Wise to use HDD as offline storage?

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.

------

(A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
can be replaced.

(B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.

(C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
GB on another partition.

My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
an expensive USB attached hard drive.

------

I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
above) and downloaded programs (C above).

How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.

Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
when it gets put back in the system?

Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
damage my backup data stored on it?

In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
backups for two or three years.

Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
hard drive.

Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?

Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
archival medium than a hard drive?
44 answers Last reply
More about wise offline storage
  1. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:

    > My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    > put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    > an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >
    > I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    > above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >
    > How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    > or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >
    > I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
    >
    > Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
    > when it gets put back in the system?
    >
    > Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
    > damage my backup data stored on it?

    Assuming your "normal" handling is careful, your data should be
    reasonably safe. (I've had hard drives survive a fall to the floor, but
    I don't count on being that lucky all the time.)

    For regular hard drive swapping, consider a tray system. They cost some
    money but save time and trouble and reduce wear and tear on the drives'
    power and data connectors.


    > In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
    > backups for two or three years.
    >
    > Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
    > I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
    > my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
    > hard drive.
    >
    > Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
    > it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
    >
    > Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
    > archival medium than a hard drive?

    "We started changing the tapes eight or ten years ago. The first
    transfers we made were all to DAT. We found that DAT started
    deteriorating so we moved them to CDs. We didn't think that was
    sufficient, so we moved to hard drives. That way it preserves it,
    hopefully forever." Sun Records CEO Shelby Singleton, quoted by Mathew
    Honan in Exhibitions of Sound
    <http://playlistmag.com/features/2005/08/preserve3/index.php>.

    The modern consensus seems to be that there is no permanent archival
    medium, so archiving means a continual process of testing and copying
    onto new media. If you use multiple hard drives, treat them kindly, and
    run dignostics on them periodically, you can probably get three years
    out of each drive before it needs replacing.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
    > I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    > and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.

    > ------

    > (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
    > can be replaced.

    > (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.

    > (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
    > GB on another partition.

    > My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    > put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    > an expensive USB attached hard drive.

    > ------

    > I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    > above) and downloaded programs (C above).

    > How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    > or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

    > I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.

    > Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
    > when it gets put back in the system?

    > Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
    > damage my backup data stored on it?

    Depends on what you consider "normal". Treat it like it was a raw egg
    and you should be fine with regard to shock. Another danger is
    electrostatic damage. Two choices: USB enclosure (preferrable) or
    careful handling and storage, e.g. in the plastic shell Seagate
    delivers its drives with (very useful!).

    > In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
    > backups for two or three years.

    Possibly problematic, but less likely IMO. Way around this: Use
    two drives from different manufacturere or better even three.
    Many sysadmins also think that you should have at least three
    independent backups.

    > Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
    > I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
    > my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
    > hard drive.

    More robust alternatives: MOD (3.5"), DVD-RAM and professional tape.
    Personally I have critical stuff (family photographs, code, etc)
    on MOD (never lost a single bit in now 8 years), everything else
    on HDDs in other computers.

    > Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
    > it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?

    > Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
    > archival medium than a hard drive?

    Forget about them. Some DVD/Burner/Speed combinations are pretty good,
    many are catastrophic and manufactueres often change their disks
    without changing the labels. Completely unusable for archiving,
    mostly unusable for backups. Exception: DVD-RAM.

    Arno
  3. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Neill Massello <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:

    [...]

    > "We started changing the tapes eight or ten years ago. The first
    > transfers we made were all to DAT. We found that DAT started
    > deteriorating so we moved them to CDs. We didn't think that was
    > sufficient, so we moved to hard drives. That way it preserves it,
    > hopefully forever." Sun Records CEO Shelby Singleton, quoted by Mathew
    > Honan in Exhibitions of Sound
    > <http://playlistmag.com/features/2005/08/preserve3/index.php>.

    > The modern consensus seems to be that there is no permanent archival
    > medium, so archiving means a continual process of testing and copying
    > onto new media. If you use multiple hard drives, treat them kindly, and
    > run dignostics on them periodically, you can probably get three years
    > out of each drive before it needs replacing.

    Actually professional Tape (not DAT), MOD and with some limitations
    (cartridge!) DVD-RAM all give >50 years. But neither of them are
    cheap. You get what you pay for.

    HDDs are most reliable when you have them in a redundant configuration
    and test them periodically. Still, a single copy for long-term
    archiving on a HDD is gone when you drop the disk if you are not
    very lucky. A tape cartridge or a MOD or DVD-RAM in its cartridge
    are very sturdy in comparison.

    Arno
  4. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno,
    What MO drives and media you use - Fujitsu?

    -- Pavel

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3m4kesF15gt2qU3@individual.net...
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
    >> I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    >> and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
    >
    >> ------
    >
    >> (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
    >> can be replaced.
    >
    >> (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
    >
    >> (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
    >> GB on another partition.
    >
    >> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    >> put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    >> an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >
    >> ------
    >
    >> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    >> above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >
    >> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    >> or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >
    >> I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
    >
    >> Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
    >> when it gets put back in the system?
    >
    >> Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
    >> damage my backup data stored on it?
    >
    > Depends on what you consider "normal". Treat it like it was a raw egg
    > and you should be fine with regard to shock. Another danger is
    > electrostatic damage. Two choices: USB enclosure (preferrable) or
    > careful handling and storage, e.g. in the plastic shell Seagate
    > delivers its drives with (very useful!).
    >
    >> In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
    >> backups for two or three years.
    >
    > Possibly problematic, but less likely IMO. Way around this: Use
    > two drives from different manufacturere or better even three.
    > Many sysadmins also think that you should have at least three
    > independent backups.
    >
    >> Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
    >> I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
    >> my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
    >> hard drive.
    >
    > More robust alternatives: MOD (3.5"), DVD-RAM and professional tape.
    > Personally I have critical stuff (family photographs, code, etc)
    > on MOD (never lost a single bit in now 8 years), everything else
    > on HDDs in other computers.
    >
    >> Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
    >> it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
    >
    >> Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
    >> archival medium than a hard drive?
    >
    > Forget about them. Some DVD/Burner/Speed combinations are pretty good,
    > many are catastrophic and manufactueres often change their disks
    > without changing the labels. Completely unusable for archiving,
    > mostly unusable for backups. Exception: DVD-RAM.
    >
    > Arno
  5. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Tray system for HDDs - I have been using them for over 10 years, every
    computer in the house (5) has a tray shell (housing) installed. It
    takes literally about 15 seconds to switch drives - machines - OS
    -whatever. Tray and housing combo costs about $15.00 at computer shows,
    probably less online.

    Regards,

    Marv

    Neill Massello wrote:
    > Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    >>put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    >>an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >>
    >>I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    >>above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >>
    >>How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    >>or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >>
    >>I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
    >>
    >>Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
    >>when it gets put back in the system?
    >>
    >>Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
    >>damage my backup data stored on it?
    >
    >
    > Assuming your "normal" handling is careful, your data should be
    > reasonably safe. (I've had hard drives survive a fall to the floor, but
    > I don't count on being that lucky all the time.)
    >
    > For regular hard drive swapping, consider a tray system. They cost some
    > money but save time and trouble and reduce wear and tear on the drives'
    > power and data connectors.
    >
    >
    >
    >>In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
    >>backups for two or three years.
    >>
    >>Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
    >>I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
    >>my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
    >>hard drive.
    >>
    >>Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
    >>it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
    >>
    >>Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
    >>archival medium than a hard drive?
    >
    >
    > "We started changing the tapes eight or ten years ago. The first
    > transfers we made were all to DAT. We found that DAT started
    > deteriorating so we moved them to CDs. We didn't think that was
    > sufficient, so we moved to hard drives. That way it preserves it,
    > hopefully forever." Sun Records CEO Shelby Singleton, quoted by Mathew
    > Honan in Exhibitions of Sound
    > <http://playlistmag.com/features/2005/08/preserve3/index.php>.
    >
    > The modern consensus seems to be that there is no permanent archival
    > medium, so archiving means a continual process of testing and copying
    > onto new media. If you use multiple hard drives, treat them kindly, and
    > run dignostics on them periodically, you can probably get three years
    > out of each drive before it needs replacing.
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Pavel A. <pavel_a@nowritemeno.com> wrote:
    > Arno,
    > What MO drives and media you use - Fujitsu?

    The drive is an internal Fujitsu SCSI drive (640MB, in use for about
    8 years now). Today I would likely get a 2.3GB drive (they are
    fully backwards compatible) with IDE or USB2 interface, again
    from Fujitsu.

