How to remount a USB drive
in [UK Mac]
|
From: T i m on 22 Jan 2010 08:09 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:02:06 +0000, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: >Okay, so what about buffers? Rowland. No matter what you want to call them and no matter how you (and others) choose to use your systems, some of us prefer not to bother with some of the 'safety' steps because we have demonstrated to ourselves over a long period of time that what we do and the way we do it is sufficiently safe and generally quicker than the 'proper' way. No one is asking or suggesting you or anyone else does so. Cheers, T i m
From: Jim on 22 Jan 2010 08:15 On 2010-01-22, Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > Clicking this gives you a list of all the drives connected to the machine, > plus an entry for USB devices. Just to clarify: the USB entry appears if there is a USB drive attached (and I assume there'd be more than one entry if there was more than one USB drive) Sometimes it will identify it fairly well (ie "Kingston Data Traveller 2 USB 2.0 device"), sometimes it will be a bit more vague (ie "USB Device"). In both cases it will be listed as "Disk drive" under the "Type" column. The radio selector is per-device. I don't yet know if changing it for that device will 'stick' if I put that USB drive on another XP machine or not. But either way the default is set to 'Off'. Jim -- http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK "Get over here. Now. Might be advisable to wear brown trousers and a shirt the colour of blood." Malcolm Tucker, "The Thick of It"
From: Rowland McDonnell on 22 Jan 2010 08:35 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > On 22/01/2010 12:33, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: > >>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote: > >>>>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote: > >>>>> [snip] > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Quite. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Caches... If nothing else, there're caches that need flushing out. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Not post write caches on a memory stick there aren't. > >>>>> > >>>>> What exactly does that mean? > >>>> > >>>> It means that on a device marked as removable, information is written as > >>>> soon as it is available, rather than when it is more efficient to do it, > >>>> on the basis that it may be removed from the system at any time. > >>> > >>> Where is your evidence for this claim? > >> > >> In the microsoft disk management documentation for a start. > > > > I don't see how it is that the documentation for the file system > > software can give any guarantees about the hardware that's used - could > > you explain? > > The hardware is irrelevant in this case. The Memory stick either > conforms to the USB Mass storage device class as defined by the USB > forum, and has the removable flag, or it doesn't. > If it doesn't it is irrelevant to this discussion, if it does but it > doesn't work properly that is just a duff disk. Ah - wrong as usual: the hardware's relevant, and you've shown how the point is covered. I dig it now. [snip the usual problematic guff caused by Woody just missing the points I'm trying to get at] Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: T i m on 22 Jan 2010 08:37 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:09:18 +0000, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: >> It works <shrug> > >But very badly. For whom? It works very well for me (and others apparently) and that I guess why we choose to fly in the face of the recommendations. > ><shrug> But of course dark side users are happy if they have basic >operational ability - just getting it to work at all seems a big enough >win. In this case it's more of the case of 'it works perfectly fine as long as you are careful'. If I wanted to be super safe or if I started having issues (and I haven't since my first pen drive however many years ago) then I'd do it differently. I've found the line in the sand and I just don't cross it. > > >I've read reports of `It never causes me any trouble' in the past with >respect to things that have caused me trouble, and it's always proven to >be bullshit when I've investigated. Take it as you want. If you drink poison you generally die. I've never drunk poison so haven't died (but you will have to take my for that of course). > >I've never had trouble with this one, though - so what would I know? Exactly. I have had 'trouble' but when I have been expecting it or experimenting. I know it exists and how to manage it. > I >know that I don't trust your report. I'm glad you don't and what's more it matters none that you don't (to me anyway). ;-) Cheers, T i m
From: whisky-dave on 22 Jan 2010 09:09
"Jim" <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote in message news:slrnhlj0d1.22en.jim(a)wotan.magrathea.local... > On 2010-01-22, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > when it isn't. It's generally safe to yank it when it's pulsing. Even if you're catholic ;-) > And don't you *dare* quote that out of context..! Doh ! |