What's a good external HDD to buy these days? (2.5" size)
in [Storage]
|
From: Ant on 22 Oct 2009 03:16 On 10/21/2009 7:25 AM PT, David Brown typed: > I don't use intentionally use IE except for a couple of websites once or > twice a year. Our company has banned IE for general usage for security > reasons - IE is only allowed for a few specific sites (such as one > retarded bank site). I don't think there was a single complaint or > objection, and once people had tried Firefox with Adblock, few use > anything else at home either. I only use IE for MS Updates, problematic Web sites, etc. -- "Since the world began, we have never exterminated. We probably shall never exterminate as much as one single insect species. If there was ever an example of an insect we cannot destroy, the fire ant is it." --an entomologist quote mentioned by Leonard Nimoy on In The Search Of: Deadly Ants (1978) /\___/\ / /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) | |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net \ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: philpi(a)earthlink.netANT ( ) or ANTant(a)zimage.com Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
From: David Brown on 22 Oct 2009 04:32 Ant wrote: > On 10/22/2009 12:07 AM PT, David Brown typed: > >> I have to agree with Ant here. There can be no serious argument >> suggesting that even the best of the Win9x line (Win98SE, IHMHO) was >> as stable or reliable as the worst of the NT line (NT4.0 before the >> first couple of service packs). The NT line has also always been >> stronger for networking. There was a time when the Win9x line was >> better for USB (NT4.0 had very little USB support), but by Win2K, the >> NT line was stronger, more stable, and had greater functionality than >> the Win9x line (except perhaps for games-oriented graphics). It cost >> more, and had higher resource demands than WinME, of course. > > IIRC, 2000 Pro. SP4 had USB support compared to earlier service packs. > Support for USB2.0 came with W2K SP4 - previous W2K versions supported USB1.1 (if memory and a quick google serves me right). > >> Most systems are stable enough if you treat them appropriately, and >> can be crashed if you treat them badly. It's just that the NT line >> will stand up to more pushing (compared to the Win9x line) before >> falling over. > > [shrugs] I can easily crash 9x without doing anything hard. There were a lot of ups and downs in the Win9x line. The original Win95 and Win98 versions were very wobbly, while Win95 OSR2 and Win98SE were solid enough to use if you were reasonably careful.
From: Rod Speed on 22 Oct 2009 04:54 David Brown wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> David Brown wrote >>> Ant wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> So can any Win 2K. >>>>>> Still weird to pull it off. >>>>> Nope, hardly anyone uses it anymore. >>>> I am still surprised MS still supports it and IE6 after all these >>>> years. I have a few clients who still use 2000 SP4. Hey, it's >>>> better than crashy 9x and Me! >>> MS don't support W2K (don't know about IE6 - I almost never use IE). >>> There are not many still using W2K, but some do, for several reasons. One is that if you have a working W2K machine, >>> there is almost nothing to be gained (and plenty to lose) by moving it to a newer windows version. >> Wrong, as always. USB for example works a hell of a lot better with XP. > USB works fine for me with W2K Pro. Nothing like as easy to add new USB devices as with XP, particularly for simple users, stupid. > It certainly doesn't support newer hardware that requires its own drivers Funny that. > - there's no doubt that support for new hardware is better in new systems. What I said in different words, fuckwit. >> WiFi in spades. > WiFi works fine for me with W2K Pro on systems with drivers for W2K. Pity you dont need those with XP and later. > It's not as nice as with XP - you have to use hardware-specific > utilities for finding and connecting to networks. What I said in different words, fuckwit. > But once that's done, it works without trouble. What I said in different words, fuckwit. >>> Another reason is that W2K can easily and quickly be installed without any activation (you still need a license, of >>> course). Combined with lighter resource requirements than XP, this makes it very convenient for virtual machines. >>> A lot of people still use IE6 - I think it was about 20% last time I looked at one of these browser statistics >>> reports.
From: David Brown on 22 Oct 2009 05:27 Rod Speed wrote: > Ant wrote >> David Brown wrote > >>> W2K Pro is fine for USB. Obviously you might have trouble >>> finding specific drivers for newer hardware, but lots of other >>> things work perfectly well. > >> Ditto. > > Dont need any drivers with XP and later, stupid. My mistake - you are absolutely correct. Since you know exactly what hardware I use, what systems I run, and what software I run, it is entirely clear to you that I've never had to install specific drivers for any USB device on XP. Any hint that I might have installed a driver for a USB device is clearly a malicious lie intended to insult you and/or make myself look stupid. Here in reality, XP has drivers for many standard USB devices (mass storage devices, HID, etc.). But it most certainly does not have drivers for everything. Even things as common as printers need their drivers, and there are a lot of USB devices requiring specific drivers. > >>> Wifi is also fine (in W2K pro) if you have drivers for your card. >>> You typically need hardware-specific utilities to connect - it's >>> certainly easier and more consistent with XP. But if your wifi >>> card has W2K support, it will work fine. > >> Ditto. > > Dont need any drivers with XP and later, stupid. > Again, XP has more drivers than W2K, but it doesn't cover everything. And of course, you've missed the point again - I said that W2K supports Wifi if you can find appropriate drivers, but no one said anything about what drivers you might or might not need for XP. >> Key thing is OLD stuff and not newer stuff. > > So XP and later leaves it for dead, stupid. > No, it means that it is often easier to get new hardware working with XP than with W2K. I've got a W2K machine in daily use at home - it is not "dead" by any means, and it would certainly not be improved in any way by installing XP. It works perfectly well with the hardware it has, and has worked perfectly well with newer devices such as mice and USB mass storage devices (flash drives and a DVD writer). On a new system, I'd normally prefer XP over W2K - but I wouldn't change from W2K to XP on an existing working system.
From: Ant on 22 Oct 2009 09:42
Rod, why are you cranky today? -- "There are things in the Universe billions of years older than either of our races. They are vast, timeless, and if they are aware of us at all, it is as little more than ants and we have as much chance of communicating with them as an ant has with us. We know. We've tried and we've learned that we can either stay out from underfoot or be stepped on. They are a mystery and I am both terrified and reassured that to know that there are still wonders in the Universe, that we have not explained everything. Whatever they are, Miss Sakai, they walk near Sigma 957 and they must walk there alone." --G'Kar - Mind War /\___/\ / /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) | |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net \ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: philpi(a)earthlink.netANT ( ) or ANTant(a)zimage.com Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer. |