How I Got Full Windows XP Installed Under 2GB!
in [Laptops]
|
From: the wharf rat on 26 Jan 2010 16:21 In article <hjn3pf$fjf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >You are not paying attention! I am not basing my experience with flash No, YOU don't understand statistics. Niether a sample of one (you) nor a sample of 12 (the set of flash drives you own) are statistically significant and you can't use your personal experience as scientific evidence. Flash drives aren't proven failure-proof because you've personally never had one fail... Great Ghu... >There is where I also learned >that you are called this because people told you that you will never >amount to anything. > Close. It's actually because everyone said I'd come to no good but I got up and flew away.
From: BillW50 on 27 Jan 2010 08:21 In news:hjnmda$lp9$1(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:21:46 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hjn3pf$fjf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> You are not paying attention! I am not basing my experience with >> flash > > No, YOU don't understand statistics. Niether a sample of one (you) > nor a sample of 12 (the set of flash drives you own) are statistically > significant and you can't use your personal experience as scientific > evidence. Flash drives aren't proven failure-proof because you've > personally never had one fail... Great Ghu... You are so wrong on so many levels. First off you don't understand statistics. As 12 trouble free flash drives in 10 years is a very good sample rate. Secondly, I also have friends and family members who also have flash drives. Thirdly, I hear about others experiences with flash drives here and in other newsgroups. Fourth, I also read tech magazines. Fifth, I am an electronic engineer and it is my job to know these things. Six, I have access to the manufacture's data sheets. Seven, if there were a big problem with flash drives, I would know about it. And I could go on and on why you are wrong on so many levels. >> There is where I also learned that you are called this because people >> told you that you will never amount to anything. > > Close. It's actually because everyone said I'd come to no good > but I got up and flew away. That isn't what my research shows. As the above is a good example of your history on the net. Unless you mean you fly once you are exposed in a given newsgroup and fly off to another one to start another game of yours. As I saw a lot of that as well. :-( -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3
From: the wharf rat on 27 Jan 2010 11:29 In article <hjpelr$sva$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >You are so wrong on so many levels. First off you don't understand >statistics. As 12 trouble free flash drives in 10 years is a very good >sample rate. No, it's not. It's too small to be a valid sample. Approximately 150 million flash drives are sold each year. 12 out of a billion is not a sufficiently large sample to allow you to draw conclusions. And it's not a random sample, so you can't easily generalize observations to the general population. That's all just a fancy way of saying that even though you may never have personally experienced a failure that doesn't mean we can disregard the manufacturer's published failure rates and treat these things as 100% reliable. The people who make them tell me that I can expect a certain number of device failures under described conditions, and you know what? I think they're probably right. Secondly, I also have friends and family members who also have flash drives. Lol. "I not only have anecdotal evidence to support my claims. I also have hearsay anecdotal evidence!" I guess this is engineering by faith :-) >Fifth, I am an electronic engineer and it is my job to know these >things. Six, I have access to the manufacture's data sheets. Seven, if The manufacturers state N failures per drive per service hour due to cell death under tested loads. The devices are adequate as temporary portable storage but not as main operating system storage. "Solid state drives" are attempts to engineer around flaws in the technology to provide that reliability but aren't completely proven in the consumer market and are too expensive for the embedded system market that's their natural target. But you know all that, right? Cause of being an engineer and all. >That isn't what my research shows. Your research is flawed. You need to cite primary sources. "Some folks look for answers, others look for fights."
