Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage > #2245 > unrolled thread

What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

Contents

  What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-03 14:45 -0800
    Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 12:46 +1100
      Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-03 20:11 -0800
        Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-04 17:18 +1100
          Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 00:11 -0800
            Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 20:32 +1100
              Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 11:29 -0800
                Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-06 17:25 +1100
                  Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-06 11:51 -0800
                    Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-07 08:33 +1100
                    Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-01-07 18:44 +0000
            Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-01-06 11:42 -0600
              Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-06 11:52 -0800
                Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net (GMAN) - 2012-01-06 20:28 +0000
                  Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-01-06 14:55 -0600
                    Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> - 2012-01-06 22:50 -0800
                      Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? Krypsis <krypsis@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-01-08 01:32 +1100
                        Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-01-07 12:52 -0600
                        Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-08 06:47 +1100
                          Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> - 2012-01-22 08:28 -0600
                            Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-23 05:58 +1100
                              Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> - 2012-01-22 14:17 -0600
                                Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-23 11:23 +1100
                                  Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-01-22 17:34 -0800
                                  Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> - 2012-01-22 22:09 -0600
                                    Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? Arno <me@privacy.net> - 2012-01-23 04:26 +0000
                                    Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-01-24 05:28 +1100
                                      Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> - 2012-01-23 13:55 -0600
                                        Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-01-23 22:15 +0100
                                          Re: What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone? "RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> - 2012-01-23 16:07 -0600

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#2245 — What partitions to copy in creating bootable clone?

I have a Toshiba Satellite A660 running Windows 7 Professional 64-
bit.  From surfing forum threads, it seems that Toshiba has a unique
way of partitioning up the HDD for a notebook.  From Disk Management
and PowerQuest Partition Table Editor, my 640GB HDD has 4 partitions:

   Partition 1: Windows RE, 1.46 GB
    * "Active", likely contains boot info
    * Not large enough to contain Windows 7 image
    * Actual Windows 7 image likely in partition 3 or 4

   Partition 2: 559.5 GB NTFS C-drive

   Partition 3: 22.37 GB Hidden Installed File Systems

   Partition 4: 12.83 GB Hidden Installed File Systems

The closest that I could find to a description of partitions 1,3,4 is
http://forums.techguy.org/windows-vista/619983-solved-mystery-partition-toshiba-notebook.html
for a VISTA system in 2007.  Partition 1 is likely for booting.
Partitions 3 and 4 contain some sort of recovery files for alternate
languages.

Though I will ask Tech Support about the partitions, I don't expect
them to know.  Even if they do, it is on the phone, which leaves me no
documentation.

1) I was wondering if anyone can confirm (or point to online
documentation that confirms) the above suspicions of the purposes and
contents of the partitions?

2) Furthermore, how can I tell which of partition 3 and 4 contain the
recovery files for the language of the installed Windows 7, which is
English?

3) Finally, I intend to clone all partitions except the one containing
the unused language recovery files.  This will be my first crack at
cloning or handling partitions in anyway (never done an image).  Is
this plan sane?

The intent is for the cloned HDD to be a complete bootable drop-in
replacement for the source HDD in its entirety.  I will be using
Norton Ghost.  At this point, I am not interested in creating
recoverable images, though I might explore that down the road.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2247

AndyHancock wrote

> I have a Toshiba Satellite A660 running Windows 7 Professional 64-
> bit.  From surfing forum threads, it seems that Toshiba has a unique
> way of partitioning up the HDD for a notebook.  From Disk Management
> and PowerQuest Partition Table Editor, my 640GB HDD has 4 partitions:

>   Partition 1: Windows RE, 1.46 GB
>    * "Active", likely contains boot info
>    * Not large enough to contain Windows 7 image
>    * Actual Windows 7 image likely in partition 3 or 4

>   Partition 2: 559.5 GB NTFS C-drive

>   Partition 3: 22.37 GB Hidden Installed File Systems

>   Partition 4: 12.83 GB Hidden Installed File Systems

> The closest that I could find to a description of partitions 1,3,4 is
> http://forums.techguy.org/windows-vista/619983-solved-mystery-partition-toshiba-notebook.html
> for a VISTA system in 2007.  Partition 1 is likely for booting.
> Partitions 3 and 4 contain some sort of recovery files for alternate languages.

> Though I will ask Tech Support about the partitions, I don't expect
> them to know.  Even if they do, it is on the phone, which leaves me no
> documentation.

> 1) I was wondering if anyone can confirm (or point to online
> documentation that confirms) the above suspicions of the purposes and
> contents of the partitions?

