 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tom Austin" <taustin> wrote in message news:48d24a3c$1@news.povray.org...
> Invisible wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> QEMU virtual machine running the Windows XP installation procedure
>>> (which now has only "37 minute remaining")
>>
>> Only "24 minutes" now - yay!
>
>
> I like the time left shown for copy in Windows - or a install.
>
I had a copy yesterday (copying from a shadow copy 'previous version'), that
said it would take 65782 years to complete. I went to get coffee and it was
done by the time I got back.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail wrote:
> I had a copy yesterday (copying from a shadow copy 'previous version'),
> that said it would take 65782 years to complete. I went to get coffee
> and it was done by the time I got back.
LOL!
That's just *advanced*! I've never seen it get it quite that wrong...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-Sep-08 16:26, Invisible wrote:
> Gail wrote:
>
>> I had a copy yesterday (copying from a shadow copy 'previous
>> version'), that said it would take 65782 years to complete. I went to
>> get coffee and it was done by the time I got back.
>
> LOL!
>
> That's just *advanced*! I've never seen it get it quite that wrong...
I did, even negative times. It happens when people count the number of
bytes to copy in 32 bit integers, or something like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel nous illumina en ce 2008-09-18 19:31 -->
> On 18-Sep-08 16:26, Invisible wrote:
>> Gail wrote:
>>
>>> I had a copy yesterday (copying from a shadow copy 'previous
>>> version'), that said it would take 65782 years to complete. I went to
>>> get coffee and it was done by the time I got back.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> That's just *advanced*! I've never seen it get it quite that wrong...
>
> I did, even negative times. It happens when people count the number of
> bytes to copy in 32 bit integers, or something like that.
Or take the time it took for a single, huge, file, and multiply that by the
number of files left to process, with an average size of less than 10K...
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Coming soon: Windows for Nintendo!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:48d2652b@news.povray.org...
> Gail wrote:
>
>> I had a copy yesterday (copying from a shadow copy 'previous version'),
>> that said it would take 65782 years to complete. I went to get coffee and
>> it was done by the time I got back.
>
> LOL!
>
> That's just *advanced*! I've never seen it get it quite that wrong...
I suspect it had something to do with the copy coming from the shadow copy.
Usually I get fairly 'accurate' time estimates on copying.
I say fairly, cause Vista spends the first half of the copy calculating the
time and hence when it finally does give a time it's reasonably accurate
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail wrote:
>
> I had a copy yesterday (copying from a shadow copy 'previous version'),
> that said it would take 65782 years to complete. I went to get coffee
> and it was done by the time I got back.
And your boss won't complain that you're taking too long coffee breaks?
Can I come to work there too?
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> One of the more amusing things I've seen in my career is the Outlook
> 2000 installer. When you install it, the progress bar slowly fills up
> (multiple times). But when you uninstall it, the bar starts full and
> gradually empties instead!
All MSI-based installers do that when rolling back an installation (if it
fails halfway, once you close the error message it undoes what it did and
the progressbar goes backwards). But I never saw it on an uninstaller...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
