Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #69887 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Frank <gno52@windstream.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-18 04:00 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-02-24 09:13 +1300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 86 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
media reliability Frank <gno52@windstream.net> - 2015-02-18 04:00 -0800
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 08:15 -0500
Re: media reliability Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-02-18 09:24 -0500
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 13:03 -0500
Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-19 00:03 +0000
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-19 04:59 +0000
Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-19 12:53 +0000
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 02:51 +0000
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 08:44 -0500
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 03:23 +0000
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 07:42 -0500
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-21 06:05 +0000
Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-20 04:51 +0000
Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-19 08:49 -0500
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 08:38 -0500
Re: media reliability Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-02-19 17:12 +0000
Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-19 11:45 -0800
Re: media reliability Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-02-19 22:24 +0000
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-20 13:10 +1300
Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-19 17:14 -0800
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 20:41 -0500
Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-19 18:11 -0800
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-20 18:15 +1300
Re: media reliability David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2015-02-19 20:32 -0600
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 07:36 -0500
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 07:51 -0500
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 03:33 +0000
Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-19 19:57 -0800
Re: media reliability Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-20 09:44 +0000
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-21 06:10 +0000
Re: media reliability Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-02-21 10:23 +0000
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-21 10:33 -0500
Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-22 15:33 +0000
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-22 09:51 +1300
Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-21 13:09 -0800
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-22 03:30 +0000
Re: media reliability isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2015-02-18 09:40 -0800
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-19 05:06 +0000
Re: media reliability Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> - 2015-02-18 19:31 -0500
Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-18 19:38 -0500
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-19 13:55 +1300
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-19 05:17 +0000
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-19 19:02 +1300
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 09:09 -0500
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-20 09:12 +1300
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 08:57 -0500
Re: media reliability Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-02-18 09:24 -0500
Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-18 19:20 -0500
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-19 05:33 +0000
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-19 19:15 +1300
Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-18 23:22 -0800
Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-19 08:39 -0500
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 03:21 +0000
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-20 18:46 +1300
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-21 06:04 +0000
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-21 10:36 -0500
Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-22 15:32 +0000
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-22 09:48 +1300
Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-21 13:08 -0800
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-22 03:40 +0000
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-22 17:42 +1300
Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-19 08:36 -0500
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 03:10 +0000
Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-20 08:19 -0500
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 09:15 -0500
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-20 09:19 +1300
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 03:28 +0000
Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-21 11:01 -0500
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-21 15:03 -0500
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-22 09:57 +1300
Re: media reliability Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-21 19:33 -0500
Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-19 13:02 +0000
Re: media reliability John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2015-02-20 02:56 +0000
Re: media reliability Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-20 04:43 +0000
Re: media reliability Frank <gno52@windstream.net> - 2015-02-22 03:24 -0800
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-23 09:36 +1300
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-22 18:36 -0500
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-23 13:24 +1300
Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-22 17:23 -0800
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-22 21:24 -0500
Re: media reliability Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-02-22 19:13 -0800
Re: media reliability Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-22 23:13 -0500
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-23 18:03 +1300
Re: media reliability Frank <gno52@windstream.net> - 2015-02-23 02:59 -0800
Re: media reliability John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-02-23 07:00 -0800
Re: media reliability Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-02-24 09:13 +1300
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-22 17:42 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <220220151742510275%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70083 |
In article <kdjieat951jk15keilrt08frnqe9fp26e6@4ax.com>, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 09:48:23 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> > wrote: > > > >but once you pay the over-bloated price and get it home it won't look any > >different to your current "HD TV" or even your old CRT TV if watching > >old re-runs (in some cases the image may even be worse than those since > >LCD screens are not very good at displaying non-native resolutions). > > Yeh, true. In fact many programs look *worse* on a good, large HD-ish > set because you see the JPEGgy artifacts. Little and large squares > when things get exciting and the scene is rapidly changing. That > rarely shows up on the poorer screens. You also tend to get jaggies on any lines that aren't perfectly straight (for example fences, stair railings / bannisters, etc.). > >It's similar to cars - a Ferrari may have impressive acceleration and > >speed, but on most normal roads you'll quickly end up with massive > >fines for using it that way and with almost no luggage space it isn't > >particularly good as a daily driver, so you may as well stick with your > >old Honda which is cheaper and works just as well within those > >boundaries and better in some ways. > > Personally, I mostly use the 'bus. It gets there just as quickly as a > car and costs a whole lot less. > For places buses can't get me, I use taxis. They are *lots* cheaper > than ownership of my very own vehicle. Here the bus usually takes longer (the train is even longer assuming you're going anywhere that has a station and they actually manage to get their two-rail playset actually working that day) thanks to the stupidity of pushing everything through the central city. It's probably more expensive too in the long run.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-19 08:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2e6dnfx5BOpHe3jJnZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69927 |
On 2015.02.19 00:33 , John wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:20:24 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2015.02.18 07:00 , Frank wrote:
>>> have windows7 OS on Dell and OS-X v 10.9.5 on mac mini
>>>
>>> Too many unsatisfactory experiences on both with reliability of CD
>>> and DVD disks. Should I just discard remaining unformatted disks and
>>> use only flash drives? Never have had one of them to fail; weak
>>> link with them seems to hubs rather than the media.