> 2) Furthermore, how can I tell which of partition 3 and 4 contain the recovery
> files for the language of the installed Windows 7, which is English?

> 3) Finally, I intend to clone all partitions except the one containing
> the unused language recovery files.  This will be my first crack at
> cloning or handling partitions in anyway (never done an image).  Is
> this plan sane?

It makes more sense to just clone it without trying to drop the languages you dont use.

> The intent is for the cloned HDD to be a complete bootable
> drop-in replacement for the source HDD in its entirety.

So it makes more sense to clone it completely.

> I will be using Norton Ghost.

I'd use Acronis True Image myself.

> At this point, I am not interested in creating recoverable
> images, though I might explore that down the road. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2250

On Jan 3, 8:46 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It makes more sense to just clone it without trying to drop the
> languages you dont use.
>  <...snip...>
> ...it makes more sense to clone it completely.

> AndyHancock wrote
>> I will be using Norton Ghost.
>
> I'd use Acronis True Image myself.

Thanks, Rod.  Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to save a few GB's
by excluding a partition, since the role of the partitions is
guesswork right now.

If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit more...


1) Have you had experience creating multi-partition bootable whole-HDD
clones using Acronis True Image?

2) A further wrinkle is that the target HDD is 500 GB, while the
source HDD is 640 GB.  I will be shrinking the C-drive partition so
that all 4 partitions fit into the 500 GB target.  Norton Tech Support
says (and their forum participants confirm) that Ghost can resize
partitions in the cloning process so that I don't have to mess with
partition size adjustments before the clone is actually made and
tested.  Would you know if Acronis True Image can do this as well?

3) Assuming that the educated guesses about the role of each partition
is true, will the resulting shifting of partitions 3 and 4 create a
risk that they will not be able to function as intended?  What if the
purpose is different from what was speculated -- can the function of
partitions in *general* be disrupted by shifting them around?

Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2253

AndyHancock wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote

>> It makes more sense to just clone it without trying to drop the languages you dont use.
>>  <...snip...>
>> ...it makes more sense to clone it completely.

>>> I will be using Norton Ghost.

>> I'd use Acronis True Image myself.

> Thanks, Rod.  Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to save a few GB's by
> excluding a partition, since the role of the partitions is guesswork right now.

And its not a very big percentage of the drive, since it rather unlikely
the whole of one partition is used for just the extra languages.

> If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit more...

I dont mind at all, thats what these technical groups are about.

> 1) Have you had experience creating multi-partition
> bootable whole-HDD clones using Acronis True Image?

Yes.

> 2) A further wrinkle is that the target HDD is 500 GB, while
> the source HDD is 640 GB.  I will be shrinking the C-drive
> partition so that all 4 partitions fit into the 500 GB target.

Thats fine with TI as long as the 640GB drive doesnt have more
than 500GB of data on it.

> Norton Tech Support says (and their forum participants confirm)
> that Ghost can resize partitions in the cloning process

Yeah, any decent cloner can do that now.

> so that I don't have to mess with partition size adjustments before the clone is
> actually made and tested.  Would you know if Acronis True Image can do this as well?

Yes it can.

> 3) Assuming that the educated guesses about the role of each
> partition is true, will the resulting shifting of partitions 3 and 4
> create a risk that they will not be able to function as intended?

Its possible Toshiba has used a process that depends on the original
sizes being maintained, but you should be fine if you only adjust the
size of the normal partition that the user uses for their data etc.

> What if the purpose is different from what was speculated -- can the
> function of partitions in *general* be disrupted by shifting them around?

Yes, if the software that uses them is so primitive that the physical layout
is assumed rather than deduced by the software at the time they are used.

No risk in testing that tho, clone the drive, do the ops you care about
working on the clone and check that they work fine. Then reclone it
again when its clear it works fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2274

