19 Nov
2001
19 Nov
'01
6:22 a.m.
-----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");
'
19 Nov
19 Nov
7:19 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");
'
6:45 a.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
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>
I suspect this was you were never meant to backup the complete system.
Why that might mean somebody could make a illegal copy of windows.
The few backup programs I have looked at but never could afford still
run under DOS and will back up your windows system with out the OS.
There is just too much crap in windows that makes it nearly impossible
to backup. And of course you have to load windows to run a windows
backup.
(Stupid)!
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!
Since I have a small HD I do a tar from my boot disk for linux, for the
entire
HD to a bunch of Zip disks. A bit messy but I know I recover the entire
OS
should my HD fail with tar.
Ben Franchuk.
11:05 a.m.
Well, I've said this before, but not this week ...
My experience has been that folks who have a backup device, capable of doing a
full scheduled (automatic, without human intervention) system backup of
everything accessible to the system on a single element of the medium the device
uses, always seem to have good backup. That's not true of the guys who have to
swap disks or tapes. It doesn't have to be that way, but history seems to
support the notion that it's a really good thing to keep in mind. For some guys
that means they have to have a library of very large capacity, and, therefore,
cost, but that's the price of having your data secured.
The procedure I use is automatic enough, but terribly time-consuming. It
requires that I deal with the WIndows long file names with a program called
DOSLFNBK, which substitutes DOS-compatible 8.3 names for the longer WINDOWS
filenames, and maintains a lookup table of them. It then backs up to tape, and
then reverses the DOSLFNBK process before the system is once again useable
except under DOS.
more below ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
That's not entirely true, since some 3rd party products have "emergency
recovery" or crash recovery procedures that will restore from a backup set
without first reinstalling the OS. Now, moving 875 GB from tape to disk takes a
while and installing Windows, which takes 30-45 minutes, will trim as much as 2
hours off that time, but it's quite a bit safer to restore the last known-good
backup and go from there. Some 3rd party software also specifically includes
backup of the registry, which is key to restoring the system as-is. I really
don't see how they can restore a file without the corresponding registry
entries.
I keep waiting for a current set of doc's for LINUX. However, while the OS
may
be on version 12-something (which it's not) the doc is still on version
0.0-something, (not really the case either) but it's not far into the basic
doc's that one runs into missing key words, like "NOT."
I use Windows, so I can't get by with a small hard disk. By today's standards,
however, a 100GB hard disk is a small one, so maybe one can get by with a small
drive. (Have you tried to buy a new <10GB drive lately?) On that scale, I
guess what I use is considered tiny.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
> 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>
I suspect this was you were never meant to backup the complete system.
Why that might mean somebody could make a illegal copy of windows.
The few backup programs I have looked at but never could afford still
run under DOS and will back up your windows system with out the OS.
There is just too much crap in windows that makes it nearly impossible
to backup. And of course you have to load windows to run a windows
backup.
(Stupid)!
> 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!
Since I have a small HD I do a tar from my boot disk for linux, for the
entire HD to a bunch of Zip disks. A bit messy but I know I recover
the entire OS should my HD fail with tar.
Ben Franchuk.
11:57 a.m.
At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0700, you wrote:
My experience has been that folks who have a backup
device, capable of doing a
full scheduled (automatic, without human intervention) system backup of
everything accessible to the system on a single element of the medium the device
uses, always seem to have good backup.
These days on today's PCs, it's easier to buy a spare
hard disk, and copy (using 'at', the scheduler, TaskZip,
whatever) your vital files to it. Take a tape backup
off-site as frequently as you like, or just carry the
spare hard disk.
- John
2:15 p.m.
Well, there's one of the differences between backup and file copy. If you
introduce a spare disk to a system then, at least in the case of the various
post-'9x Windows, the OS "sees" it, registers it, and any viruses on the
system
are, immediately on that drive as well. With a TAPE utility, however, virus or
not, if the program runs, it copies the data to tape under control of a backup
utility that either doesn't work because it has been corrupted, or, if you were
clever and run the program form a write-locked removable, then it (the backup
utility) runs on the removable platter and transfer the data, corrupted or not,
from the hard disk to the tape. Viruses can't deal
directly with the tape, just
as the OS can't deal directly with the tape. A
virus that gets onto a tape
won't be an executable, hence probably won't go there except in the form of
already-corrupted files. As a result, I've concluded DISK is unsuitable for
backup on Windows PC's. Now, I recently saw a DVD writer for under $500.