>>
>> I have about 50 CD/DVD's over 5 years old that still read fine. I
>> reburn (copy) all discs that are older than 5 years. I've kept a few
>> older ones to see how long they'll go and they're at over 10 years with
>> no issues that I can spot.
>>
>> I have write fails on about 1 disk in 10. Doesn't matter - they're
>> cheap enough. No need to discard what you have. At least find someone
>> who might have use for them.
>>
>> They are kept in a dark, cool, dry place. That's a big part of keeping
>> them for the long term.
>>
>> I keep saying I'll get archive disks (gold, not made in India - Taiwan
>> make the real deal) that should outlive me by several decades, but never
>> get round to it.
>>
>> That said, my "rate" of burning CD/DVD's has dropped from about 20 or so
>> per year to a few per year. My iMac doesn't have a burner so I borrow
>> my SO's burner (USB powered).
>>
>> I also have thought of getting a Blu Ray burner but keep putting that
>> off as well.
>
> I always thought of BR as a nearly useless and too highly restricted
> (by Hollywood and friends) piss-poor and trivial extension to DVD.
> They could have been made ever so much easier, better and *denser* had
> the film and music industry not screamed and thrown temper tantrums.
50 GB / disk is not trivial. (Single side, dual layer). That covers
far more than a 2 hour movie in 1080p and 5.1 or more sound channels.
(And I wish that's all it was - don't need all the "features" they add
to the basic offering).
> That said, I bought a Bray recorder for my retirement present to
> myself. It's a lovely bit of kit, it even has FreeView tuners and net
> access, which I use more than the BR drive.
> I have, in three and a bit years recorded five discs on it. I got a
> pack of 50 for about a tenner in a sale, Verbatim not "no-name", and I
> still have most of them empty.
I have lot's of photography related stuff that would fill up many disks.
Scans of 120 film run nearly 500 MB each.
> If I need to move chunks of data I use a small hard drive, in the
> 500GB range, or a USB stick in the 8-64GB range. Or send it over the
> wifi if I'm really, really not in a hurry.
> Wifi is truly lamentably slow and unreliable.
From my iMac to my SO's MBA via a router I get 8 -10 MB/s which is fine
enough for what I transfer routinely. Her MBA is pretty far from the
router.
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-20 03:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7k8deatjus4hvcslk8rvlrtok7klpdiilk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69944 |
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:36:26 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>On 2015.02.19 00:33 , John wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:20:24 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015.02.18 07:00 , Frank wrote:
>>>> have windows7 OS on Dell and OS-X v 10.9.5 on mac mini
>>>>
>>>> Too many unsatisfactory experiences on both with reliability of CD
>>>> and DVD disks. Should I just discard remaining unformatted disks and
>>>> use only flash drives? Never have had one of them to fail; weak
>>>> link with them seems to hubs rather than the media.
>>>
>>> I have about 50 CD/DVD's over 5 years old that still read fine. I
>>> reburn (copy) all discs that are older than 5 years. I've kept a few
>>> older ones to see how long they'll go and they're at over 10 years with
>>> no issues that I can spot.
>>>
>>> I have write fails on about 1 disk in 10. Doesn't matter - they're
>>> cheap enough. No need to discard what you have. At least find someone
>>> who might have use for them.
>>>
>>> They are kept in a dark, cool, dry place. That's a big part of keeping
>>> them for the long term.