On Jan 4, 1:18 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> AndyHancock wrote
> >> It makes more sense to just clone it without trying to drop the languages you dont use.
> >>  <...snip...>
> >> ...it makes more sense to clone it completely.
> >>> I will be using Norton Ghost.
> >> I'd use Acronis True Image myself.
> > Thanks, Rod.  Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense to save a few GB's by
> > excluding a partition, since the role of the partitions is guesswork right now.
>
> And its not a very big percentage of the drive, since it rather unlikely
> the whole of one partition is used for just the extra languages.
>
> > If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit more...
>
> I dont mind at all, thats what these technical groups are about.
>
> > 1) Have you had experience creating multi-partition
> > bootable whole-HDD clones using Acronis True Image?
>
> Yes.
>
> > 2) A further wrinkle is that the target HDD is 500 GB, while
> > the source HDD is 640 GB.  I will be shrinking the C-drive
> > partition so that all 4 partitions fit into the 500 GB target.
>
> Thats fine with TI as long as the 640GB drive doesnt have more
> than 500GB of data on it.
>
> > Norton Tech Support says (and their forum participants confirm)
> > that Ghost can resize partitions in the cloning process
>
> Yeah, any decent cloner can do that now.
>
> > so that I don't have to mess with partition size adjustments before the clone is
> > actually made and tested.  Would you know if Acronis True Image can do this as well?
>
> Yes it can.
>
> > 3) Assuming that the educated guesses about the role of each
> > partition is true, will the resulting shifting of partitions 3 and 4
> > create a risk that they will not be able to function as intended?
>
> Its possible Toshiba has used a process that depends on the original
> sizes being maintained, but you should be fine if you only adjust the
> size of the normal partition that the user uses for their data etc.
>
> > What if the purpose is different from what was speculated -- can the
> > function of partitions in *general* be disrupted by shifting them around?
>
> Yes, if the software that uses them is so primitive that the physical layout
> is assumed rather than deduced by the software at the time they are used.
>
> No risk in testing that tho, clone the drive, do the ops you care about
> working on the clone and check that they work fine. Then reclone it
> again when its clear it works fine.

Thanks again, Rod.  From Toshiba forums, partitions 3 & 4 are indeed
for recovery.  They are used by Toshiba's app for creating recovery
discs, and for disc-less recovery (holding down 0 when powering up).
I received questions about why they need to be cloned once I've made
the recovery discs, and it's a good point.  However, disc-less
recovery sounds enticing (for those cases where the HDD is still
functional), even though I read somewhere that it takes a long time.
Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and takes time
for delivery.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2276

AndyHancock wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> AndyHancock wrote

>>>> It makes more sense to just clone it without trying to drop the
>>>> languages you dont use. <...snip...>

>>>> ...it makes more sense to clone it completely.

>>>>> I will be using Norton Ghost.

>>>> I'd use Acronis True Image myself.

>>> Thanks, Rod. Yeah, it probably doesn't make sense
>>> to save a few GB's by excluding a partition, since the
>>> role of the partitions is guesswork right now.

>> And its not a very big percentage of the drive, since it rather unlikely
>> the whole of one partition is used for just the extra languages.

>>> If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit more...

>> I dont mind at all, thats what these technical groups are about.

>>> 1) Have you had experience creating multi-partition
>>> bootable whole-HDD clones using Acronis True Image?

>> Yes.

>>> 2) A further wrinkle is that the target HDD is 500 GB, while
>>> the source HDD is 640 GB. I will be shrinking the C-drive
>>> partition so that all 4 partitions fit into the 500 GB target.

>> Thats fine with TI as long as the 640GB drive doesnt have more
>> than 500GB of data on it.

>>> Norton Tech Support says (and their forum participants confirm)
>>> that Ghost can resize partitions in the cloning process

>> Yeah, any decent cloner can do that now.

>>> so that I don't have to mess with partition size adjustments before
>>> the clone is actually made and tested. Would you know if Acronis
>>> True Image can do this as well?

>> Yes it can.

>>> 3) Assuming that the educated guesses about the role of each
>>> partition is true, will the resulting shifting of partitions 3 and 4
>>> create a risk that they will not be able to function as intended?

>> Its possible Toshiba has used a process that depends on the original
>> sizes being maintained, but you should be fine if you only adjust the
>> size of the normal partition that the user uses for their data etc.

>>> What if the purpose is different from what was speculated -- can the
>>> function of partitions in *general* be disrupted by shifting them around?

>> Yes, if the software that uses them is so primitive that the
>> physical layout is assumed rather than deduced by the software at
>> the time they are used.

>> No risk in testing that tho, clone the drive, do the ops you care
>> about working on the clone and check that they work fine. Then
>> reclone it again when its clear it works fine.

> Thanks again, Rod.  From Toshiba forums, partitions 3 & 4 are indeed
> for recovery.  They are used by Toshiba's app for creating recovery
> discs, and for disc-less recovery (holding down 0 when powering up).
> I received questions about why they need to be cloned once I've made
> the recovery discs, and it's a good point.

Yeah, tho not everyone keeps track of the recovery disks religiously.

And some systems, particularly HP and Compaq systems, keep track of
what recovery disks have been made and wont let you make them again too.

