19 Nov
2001
19 Nov
'01
4:19 a.m.
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 seen
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");
'