20 Nov
2001
20 Nov
'01
1:32 a.m.
Yeah, except that under Windows, you get a copy, perhaps, but not a backup, in
that if you have a virus, it is immediately transferred to the extra disk,
rendering it unsafe to use. With tape, or CD, or, if there is support for
backup, with writeable DVD, the medium requires special and separate software to
operate it, so infection with a virus is less likely.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Koller" <vze2mnvr(a)verizon.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 3:50 AM
Subject: Re: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
seen
I don't know what a guy's to do. I guess
image-copying the disk
to tape, empty space and all, is the only solution.
The best device to back up a hard drive to is ... another hard
drive. Fastest speed transfers. And as inexpensive as hard drives
are these days, why not? In DOS, and even Win9x ... xcopy
Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> I'm concerned mainly about Win9x. There were numerous backup packages that
> worked VERY well under [DOS6.22/Win3.11]. Since the release of Win9x, I've
> bought several backup packages, and a couple of releases of each, yet not
> one that even barely worked on any sort of
consistent basis. The early
backup
> program from ADAPTEC, part of their EasySCSI 4.xx
package, didn't even
support
> SCSI devices, and freely admitted it.
Microsoft's backup utility for
Windows95
> didn't support SCSI devices either. Seagate
Backup Exec supported SCSI-1
and
> SCSI-2 devices, though it didn't work
terribly well because it opened files
that
> subsequently required human intervention in order
to complete the backup.
> Moreover, if permission was given to back up those files, it would fall down
> during verify, since it, itself, had modified those files. Novaback for
> Windows95 failed on 148 of the 151 units one of my clients has, failing in
all
> those cases, to complete the backup. I've
never managed to get Novaback to
> finish a restore either. Cheyenne backup was a miserable flop, failing to
read
> its own writing from time to time. I could go on
...
>
> There's something about the OS that interferes with a backup. The Microsoft
> Backup for Win98 seems to work ...sorta... but it only works ...sorta... and
> falls down many times, misinterpreting a drive that the OS recognizes
correctly
> to be a 2GB partition to be 300+ Terabytes.
Naturally it falls down later
> because of that problem. <sigh>
>
> An OS without a real backup utility is of little use because you have to
have
> backup ... not just copies of things, but a real
backup, context and all,
that
> enables you to get back to where you were. DOS
didn't have that, UNIX
doesn't
> have it (though it does have TAR, which makes
copies to tape), OS/2 doesn't
have
> it, LINUX doesn't have it ... I don't
know what a guy's to do. I guess
> image-copying the disk to tape, empty space and all, is the only solution.
Of
course that
means the files are replaceable only on an all or nothing basis.
^%$#@! ... what a bunch of crap!
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Smith" <csmith(a)amdocs.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com]
>
> > the Intel CPU as well as the 'LC040, was 3.11/6.22. I was
> > working more from the
> > experience with Windows that I'd had more recently. My
> > latest Windows, BTW, is
> > '98SE, and, until they fix some of the very fundamental problems, like
> > non-working OS utilities, e.g. Backup, I'm not getting any
> > more M$ OS products.
> > I'm told it may be a long wait, BTW.
>
> Has microsoft _ever_ had a working backup utility? OK, maybe xenix had a
> working version of tar or cpio (I doubt it had both), but that's it.
> However, since I'm supposed to "leave my anti-ms baggage at the
door,"
> according to the faq, don't get me started ;)
>
> > This practice of theirs, of buying a non-functional cast-off from some
> > financially-troubled software company and then integrating it
> > into their OS is,
> > in fact, an example of their "monopolistic practices" since
>
> Just ask yourself why most of these companies are troubled in the first
> place...
>
> > they've no intention
> > of supporting the product as an intrinsic function of their
> > OS, though that's
> > what they claim, as in the case of Internet Explorer, it is.
> > Since you can't go
> > to anyone else for a competing OS product, I guess they
> > figure you're screwed,
> > which is how I see it.
>
> Well, my most recent exposure is to windows 2000, which, admittedly, is
> nearly as stable as NT 3.x was (4 was a joke). I only use it at work, and
> only because they give me no choice. At home, I have plenty of other
> options that do whatever I tell them to... ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
> Amdocs - Champaign, IL
>
> /usr/bin/perl -e '
> print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl
Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
> '
>
>