> However, disc-less recovery sounds enticing (for those cases where the HDD is still functional),

Yeah, particularly if you only have the one system.

> even though I read somewhere that it takes a long time.

Sure, but thats no big deal because that wont happen that
often and can be a lot quicker than finding the recovery disks.

> Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and takes time for delivery.

And that last can be a real pain if its the only system you have and are say away from home etc.

I'd personally just clone the entire drive just for the extra possibiitys that gives you.

Thanks for the extra you got elsewhere, too rare IMO. Might help someone
else considering the same problem later using groups.google etc. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2277

On Jan 5, 4:32 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote
>> Thanks again, Rod.  From Toshiba forums, partitions 3 & 4 are
>> indeed for recovery.  They are used by Toshiba's app for creating
>> recovery discs, and for disc-less recovery (holding down 0 when
>> powering up).  I received questions about why they need to be
>> cloned once I've made the recovery discs, and it's a good point.
>
> Yeah, tho not everyone keeps track of the recovery disks
> religiously.
>
> And some systems, particularly HP and Compaq systems, keep track of
> what recovery disks have been made and wont let you make them again
> too.
>
>> However, disc-less recovery sounds enticing (for those cases where
>> the HDD is still functional),
>
> Yeah, particularly if you only have the one system.
>
>> even though I read somewhere that it takes a long time.
>
> Sure, but thats no big deal because that wont happen that often and
> can be a lot quicker than finding the recovery disks.
>
>> Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and takes
>> time for delivery.
>
> And that last can be a real pain if its the only system you have and
> are say away from home etc.
>
> I'd personally just clone the entire drive just for the extra
> possibiitys that gives you.
>
> Thanks for the extra you got elsewhere, too rare IMO. Might help
> someone else considering the same problem later using groups.google
> etc.

Hey, it's the least I could do.  Your extra considerations are very
helpful.

Use to be that everyone used usenet, so there was no need to
transcribe from forum to forum.

Then again, those were the days of flaming and trolling as well.  So I
understand why they want a "closed" society.  It is also appropriate
because the technical details discussed are much more specific to a
product line or manufacturer.  Also, whoever happens upon this thread
will very likely happen upon those other forum threads.

However, it does mean that the knowledge is fragmented into corporate
silos/stovepipes.  In the grouple days, it was housed in a single
(albeit common) corporate entity.  Prior to that, I think giganews
archived usenet, but maybe only to a limited degree.  Given that it
takes money to maintain a reliably accessible archive, I can't think
of a way to avoid the dependence on corporations for preservation of
forum knowledge, and access to it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2283

AndyHancock wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote

>>> Thanks again, Rod.  From Toshiba forums, partitions 3 & 4 are
>>> indeed for recovery.  They are used by Toshiba's app for creating
>>> recovery discs, and for disc-less recovery (holding down 0 when
>>> powering up).  I received questions about why they need to be
>>> cloned once I've made the recovery discs, and it's a good point.

>> Yeah, tho not everyone keeps track of the recovery disks religiously.

>> And some systems, particularly HP and Compaq systems, keep track of
>> what recovery disks have been made and wont let you make them again too.

>>> However, disc-less recovery sounds enticing (for those cases where the HDD is still functional),

>> Yeah, particularly if you only have the one system.

>>> even though I read somewhere that it takes a long time.

>> Sure, but thats no big deal because that wont happen that
>> often and can be a lot quicker than finding the recovery disks.

>>> Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and takes time for delivery.

>> And that last can be a real pain if its the only system
>> you have and are say away from home etc.

>> I'd personally just clone the entire drive just for the extra
>> possibiitys that gives you.

>> Thanks for the extra you got elsewhere, too rare IMO. Might help someone
>> else considering the same problem later using groups.google etc.

> Hey, it's the least I could do.  Your extra considerations are very helpful.

> Use to be that everyone used usenet, so there was no need to
> transcribe from forum to forum.

> Then again, those were the days of flaming and trolling as well.  So
> I understand why they want a "closed" society.  It is also appropriate
> because the technical details discussed are much more specific to a
> product line or manufacturer.  Also, whoever happens upon this thread
> will very likely happen upon those other forum threads.

> However, it does mean that the knowledge is fragmented into corporate
> silos/stovepipes.  In the grouple days, it was housed in a single
> (albeit common) corporate entity.  Prior to that, I think giganews
> archived usenet, but maybe only to a limited degree.  Given that it
> takes money to maintain a reliably accessible archive, I can't think
> of a way to avoid the dependence on corporations for preservation of
> forum knowledge, and access to it.