>>>
>>> I keep saying I'll get archive disks (gold, not made in India - Taiwan
>>> make the real deal) that should outlive me by several decades, but never
>>> get round to it.
>>>
>>> That said, my "rate" of burning CD/DVD's has dropped from about 20 or so
>>> per year to a few per year. My iMac doesn't have a burner so I borrow
>>> my SO's burner (USB powered).
>>>
>>> I also have thought of getting a Blu Ray burner but keep putting that
>>> off as well.
>>
>> I always thought of BR as a nearly useless and too highly restricted
>> (by Hollywood and friends) piss-poor and trivial extension to DVD.
>> They could have been made ever so much easier, better and *denser* had
>> the film and music industry not screamed and thrown temper tantrums.
>
>50 GB / disk is not trivial. (Single side, dual layer). That covers
>far more than a 2 hour movie in 1080p and 5.1 or more sound channels.
>(And I wish that's all it was - don't need all the "features" they add
>to the basic offering).
My current, two-year-old PC has a 3,000 GB drive. That's at least 60
blu-rays if I fill it up.
You might as well be using floppy disks.
>> That said, I bought a Bray recorder for my retirement present to
>> myself. It's a lovely bit of kit, it even has FreeView tuners and net
>> access, which I use more than the BR drive.
>> I have, in three and a bit years recorded five discs on it. I got a
>> pack of 50 for about a tenner in a sale, Verbatim not "no-name", and I
>> still have most of them empty.
>
>I have lot's of photography related stuff that would fill up many disks.
> Scans of 120 film run nearly 500 MB each.
Like I said, Blu-ray is a trivial step up from CD and DVD. It was
supposed to be ever so much *better*. The *physics* and engineering
were there, but money and politics screwed the technology.
That said, you could still get a hundred rolls onto a disk. Maybe
more if some had blank images. That may be worth doing, though I would
prefer dropping them onto a couple of rotating hard drives.
And keeping the originals.
>
>> If I need to move chunks of data I use a small hard drive, in the
>> 500GB range, or a USB stick in the 8-64GB range. Or send it over the
>> wifi if I'm really, really not in a hurry.
>> Wifi is truly lamentably slow and unreliable.
>
> From my iMac to my SO's MBA via a router I get 8 -10 MB/s which is fine
>enough for what I transfer routinely. Her MBA is pretty far from the
>router.
Cool. But 10 MB per second is a lot of seconds if you are
transferring a 2 TeraByte chunk to your "NAS" drive so all your
devices can see it all.
It's something I've wanted to do for *ages* but never got around to.
Had I started with a networked drive years ago, everything would
already be on it by now but I didn't so it isn't. Except most of it
now is.
I get about 3 MB per second so it took a while.
Fortunately, it's a one-off task and I just started it, let it run
for what felt like months and felt ever so happy when it stopped.
I have *never* optimised either the router or the MacBook for speed
or efficiency. Until now I never had to and now I've done it I never
*will* need to. If I get bored one week I might do it as a project.
When I have finished the fifty other projects I have going ...
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-20 08:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6u-dnZV-NILBqXrJnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69983 |
On 2015.02.19 22:10 , John wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:36:26 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2015.02.19 00:33 , John wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:20:24 -0500, Alan Browne
>>> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015.02.18 07:00 , Frank wrote:
>>>>> have windows7 OS on Dell and OS-X v 10.9.5 on mac mini
>>>>>
>>>>> Too many unsatisfactory experiences on both with reliability of CD
>>>>> and DVD disks. Should I just discard remaining unformatted disks and
>>>>> use only flash drives? Never have had one of them to fail; weak
>>>>> link with them seems to hubs rather than the media.
>>>>
>>>> I have about 50 CD/DVD's over 5 years old that still read fine. I
>>>> reburn (copy) all discs that are older than 5 years. I've kept a few
>>>> older ones to see how long they'll go and they're at over 10 years with
>>>> no issues that I can spot.
>>>>
>>>> I have write fails on about 1 disk in 10. Doesn't matter - they're
>>>> cheap enough. No need to discard what you have. At least find someone
>>>> who might have use for them.
>>>>
>>>> They are kept in a dark, cool, dry place. That's a big part of keeping
>>>> them for the long term.