    I have media from several manufacturers, mostly Philips, some
    Sony and some FujiFilm. It does not really matter, they all are
    reliable. The only problem I ever had was with an excess of dust
    in a disk (errors when writing, no data loss before) that was fixed
    by cleaning the disk.

    Arno
  7. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote

    > I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    > and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.

    > ------

    > (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives.
    > Much of that can be replaced.

    > (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.

    > (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and
    > cache files take 45 GB on another partition.

    > My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough
    > to put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing
    > to get an expensive USB attached hard drive.

    > ------

    > I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the
    > system (B above) and downloaded programs (C above).

    Is there much point with the C ? They age pretty
    quickly and can be easily replaced if you need to.

    Likely better to keep a list of them rather than backing them up.

    > How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE
    > (maybe 160 GB or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

    Very viable.

    > I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.

    That doesnt gain much backup wise, having it out of the
    system. If it isnt hidden it may well get stolen with the
    system and it obviously isnt protected against fire or flood etc.

    > Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become
    > problematic when it gets put back in the system?

    It shouldnt be if you use a formal standard like SATA.

    > Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard
    > drive could damage my backup data stored on it?

    Yes, particularly if you are prone to dropping things.

    Hard drives hate that.

    > In addition, sometimes I would want to archive
    > away one set of backups for two or three years.

    > Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?

    Yes, DVDs are worth considering, particularly for the archive.

    > I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and my
    > backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline hard drive.

    And they are the fastest form of backup, both when doing
    the backup and when getting something off the backup.

    > Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead?

    Or have both. DVD burners are damned cheap now.

    > How long might it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?

    Really depend on the speed media you choose to use.

    And the speed doesnt matter too much if you do it in DVD sized chunks.

    > Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive?

    Better in some ways, much easier to have the backup out of the house
    for example. Worse in other ways, MUCH slower than a hard drive.

    > Is DVD a better archival medium than a hard drive?

    Yes, basically because it doesnt cost much to have more
    than one copy on different media so one failure is just a
    yawn. Much more expensive to do that with a hard drive.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Columbus wrote:
    > I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    > and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
    >
    > ------
    >
    > (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
    > can be replaced.
    >
    > (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
    >
    > (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
    > GB on another partition.
    >
    > My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    > put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    > an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >

    I use an external USB drive to do a full backup every 3 months and
    incremental every week.

    It has saved my butt in the past.......pretty easy and fast. DVD's are
    good for archive purposes.

    > ------
    >
    > I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    > above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >
    > How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    > or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >
    > I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
    >
    > Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
    > when it gets put back in the system?
    >
    > Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
    > damage my backup data stored on it?
    >
    > In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
    > backups for two or three years.
    >
    > Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
    > I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
    > my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
    > hard drive.
    >
    > Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
    > it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
    >
    > Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
    > archival medium than a hard drive?
  9. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    You are just speaking of two very different backup strategies. It is a
    personal preference and you should use what you feel comfortable with.
    Either one is "good"! Try them both and you will soon gravitate toward one
    as "your" preferred method.

    --
    Regards,

    Richard Urban
    Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

    Quote from: George Ankner
    "If you knew as much as you think you know,
    You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

    "Columbus" <hiss@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:96B0CE7DE344461M2A@66.250.146.159...
    > I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    > and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
    >
    > ------
    >
    > (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
    > can be replaced.
    >
    > (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
    >
    > (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
    > GB on another partition.
    >
    > My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    > put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    > an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >
    > ------
    >
    > I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    > above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >
    > How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    > or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >
    > I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
    >
    > Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
    > when it gets put back in the system?
    >
    > Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
    > damage my backup data stored on it?
    >
    > In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
    > backups for two or three years.
    >
    > Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
    > I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
    > my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
    > hard drive.
    >
    > Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
    > it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
    >
    > Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
    > archival medium than a hard drive?
  10. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner wrote:

    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Neill Massello
    > <neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >> Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> "We started changing the tapes eight or ten years ago. The first
    >> transfers we made were all to DAT. We found that DAT started
    >> deteriorating so we moved them to CDs. We didn't think that was
    >> sufficient, so we moved to hard drives. That way it preserves it,
    >> hopefully forever." Sun Records CEO Shelby Singleton, quoted by Mathew
    >> Honan in Exhibitions of Sound
    >> <http://playlistmag.com/features/2005/08/preserve3/index.php>.
    >
    >> The modern consensus seems to be that there is no permanent archival
    >> medium, so archiving means a continual process of testing and copying
    >> onto new media. If you use multiple hard drives, treat them kindly, and
    >> run dignostics on them periodically, you can probably get three years
    >> out of each drive before it needs replacing.
    >
    > Actually professional Tape (not DAT), MOD and with some limitations
    > (cartridge!) DVD-RAM all give >50 years. But neither of them are
    > cheap. You get what you pay for.

    The chemistry of DVD-RAM is the same as for DVR-RW. If one lasts 50 years
    the other will last 50 years. What's different is the formatting.

    > HDDs are most reliable when you have them in a redundant configuration
    > and test them periodically. Still, a single copy for long-term
    > archiving on a HDD is gone when you drop the disk if you are not
    > very lucky. A tape cartridge or a MOD or DVD-RAM in its cartridge
    > are very sturdy in comparison.

    There are few cartridge-loading DVD-RAM drives available these days. In any
    case the protection provided by the cartridge is overrated. I remember a
    fellow giving a demonstration of an MO drive a while back who was puzzled
    because it wasn't working. I opened the slider on his cartridge while he
    was down the hall finding the tech and found that the cartridge was full of
    coffee.

    Further, a powered-down contemporary disk in a shock-mounted carrier will
    take quite a lot of abuse.

    > Arno

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  11. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In article <ODgkPQAoFHA.2080@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
    richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com says...
    > You are just speaking of two very different backup strategies. It is a
    > personal preference and you should use what you feel comfortable with.
    > Either one is "good"! Try them both and you will soon gravitate toward one
    > as "your" preferred method.

    I agree, I've used Tape for years, and also installation of a spare
    drive in each system. Nightly backups to the spare drive, then copy to
    tape. As the portable drive have become cheaper I've gone to purchasing
    external FireWire/USB2 drives that I can move around if needed. In many
    cases I leave one connected to a server and then backup across the
    network to that device and then back that device up to tape.

    I like the idea of using a drive caddy, but it's easier to just grab a
    FireWire/USB2 external drive any more, and the user doesn't have to do
    anything with their case.

    --

    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  12. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Thanks Arno. I'm looking at MO for a long time
    but still undecided. 2.3 GB is less than 4.7 of DVD,
    They are not only expensive but also not easy to buy,
    most stores where I live don't sell them.
    Also, Iomega from time to time tries to win the market =
    their newest product looks interesting but again, it's future is not clear.

    --PA

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3m54f4F14la8sU2@individual.net...
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Pavel A. <pavel_a@nowritemeno.com> wrote:
    >> Arno,
    >> What MO drives and media you use - Fujitsu?
    >
    > The drive is an internal Fujitsu SCSI drive (640MB, in use for about
    > 8 years now). Today I would likely get a 2.3GB drive (they are
    > fully backwards compatible) with IDE or USB2 interface, again
    > from Fujitsu.
    >
    > I have media from several manufacturers, mostly Philips, some
    > Sony and some FujiFilm. It does not really matter, they all are
    > reliable. The only problem I ever had was with an excess of dust
    > in a disk (errors when writing, no data loss before) that was fixed
    > by cleaning the disk.
    >
    > Arno
    >
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:3m4kesF15gt2qU3@individual.net...
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
    >> I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    >> and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
    >
    >> ------
    >
    >> (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
    >> can be replaced.
    >
    >> (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
    >
    >> (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
    >> GB on another partition.
    >
    >> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    >> put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    >> an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >
    >> ------
    >
    >> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    >> above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >
    >> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    >> or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >
    >> I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
    >
    >> Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
    >> when it gets put back in the system?
    >
    >> Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
    >> damage my backup data stored on it?
    >
    > Depends on what you consider "normal". Treat it like it was a raw egg
    > and you should be fine with regard to shock. Another danger is
    > electrostatic damage. Two choices: USB enclosure (preferrable) or
    > careful handling and storage, e.g. in the plastic shell Seagate
    > delivers its drives with (very useful!).
    >
    >> In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
    >> backups for two or three years.
    >
    > Possibly problematic, but less likely IMO. Way around this: Use
    > two drives from different manufacturere or better even three.
    > Many sysadmins also think that you should have at least three
    > independent backups.
    >
    >> Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
    >> I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
    >> my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
    >> hard drive.
    >
    > More robust alternatives: MOD (3.5"), DVD-RAM and professional tape.
    > Personally I have critical stuff (family photographs, code, etc)
    > on MOD (never lost a single bit in now 8 years), everything else
    > on HDDs in other computers.
    >
    >> Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
    >> it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
    >
    >> Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
    >> archival medium than a hard drive?
    >
    > Forget about them. Some DVD/Burner/Speed combinations are pretty good,


    > many are catastrophic and manufactueres often change their disks
    > without changing the labels.