There are some examples of forums that have nothing to do with any corporation.

I dont care for moderated forums much myself, but do recognise that they can be a
better source of info that usenet now that usenet has faded away so dramatically now.

I also prefer to be able to use groups.google to search
for old posts, but now google itself is so useful, it does
help with finding relevant  forums for specific issues.

The other very real problem with forums is that there is a lot more
completely uninformed comment with lots just guessing and not
actually knowing anything much about what they are talking about.
So they can be a real pain to use, much higher level of useless posts. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2295

On Jan 6, 1:25 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are some examples of forums that have nothing to do with any corporation.

Do you mean places that actually maintain an archive, with public
access to it?  I'd be curious as to examples.  Even Tom's Hardware is
associated with a business.  I guess there might be nonprofit groups
that work toward standardization, or something along those lines.

> I dont care for moderated forums much myself, but do recognise that they can be a
> better source of info that usenet now that usenet has faded away so dramatically now.

Agreed, there is a loss of freedom from moderation.  My personal
opinion (if it ain't too redundant to say that!) is from the point of
view of a info seeker, since I'm rarely a guru.  I have found the
signal-to-noise to be much improved, even compared to grouples days of
old.  Of course, sometimes the moderation can be downright Stalinist,
particularly when corporate reputation is at stake.  Just like the
wild west has its pros and cons, so does moderation.

> I also prefer to be able to use groups.google to search
> for old posts, but now google itself is so useful, it does
> help with finding relevant  forums for specific issues.

Agreed.

> The other very real problem with forums is that there is a lot more
> completely uninformed comment with lots just guessing and not
> actually knowing anything much about what they are talking about.
> So they can be a real pain to use, much higher level of useless posts.

Yes, that does happen.  I found that it happens in corporate forums
and grouples days of old.  However, my experience with forums is that
trolls get called out, so they don't thrive in corporate forums.  On
usenet, people will sometimes deliberately post obfuscating or false
information for the fun of it.  [ Not this thread, of course :) ]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2304

AndyHancock wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

>> There are some examples of forums that
>> have nothing to do with any corporation.

> Do you mean places that actually maintain an archive, with public access to it?

Yes, I use 3 of them regularly.

> I'd be curious as to examples.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/
http://www.austech.info/
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/

> Even Tom's Hardware is associated with a business.
> I guess there might be nonprofit groups

Yes, mostly supported by advertising to some extent.
Others supported by donation like wikipedia.

> that work toward standardization,

Havent noticed much of that.

> or something along those lines.

Yes, that sort of nonprofit group isnt all that uncommon.

>> I dont care for moderated forums much myself, but do
>> recognise that they can be a better source of info that
>> usenet now that usenet has faded away so dramatically now.

> Agreed, there is a loss of freedom from moderation.  My personal
> opinion (if it ain't too redundant to say that!) is from the point of view
> of a info seeker, since I'm rarely a guru.  I have found the signal-to-noise
> to be much improved, even compared to grouples days of old.  Of course,
> sometimes the moderation can be downright Stalinist,

Yeah, whirlpool can be like like that, with some rather silly ideas to boot.

Our two govt national broadcasters allow you to watch most of
what they broadcast online, but with the TV material generally dont
allow you to download whats online, you have to watch it online.

One fella has automated the downloading of that stuff, like happens
with youtube, and whirlpool keeps killing his posts in their forums.

> particularly when corporate reputation is at stake.  Just like
> the wild west has its pros and cons, so does moderation.

Yeah, I was actually the moderator in one fidonet group that
we had deliberately setup for a group of us to discuss anything
we felt like. We kept getting one clown particularly try to impose
himself as the moderator, so we made me the moderator just so
we could tell him to bugger off and mind his own business.

My policy was that anyone could do anything they liked.

>> I also prefer to be able to use groups.google to search
>> for old posts, but now google itself is so useful, it does
>> help with finding relevant forums for specific issues.

> Agreed.

>> The other very real problem with forums is that there is a lot more
>> completely uninformed comment with lots just guessing and not
>> actually knowing anything much about what they are talking about.
>> So they can be a real pain to use, much higher level of useless posts.

> Yes, that does happen.  I found that it happens in corporate forums
> and grouples days of old.  However, my experience with forums is
> that trolls get called out, so they don't thrive in corporate forums.

I wasnt talking about trolls so much as those who werent aware of how ignorant they were.

There is a real tendency for most to not point that out to them, presumably
because that can be seen as not being acceptible behaviour, too controversial.