From: BillW50 on 2 Feb 2010 10:07 In news:hjppko$48o$1(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:29:12 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hjpelr$sva$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> You are so wrong on so many levels. First off you don't understand >> statistics. As 12 trouble free flash drives in 10 years is a very >> good sample rate. > > No, it's not. It's too small to be a valid sample. Approximately > 150 million flash drives are sold each year. 12 out of a billion is > not a sufficiently large sample to allow you to draw conclusions. And > it's not a random sample, so you can't easily generalize observations > to the general population. Sorry, I am not buying what you are selling. First no way in hell can you convince me that I have the only working flash drives in the world. Secondly, these things are mass-produced. And being mass-produced, you only need a small sample. For example, when I was involved with IC manufacturing, we made tens of thousands at a time. Although we didn't test thousands. But just a small handful. If they were good, the rest was expected to be so too. For example, when a cook makes a meal to feed an army. He/she tastes a small sample to make sure they made it with all of the right ingredients. Now the cook doesn't eat all of the food to test it, now do they? I have all of these Asus 701/702 netbooks. Now are mine any different than other people's Asus 701/702 netbooks? Nope not really. They all work the same. We all got he same software, same ports, same CPU speed, etc. I could not normally tell mine apart from each other either. Good thing they all have different serial numbers or colors. Otherwise I wouldn't know if I were grabbing one that has Windows installed vs. one that has Linux installed on it. > That's all just a fancy way of saying that even though you may never > have personally experienced a failure that doesn't mean we can > disregard the manufacturer's published failure rates and treat these > things as 100% reliable. The people who make them tell me that I can > expect a certain number of device failures under described > conditions, and you know what? I think they're probably right. I have never claimed that zillions out there are 100% reliable. I even stated my friend burns out those he purchased in France in a short two months. I don't know where he gets them. Out of cereal boxes for all I know. lol > Secondly, I also have friends and family members who also have flash > drives. > > Lol. "I not only have anecdotal evidence to support my claims. I > also have hearsay anecdotal evidence!" > > I guess this is engineering by faith :-) Your logic is far different than any I ever met, except from bozo the clown. >> Fifth, I am an electronic engineer and it is my job to know these >> things. Six, I have access to the manufacture's data sheets. Seven, >> if > > The manufacturers state N failures per drive per service hour due > to cell death under tested loads. The devices are adequate as > temporary portable storage but not as main operating system storage. > "Solid state drives" are attempts to engineer around flaws in the > technology to provide that reliability but aren't completely proven > in the consumer market and > are too expensive for the embedded system market that's their natural > target. > > But you know all that, right? Cause of being an engineer and all. For starters, take a 4GB SLC flash drive. To wear one out, you need to write 400TB worth of data to wear out each cell. And I never have written that much to such a flash drive yet. Thus probably why I also never had one fail on me either. Second of all, solid state drives have proved reliable and are used for a main operating system. As many use them all of the time. I am using one this very second and I have been for two years now. And in the next year or two, half of all laptops are said will be using the solid state type instead of conventional hard drives. And no, they are not too expensive. You can buy laptops with 1TB or more with a solid state drive right now. And some of the cheapest netbooks are using solid state drives already. So they are very affordable. >> That isn't what my research shows. > > Your research is flawed. You need to cite primary sources. You haven't done any research at all. You have no idea what is going on in the world and are totally clueless. The world is passing you by and you don't even know it. > "Some folks look for answers, > others look for fights." The latter for you is very obvious. The rest of us looks for the former. People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people who are doing it. -- Anonymous -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2
From: the wharf rat on 2 Feb 2010 17:30
In article <hk9f0f$rkc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >Secondly, these things are mass-produced. And being mass-produced, you >only need a small sample. > That's a false statement. Modern manufacturing uses statistical quality control methods to reduce testing sample sizes by controlling the process, but it doesn't eliminate quality testing. The samples are much smaller than you might predict but a sample of 12 out of a billion would never work. >For example, when a cook makes a meal to feed an army. He/she tastes a >small sample to make sure they made it with all of the right >ingredients. Now the cook doesn't eat all of the food to test it, now do >they? A cook performs many samples over time of a single item. Typical mass production manufacturing performs a small number of samples over time of a large population of items. Each sample size is dictated by required tolerances (margins of error) and population size. (Anyway, cooking's an art not a science. Each dish is a little bit different. One of the challenges a chef faces is developing consistency.) > >I have all of these Asus 701/702 netbooks. Now are mine any different >than other people's Asus 701/702 netbooks? Nope not really. That's another mistake. They are very different. Each part is identical to the other parts in other laptops within certain tolerances. The machine is designed to work as long as each part is within those tolerances even if it's slightly "different". You get very interesting failures when several parts are just barely out of spec. >Your logic is far different than any I ever met, except from bozo the clown. If you actually remember Bozo you'd also remember that he solved more mysteries than Scooby Doo. (The cartoon Bozo, that is.) > >For starters, take a 4GB SLC flash drive. To wear one out, you need to >write 400TB worth of data to wear out each cell. No, you only need to have a failure in an important part of the array. Because of file system structure a couple of dead cells in the first meg or so would probably be fatal. >Second of all, solid state drives have proved reliable and are used for >a main operating system. As many use them all of the time Many people buy lottery tickets, don't back up their data, and use their birthday as their Paypal password. It's not correct because everyone does it. That's called the "appeal to common practice", and is shown to be bad logic by everyone's mother: "If Johnny jumped off the roof would YOU jump off the roof too??" >And in the next >year or two, half of all laptops are said will be using the solid state >type instead of conventional hard drives. > Oh, and I suppose they'll all be using Rambus memory and we'll be driving to Best Buy in our flying cars? >And no, they are not too expensive. You can buy laptops with 1TB or more >with a solid state drive right now. And some of the cheapest netbooks >are using solid state drives already. So they are very affordable. > Terabyte SSD drives retail for about $3,800. That's hardly price competitive with traditional magenetic storage. >You haven't done any research at all. At least I looked up the price of the things on newegg before talking about how affordable they are. $3800 isn't affordable unless you're talking about a car. |