NEWS: Android Outsells Apple iPhone
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: Introducing Poken Take your Social Network Offline
Next: Desperate Help Needed!! WIRELESS SHARING
From: John Navas on 17 May 2010 12:33 On Sat, 15 May 2010 10:45:42 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote in <08ntu55fb0se33mu4n1bubv4scb3f8nv90(a)4ax.com>: >On Sat, 15 May 2010 10:21:20 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>Or wrong, depending on whether you care more about profits or about >>delivering value to customers. History teaches that mass market premium >>price strategies often work well in the short run only to fail in the >>long run. And then there's hubris. > >Well, are stock prices any indication of preceived loyalty? ><http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=AAPL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=att> >AT&T is fairly flat while APPL has doubled in the last year. Walmart -- Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
From: Jeff Liebermann on 17 May 2010 12:53 On Mon, 17 May 2010 09:30:14 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Sat, 15 May 2010 19:56:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> >wrote in <h1nuu5dv48f0ulr9eopgevr99k3t8enn7f(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:32:01 +0000 (UTC), Justin >><nospam(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > >>>The easiest is one that does it automatically, something like carbonite or >>>syncing to an external hard drive. Disrupting workflow will always lead >>>to excuses and backups not done. >> >>Nope. I've had two disasters with such "continuous backup" schemes. >>The problem is dealing with open files. Some programs are clever and >>grab the FAT to see which clusters are owned by the file, backup those >>clusters, and re-assemble the file. That usually works. Others are >>just plain stupid and and ignore open files. I use Memeo for such >>automatic backups. > >Nope yourself, probably why you're having problems: > * Windows should be run on NTFS (not FAT). Nope. FAT as in "File Allocation Table" which contains the clusters used by a file. What will we do when we run out of TLA's? > * Nothing decent works by going around the OS. I beg to differ. Image backups do quite nicely going around the filesystem. That's especially useful if the filesystem is trashed, corrupted, or full of bad sectors. Trying to salvage a dying hard disk drive is not my idea of fun and is nearly impossible with an operating system running on it at the same time. At least with an image backup, I have a chance. > * Windows Shadow Copy is the proper way to backup open files. >See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Copy> Agreed. Most of the live backup schemes use VSS. It works well enough when things are working and blows up spectacularly when there's something wrong. For when VSS bombs, I use Restorer2000 <http://www.restorer2000.com> I have to remove the HD, install it in an external enclosure, and scan the drive for recoverable files with Restorer2000. The saved files are then copied to yet another drive. Not fun, but it works. The bottom line (for me) is that literally any backup scheme works when things are working and the hard disk is in good shape. It's when things screw up, and I discover that the backup program only works with a pristine drive or operating system, that I have to use non-Windoze services for backup. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: John Navas on 18 May 2010 13:05 On Mon, 17 May 2010 09:14:34 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in <5po2v511aqriuc0mrikl7la2seem8dm8mn(a)navasgroup.com>: >On Sat, 15 May 2010 17:44:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> >wrote in <vjeuu55vai199muslmfbv9ruh1bh545nnm(a)4ax.com>: >>Note that I did not list all inclusive (i.e. gets >>everyting right up to the last millisecond before the drive crashed) >>and safe (i.e. encrypted and theft proof). At this time, the fastest >>and easiest are the boot from a CD and run an image backup to a USB >>drive. The software costs about $40 and the drive about $80. All the >>image backup software I've tried sucks or worse, but as long as it >>meets the aformentioned criteria, I'll live with it until some company >>wakes up and decided to do it right. There are also some Open Source >>alternatives that are in the same class (awful but still useful). > >Having to boot from a CD is a recipe for backup not to be done in my >experience, and Windows shadow copy makes it possible to perform backup >invisibly in the background from a live system, so there is no real need >to boot from a CD given decent backup software: > * Windows 7 finally has good backup, now my normal recommendation, > * except for ThinkPads, for which I use Lenovo Rescue and Recovery. > * I previously used (and still use) Retrospect. Highly recommended. > * Acronis and Nova are also very good. > * Have not tested Paragon, but expect it to be good based on quality > of other Paragon software A *big* advantage of Windows 7 Backup and Restore (IMnsHO at least) is tight integration with Windows System Restore, making rollback of files to previous versions a snap. Has saved my clients many times. -- Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail." -Abraham Maslow