> On usenet, people will sometimes deliberately post obfuscating
> or false information for the fun of it.  [ Not this thread, of course :) ]

Yeah, its a particular problem with 'reviews' on the net. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2323

In article <d64a4c65-ac84-4c25-a59a-840026950d2b@h13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
AndyHancock  <andymhancock@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 1:25 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are some examples of forums that have nothing to do with any
>corporation.
>
>Do you mean places that actually maintain an archive, with public
>access to it?  I'd be curious as to examples.  Even Tom's Hardware is
>associated with a business.  I guess there might be nonprofit groups
>that work toward standardization, or something along those lines.
>

	Or any well managed open source project.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2293

In 
news:3e7e04b9-9b04-4dc1-b634-4c35992c536e@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com,
AndyHancock wrote:
> Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and takes time
> for delivery.

There are places that will sell you restore discs for about 25 bucks. 
I've used them before.

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2296

On Jan 6, 12:42 pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> Innews:3e7e04b9-9b04-4dc1-b634-4c35992c536e@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com,
>
> AndyHancock wrote:
> > Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and takes time
> > for delivery.
>
> There are places that will sell you restore discs for about 25 bucks.
> I've used them before.

Acknowledged.

For something as foundational as virgin factory settings, however, I
would go for the assurance of original vendor recovery discs, if only
for the hope of getting drivers and such that are tailored to the
machine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2298

In article <fd96834c-7671-4648-b5c8-44d26dcc41ab@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 12:42=A0pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
>> Innews:3e7e04b9-9b04-4dc1-b634-4c35992c536e@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com,
>>
>> AndyHancock wrote:
>> > Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and takes time
>> > for delivery.
>>
>> There are places that will sell you restore discs for about 25 bucks.
>> I've used them before.
>
>Acknowledged.
>
>For something as foundational as virgin factory settings, however, I
>would go for the assurance of original vendor recovery discs, if only
>for the hope of getting drivers and such that are tailored to the
>machine.

What the other poster meant was that if the manufacturer of the PC like HP or 
gateway no longer sells or supplies the disk, you can sometimes get the exact 
same disks from a 3rd party.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2299

In news:jPINq.236877$034.88050@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com,
GMAN wrote:
> In article
> <fd96834c-7671-4648-b5c8-44d26dcc41ab@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> AndyHancock <andymhancock@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 12:42=A0pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
>>> Innews:3e7e04b9-9b04-4dc1-b634-4c35992c536e@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com,
>>>
>>> AndyHancock wrote:
>>>> Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and takes
>>>> time for delivery.
>>>
>>> There are places that will sell you restore discs for about 25
>>> bucks. I've used them before.
>>
>> Acknowledged.
>>
>> For something as foundational as virgin factory settings, however, I
>> would go for the assurance of original vendor recovery discs, if only
>> for the hope of getting drivers and such that are tailored to the
>> machine.
>
> What the other poster meant was that if the manufacturer of the PC 
> like HP or gateway no longer sells or supplies the disk, you can 
> sometimes get the exact same disks from a 3rd party.

Yes that is what I mean. I bought one set from:

http://www.restoredisks.com/

And they restore your machine to exactly the same as factory restore 
discs do. Same applications, drivers, etc. The only thing that was 
different was it was Windows XP with a SATA drive, the SATA driver 
wasn't slipstreamed on the XP install disc. But it was included on the 
drivers disc. And if your machine came with something like MS Office, 
they send you that too.

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2310

On Jan 6, 3:55 pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> Innews:jPINq.236877$034.88050@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> GMAN wrote:
> > In article
> > <fd96834c-7671-4648-b5c8-44d26dcc4...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 6, 12:42=A0pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> >>> Innews:3e7e04b9-9b04-4dc1-b634-4c35992c536e@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com,
>
> >>> AndyHancock wrote:
> >>>> Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and takes
> >>>> time for delivery.
>
> >>> There are places that will sell you restore discs for about 25
> >>> bucks. I've used them before.
>
> >> Acknowledged.
>
> >> For something as foundational as virgin factory settings, however, I
> >> would go for the assurance of original vendor recovery discs, if only
> >> for the hope of getting drivers and such that are tailored to the
> >> machine.
>
> > What the other poster meant was that if the manufacturer of the PC
> > like HP or gateway no longer sells or supplies the disk, you can
> > sometimes get the exact same disks from a 3rd party.
>
> Yes that is what I mean. I bought one set from:
>
> http://www.restoredisks.com/
>
> And they restore your machine to exactly the same as factory restore
> discs do. Same applications, drivers, etc. The only thing that was
> different was it was Windows XP with a SATA drive, the SATA driver
> wasn't slipstreamed on the XP install disc. But it was included on the
> drivers disc. And if your machine came with something like MS Office,
> they send you that too.