($375) If there's any sort of support software for backup, that might present a
useable solution, since a DVD writer would not appear to Windows as a disk
drive.
Of course, MAC OS may not be so virus friendly, but I don't know about that.
The "spare" HD would have to be a SCSI drive, right? How does the MAC go about
recognizing a valid SCSI device? What has to be done to a JAZ platter to make
it (the MAC) recognize it.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foust" <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>My experience has been that folks who have a backup device, capable of doing
a
>full scheduled (automatic, without human
intervention) system backup of
>everything accessible to the system on a single element of the medium the
device
uses, always
seem to have good backup.
These days on today's PCs, it's easier to buy a spare
hard disk, and copy (using 'at', the scheduler, TaskZip,
whatever) your vital files to it. Take a tape backup
off-site as frequently as you like, or just carry the
spare hard disk.
- John
3:22 p.m.
Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>om>:
Of course, MAC OS may not be so virus friendly, but I
don't know
about that.
I can't think of a way for a virus to jump onto a disk on a Mac simply
by the disk being there, without any virus-infected program
running. Unless a virus has attacked the Finder or the OS itself,
which is a possibility, I suppose.
But even then, the virus can't jump *off* the disk onto a previously
clean system without running something from the disk, and that won't
happen unless you explicitly tell it to. If there's some way for that
to happen on Windows, then Windows is definitely more virus-friendly!
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a |
Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. |
greg(a)cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
20 Nov
20 Nov
1:51 a.m.
At 03:22 PM 11/20/01 +1300, Greg wrote:
\>I can't think of a way for a virus to jump onto a disk on a Mac simply
by the disk being there, without any virus-infected
program
running. Unless a virus has attacked the Finder or the OS itself,
which is a possibility, I suppose.
But even then, the virus can't jump *off* the disk onto a previously
clean system without running something from the disk, and that won't
happen unless you explicitly tell it to. If there's some way for that
to happen on Windows, then Windows is definitely more virus-friendly!
Weren't there some mac viruses that would attach to the resource
fork of a volume/file and then simply by opening the folder to
browse it the virus code would run?
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
2:09 a.m.
At 06:15 PM 11/19/2001 -0700, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Viruses can't deal directly with the tape, just
as the OS can't deal directly with the tape. A virus that gets onto a tape
won't be an executable, hence probably won't go there except in the form of
already-corrupted files.
That's it. I'm going over to sit with Sellam.
- John
4:57 a.m.
I'm not awar of how this works on a MAC, but under Windows, the OS checks to see
what volumes are available to it on about a 1 Hz schedule. If a virus is
looking for a drive to infect, it finds it as soon as the OS says it's there,
and its dirty work begins. Unless you're using a utility that masquerades a
tape drive as a disk, e.g. TapeDisk or Direct-Tape-Access, both of which assign
a drive letter to the tape drive and allow you to put a Windows file system on
the tape, an application that deals directly with the tape has to be in place in
order to access it. Though an infected program can be stored on the tape, since
the OS can't do file I/O to/from the tape without help from a tape handler
application (not just the driver) the tape can't easily become a vehicle for
transfer of a virus unless you transfer an infected file to your newly cleaned
hard disk and subsequently execute it.
I'm told that there are completely different mechanisms in place on a MAC, and
that could make a huge difference.
If you want to sit with Sellam, it's not a problem for me. I'm sure he'll
enjoy
the company.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foust" <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
At 06:15 PM 11/19/2001 -0700, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Viruses can't deal directly with the tape,
just
as the OS can't deal directly with the tape. A virus that gets onto a tape
won't be an executable, hence probably won't go there except in the form of
already-corrupted files.
That's it. I'm going over to sit with Sellam.
- John
19 Nov
19 Nov
11:59 p.m.
Make sure the machine has a SCSI controller in it, and put the
"back-up" hard drive in an external SCSI enclosure. Or use
pull out's, SCSI or IDE.
John Foust wrote:
At 03:05 PM 11/19/2001 -0700, you wrote:
My experience has been that folks who have a
backup device, capable of doing a
full scheduled (automatic, without human intervention) system backup of
everything accessible to the system on a single element of the medium the device
uses, always seem to have good backup.