    Arno - I'd like to understand what effect this point has. Is it intended to
    mean that a given backup set may be unreadable at some future time because
    you may be trying to use a DVD reader that is incompatible with the DVD
    disc?

    Thanks

    Completely unusable for archiving,
    > mostly unusable for backups. Exception: DVD-RAM.
    >
    Arno -
    > Arno
  14. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    > I have media from several manufacturers, mostly Philips, some
    > Sony and some FujiFilm. It does not really matter, they all are
    > reliable.

    MO media is reliable, but the drives are slowly disappearing. Once
    Fujitsu stops making them, the MO storage method will become practically
    unreliable for archival purposes. Whatever its technical merits, MO was
    never really embraced in the marketplace and is now fading away.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Pavel A. <pavel_a@nowritemeno.com> wrote:
    > Thanks Arno. I'm looking at MO for a long time
    > but still undecided. 2.3 GB is less than 4.7 of DVD,
    > They are not only expensive but also not easy to buy,
    > most stores where I live don't sell them.
    > Also, Iomega from time to time tries to win the market =
    > their newest product looks interesting but again, it's future is not clear.

    Ok, let me comment on this:

    Why if you want lots of unreliable storage, MOD is not for you.
    If you wand a reasonable amount of very reliable storage, go
    MOD and never look back. Frankly DVD is a waste of money at this
    time. Store you data on HDDs instead, that is faster, more reliable,
    cheaper and less effort. Iomega has a long history of truly bad
    prooducts that are phased out at some time and then you can throw away
    your media. I wasted enough money on now worthless Zip disks
    and drives. These pople will not get any money or trust from me
    again.

    As for the problems in getting MOD, well, you need to mail-order.
    You also need to mail-order the disks. But trust me, you will not
    regret the decision if you really want something reliable. There
    is really no product on the market that can compete in terms of
    reliability and usability for long-term storage except maybe the
    very expensive professional tape market. It is very telling that this
    seemingly nice product is still around. Some people cannot afford to
    loose their data.

    Arno
  16. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Pavel A.
    > <pavel_a@nowritemeno.com> wrote:
    >> Thanks Arno. I'm looking at MO for a long time
    >> but still undecided. 2.3 GB is less than 4.7 of DVD,
    >> They are not only expensive but also not easy to buy,
    >> most stores where I live don't sell them.
    >> Also, Iomega from time to time tries to win the market =
    >> their newest product looks interesting but again, it's future is not
    >> clear.
    >
    > Ok, let me comment on this:
    >
    > Why if you want lots of unreliable storage, MOD is not for you.
    > If you wand a reasonable amount of very reliable storage, go
    > MOD and never look back.

    You'll be looking back when it turns out its just another
    technology that never did manage to get up enough of
    a head of steam to be viable over the longer term.

    > Frankly DVD is a waste of money at this time.

    Most say the same thing about MOD and when DVD continues to be
    available and MOD doesnt, its you that will have wasted your money.

    > Store you data on HDDs instead, that is faster, more reliable,
    > cheaper and less effort. Iomega has a long history of truly bad
    > prooducts that are phased out at some time and then you can throw away
    > your media. I wasted enough money on now worthless Zip disks and drives.
    > These pople will not get any money or trust from me again.

    Many feel the same way about technology that never does
    get up enough of a head of steam to have a decent future.

    > As for the problems in getting MOD, well, you need to mail-order.
    > You also need to mail-order the disks. But trust me, you will not
    > regret the decision if you really want something reliable.

    We'll see, when its no longer available by mail order either.

    > There is really no product on the market that can compete in
    > terms of reliability and usability for long-term storage except
    > maybe the very expensive professional tape market.

    Oh bullshit. You cant ignore DVD so glibly.

    > It is very telling that this seemingly nice product is still around.

    Its actually sinking beneath the waves, just like every other
    technology that never did get up a decent head of steam.

    > Some people cannot afford to loose their data.

    And some avoid that fine using hard drives and DVD.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    TonyB wrote:

    > Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Pavel A.
    >> <pavel_a@nowritemeno.com> wrote:
    >>> Thanks Arno. I'm looking at MO for a long time
    >>> but still undecided. 2.3 GB is less than 4.7 of DVD,
    >>> They are not only expensive but also not easy to buy,
    >>> most stores where I live don't sell them.
    >>> Also, Iomega from time to time tries to win the market =
    >>> their newest product looks interesting but again, it's future is not
    >>> clear.
    >>
    >> Ok, let me comment on this:
    >>
    >> Why if you want lots of unreliable storage, MOD is not for you.
    >> If you wand a reasonable amount of very reliable storage, go
    >> MOD and never look back.
    >
    > You'll be looking back when it turns out its just another
    > technology that never did manage to get up enough of
    > a head of steam to be viable over the longer term.

    Uh, MOD has been around longer than DVD or recordable CD. And those first
    disks are still readable in current generation drives.

    >> Frankly DVD is a waste of money at this time.
    >
    > Most say the same thing about MOD and when DVD continues to be
    > available and MOD doesnt, its you that will have wasted your money.

    And when will that be?

    >> Store you data on HDDs instead, that is faster, more reliable,
    >> cheaper and less effort. Iomega has a long history of truly bad
    >> prooducts that are phased out at some time and then you can throw away
    >> your media. I wasted enough money on now worthless Zip disks and drives.
    >> These pople will not get any money or trust from me again.
    >
    > Many feel the same way about technology that never does
    > get up enough of a head of steam to have a decent future.

    MOD has plenty of "steam" in the professional market. Your argument would
    apply equally well to, for example, LTO.

    >> As for the problems in getting MOD, well, you need to mail-order.
    >> You also need to mail-order the disks. But trust me, you will not
    >> regret the decision if you really want something reliable.
    >
    > We'll see, when its no longer available by mail order either.

    And when will that be?

    >> There is really no product on the market that can compete in
    >> terms of reliability and usability for long-term storage except
    >> maybe the very expensive professional tape market.
    >
    > Oh bullshit. You cant ignore DVD so glibly.

    Actually, he can. MO does have a track record. Recordable DVD's is much
    shorter and Arno does have first hand experience with DVD failures so he is
    speaking from experience.

    >> It is very telling that this seemingly nice product is still around.
    >
    > Its actually sinking beneath the waves, just like every other
    > technology that never did get up a decent head of steam.

    It is? You have sales figures to support that argument?

    >> Some people cannot afford to loose their data.
    >
    > And some avoid that fine using hard drives and DVD.

    Depends on their needs. It's overkill for backup IMO but it's not overkill
    for archival storage. The two are not the same.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  18. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    fj wrote:

    >
    > "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    > news:3m4kesF15gt2qU3@individual.net...
    >> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
    >>> I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    >>> and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
    >>
    >>> ------
    >>
    >>> (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
    >>> can be replaced.
    >>
    >>> (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
    >>
    >>> (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
    >>> GB on another partition.
    >>
    >>> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    >>> put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    >>> an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >>
    >>> ------
    >>
    >>> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    >>> above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >>
    >>> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    >>> or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >>
    >>> I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
    >>
    >>> Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become problematic
    >>> when it gets put back in the system?
    >>
    >>> Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard drive could
    >>> damage my backup data stored on it?
    >>
    >> Depends on what you consider "normal". Treat it like it was a raw egg
    >> and you should be fine with regard to shock. Another danger is
    >> electrostatic damage. Two choices: USB enclosure (preferrable) or
    >> careful handling and storage, e.g. in the plastic shell Seagate
    >> delivers its drives with (very useful!).
    >>
    >>> In addition, sometimes I would want to archive away one set of
    >>> backups for two or three years.
    >>
    >> Possibly problematic, but less likely IMO. Way around this: Use
    >> two drives from different manufacturere or better even three.
    >> Many sysadmins also think that you should have at least three
    >> independent backups.
    >>
    >>> Are there any alternatives to a hard drive which I should consider?
    >>> I'm attracted to a hard drive because the cost per GB is so good and
    >>> my backup data is available almost as soon as I plug in the offline
    >>> hard drive.
    >>
    >> More robust alternatives: MOD (3.5"), DVD-RAM and professional tape.
    >> Personally I have critical stuff (family photographs, code, etc)
    >> on MOD (never lost a single bit in now 8 years), everything else
    >> on HDDs in other computers.
    >>
    >>> Would it be good value to get a DVD burner instead? How long might
    >>> it take to back up 15 GB to DVD? What about 50 GB?
    >>
    >>> Is DVD a better backup medium than a hard drive? Is DVD a better
    >>> archival medium than a hard drive?
    >>
    >> Forget about them. Some DVD/Burner/Speed combinations are pretty good,
    >
    >
    >> many are catastrophic and manufactueres often change their disks
    >> without changing the labels.
    >
    > Arno - I'd like to understand what effect this point has. Is it intended
    > to mean that a given backup set may be unreadable at some future time
    > because you may be trying to use a DVD reader that is incompatible with
    > the DVD disc?