Handy to know about such an alternative.  Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2317

On 7/01/2012 5:50 PM, AndyHancock wrote:
> On Jan 6, 3:55 pm, "BillW50"<Bill...@aol.kom>  wrote:
>> Innews:jPINq.236877$034.88050@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> GMAN wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <fd96834c-7671-4648-b5c8-44d26dcc4...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>> AndyHancock<andymhanc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> On Jan 6, 12:42=A0pm, "BillW50"<Bill...@aol.kom>  wrote:
>>>>> Innews:3e7e04b9-9b04-4dc1-b634-4c35992c536e@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com,
>>
>>>>> AndyHancock wrote:
>>>>>> Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and takes
>>>>>> time for delivery.
>>
>>>>> There are places that will sell you restore discs for about 25
>>>>> bucks. I've used them before.
>>
>>>> Acknowledged.
>>
>>>> For something as foundational as virgin factory settings, however, I
>>>> would go for the assurance of original vendor recovery discs, if only
>>>> for the hope of getting drivers and such that are tailored to the
>>>> machine.
>>
>>> What the other poster meant was that if the manufacturer of the PC
>>> like HP or gateway no longer sells or supplies the disk, you can
>>> sometimes get the exact same disks from a 3rd party.
>>
>> Yes that is what I mean. I bought one set from:
>>
>> http://www.restoredisks.com/
>>
>> And they restore your machine to exactly the same as factory restore
>> discs do. Same applications, drivers, etc. The only thing that was
>> different was it was Windows XP with a SATA drive, the SATA driver
>> wasn't slipstreamed on the XP install disc. But it was included on the
>> drivers disc. And if your machine came with something like MS Office,
>> they send you that too.
>
> Handy to know about such an alternative.  Thanks.

I always clone my restore disks as well as creating ISO images of them. 
I do this immediately I receive a new computer. If the computer doesn't 
come with CD or DVD restore disks, I create them. My ISO images are 
backed up to offsite storage. Original and created disks go to a 
fireproof safe.

I see way too many people who don't take any care at all with their 
media. Can't have a lot of sympathy for them when their hard disk goes 
belly up!

-- 

Krypsis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2324

In news:je9l30$2c4$1@dont-email.me,
Krypsis wrote:
> On 7/01/2012 5:50 PM, AndyHancock wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 3:55 pm, "BillW50"<Bill...@aol.kom>  wrote:
>>> Innews:jPINq.236877$034.88050@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com,
>>>
>>> GMAN wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <fd96834c-7671-4648-b5c8-44d26dcc4...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> AndyHancock<andymhanc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 6, 12:42=A0pm, "BillW50"<Bill...@aol.kom>  wrote:
>>>>>> Innews:3e7e04b9-9b04-4dc1-b634-4c35992c536e@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com,
>>>
>>>>>> AndyHancock wrote:
>>>>>>> Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and
>>>>>>> takes time for delivery.
>>>
>>>>>> There are places that will sell you restore discs for about 25
>>>>>> bucks. I've used them before.
>>>
>>>>> Acknowledged.
>>>
>>>>> For something as foundational as virgin factory settings,
>>>>> however, I would go for the assurance of original vendor recovery
>>>>> discs, if only for the hope of getting drivers and such that are
>>>>> tailored to the machine.
>>>
>>>> What the other poster meant was that if the manufacturer of the PC
>>>> like HP or gateway no longer sells or supplies the disk, you can
>>>> sometimes get the exact same disks from a 3rd party.
>>>
>>> Yes that is what I mean. I bought one set from:
>>>
>>> http://www.restoredisks.com/
>>>
>>> And they restore your machine to exactly the same as factory restore
>>> discs do. Same applications, drivers, etc. The only thing that was
>>> different was it was Windows XP with a SATA drive, the SATA driver
>>> wasn't slipstreamed on the XP install disc. But it was included on
>>> the drivers disc. And if your machine came with something like MS
>>> Office, they send you that too.
>>
>> Handy to know about such an alternative.  Thanks.
>
> I always clone my restore disks as well as creating ISO images of
> them. I do this immediately I receive a new computer. If the computer
> doesn't come with CD or DVD restore disks, I create them. My ISO
> images are backed up to offsite storage. Original and created disks
> go to a fireproof safe.
>
> I see way too many people who don't take any care at all with their
> media. Can't have a lot of sympathy for them when their hard disk goes
> belly up!

