceable.

>

>I have had the same experience but I felt I was lucky.

>

>>

>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)

>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If

>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two

>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off

>> site.

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> John B.

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

>I don't think that's all that necessary. I have been updated my way now

>for a decade and I've never lost a byte. I do, however, keep one of my

>hard drives off site.

Well, you are the one that mentioned fire and flood :-)

Cheers,

John B.

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

John B. slocomb wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:04:47 +0200, Alias

> wrote:

>

>> John B. slocomb wrote:

>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>>>>>> certainly run slowly.

>>>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> John B.

>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>>>>>

>>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

>>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

>>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

>>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

>>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>

>>>>> John B.

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>

>>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

>>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

>>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.

>>>

>>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a

>>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.

>>

>> I can think of three:

>>

>> 1. Malware

>> 2. Your computer is stolen.

>> 3. A fire or, if you live in such a place, an earthquake.

>>

> Since my "desktop" is in the house I'm not too worried about someone

> stealing it. If they do I undoubtedly will have more to worry about

> then just the computer.

You got that right.

--

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

John B. slocomb wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:20:57 -0600, Canuck57

> wrote:

>

>> On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:

>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>>>>>> certainly run slowly.

>>>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> John B.

>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>>>>>

>>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

>>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

>>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

>>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

>>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>

>>>>> John B.

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>

>>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

>>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

>>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.

>>>

>>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a

>>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power

>>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main

>>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still

>>> serviceable.

>>>

>>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)

>>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If

>>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two

>>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off

>>> site.

>>>

>>> Cheers,

>>>

>>> John B.

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>> Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.

>>

>> Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...

>> works great and is secure.

>

> I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra

> drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The

> back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and

> directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a

> virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.

>

> Cheers,

>

> John B.

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, but when it's mounted and doing the back up trip ... wide open.

--

Alias

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 12, 201014 yr

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:46:50 +0700, John B. slocomb wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:20:57 -0600, Canuck57

> wrote:

>

>>On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:

>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>>>>>> certainly run slowly.

>>>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> John B.

>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>>>>>

>>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

>>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

>>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

>>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

>>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>

>>>>> John B.

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>

>>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

>>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

>>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.

>>>

>>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a

>>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power

>>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main

>>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still

>>> serviceable.

>>>

>>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)

>>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If

>>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two

>>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off

>>> site.

>>>

>>> Cheers,

>>>

>>> John B.

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>>Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.

>>

>>Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...

>>works great and is secure.

>

> I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra

> drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The

> back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and

> directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a

> virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.

>

> Cheers,

>

> John B.

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

I use a backup program that writes to an unmounted drive. This is in

Windows 7, BTW.

--

Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 13, 201014 yr

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:18:44 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"

wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:46:50 +0700, John B. slocomb wrote:

>

>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:20:57 -0600, Canuck57

>> wrote:

>>

>>>On 11/06/2010 6:56 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:

>>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:45:22 +0200, Alias

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>>>> If you are accessing the exterior drives with a USB connection they

>>>>>>>> certainly run slowly.

>>>>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> John B.

>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I don't have many large files that aren't already backed up and when I

>>>>>>> do, it's no biggie to temporarily put one of the external drives in as a

>>>>>>> slave. I do plan to get me an e-SATA external drive. How fast does the

>>>>>>> USB connection go when using Ubuntu, you ask? Glad you asked: 17-18

>>>>>>> MB/sec. I don't know with Windows because it only tells you the

>>>>>>> "estimated time" which is unreliable.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If you are backing up separate files it probably doesn't make much

>>>>>> difference how you store them. I have backups schedules daily and just

>>>>>> back up entire directories , or partitions which would entail

>>>>>> remembering to plug in the USB drive. It is easier to just set things

>>>>>> up to back up to an internal disk and forget about it.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> John B.

>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>

>>>>> Yeah, but if the computer has some kind of problem and the internal

>>>>> drives go south, you're SOL. Then, all of a sudden, you're remember it.

>>>>> Backing up to external media is computing 101.