    There are three issues of which I am aware. Apparently some writers have
    difficulty with some media. If the writer vendor changes the internals in
    midstream he might change to some that don't work well with the media
    you're using. Different media chemistries have different degrees of
    stability--if the media vendor changes chemistry in midstream without
    telling anybody then the new media may be significantly less reliable than
    the old media. DVD and CD drives can suffer alignment problems--a disk
    that is quite readable in one drive may not be readable at all in another
    that is apparently the same, even though both drives can read disks that
    they wrote.

    This leaves totally aside the format wars.

    > Thanks
    >
    > Completely unusable for archiving,
    >> mostly unusable for backups. Exception: DVD-RAM.
    >>
    > Arno -
    >> Arno

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  19. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:17:56 +0100, Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:

    >I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    >and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.

    >(A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
    >can be replaced.

    >(B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.

    >(C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
    >GB on another partition.

    >My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    >put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    >an expensive USB attached hard drive.

    >I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    >above) and downloaded programs (C above).

    >How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    >or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

    Caveats:

    1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G
    2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image
    3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs
    4) S-ATA hot-swappability requires S-ATA power connection
    5) Single recent backup may contain pre-existing problems
    6) HDs don't sem to like brackets and exclosures

    So yes; you could use (say) BING from www.bootitng.com to image off C:
    to another HD, as long as you unplug the PC from mains before
    connecting and disconnecting the extra HD. Bear in mind the risk of
    including problems within the backup, e.g. (say) a malware that
    infected the system 29 days ago that has a 30-day payload fuse.

    For the rest of the data, I'd do file-level copies rather than image
    backups, so that the backups are browsable. For the same reason, I'd
    keep data you wanted to browse, off the C: that you will image.

    If copying files to CDR or DVDR, bear in mind that different file
    system rules can knock file and path names around, attributes could
    revert to read-only, and NTFS-specific metadata will typically be
    lost. To preserve those things, consider first archiving within a
    ..zip (using something that manages the NTFS fluff, if that's important
    to you) and then drop those .zip onto the CDR or DVDR.


    >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    The most accurate diagnostic instrument
    in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
    >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
  20. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
    message news:v3luf192fl337ua69lb4t1l6sabm244623@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:17:56 +0100, Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    >>and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
    >
    >>(A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
    >>can be replaced.
    >
    >>(B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
    >
    >>(C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
    >>GB on another partition.
    >
    >>My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    >>put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    >>an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >
    >>I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    >>above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >
    >>How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    >>or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >
    > Caveats:
    >
    > 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G
    > 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image
    > 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs
    So, means you should remove the power cord before removing hard drives?
    > 4) S-ATA hot-swappability requires S-ATA power connection
    > 5) Single recent backup may contain pre-existing problems
    Right. This 'simply' implies that you need to do a complete system backup
    just after installing Windows and setting up your default applications.
    Then, keep this known good backup separate from the on-going/periodic
    backups, which can be used if you need to restore from hardware failure.
    > 6) HDs don't sem to like brackets and exclosures
    You're referring to heat - yes? I.e., the temperature of HDD's in external
    enclosures run hotter than when installed in a professionally built PC?
    How about the external enclosures with built in fans? [The ones that
    actually have ventilation for moving new air in, hot air out]
    Lastly, how about 2.5" harddrives? I've got one running in an aluminum case
    made by IWILL. It runs cooler to the touch than the bottom of my notebook
    where the hard drive is located. Are 2.5" HDD's any more susceptible to
    heat induced errors than 3.5" ones?

    Thanks
    >
    > So yes; you could use (say) BING from www.bootitng.com to image off C:
    > to another HD, as long as you unplug the PC from mains before
    > connecting and disconnecting the extra HD. Bear in mind the risk of
    > including problems within the backup, e.g. (say) a malware that
    > infected the system 29 days ago that has a 30-day payload fuse.
    >
    > For the rest of the data, I'd do file-level copies rather than image
    > backups, so that the backups are browsable. For the same reason, I'd
    > keep data you wanted to browse, off the C: that you will image.
    >
    > If copying files to CDR or DVDR, bear in mind that different file
    > system rules can knock file and path names around, attributes could
    > revert to read-only, and NTFS-specific metadata will typically be
    > lost. To preserve those things, consider first archiving within a
    > .zip (using something that manages the NTFS fluff, if that's important
    > to you) and then drop those .zip onto the CDR or DVDR.
    >
    >
    >
    >>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    > The most accurate diagnostic instrument
    > in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
    >>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
  21. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "fj" <jelenko@att.net> wrote in message
    news:ufJLe.605703$cg1.442145@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
    > message news:v3luf192fl337ua69lb4t1l6sabm244623@4ax.com...
    > >
    > > Caveats:
    > >
    > > 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G
    over 137GB

    > > 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image
    > > 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    Nonsense. All the Molex are powered off.
    The IDE ports are disabled. Only PS/2, USB, PCI, perhaps RAM are on.
    Even disabling IDE channel in Device Manager allows hot swap.

    > So, means you should remove the power cord before removing hard drives?
  22. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:57:53 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
    >"fj" <jelenko@att.net> wrote in message
    >> "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote

    >> > 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    >Nonsense. All the Molex are powered off.
    >The IDE ports are disabled. Only PS/2, USB, PCI, perhaps RAM are on.
    >Even disabling IDE channel in Device Manager allows hot swap.

    That's an interesting assertion. I can meter molex power leads to
    test those, but checking the data cables would be more difficult.

    Given the risks involved, I'd like a couple of URLs on that?


    >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    The most accurate diagnostic instrument
    in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
    >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
  23. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    > Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote

    >> I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    >> and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
    >
    >> (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
    >> can be replaced.
    >
    >> (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
    >
    >> (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
    >> GB on another partition.
    >
    >> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    >> put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to get
    >> an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >
    >> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    >> above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >
    >> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    >> or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

    > Caveats:

    > 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G

    You've got that backwards. And they can see drives > 137G,
    they'll just corrupt the data as access wraps at that point.

    > 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image

    Wrong. Have fun explaining xxclone.

    And you dont need a bootable copy for backup anyway.

    > 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    Wrong. And the worst you have to do is unplug
    the power supply from the mains anyway.

    > 4) S-ATA hot-swappability requires S-ATA power connection
    > 5) Single recent backup may contain pre-existing problems
    > 6) HDs don't sem to like brackets and exclosures

    Bullshit.

    > So yes; you could use (say) BING from www.bootitng.com to image
    > off C: to another HD, as long as you unplug the PC from mains before
    > connecting and disconnecting the extra HD. Bear in mind the risk of
    > including problems within the backup, e.g. (say) a malware that
    > infected the system 29 days ago that has a 30-day payload fuse.

    > For the rest of the data, I'd do file-level copies rather
    > than image backups, so that the backups are browsable.

    Any decent imager allows you to browse the image.

    > For the same reason, I'd keep data you wanted
    > to browse, off the C: that you will image.

    No need. Just use a decent imager.

    > If copying files to CDR or DVDR, bear in mind that different file
    > system rules can knock file and path names around, attributes could
    > revert to read-only, and NTFS-specific metadata will typically be lost.

    Another good reason for imaging with a decent imager.

    > To preserve those things, consider first archiving within a .zip
    > (using something that manages the NTFS fluff, if that's important
    > to you) and then drop those .zip onto the CDR or DVDR.