>>>>
>>>> I keep saying I'll get archive disks (gold, not made in India - Taiwan
>>>> make the real deal) that should outlive me by several decades, but never
>>>> get round to it.
>>>>
>>>> That said, my "rate" of burning CD/DVD's has dropped from about 20 or so
>>>> per year to a few per year. My iMac doesn't have a burner so I borrow
>>>> my SO's burner (USB powered).
>>>>
>>>> I also have thought of getting a Blu Ray burner but keep putting that
>>>> off as well.
>>>
>>> I always thought of BR as a nearly useless and too highly restricted
>>> (by Hollywood and friends) piss-poor and trivial extension to DVD.
>>> They could have been made ever so much easier, better and *denser* had
>>> the film and music industry not screamed and thrown temper tantrums.
>>
>> 50 GB / disk is not trivial. (Single side, dual layer). That covers
>> far more than a 2 hour movie in 1080p and 5.1 or more sound channels.
>> (And I wish that's all it was - don't need all the "features" they add
>> to the basic offering).
>
> My current, two-year-old PC has a 3,000 GB drive. That's at least 60
> blu-rays if I fill it up.
> You might as well be using floppy disks.
I've got 10 TB of external drives. I do not consider them to be backups
and never will. A hard drive can go T-U in 1 nano-second.
There is data (not apps, and temporary stuff) that I backup for the long
term. That means stable media. It's also not Terrabytes worth of stuff.
>>> That said, I bought a Bray recorder for my retirement present to
>>> myself. It's a lovely bit of kit, it even has FreeView tuners and net
>>> access, which I use more than the BR drive.
>>> I have, in three and a bit years recorded five discs on it. I got a
>>> pack of 50 for about a tenner in a sale, Verbatim not "no-name", and I
>>> still have most of them empty.
>>
>> I have lot's of photography related stuff that would fill up many disks.
>> Scans of 120 film run nearly 500 MB each.
>
> Like I said, Blu-ray is a trivial step up from CD and DVD. It was
> supposed to be ever so much *better*. The *physics* and engineering
> were there, but money and politics screwed the technology.
It works fine and on spec.
>
> That said, you could still get a hundred rolls onto a disk. Maybe
> more if some had blank images. That may be worth doing, though I would
> prefer dropping them onto a couple of rotating hard drives.
> And keeping the originals.
Original slide film fades with time. Bits don't if properly kept.
>
>
>>
>>> If I need to move chunks of data I use a small hard drive, in the
>>> 500GB range, or a USB stick in the 8-64GB range. Or send it over the
>>> wifi if I'm really, really not in a hurry.
>>> Wifi is truly lamentably slow and unreliable.
>>
>> From my iMac to my SO's MBA via a router I get 8 -10 MB/s which is fine
>> enough for what I transfer routinely. Her MBA is pretty far from the
>> router.
>
> Cool. But 10 MB per second is a lot of seconds if you are
> transferring a 2 TeraByte chunk to your "NAS" drive so all your
> devices can see it all.
You only do that baseline once and that one time you can wire it up and
then move the NAS somewhere else.
> It's something I've wanted to do for *ages* but never got around to.
> Had I started with a networked drive years ago, everything would
> already be on it by now but I didn't so it isn't. Except most of it
> now is.
> I get about 3 MB per second so it took a while.
> Fortunately, it's a one-off task and I just started it, let it run
> for what felt like months and felt ever so happy when it stopped.
> I have *never* optimised either the router or the MacBook for speed
> or efficiency. Until now I never had to and now I've done it I never
> *will* need to. If I get bored one week I might do it as a project.
> When I have finished the fifty other projects I have going ...