>>>>

>>>> I really can't envision a problem where something would happen to a

>>>> computer and all the internal drives would go south.I had a power

>>>> supply fail and passed 220 volts to the main board. Kill the main

>>>> board but when I rebuilt the computer the drives were still

>>>> serviceable.

>>>>

>>>> And actually the backing up to external media (and storing off site)

>>>> dates back to the days of tape drives when the was no alternatives. If

>>>> you are going to protect against all contingencies you back up to two

>>>> sets of permanent media - tapes or CD's - and store one of them off

>>>> site.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers,

>>>>

>>>> John B.

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>

>>>Virus, trojan, malware can do in two drives at once.

>>>

>>>Setup a Linux to Linux VPN with your buddy, using PGP on the files...

>>>works great and is secure.

>>

>> I wonder whether we are talking about the same thing? I use an extra

>> drive that isn't even mounted until the back-up system runs. The

>> back-up utility mounts the disk, backs up the designated files and

>> directories and then un-mounts the disk. It is difficult to see how a

>> virus or Trojan is going to access an un-mounted drive.

>>

>> Cheers,

>>

>> John B.

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

>I use a backup program that writes to an unmounted drive. This is in

>Windows 7, BTW.

Question: How do you know it is unmounted? I thought Windows

automatically mounted every FAT or HPFS system that it could see?

Cheers,

Schweik

(goodsoldierschweikatgmail)

Quote

Mark as Solution

June 13, 201014 yr

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 21:12:15 +0700, John B. Slocomb

wrote:

>

>Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version

>of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the

>latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the

>free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to

>see whether it works or not.

Sorry to butt into your little spat, but, this ludicrous statement

absolutely describes Microsoft's operating systems to a 'T': "stuff

that the company have released to see whether it works or not".

I've had at least eight systems in my home running MS O/S'es for the

past fifteen years (was a reseller). I have used Linux & Ubuntu on

older computers but mainly for experimentation purposes only.

The only time I ever loaded a system with an MS O/S that was not at

least a year and a half old was Win95, in August of 1995, which was a

giant piece of shit until SP2 - same goes for Win98 & XP. I passed

completely on MILLENIUM & VISTA, the two biggest pieces of shit

operating systems ever produced by human brains, gigantic turds that

would have destroyed the reputation of any other company on the face

of the Earth, except of course for a company that has a solid

government/lemming supported monopoly.

Anyway, I use Microshaft operating systems NOT because they are the

best, not because they run flawlessly, not because they copy files

fastest or burn CD's well, not because they have the best security

features, not because of their bug free operation, not because of

their 'reasonable' prices, not because of the speed, but because

Microshaft basically is the only show in town.

I hate Microshit and Bill Gates for eliminating competition in the

operating system arena and for being able to drop humongous TURDS on

their customers without even so much as a whimper of a complaint.

BTW, Microshaft describes Bill Gate's penis, I am a total fucktard, a

liar, a stupid cunt, I don't know squat and I will fuck off so attack

me personally if you dare, I don't care.

Kaz

>>>

>>

>>All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as

>>you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures

>>you wouldn't know squat.

>>

>Of course I have installed Ubuntu - how else would I know that it is

>the newbee's wet dream?

>

>>>

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

>>

>>It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.

>

>True, but can they run any of the popular games? Try booting up Spore

>or My Sims, two of my grand kids favorites.

>

>>

>>>

>>> 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!

>>

>>Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.

>>>

>>> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.

>>>

>>> John B. Slocomb

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>>Fuck off, kid.

>

>You see, you aren't even able to defend your own statements - you

>can't say that in Ubuntu click on this and that to give =you a up to

>date report of speed of transferring files. You can't qualify any of

>your assertions, you just stand in the school yard shouting "yo mama

>wears army boots!"

>

>John B. Slocomb

>(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Quote

Mark as Solution

Sign In

Speeding up hard drives?

Guest, which answer was the most helpful?

Featured Replies

Popular Days

Join the conversation

Popular Days

Account

Navigation

Search