    Or use a decent imager.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:08:14 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
    >cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    >> Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote

    >>> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160 GB
    >>> or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

    >> Caveats:

    >> 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G

    >You've got that backwards. And they can see drives > 137G,
    >they'll just corrupt the data as access wraps at that point.

    Yes indeed; the < should be a >

    It would be a lot safer if XP SP0 would simply refuse to "see" an
    over-137G than appear to work and then barf the data, so I if
    anything, your assertion re-inforces my caveat, unless partitioning
    keeps the volumes that are used, short of that point.

    >> 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image

    >Wrong. Have fun explaining xxclone.

    I haven't used XXClone, but I've certainly seen what happens when
    methods that work flawlessly with Win9x installations are applied to
    XP installations. The result doesn't boot, even if you get all the
    boot code stuff spot on.

    >And you dont need a bootable copy for backup anyway.

    Depends why you are trying to backup, doesn't it? Someone backing up
    the whole of C: is liable to expect a restore to be bootable.

    >> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    >Wrong. And the worst you have to do is unplug
    >the power supply from the mains anyway.

    I'd remove the mains; that's what I'm saying. ATX "off" definately
    maintains a standby trickle of power to the system; what may be
    debatable is whether this power goes to the HDs, via power leads or
    via the data connections.

    >> 4) S-ATA hot-swappability requires S-ATA power connection
    >> 5) Single recent backup may contain pre-existing problems
    >> 6) HDs don't sem to like brackets and exclosures

    >Bullshit.

    Speaking from experience, my friend. I see far more dead HDs from
    brackets than I do from "normal" use; why that is, is open to
    conjecture, but that's the mileage.

    Or are you claiming it's "bullshit" that a malware can permeate a
    system, and backups thereof, before hatching a destructive payload
    several days later?

    Or are you disputing Western Digital's advice NOT to hot-swap their
    S-ATA drives if using the legacy power connectors they provide?

    >> For the rest of the data, I'd do file-level copies rather
    >> than image backups, so that the backups are browsable.

    >Any decent imager allows you to browse the image.

    OK, so don't use any of the indecent ones that abound.


    >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    Reality is that which, when you stop believing
    in it, does not go away (PKD)
    >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
  25. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    fj <jelenko@att.net> wrote:
    > "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org>
    > wrote in message news:v3luf192fl337ua69lb4t1l6sabm244623@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:17:56 +0100, Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office
    >>> applications and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
    >>
    >>> (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives. Much of that
    >>> can be replaced.
    >>
    >>> (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
    >>
    >>> (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and cache files take 45
    >>> GB on another partition.
    >>
    >>> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough to
    >>> put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing to
    >>> get an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >>
    >>> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the system (B
    >>> above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >>
    >>> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE (maybe 160
    >>> GB or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >>
    >> Caveats:
    >>
    >> 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G
    >> 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image
    >> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    > So, means you should remove the power cord before removing hard drives?

    He's just plain wrong and yes, you can remove the power cord.

    >> 4) S-ATA hot-swappability requires S-ATA power connection
    >> 5) Single recent backup may contain pre-existing problems

    > Right. This 'simply' implies that you need to do a complete system
    > backup just after installing Windows and setting up your default
    > applications. Then, keep this known good backup separate from the
    > on-going/periodic backups, which can be used if you need to restore
    > from hardware failure.

    Its better to have more than one backup of the full system.
    Then if the system does get molested by a preexisting problem
    you can step back to the older backup if you need to.

    The main advantage of that approach over the backup taken just
    after the clean install is that you're likely to have configured stuff
    over time since the clean install and those config changes will be
    lost if you go back to the backup done just after the clean install.

    >> 6) HDs don't sem to like brackets and exclosures

    > You're referring to heat - yes?

    Cant see what he's on about with 'brackets' unless he is
    referring to some drives like the Barracudas that get rid
    of heat by conduction to the metal drive bay stack and can get
    quite hot if you use plastic rails etc that stop that happening.

    > I.e., the temperature of HDD's in external enclosures run hotter than when
    > installed in a professionally built PC?

    > How about the external enclosures with built in fans? [The ones that actually
    > have ventilation for moving new air in, hot air out]

    They're not usually as well done as the main system case airflow wise.

    > Lastly, how about 2.5" harddrives? I've got one running in an
    > aluminum case made by IWILL. It runs cooler to the touch than the
    > bottom of my notebook where the hard drive is located. Are 2.5"
    > HDD's any more susceptible to heat induced errors than 3.5" ones?

    Nope, if anything less susceptible. They still dont like it tho, the Dell
    laptops/notebooks that tend to run the drives right at the max the
    drive manufacturer allows are notoriously for being hard drive killers.

    >> So yes; you could use (say) BING from www.bootitng.com to image off
    >> C: to another HD, as long as you unplug the PC from mains before
    >> connecting and disconnecting the extra HD. Bear in mind the risk of
    >> including problems within the backup, e.g. (say) a malware that
    >> infected the system 29 days ago that has a 30-day payload fuse.
    >>
    >> For the rest of the data, I'd do file-level copies rather than image
    >> backups, so that the backups are browsable. For the same reason, I'd
    >> keep data you wanted to browse, off the C: that you will image.
    >>
    >> If copying files to CDR or DVDR, bear in mind that different file
    >> system rules can knock file and path names around, attributes could
    >> revert to read-only, and NTFS-specific metadata will typically be
    >> lost. To preserve those things, consider first archiving within a
    >> .zip (using something that manages the NTFS fluff, if that's
    >> important to you) and then drop those .zip onto the CDR or DVDR.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    > Eric Gisin wrote
    >> fj <jelenko@att.net> wrote
    >>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote

    >>>> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    >> Nonsense. All the Molex are powered off.

    >> The IDE ports are disabled. Only PS/2, USB, PCI, perhaps RAM are on.
    >> Even disabling IDE channel in Device Manager allows hot swap.

    > That's an interesting assertion.

    Its not an assertion, its a fact.

    > I can meter molex power leads to test those,

    And that is all you need to do.

    > but checking the data cables would be more difficult.

    Nope, you can do that with the same multimeter.
    At a spare connector on a ribbon cable or the
    motherboard end with the ribbon cable unplugged.

    > Given the risks involved,

    There are no risks involved.

    > I'd like a couple of URLs on that?

    Your problem. It should be obvious from what needs
    to be powered with an ATX system so that it can be
    turned on from the keyboard or wake on lan etc.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I would think you would like to back up what you state with a few quality
    url's as proof. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke.

    --
    Regards,

    Richard Urban
    Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

    Quote from: George Ankner
    "If you knew as much as you think you know,
    You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:3ma2bsF15u87jU1@individual.net...
    > cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    >> Eric Gisin wrote
    >>> fj <jelenko@att.net> wrote
    >>>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    >
    >>>>> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs
    >
    >>> Nonsense. All the Molex are powered off.
    >
    >>> The IDE ports are disabled. Only PS/2, USB, PCI, perhaps RAM are on.
    >>> Even disabling IDE channel in Device Manager allows hot swap.
    >
    >> That's an interesting assertion.
    >
    > Its not an assertion, its a fact.
    >
    >> I can meter molex power leads to test those,
    >
    > And that is all you need to do.
    >
    >> but checking the data cables would be more difficult.
    >
    > Nope, you can do that with the same multimeter.
    > At a spare connector on a ribbon cable or the
    > motherboard end with the ribbon cable unplugged.
    >
    >> Given the risks involved,
    >
    > There are no risks involved.
    >
    >> I'd like a couple of URLs on that?
    >
    > Your problem. It should be obvious from what needs
    > to be powered with an ATX system so that it can be
    > turned on from the keyboard or wake on lan etc.
    >
    >
    >
  28. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    >>> Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote

    >>>> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE
    >>>> (maybe 160 GB or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

    >>> Caveats:

    >>> 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G

    >> You've got that backwards. And they can see drives > 137G,
    >> they'll just corrupt the data as access wraps at that point.

    > Yes indeed; the < should be a >

    > It would be a lot safer if XP SP0 would simply refuse
    > to "see" an over-137G than appear to work and then
    > barf the data, so I if anything, your assertion

    It isnt an assertion, its a fact.

    > re-inforces my caveat, unless partitioning keeps
    > the volumes that are used, short of that point.

    I chose to comment on your claim that the original XP
    cant 'see' drives over 137G. That is just plain wrong.

    >>> 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image

    >> Wrong. Have fun explaining xxclone.

