How I Got Full Windows XP Installed Under 2GB!
in [Laptops]
|
From: BillW50 on 15 Jan 2010 17:11 In news:hiqnvm$kf2$1(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:50:46 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hiqmeq$mc1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> True, but that takes 100,000 rewrites per cell to kill it. Writing >> 100MB > > Not really. Given a sufficiently large population of cells one > cell will fail for every certain number of writes. The chances of any > particular cell failing on any particular write are about 1 in 100000, > but the chances of any one of the cells in the array failing are much > larger. And they're still dependent on the number of writes, so SOME > cells will INEVITABLY fail. So? In time a hard drive will suffer a bad sector or two. They are marked as bad and life moves on. The same on a flash drive. No big deal. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2
From: the wharf rat on 16 Jan 2010 09:37 In article <hiqp5i$8nk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >So? In time a hard drive will suffer a bad sector or two. They are >marked as bad and life moves on. The same on a flash drive. No big deal. > The difference is related to capacity. A bad block on a terabyte hard drive is less signifcant than a bad block on a 32MB flash device.
From: BillW50 on 16 Jan 2010 10:24 In news:hisivf$ean$1(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:37:35 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hiqp5i$8nk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> So? In time a hard drive will suffer a bad sector or two. They are >> marked as bad and life moves on. The same on a flash drive. No big >> deal. > > The difference is related to capacity. A bad block on a terabyte > hard drive is less signifcant than a bad block on a 32MB flash device. Boy are you digging deep here. 32MB flash drives? What good is a fully functional 32MB flash drive good for anyway? Yeah you can run DOS from it, but not much good for anything else. I have 12 flash drives. Eight of them have 1GB or more each. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2
From: the wharf rat on 16 Jan 2010 12:22 In article <hism72$prb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> The difference is related to capacity. A bad block on a terabyte >> hard drive is less signifcant than a bad block on a 32MB flash device. > >Boy are you digging deep here. 32MB flash drives? What good is a fully >functional 32MB flash drive good for anyway? Yeah you can run DOS from >it, but not much good for anything else. I have 12 flash drives. Eight >of them have 1GB or more each. How many blocks are on a terabyte disc? How many blocks are on a 1GB flash drive? Is a bad block on a 1Gb flash drive a relative loss of 1000 times more storage capacity? Or is that also strictly a Linux problem?
From: BillW50 on 16 Jan 2010 13:41
In news:hisske$r25$2(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:22:22 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hism72$prb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >>> >>> The difference is related to capacity. A bad block on a terabyte >>> hard drive is less signifcant than a bad block on a 32MB flash >>> device. >> >> Boy are you digging deep here. 32MB flash drives? What good is a >> fully functional 32MB flash drive good for anyway? Yeah you can run >> DOS from it, but not much good for anything else. I have 12 flash >> drives. Eight of them have 1GB or more each. > > How many blocks are on a terabyte disc? How many blocks are on a 1GB > flash drive? Is a bad block on a 1Gb flash drive a relative loss of > 1000 times more storage capacity? Or is that also strictly a Linux > problem? I wouldn't know without checking. Here I have my three 16GB flash drives right here. Here is what CHKDSK reports for the three. 1) 15,880,752 KB total disk space. 1,985,094 blocks. 2) 15,672,112 KB total disk space. 1,959,014 blocks. 3) 15,664,088 KB total disk space. 1,958,011 blocks. Baring anything funny going on, like a secret hidden partition on them or anything. They all should be the same size. I use #1 the most lately and it had as far as I know, its first bad block which I fixed with CHKDSK /r (after 8 months of everyday use). So I am assuming the other two have suffered more than one bad block. Each block is 8K. #2 and #3 have been used for two years now. #1 and #2 are bootable. So there you go. From the worst to the best there is like a 220kb (27,083 blocks) difference. Do I miss them? Nope! Am I worried? Nope! Should I be? I don't see any reason why I should. As I see the very same thing on comparing the same size hard drives as well. Remember all hard drives have bad blocks on them even brand new! They are there when manufactured. I assume the very same thing is true of flash drives as well. The reason why you can't see the number of bad blocks like you could decades ago, is because the hardware hides them. They have done this because they were getting too many returns. So the only way to know if they are there is through the total disk space. Well for the average user anyway. ;-) -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2 |