From: John Navas on 18 May 2010 13:47 On Mon, 17 May 2010 09:53:30 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote in <6js2v598ord3kbontuinbukobhh9596jbg(a)4ax.com>: >On Mon, 17 May 2010 09:30:14 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>Nope yourself, probably why you're having problems: >> * Windows should be run on NTFS (not FAT). > >Nope. FAT as in "File Allocation Table" which contains the clusters >used by a file. Nope. FAT is a term reserved for the File Allocation Table file system. The correct term of art for NTFS is Master File Table (MFT), which is totally different from FAT. >What will we do when we run out of TLA's? FLABs of course. ;) >> * Nothing decent works by going around the OS. > >I beg to differ. Image backups do quite nicely going around the >filesystem. They've actually proven to be problematic in practice, with numerous gotchas. No such problems occur when using appropriate OS facilities. >That's especially useful if the filesystem is trashed, >corrupted, or full of bad sectors. Trying to salvage a dying hard >disk drive is not my idea of fun and is nearly impossible with an >operating system running on it at the same time. At least with an >image backup, I have a chance. 1. If the file system is sufficiently intact to run the OS, it should normally be repaired from within the OS using OS facilities. 2. Otherwise the same OS should be booted from a different partition or device or bootable media for repair using OS facilities. 3. Not running the OS on the file system is not the same thing as image backup. 4. At most what you gain with image backup is another chance to screw up if you screw up the first time and have no other good backup, but a good regular backup serves the same purpose, plus many other benefits. >> * Windows Shadow Copy is the proper way to backup open files. >>See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Copy> > >Agreed. Most of the live backup schemes use VSS. It works well >enough when things are working and blows up spectacularly when there's >something wrong. Not in my experience (in the past several years at least). >For when VSS bombs, I use Restorer2000 ><http://www.restorer2000.com> >I have to remove the HD, install it in an external enclosure, and scan >the drive for recoverable files with Restorer2000. The saved files >are then copied to yet another drive. Not fun, but it works. I use much more advanced tools I wrote myself back in the Windows 2000 days (for computer forensics), but haven't had to resort to them in several years. >The bottom line (for me) is that literally any backup scheme works >when things are working and the hard disk is in good shape. It's when >things screw up, and I discover that the backup program only works >with a pristine drive or operating system, that I have to use >non-Windoze services for backup. You should of course use what works for you, but the backup methods I use haven't been causing such problems for me in several years now. Things have gotten vastly better. -- Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
From: Larry on 18 May 2010 17:54
John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in news:8bj5v5h28df7aso7hnae9q3vendvnlsj4d(a)navasgroup.com: > Nope. FAT is a term reserved for the File Allocation Table file system. > The correct term of art for NTFS is Master File Table (MFT), which is > totally different from FAT. > Speaking of FAT, the little Linux tablet even has a port of Gparted from GNU and makes really short work out of recovering trashed memory cards, making bootable partitions so you can run multiple OSes from memory cards, etc. http://gparted.sourceforge.net/ http://www.gronmayer.com/it/index.php?lang=en&system=maemo4 &sort=hits&show_pck=258 http://qole.org/ Qole is a horrible example of just what Apple is trying to avoid, hackers writing free software that just trashes everything! Why, he even has Debian and Ubuntu Linux for the little tablets, now that Nokia has abandoned Maemo. He also ported Gparted to the tablets so we can partition memory cards....(c;] Running Debian Linux on a N900 sellphone.....how silly.....in a window, yet....MULTITASKING TWO OPERATING SYSTEMS!.....crazy boy! -- Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics. Larry |