    > I haven't used XXClone, but I've certainly seen what happens
    > when methods that work flawlessly with Win9x installations
    > are applied to XP installations. The result doesn't boot,
    > even if you get all the boot code stuff spot on.

    Irrelevant to your assertion that file level copying isnt possible.

    That is just plain wrong. Most of the cloners do it that way.
    Essentially because they are mostly used when upgrading
    the boot drive to a bigger one and file copying is the most
    convenient way to do that.

    >> And you dont need a bootable copy for backup anyway.

    > Depends why you are trying to backup, doesn't it?

    Nope.

    > Someone backing up the whole of C: is
    > liable to expect a restore to be bootable.

    The restore being bootable is an entirely separate
    question to whether the backup itself is bootable.

    >>> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    >> Wrong. And the worst you have to do is unplug
    >> the power supply from the mains anyway.

    > I'd remove the mains; that's what I'm saying.

    No need.

    > ATX "off" definately maintains a
    > standby trickle of power to the system;

    Yes.

    > what may be debatable is whether this power goes
    > to the HDs, via power leads or via the data connections.

    No its not debateable, its trivial to measure and prove it doesnt happen.

    >>> 4) S-ATA hot-swappability requires S-ATA power connection
    >>> 5) Single recent backup may contain pre-existing problems
    >>> 6) HDs don't sem to like brackets and exclosures

    >> Bullshit.

    > Speaking from experience, my friend.

    No you arent, you're actually grossly misusing the term 'brackets'

    > I see far more dead HDs from brackets than I do from
    > "normal" use; why that is, is open to conjecture,

    Nope, its completely trivial to seen what is different between
    an external enclosure and a drive mounted internally.

    > but that's the mileage.

    No it isnt with 'brackets'

    > Or are you claiming it's "bullshit" that a malware can
    > permeate a system, and backups thereof, before
    > hatching a destructive payload several days later?

    Nope, that comment applied to just your last line, 6)

    > Or are you disputing Western Digital's advice NOT to hot-swap their
    > S-ATA drives if using the legacy power connectors they provide?

    Nope, that comment applied to just your last line, 6)

    >>> For the rest of the data, I'd do file-level copies rather
    >>> than image backups, so that the backups are browsable.

    >> Any decent imager allows you to browse the image.

    > OK, so don't use any of the indecent ones that abound.

    The vast bulk of the mainstream imagers allow you to browse the image.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    >>> Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote

    >>>> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE
    >>>> (maybe 160 GB or 200 GB) as a backup medium?

    >>> Caveats:

    >>> 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G

    >> You've got that backwards. And they can see drives > 137G,
    >> they'll just corrupt the data as access wraps at that point.

    > Yes indeed; the < should be a >

    > It would be a lot safer if XP SP0 would simply refuse
    > to "see" an over-137G than appear to work and then
    > barf the data, so I if anything, your assertion

    It isnt an assertion, its a fact.

    > re-inforces my caveat, unless partitioning keeps
    > the volumes that are used, short of that point.

    I chose to comment on your claim that the original XP
    cant 'see' drives over 137G. That is just plain wrong.

    >>> 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image

    >> Wrong. Have fun explaining xxclone.

    > I haven't used XXClone, but I've certainly seen what happens
    > when methods that work flawlessly with Win9x installations
    > are applied to XP installations. The result doesn't boot,
    > even if you get all the boot code stuff spot on.

    Irrelevant to your assertion that file level copying isnt possible.

    That is just plain wrong. Most of the cloners do it that way.
    Essentially because they are mostly used when upgrading
    the boot drive to a bigger one and file copying is the most
    convenient way to do that.

    >> And you dont need a bootable copy for backup anyway.

    > Depends why you are trying to backup, doesn't it?

    Nope.

    > Someone backing up the whole of C: is
    > liable to expect a restore to be bootable.

    The restore being bootable is an entirely separate
    question to whether the backup itself is bootable.

    >>> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    >> Wrong. And the worst you have to do is unplug
    >> the power supply from the mains anyway.

    > I'd remove the mains; that's what I'm saying.

    No need.

    > ATX "off" definately maintains a
    > standby trickle of power to the system;

    Yes.

    > what may be debatable is whether this power goes
    > to the HDs, via power leads or via the data connections.

    No its not debateable, its trivial to measure and prove it doesnt happen.

    >>> 4) S-ATA hot-swappability requires S-ATA power connection
    >>> 5) Single recent backup may contain pre-existing problems
    >>> 6) HDs don't sem to like brackets and exclosures

    >> Bullshit.

    > Speaking from experience, my friend.

    No you arent, you're actually grossly misusing the term 'brackets'

    > I see far more dead HDs from brackets than I do from
    > "normal" use; why that is, is open to conjecture,

    Nope, its completely trivial to seen what is different between
    an external enclosure and a drive mounted internally.

    > but that's the mileage.

    No it isnt with 'brackets'

    > Or are you claiming it's "bullshit" that a malware can
    > permeate a system, and backups thereof, before
    > hatching a destructive payload several days later?

    Nope, that comment applied to just your last line, 6)

    > Or are you disputing Western Digital's advice NOT to hot-swap their
    > S-ATA drives if using the legacy power connectors they provide?

    Nope, that comment applied to just your last line, 6)

    >>> For the rest of the data, I'd do file-level copies rather
    >>> than image backups, so that the backups are browsable.

    >> Any decent imager allows you to browse the image.

    > OK, so don't use any of the indecent ones that abound.

    The vast bulk of the mainstream imagers allow you to browse the image.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On 8/14/05 19:43:29, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

    >>> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs
    >
    >>Wrong. And the worst you have to do is unplug
    >>the power supply from the mains anyway.
    >
    > I'd remove the mains; that's what I'm saying. ATX "off" definately
    > maintains a standby trickle of power to the system;

    No, not really. No digital system works with a "trickle of power". It's
    either enough power to supply what's connected to it properly, or it isn't.
    If it isn't, the power supply is not adequate for the system, and the
    system may function partially, but won't function properly. I guess we can
    assume that we are talking about a PC that does function properly.

    (There is actually a term "trickle supply", but that's more for battery
    chargers and similar circuits; it usually refers to the small current
    that's necessary to keep a charged battery fully charged. The ATX standby
    supply is not what's commonly called a "trickle supply"; it is a full-blown
    +5 V supply that supplies at least 1 A for standby power -- just as its
    name says.)


    The ATX standby power is only provided on the ATX standby power line
    (called +5VSB); all other power lines are "off" in standby mode. There's no
    "trickle of power": the +5VSB line is fully on, all others are fully off.

    What is in fact connected to the +5VSB (ATX standby power) is dependent on
    the specific mobo and the BIOS configuration, of course, but with the ATX
    standard guaranteeing no more than 1 A on that line, and it being only +5 V
    (no +12 V standby power), I doubt there are any decent mobos out there that
    supply their IDE controllers with standby power. If they did, that would be
    a serious design flaw, given that the harddisk that's connected to that
    connector in any case is not supplied with power during standby (because
    the standard harddisk power connector doesn't carry the +5VSB standby power
    line).

    While it is theoretically thinkable that a ill-designed mobo supplies its
    IDE controlles from ATX standby power, it is still not clear whether this
    does any harm to the harddisk. If it does, it probably does so whether or
    not you disconnect the harddisk while power is supplied to its IDE
    interface -- the damage being done by it being connected, not by the act of
    connecting or disconnecting it.

    Since there have been questions about "serious links" here... how about
    some serious links confirming that there are indeed mobos that do supply
    their IDE controllers with standby power (which I doubt)? Or links about
    how harddisk controllers deal with their IDE interface being powered while
    their own power supply is off (probably a situation deemed out of specs by
    the drive manufacturer, therefore any mobo that would do that is not
    adequate anyway)? Regarding links to back up what I said... that's all just
    explaining the ATX standard. You should be able to find any number of links
    to information about this.


    OTOH, telling a newbie to disconnect the power cord before opening the PC
    case can be good advice. But not because of "power trickles" in the
    computer... This good advice should come with an equally good explanation,
    like "As long as you're not knowing what you're doing, it's a good idea to
    always disconnect the power cord of /anything/ you open."

    Gerhard
  31. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Richard Urban [MVP] <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote

    > I would think

    Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

    You clearly couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper
    bag even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.

    > you would like to back up what you state with a few quality url's as proof.

    Dont need any of those with a question as basic as the one being discussed.
    Even someone as stupid as you should be able to check whether hard drives
    are powered up when an ATX system is shutdown, using such simple approachs
    as checking if there is any power on the molex connector and it only requires
    a multimeter and something viable between your ears to check the data cable.

