 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:24:32 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 06:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Standard sizes are/were 3.5", 5.25", and 8".
>
> Random fact: I'm ancient enough to *remember* 5.25" floppy disks. (They
> were noteable in that they were actually *floppy*.)
You do realise that 30 is *not* "ancient", right?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Random fact: I'm ancient enough to *remember* 5.25" floppy disks. (They
>> were noteable in that they were actually *floppy*.)
>
> You do realise that 30 is *not* "ancient", right?
Are you kidding me? I was obsolete technology, like, 20 years ago...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Also, I'm sure I saw somewhere a setting in Windows to select whether
>> the "safely remove hardware" thing is optional or not. The default
>> setting is worse performance in exchange for pulling the drive /not/
>> completely screwing the filesystem. I'm guessing M$ found that too many
>> people actually did this...)
>
> Performance vs. reliability. Traditional tradeoff.
Yes. That makes sense. Turn it on if you want more speed, turn if off if
reliability is more important.
What doesn't really make sense is that for a floppy disk, there's no
option to turn it on.
Still, hopefully I will never have to access a floppy disk again for the
rest of my natural life, so it won't actually *matter* or anything...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/7/2011 10:13, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> So, essentially, your entire argument is "the user can eject the disk at any
> time, therefore it's unsafe to cache anything".
No. It's unsafe to cache data structures that have interrelationships. It's
unsafe to cache the data a pointer points to in RAM while writing the
pointer back to disk.
The FAT *is* cached. It's just *also* flushed when you close each file.
How would you tell the machine it's time to write the cache to the floppy?
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the contents of the disk be
> irrepairably corrupted *anyway*?
No. That's the point. You write things in the order that makes the files not
corrupted if you remove them. That's why if you chkdsk a floppy after
writing files but not closing them, you get "CHKDSK.001" type files.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/7/2011 10:26, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> In which way is suddenly removing a USB flash drive different from suddenly
> ejecting a floppy disk?
It's not. It'll screw up your USB drive also if you remove it without
flushing the buffers.
> So why is it perfectly OK to cache a USB flash drive, but completely
> unthinkable to cache a floppy disk?
Because people have learned they can't just yank out a USB disk and think
it'll be OK. Whereas the old versions of DOS said "once you come back to
the command prompt, it's safe to take out the disk."
> (Also, I'm sure I saw somewhere a setting in Windows to select whether the
> "safely remove hardware" thing is optional or not. The default setting is
> worse performance in exchange for pulling the drive /not/ completely
> screwing the filesystem. I'm guessing M$ found that too many people actually
> did this...)
There ya go.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/7/2011 10:40, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Still, hopefully I will never have to access a floppy disk again for the
> rest of my natural life, so it won't actually *matter* or anything...
Which is why MS isn't investing a whole ton of effort into optimizing this case.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:40:04 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> (Also, I'm sure I saw somewhere a setting in Windows to select whether
>>> the "safely remove hardware" thing is optional or not. The default
>>> setting is worse performance in exchange for pulling the drive /not/
>>> completely screwing the filesystem. I'm guessing M$ found that too
>>> many people actually did this...)
>>
>> Performance vs. reliability. Traditional tradeoff.
>
> Yes. That makes sense. Turn it on if you want more speed, turn if off if
> reliability is more important.
>
> What doesn't really make sense is that for a floppy disk, there's no
> option to turn it on.
People form habits, and rather than deal with people saying "Hey, you
never told me I would lose data by doing this" (no matter how many
warnings there are, someone will claim that and will sue over lost data
as a result), they decided to leave it alone.
> Still, hopefully I will never have to access a floppy disk again for the
> rest of my natural life, so it won't actually *matter* or anything...
I was a bit surprised about 6 weeks ago when I had to.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:38:59 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Random fact: I'm ancient enough to *remember* 5.25" floppy disks.
>>> (They were noteable in that they were actually *floppy*.)
>>
>> You do realise that 30 is *not* "ancient", right?
>
> Are you kidding me? I was obsolete technology, like, 20 years ago...
Pardon me while I go bang my head against a brick wall for 20 minutes.
I'm 40, so what does that make me?
You still learn (hell, you go out of your way to learn new stuff). 30 is
nothing. Talk to your grandparents if you think *you're* old.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:38:59 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> >>> Random fact: I'm ancient enough to *remember* 5.25" floppy disks.
> >>> (They were noteable in that they were actually *floppy*.)
> >>
> >> You do realise that 30 is *not* "ancient", right?
> >
> > Are you kidding me? I was obsolete technology, like, 20 years ago...
>
> Pardon me while I go bang my head against a brick wall for 20 minutes.
>
> I'm 40, so what does that make me?
a relic? :p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:01:43 -0400, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:38:59 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> >>> Random fact: I'm ancient enough to *remember* 5.25" floppy disks.
>> >>> (They were noteable in that they were actually *floppy*.)
>> >>
>> >> You do realise that 30 is *not* "ancient", right?
>> >
>> > Are you kidding me? I was obsolete technology, like, 20 years ago...
>>
>> Pardon me while I go bang my head against a brick wall for 20 minutes.
>>
>> I'm 40, so what does that make me?
>
> a relic? :p
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
