Darren New wrote:
>> Its what the existing backup I have does, I think, but since it only 
>> backs up stuff it wants to, and doesn't use any compression, its a) a 
>> storage hog, and b) not terribly useful.
> 
> Ah. The Microsoft one does that sort of thing, except it uses zip files, 
> and it saves in the shadow volume history stuff information about where 
> it is in the zip files. So if you want to restore a messed up file, you 
> right-click, open up "previous versions", and it lists all the online 
> and offline backups of the files.
> 
> It would be *great* if you could get it to back up everything.
> 
> Mine just makes a second copy onto a compressed directory, so altho the 
> compression isn't as good as you could get with bzip or something, it's 
> not too bad. You could also use robocopy to compare versions and make 
> yourself some hard links, or use VSS then image the differences onto 
> another drive, or stuff like that. All kinds of funkiness.
> 
> A couple more links for things we've been talking about:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10157210-56.html?tag=nl.e703
> http://www.eventid.net/
> In case you actually care about it.
> 
> Me, drive space is so cheap these days I don't mind keeping both images 
> and incrementals-of-local-dirs on disks.
> 
Yeah. I bought the one touch specifically to help backups, but ended up 
also using it for installs and downloads, etc... I ran out of room on C 
and D. lol Mind, I have a Fedora partition I am not using, and if I had 
an old copy of partition magic and the guts to try, I would wipe it, 
move D: closer to the end of the drive, then resize "both" so that the 
OS and data/program partitions where bigger. lol

Might, if really lazy, just reinstall stuff, if I upgrade to 7. Which I 
probably will, due to too many things I have needing Windows. :p

Oh, on that note. This is kind of funny:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/video/soa/Ratbags-take-Windows-7-to-the-street/0,2000065477,22470997p,00.htm

Result, as they state: a) no one knows what Windows 7 looks like, and b) 
no one likes Vista. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> an old copy of partition magic and the guts to try, I would wipe it, 
> move D: closer to the end of the drive, then resize "both" so that the 
> OS and data/program partitions where bigger. lol

Vista would make it pretty easy to do that, if you had a place to store D: 
in the meantime. I'm pretty sure you can make a ghost of a drive and restore 
it to a bigger partition, so you could ghost off D:, expand C:, and restore 
D:, potentially having to expand D: again after.

Otherwise, DriveXML is your friend. You don't need Partition Magic - you 
just need enough space somewhere. :-)

>
http://www.zdnet.com.au/video/soa/Ratbags-take-Windows-7-to-the-street/0,2000065477,22470997p,00.htm


Silly.  Just goes to show that most people really don't care about the 
details of the window manager.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> an old copy of partition magic and the guts to try, I would wipe it, 
>> move D: closer to the end of the drive, then resize "both" so that the 
>> OS and data/program partitions where bigger. lol
> 
> Vista would make it pretty easy to do that, if you had a place to store 
> D: in the meantime. I'm pretty sure you can make a ghost of a drive and 
> restore it to a bigger partition, so you could ghost off D:, expand C:, 
> and restore D:, potentially having to expand D: again after.
> 
> Otherwise, DriveXML is your friend. You don't need Partition Magic - you 
> just need enough space somewhere. :-)
> 
Hmm. Will take a look. Biggest issue is making sure it doesn't mess with 
what drive letters are assigned when adjusting things. :p Always fun 
when that happens.

>>
http://www.zdnet.com.au/video/soa/Ratbags-take-Windows-7-to-the-street/0,2000065477,22470997p,00.htm

> 
> 
> Silly.  Just goes to show that most people really don't care about the 
> details of the window manager.
> 
Yeah. To an extent. But, the people where somewhat impressed with some 
of the tricks KDE4 had too, so, that isn't entirely accurate.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Anyway, somebody asked why people hate M$. And I gave an answer: because
> M$ does not consider performance or reliability to be "important" enough
> to make any attempt to improve them.

You're giving contradictory statements:

> Thinking about it, the load routine probably does just dump a bunch of 
> pointers directly into Word, which probably then trips the rendering 
> engine over or something

They load a data structure from disk right into memory *because* they want
performance. Having the disk format similar to the in-memory structure was
done since back in Word for Windows 2.1 because it was the only way to be
faster than competitors.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> OTOH, M$'s products aren't exactly "cheap", by any stretch of the
>> imagination.
> 
> I don't think paying 2x-3x the price of a game for your OS and Office
> suite is expensive, and I guess most other people don't either.

Where I live, many people have no concept of "price of a game"...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> This defies belief.
> 
> It has been my experience that as soon as you ask Word to do anything
> remotely nontrivial, it slows to a crawl, produces gigantic files, and
> eventually starts to function eratically (e.g., sections of text being
> duplicated, random formatting changes, deleted text "moving" to other
> parts of the document, etc.)
> 
> Quite how you could produce really *large* documents with it I have no
> idea...

Which is why I prefer a plaintext editor and HTML/LaTeX/DocBook/something.
It can hardly mess up things in an unrecoverable way...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I'm guessing the first time she visits a site that demands ActiveX...?

"This site doesn't work." *clicks back button and goes elsewhere*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Anyone who designs a website and doesn't run it through a W3C checker is
> asking for trouble.

ie. 90% of people.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I'm drawing a blank on real "websites" that require ActiveX, but I think
> there are a few outside M$.

Flash is an ActiveX control on IE.

Post a reply to this message

>> Quite how you could produce really *large* documents with it I have no
>> idea...
> 
> Which is why I prefer a plaintext editor and HTML/LaTeX/DocBook/something.
> It can hardly mess up things in an unrecoverable way...

And revision control works. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message