    > Otherwise, you are blowing smoke.

    See above on the wet paper bag.


    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    >>> Eric Gisin wrote
    >>>> fj <jelenko@att.net> wrote
    >>>>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org>
    >>>>> wrote

    >>>>>> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    >>>> Nonsense. All the Molex are powered off.

    >>>> The IDE ports are disabled. Only PS/2, USB, PCI, perhaps RAM are
    >>>> on. Even disabling IDE channel in Device Manager allows hot swap.

    >>> That's an interesting assertion.

    >> Its not an assertion, its a fact.

    >>> I can meter molex power leads to test those,

    >> And that is all you need to do.

    >>> but checking the data cables would be more difficult.

    >> Nope, you can do that with the same multimeter.
    >> At a spare connector on a ribbon cable or the
    >> motherboard end with the ribbon cable unplugged.

    >>> Given the risks involved,

    >> There are no risks involved.

    >>> I'd like a couple of URLs on that?

    >> Your problem. It should be obvious from what needs
    >> to be powered with an ATX system so that it can be
    >> turned on from the keyboard or wake on lan etc.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:27:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
    >cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org>
    >> Eric Gisin wrote
    >>> fj <jelenko@att.net> wrote
    >>>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote

    >>>>> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    >>> Nonsense. All the Molex are powered off.

    >>> The IDE ports are disabled. Only PS/2, USB, PCI, perhaps RAM are on.
    >>> Even disabling IDE channel in Device Manager allows hot swap.

    >> That's an interesting assertion.

    >Its not an assertion, its a fact.

    It's not a fact because you say it is. Without proof, it's an
    assertion, and one that I happen to be interested in.

    But your attitude is making me less interested by the minute.

    >> I can meter molex power leads to test those,

    >And that is all you need to do.

    Nope. More on that later.

    >> but checking the data cables would be more difficult.

    >Nope, you can do that with the same multimeter.
    >At a spare connector on a ribbon cable or the
    >motherboard end with the ribbon cable unplugged.

    Quite a lot of combinations to test, even when you discount 40 of the
    80 lines as common ground. Also, meters are fairly crude, when it
    comes to transients - if a data line was to pulse once every 1/10th of
    a second, it may not show up on a meter at all.

    >> Given the risks involved,

    >There are no risks involved.

    Apart from crucial data on a costly hard drive, you mean?

    >> I'd like a couple of URLs on that?

    >Your problem. It should be obvious from what needs
    >to be powered with an ATX system so that it can be
    >turned on from the keyboard or wake on lan etc.

    No, it's not my problem - I can simply discard your assertions as
    unsubstantiated and move on, if you can't back them up. As long as
    there's a risk of power being applied to devices while "switched off",
    I'll advise not plugging them in or out unless you are certain it's
    safe to do so. You may have that certainty; I do not.


    >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
    Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
    better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
    >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
  33. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Rod Speed wrote:

    > Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote
    >
    >>I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office applications
    >>and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
    >
    >>------
    >
    >>(A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives.
    >>Much of that can be replaced.
    >
    >
    >>(B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
    >
    >>(C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and
    >>cache files take 45 GB on another partition.
    >
    >>My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough
    >>to put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing
    >>to get an expensive USB attached hard drive.

    Buy the cheap internal EIDE HDDs and put them in cheap USB2/FireWire
    external cases you can buy (US$20-30, although I haven't scoured the
    'Net for the best price). I can't imagine paying the freight the HDD
    companies want for external HDDs.

    >>I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the
    >>system (B above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >
    > Is there much point with the C ? They age pretty
    > quickly and can be easily replaced if you need to.
    >
    > Likely better to keep a list of them rather than backing them up.
    >
    >>How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE
    >>(maybe 160 GB or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >
    > Very viable.
    >
    >>I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
    >
    > That doesnt gain much backup wise, having it out of the
    > system. If it isnt hidden it may well get stolen with the
    > system and it obviously isnt protected against fire or flood etc.

    I do weekly (more or less) backups to external HDDs and once a month I
    take the latest HDD and put it in my off site storage, so even if my
    computer is stolen or the building burns down, my worst case scenario is
    recovering as of the first of the month.

    >>Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become
    >>problematic when it gets put back in the system?
    >
    > It shouldnt be if you use a formal standard like SATA.
    >
    >>Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard
    >>drive could damage my backup data stored on it?
    >
    > Yes, particularly if you are prone to dropping things.
    >
    > Hard drives hate that.

    True, but what are considered "normal shocks"? It's best not to drop HDDs.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Richard Urban [MVP] wrote:

    > You are just speaking of two very different backup strategies. It is a
    > personal preference and you should use what you feel comfortable with.
    > Either one is "good"! Try them both and you will soon gravitate toward one
    > as "your" preferred method.

    The key, of course, is *having* a backup strategy and actually using it.
    That alone will put you ahead of probably 90% of home computer users
    (maybe more).
  35. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

    <snip>

    > Caveats:
    >
    > 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G
    > 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image
    > 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    Do a normal Windows shutdown, cut power to the complex (trivial if
    you're using a UPS), then press & hold the power button for 10-20
    seconds. That'll bleed off any remaining charge on the motherboard.

    > 4) S-ATA hot-swappability requires S-ATA power connection
    > 5) Single recent backup may contain pre-existing problems
    > 6) HDs don't sem to like brackets and exclosures

    Huh? What do you mean by "brackets and exclosures" (enclosures, of course)?
  36. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:58:51 -0400, Sparky Spartacus
    <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote:

    >> 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G

    SP2 does.

    >> 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image

    Please explain.

    >> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    Unplug computer.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:58:51 -0400, Sparky Spartacus
    >cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

    >> Caveats:
    >>
    >> 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G
    >> 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image
    >> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    >Do a normal Windows shutdown, cut power to the complex (trivial if
    >you're using a UPS), then press & hold the power button for 10-20
    >seconds. That'll bleed off any remaining charge on the motherboard.

    IOW, use a real power switch rather than ATX "off". Yep, that's what
    I do too, if there is one, else I unplug the mains.

    Oh rats, I oversnipped...

    >Huh? What do you mean by "brackets and exclosures" (enclosures, of course)?

    Yes, typo well spotted thanks. What I mean is that for whatever
    reason, I see more HD failures and/or data loss associated with
    brackets and enclosures than I do for HDs within desktop systems.


    >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    The most accurate diagnostic instrument
    in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
    >------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
  38. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Somewhere around Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:09:11 +0200, while reading
    alt.video.dvd.tech, I think I thought I saw this post from "cquirke (MVP
    Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org>:

    >>Huh? What do you mean by "brackets and exclosures" (enclosures, of course)?
    >
    >Yes, typo well spotted thanks. What I mean is that for whatever
    >reason, I see more HD failures and/or data loss associated with
    >brackets and enclosures than I do for HDs within desktop systems.
    >
    But what are "brackets"?

    I think you're right that there will be more failures for a drive that gets
    handled a lot, although I think that if you're very careful while the drive
    is spinning, and semi-careful while it's static, you'll probably be OK.

    I have an IDE to USB2 adapter, AC powered, that can connect to a raw drive
    with no case for all those old drives I have (40 - 80 GB, mostly). I use
    them to mirror my media files. But for regular backup, I use a 2nd drive
    that's installed in the machine all the time, and I have scheduled backups,
    using XP's native scheduler and backup (ugh).

    I set several almost identical schedules for each type, differing only in
    the backup filename and schedule (so they are staggered). I may have 4
    monthly backups, one on say the 1st Friday, one on the 2nd Friday, etc.
    That way, I have the last 4 weekly backups to choose from in case the last
    one is bad. I do the same for more and less frequent backups.

    The other thing I do is to set my computer to automatically power up every
    day a little before I come home from work, and schedule the backups for that
    period. That way, I don't need to leave them on all the time.

    --
    Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
    well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
  39. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:55:52 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote:
    >On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:58:51 -0400, Sparky Spartacus

    >>> 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G

    >SP2 does.

    Yes, and so does SP1, though with a few caveats (certain contexts in
    SP1 don't see over 137G and can corrupt data; SP2 is OK. If all XP
    had the problem, I'd have written "XP" rather than "XP original (SP0)"

    >>> 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image

    >Please explain.

    If you scrupulously copy all files from a Win9x installation,
    preserving LFNs, then the destination C: will run if booted.