These days on today's PCs, it's easier to buy a spare
hard disk, and copy (using 'at', the scheduler, TaskZip,
whatever) your vital files to it. Take a tape backup
off-site as frequently as you like, or just carry the
spare hard disk.
- John
8:12 a.m.
At 11:19 AM 11/19/01 -0700, Dick 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
seen
one that even barely worked on any sort of consistent
basis.
Retrospect works nicely. And, it is very easy to set remote
backups in a mixed wintel/mac installation, as long as each
machine has its own static IP. It doesn't work as well using Winblows
sharing. Even transitorially connected devices such as laptops
can be remote backed-up using Retrospect.
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!
Well, HPUX has Ignite-UX, which has lots of possibilities. It is free.
But I doubt most people need such heavy artillery.
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
11:50 p.m.
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 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");
> '
>
>
20 Nov
20 Nov
4:32 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");
> '
>
>
22 Nov
22 Nov
5:10 a.m.
Ian Koller skrev:
> 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
Hard drives are expensive and messy. I prefer tape, they are cheap, there are
well-established back-up functions, and they don't require opening any boxes.
BTW, you could all think of snipping /a lot/ more.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Menyn ?r inte lika sexig som telnet, det ?r h?rt men sant.
Petri Oksanen #38 p? SUGA BBS
10:01 p.m.
Iggy Drougge wrote:
Hard drives are expensive and messy.
What's a 40 Gb hard drive cost in Sweden?
Anybody know what a 40 Gb is at CompUSA here in the US?
Iggy Drougge wrote:
Ian Koller skrev:
> 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
Hard drives are expensive and messy. I prefer tape, they are cheap, there are
well-established back-up functions, and they don't require opening any boxes.
BTW, you could all think of snipping /a lot/ more.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Menyn ?r inte lika sexig som telnet, det ?r h?rt men sant.
Petri Oksanen #38 p? SUGA BBS
23 Nov
23 Nov
4:22 a.m.
Can you still get a drive that small?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Koller" <vze2mnvr(a)verizon.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
Iggy Drougge wrote:
are
Hard drives are expensive and messy.
What's a 40 Gb hard drive cost in Sweden?
Anybody know what a 40 Gb is at CompUSA here in the US?
Iggy Drougge wrote:
>
> Ian Koller skrev:
>
> >> 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
>
> Hard drives are expensive and messy. I prefer tape, they are cheap, there > well-established back-up functions, and they
don't require opening any
boxes.
BTW, you could all think of snipping /a lot/ more.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Menyn ?r inte lika sexig som telnet, det ?r h?rt men sant.
Petri Oksanen #38 p? SUGA BBS
22 Nov
22 Nov
7:04 p.m.
New subject: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
I still see 30GB drives on the shelf quite a bit. I saw one the other day
marked at $120. I've also seen some good deals on 6GB UW SCSI drives at
places like Smalldog Electronics.
Jeff
On 23-Nov-01, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Can you still get a drive that small?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Koller" <vze2mnvr(a)verizon.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: OT: paging MAC expert(s) --- What's a Performa?
>
> Iggy Drougge wrote:
>> Hard drives are expensive and messy.
>
> What's a 40 Gb hard drive cost in Sweden?
>
> Anybody know what a 40 Gb is at CompUSA here in the US?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amiga 3000, Cyberstorm MkII 060/50, GVP Spectrum, Xsurf ethernet,
Amiga OS 3.9, 4GB Quantum Fireball, HD floppy, 36MB FastRAM
http://www.cchaven.com
23 Nov
23 Nov
6:30 a.m.
Ian Koller skrev:
Iggy Drougge wrote:
> Hard drives are expensive and messy.
What's a 40 Gb hard drive cost in Sweden?
Now you forced me to actually look that up.
The prices never cease to amaze me. Now you can get a 40 GB Maxtor 7200rpm
DMA100/8ms IDE drive at only 1299 kr.
But those prices aside, you could get a lot of DDS cassettes at that price,
and they are much less messy.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Oj! Den buggen har ju funnits s? l?nge jag kan minnas! Jag saknar den redan.
Thomas Sundqvist / Co-Gasfisk #1006 p? Fabbes BBS
8279
days inactive
8283
days old
18 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cmurillo＠emtelsa.multi.net.co -
csmith＠amdocs.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
greg＠cosc.canterbury.ac.nz -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
optimus＠canit.se -
vze2mnvr＠verizon.net