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-19 09:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54e5f008$0$39550$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #69927 |
In article <uhsaea9vljruqr8gjuu8ab0vinkl9j3evm@4ax.com>, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote: > If I need to move chunks of data I use a small hard drive, in the > 500GB range, or a USB stick in the 8-64GB range. Or send it over the > wifi if I'm really, really not in a hurry. > Wifi is truly lamentably slow and unreliable. > Oh gawd, yes, it's painful. I have gigabit all through the house to transfer stuff between (amongst) our machines. You can't pull enough cable. I have WiFi as well, because it's fine when someone just wants to read their email. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-20 09:19 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <200220150919402720%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #69951 |
In article <54e5f008$0$39550$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <uhsaea9vljruqr8gjuu8ab0vinkl9j3evm@4ax.com>, > John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote: > > > > If I need to move chunks of data I use a small hard drive, in the > > 500GB range, or a USB stick in the 8-64GB range. Or send it over the > > wifi if I'm really, really not in a hurry. > > Wifi is truly lamentably slow and unreliable. > > Oh gawd, yes, it's painful. I have gigabit all through the house to > transfer stuff between (amongst) our machines. You can't pull enough > cable. I have WiFi as well, because it's fine when someone just wants to > read their email. Some places are working on LiFi as a replacement for WiFi ... reportedly using light waves will be faster then using radio waves. At the moment there's apparently issues due to the bulb being directionless (unlike fibre optics which channel the light through a cable).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-20 03:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v9adeahj4eeo4b6ord885v43f0ukloq9cf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69964 |
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:19:40 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
>In article <54e5f008$0$39550$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>,
>Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <uhsaea9vljruqr8gjuu8ab0vinkl9j3evm@4ax.com>,
>> John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>> >
>> > If I need to move chunks of data I use a small hard drive, in the
>> > 500GB range, or a USB stick in the 8-64GB range. Or send it over the
>> > wifi if I'm really, really not in a hurry.
>> > Wifi is truly lamentably slow and unreliable.
>>
>> Oh gawd, yes, it's painful. I have gigabit all through the house to
>> transfer stuff between (amongst) our machines. You can't pull enough
>> cable. I have WiFi as well, because it's fine when someone just wants to
>> read their email.
>
>Some places are working on LiFi as a replacement for WiFi ...
>reportedly using light waves will be faster then using radio waves. At
>the moment there's apparently issues due to the bulb being
>directionless (unlike fibre optics which channel the light through a
>cable).
That's probably just a power issue. If so, infra-red or UV lasers
could be used. You don't need to hit the target with IR or UV, they
bounce, and even tiny, tiny shinies can be detected.
Now, all we need are UV/IR/multi-spectral LEDs at the back of our
laptops and tablets ...
Hmm, Blu-ray LEDs?
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-21 11:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XJednSkcM_FJNnXJnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69964 |
On 2015.02.19 15:19 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <54e5f008$0$39550$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <uhsaea9vljruqr8gjuu8ab0vinkl9j3evm@4ax.com>,
>> John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>>>
>>> If I need to move chunks of data I use a small hard drive, in the
>>> 500GB range, or a USB stick in the 8-64GB range. Or send it over the
>>> wifi if I'm really, really not in a hurry.
>>> Wifi is truly lamentably slow and unreliable.
>>
>> Oh gawd, yes, it's painful. I have gigabit all through the house to
>> transfer stuff between (amongst) our machines. You can't pull enough
>> cable. I have WiFi as well, because it's fine when someone just wants to
>> read their email.
>
> Some places are working on LiFi as a replacement for WiFi ...
> reportedly using light waves will be faster then using radio waves. At
<WARNING Pedantic Quibble Ahead>
Radio and light travel at the same speed (light is radio). But the
bandwidth is potentially many, many times higher hence the "faster".
<END OF WARNING>
> the moment there's apparently issues due to the bulb being
> directionless (unlike fibre optics which channel the light through a
> cable).
You don't need the LiFi to be directional any more than you need WiFi to
be directional.
You need a wavelength that tends to bounce off of a lot of kinds of
surfaces so that it eventually hits an "antenna" (lens/receiver) and
probably some clever multipath mitigation.
The advantage with LiFi is a huge bandwidth gain over radio.
It could work well in open office space environments. Would not work
well where there are a lot of closed door offices unless there were lots
of windows. Repeaters could/would/should be needed.