    If you do the same thing in XP, the result is a destination C: that
    won't boot. This can be fixed by a "repair" install, but that has a
    significant adverse impact that I'd prefer to avoid.

    OTOH, if you image off the XP installation volume, the new destination
    C: drive will run if booted.

    >>> 3) ATX "off" maintains power trickle; unsafe to remove IDE HDs

    >Unplug computer.

    Yup, that's exactly the point I was trying to make.

    Sorry if my post was a bit terse; I was trying to keep to a "one line
    per item number" format :-)


    >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    Reality is that which, when you stop believing
    in it, does not go away (PKD)
    >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
  40. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Sparky Spartacus <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >
    >> Columbus <hiss@mail.com> wrote
    >>
    >>> I'm a home PC user based in the UK. I run mainly office
    >>> applications and downloading music. No gaming or power PC stuff.
    >>
    >>> ------
    >>
    >>> (A) My music is mainly on two or three 160 GB drives.
    >>> Much of that can be replaced.
    >>
    >>
    >>> (B) I have also got XP on a 15 GB system partition.
    >>
    >>> (C) Various downloaded programs, utilities and
    >>> cache files take 45 GB on another partition.
    >>
    >>> My drives are ATA 3.5inch internal drives. I find it easy enough
    >>> to put them in or take them out of the PC cabinet without needing
    >>> to get an expensive USB attached hard drive.
    >
    > Buy the cheap internal EIDE HDDs and put them in cheap USB2/FireWire
    > external cases you can buy (US$20-30, although I haven't scoured the
    > 'Net for the best price). I can't imagine paying the freight the HDD
    > companies want for external HDDs.
    >
    >>> I want to keep backup copies of the partitions used by the
    >>> system (B above) and downloaded programs (C above).
    >>
    >> Is there much point with the C ? They age pretty
    >> quickly and can be easily replaced if you need to.
    >>
    >> Likely better to keep a list of them rather than backing them up.
    >>
    >>> How viable is it for a user like me to use a HARD DRIVE
    >>> (maybe 160 GB or 200 GB) as a backup medium?
    >>
    >> Very viable.
    >>
    >>> I would store the hard drive stored on a shelf away from the system.
    >>
    >> That doesnt gain much backup wise, having it out of the
    >> system. If it isnt hidden it may well get stolen with the
    >> system and it obviously isnt protected against fire or flood etc.
    >
    > I do weekly (more or less) backups to external HDDs and once a month I
    > take the latest HDD and put it in my off site storage, so even if my
    > computer is stolen or the building burns down, my worst case scenario
    > is recovering as of the first of the month.
    >
    >>> Is it worth worrying that the hard drive could become
    >>> problematic when it gets put back in the system?
    >>
    >> It shouldnt be if you use a formal standard like SATA.
    >>
    >>> Is it likely that "normal shocks" in handling the hard
    >>> drive could damage my backup data stored on it?
    >>
    >> Yes, particularly if you are prone to dropping things.
    >>
    >> Hard drives hate that.
    >
    > True, but what are considered "normal shocks"? It's best not to drop HDDs.

    It isnt even a great idea to let them slap the table when putting them on a
    table top.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    > spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote
    >> Sparky Spartacus

    >>>> 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G

    >> SP2 does.

    > Yes, and so does SP1, though with a few caveats (certain
    > contexts in SP1 don't see over 137G and can corrupt data;

    Bullshit.

    > SP2 is OK. If all XP had the problem, I'd have
    > written "XP" rather than "XP original (SP0)"

    >>>> 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image

    >> Please explain.

    > If you scrupulously copy all files from a Win9x installation,
    > preserving LFNs, then the destination C: will run if booted.

    > If you do the same thing in XP, the result
    > is a destination C: that won't boot.

    Wrong.

    > This can be fixed by a "repair" install, but
    > that has a significant adverse impact

    Bullshit.

    > that I'd prefer to avoid.

    > OTOH, if you image off the XP installation volume,
    > the new destination C: drive will run if booted.

    Utterly mangled all over again.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Somewhere around Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:55:30 +1000, while reading
    alt.video.dvd.tech, I think I thought I saw this post from "Rod Speed"
    <rod_speed@yahoo.com>:

    >cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    >> spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote
    >>> Sparky Spartacus
    >
    >>>>> 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G
    >
    >>> SP2 does.
    >
    >> Yes, and so does SP1, though with a few caveats (certain
    >> contexts in SP1 don't see over 137G and can corrupt data;
    >
    >Bullshit.
    >
    >> SP2 is OK. If all XP had the problem, I'd have
    >> written "XP" rather than "XP original (SP0)"
    >
    >>>>> 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image
    >
    >>> Please explain.
    >
    >> If you scrupulously copy all files from a Win9x installation,
    >> preserving LFNs, then the destination C: will run if booted.
    >
    >> If you do the same thing in XP, the result
    >> is a destination C: that won't boot.
    >
    >Wrong.
    >
    >> This can be fixed by a "repair" install, but
    >> that has a significant adverse impact
    >
    >Bullshit.
    >
    >> that I'd prefer to avoid.
    >
    >> OTOH, if you image off the XP installation volume,
    >> the new destination C: drive will run if booted.
    >
    >Utterly mangled all over again.
    >
    Your comments might be useful if you were to elaborate enough to say what
    point is wrong. I know for a fact that most of what was said is true,
    though not everything is complete - but simply saying "is not" like a little
    kid doesn't really contribute anything other than hard feelings on the part
    of someone who is actually trying to make a positive contribution rather
    than simply negating everything.

    And if you think everyone should not say anything unless it's 100% accurate,
    then you don't understand the purpose of discussion groups; also, you would
    have nobody to disagree with, as you would be the only poster.

    --
    Marty - public.forums (at) gmail (dot) com
    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...
    well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
  43. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:55:30 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
    >cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
    >> spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote
    >>> Sparky Spartacus

    >>>>> 1) XP original (SP0) can't "see" HDs < 137G

    >>> SP2 does.

    >> Yes, and so does SP1, though with a few caveats (certain
    >> contexts in SP1 don't see over 137G and can corrupt data;

    >Bullshit.

    <sigh> ...here we go again...

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;LN;331060

    "The flush cache command is not issued to a large hard disk that has a
    48-bit logical block address (LBA) enabled. As a result, the hard disk
    may become corrupted when you enter either the Shutdown state or the
    Hibernate state."

    These dudes found out about this the hard way...

    http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/1063617810

    >>>>> 2) XP installations do not survive file-level copying, must image

    >>> Please explain.

    >> If you scrupulously copy all files from a Win9x installation,
    >> preserving LFNs, then the destination C: will run if booted.

    >> If you do the same thing in XP, the result
    >> is a destination C: that won't boot.

    >Wrong.

    Nope; that's consistently been my mileage, with both XP installations
    of NTFS and FATxx. Do a file-level copy, won't work; do an image
    copy, will (though you may have to do a partition size nudge if using
    BING to do the imaging).

    >> This can be fixed by a "repair" install, but that has a significant
    >> adverse impact

    >Bullshit.

    Impact of "repair install" on a freshly-setup XP Pro SP2:
    - creation of new accounts, if NTFS
    - AVG 7.0 "installation damaged, please re-install"
    - loss of patches
    - loss of certain settings that you may have applies, e.g.
    - Auto-restart on errors re-enabled
    - RPC failures revert to restarting the whole system
    - IE install-on-demand reverts to enabled
    - OE re-asserted as default email application
    - lost status for Windows updates (was "auto-dl, then prompt")
    - units of measurement revert to King's Toenails a la US profile
    - various deleted UI elements re-asserted
    - various lost privacy protections in Windows Media Pimp

    I've never bothered to figure out how to killfile a particular poster,
    but I'm beginning to see why it may be a good idea.


    >--------------- ------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
    When your mind goes blank, remember to turn down the sound
    >--------------- ------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
  44. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.tech,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Somewhere around Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:50:01 +0200, while reading
    alt.video.dvd.tech, I think I thought I saw this post from "cquirke (MVP
    Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org>:


    >I've never bothered to figure out how to killfile a particular poster,
    >but I'm beginning to see why it may be a good idea.
    In Agent, you can right-click on a post, and choose "Filters", then "Add
    kill filter". It will default to adding the author. The default filter
    action is to mark it as read, so if you are viewing only unread messages,
    you will not see it, unless you view all messages.

    I don't killfile many people, but a few are worthwile, and this one has set
    a speed record.

    Marty
    It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
    -William G. McAdoo
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware Storage Hard Drives Windows XP