I do the very same and I still have my restore disks to machines that 
doesn't even exist anymore (I don't know why I safeguard those latter 
ones). But when you buy machines used and sometimes refurbished, you are 
lucky to get any. So in this case you have to buy them. Or buy a retail 
version.

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2327

Krypsis wrote
> AndyHancock wrote
>> BillW50 <Bill...@aol.kom>  wrote
>>> GMAN wrote
>>>> AndyHancock<andymhanc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>> BillW50 <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote
>>>>>> AndyHancock wrote:

>>>>>>> Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and
>>>>>>> takes time for delivery.

>>>>>> There are places that will sell you restore discs for about 25
>>>>>> bucks. I've used them before.

>>>>> Acknowledged.

>>>>> For something as foundational as virgin factory settings,
>>>>> however, I would go for the assurance of original vendor recovery
>>>>> discs, if only for the hope of getting drivers and such that are
>>>>> tailored to the machine.

>>>> What the other poster meant was that if the manufacturer of the PC
>>>> like HP or gateway no longer sells or supplies the disk, you can
>>>> sometimes get the exact same disks from a 3rd party.

>>> Yes that is what I mean. I bought one set from:

>>> http://www.restoredisks.com/

>>> And they restore your machine to exactly the same as factory restore
>>> discs do. Same applications, drivers, etc. The only thing that was
>>> different was it was Windows XP with a SATA drive, the SATA driver
>>> wasn't slipstreamed on the XP install disc. But it was included on
>>> the drivers disc. And if your machine came with something like MS
>>> Office, they send you that too.

>> Handy to know about such an alternative.  Thanks.
>
> I always clone my restore disks as well as creating ISO images of them. I do this immediately I receive a new 
> computer.

Irrelevant to what can be justified rationally.

Just because you do it that way, doesnt mean that everyone else should.

> If the computer doesn't come with CD or DVD restore disks, I create them. My ISO images are backed up to offsite 
> storage. Original and created disks
> go to a fireproof safe.

Hell of a lot of farting around for very little useful result.

> I see way too many people who don't take any care at all with their media. Can't have a lot of sympathy for them when 
> their hard disk goes belly up!

There are plenty of viable alternatives backup wise that are
much more useful than your mindlessly anal approach. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2438

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 06:47:46 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Krypsis wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote
>>> BillW50 <Bill...@aol.kom>  wrote
>>>> GMAN wrote
>>>>> AndyHancock<andymhanc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> BillW50 <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote
>>>>>>> AndyHancock wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Replacing lost recovery discs cost in the order of $66, and
>>>>>>>> takes time for delivery.
>
>>>>>>> There are places that will sell you restore discs for about 25
>>>>>>> bucks. I've used them before.
>
>>>>>> Acknowledged.
>
>>>>>> For something as foundational as virgin factory settings,
>>>>>> however, I would go for the assurance of original vendor recovery
>>>>>> discs, if only for the hope of getting drivers and such that are
>>>>>> tailored to the machine.
>
>>>>> What the other poster meant was that if the manufacturer of the PC
>>>>> like HP or gateway no longer sells or supplies the disk, you can
>>>>> sometimes get the exact same disks from a 3rd party.
>
>>>> Yes that is what I mean. I bought one set from:
>
>>>> http://www.restoredisks.com/
>
>>>> And they restore your machine to exactly the same as factory restore
>>>> discs do. Same applications, drivers, etc. The only thing that was
>>>> different was it was Windows XP with a SATA drive, the SATA driver
>>>> wasn't slipstreamed on the XP install disc. But it was included on
>>>> the drivers disc. And if your machine came with something like MS
>>>> Office, they send you that too.
>
>>> Handy to know about such an alternative.  Thanks.
>>
>> I always clone my restore disks as well as creating ISO images of them. I do this immediately I receive a new 
>> computer.
>
>Irrelevant to what can be justified rationally.
>
>Just because you do it that way, doesnt mean that everyone else should.
>
>> If the computer doesn't come with CD or DVD restore disks, I create them. My ISO images are backed up to offsite 
>> storage. Original and created disks
>> go to a fireproof safe.
>
>Hell of a lot of farting around for very little useful result.
>
>> I see way too many people who don't take any care at all with their media. Can't have a lot of sympathy for them when 
>> their hard disk goes belly up!
>
>There are plenty of viable alternatives backup wise that are
>much more useful than your mindlessly anal approach. 
>


Ok wise one, please give us your approaches....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage

csiph-web