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-21 15:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54e8e483$0$42756$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70059 |
In article <XJednSkcM_FJNnXJnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > <WARNING Pedantic Quibble Ahead> > Radio and light travel at the same speed (light is radio). But the > bandwidth is potentially many, many times higher hence the "faster". > <END OF WARNING> I don't see that as a quibble, pedantic or otherwise. I can't remember the number of times I've tried to explain the electromagnetic spectrum to people. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-22 09:57 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <220220150957185384%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70065 |
In article <54e8e483$0$42756$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <XJednSkcM_FJNnXJnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > > > <WARNING Pedantic Quibble Ahead> > > Radio and light travel at the same speed (light is radio). But the > > bandwidth is potentially many, many times higher hence the "faster". > > <END OF WARNING> > > I don't see that as a quibble, pedantic or otherwise. I can't remember > the number of times I've tried to explain the electromagnetic spectrum > to people. I was simply stating what the article on LiFi had said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-21 19:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m8mdnceg-pJ7vnTJnZ2dnUU7-budnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #70073 |
On 2015.02.21 15:57 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <54e8e483$0$42756$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <XJednSkcM_FJNnXJnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> <WARNING Pedantic Quibble Ahead>
>>> Radio and light travel at the same speed (light is radio). But the
>>> bandwidth is potentially many, many times higher hence the "faster".
>>> <END OF WARNING>
>>
>> I don't see that as a quibble, pedantic or otherwise. I can't remember
>> the number of times I've tried to explain the electromagnetic spectrum
>> to people.
>
> I was simply stating what the article on LiFi had said.
As I said: Quibble. Pedantic at that. NHNF.
--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-19 13:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmebnog.2n49.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #69910 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> was all, like: > On 2015.02.18 07:00 , Frank wrote: >> have windows7 OS on Dell and OS-X v 10.9.5 on mac mini >> >> Too many unsatisfactory experiences on both with reliability of CD >> and DVD disks. Should I just discard remaining unformatted disks and >> use only flash drives? Never have had one of them to fail; weak >> link with them seems to hubs rather than the media. > I have about 50 CD/DVD's over 5 years old that still read fine. I > reburn (copy) all discs that are older than 5 years. I've kept a few > older ones to see how long they'll go and they're at over 10 years with > no issues that I can spot. From 1996 to about 2006 I burned thousands of optical discs. Many of those failed in some way or another, at least of those that had regular use. I had one disc that contained a copy of my entire computer, both internal and external drives *and* also contained an entire audio CD in .wav format. This took up 80% of the blank disc. I used that disc for about 5 years before it crapped out one day. Discs that were burned and set aside did very well, but discs that say any kind of frequent reading failed. > They are kept in a dark, cool, dry place. That's a big part of keeping > them for the long term. Before I moved a few yaers ago I went through a ton of these discs and copied anything I wanted onto my computer. Probably about 1.2TB of files in total from at least 8 spindles of 100 CDs or DVDs. The disks that contained TV or Movie VCDs or MPEGs, I threw out. The ones with actual data, I shredded. Cost e $60 for the shredder, and it died shortly after I finished shredding the last of the discs, so I got a brand new warranty replacement which is still going along, albeit it is dying now. > I also have thought of getting a Blu Ray burner but keep putting that > off as well. I bought a BD player specifically for ripping the two Bds I own and have burned one disc on it containing a copy of every "document" on my computer, including the last two years of scans and all the tax data files for the last 6 years. There was still a lot of space, but it took me hours to select all the files I wanted backed up. -- http://2blog.kreme.com WINDOWS: The Gates of Hell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John <Man@the.keyboard> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-20 02:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ad8deah39nl70kpqi141hihqe00ulu470j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69943 |
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:02:31 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
><<snipped>>
>I bought a BD player specifically for ripping the two Bds I own and have
>burned one disc on it containing a copy of every "document" on my
>computer, including the last two years of scans and all the tax data
>files for the last 6 years. There was still a lot of space, but it took
>me hours to select all the files I wanted backed up.
So why bother? I'd just back up *everything* and let Future John (if
any) sort out the mess. Faster, easier, more efficient and you'd be
absolutely *sure* to get all the "relevant" stuff.
And, probably, the programs that wrote them. Which is always nice to
have.
Refer to NASA/Apollo/tape library for more on that.
J.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-20 04:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmedeti.3192.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #69982 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? John <Man@the.keyboard> was all, like: > On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:02:31 +0000 (UTC), Lewis > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >><<snipped>> >>I bought a BD player specifically for ripping the two Bds I own and have >>burned one disc on it containing a copy of every "document" on my >>computer, including the last two years of scans and all the tax data >>files for the last 6 years. There was still a lot of space, but it took >>me hours to select all the files I wanted backed up. > So why bother? I'd just back up *everything* and let Future John (if > any) sort out the mess. Faster, easier, more efficient and you'd be > absolutely *sure* to get all the "relevant" stuff. Because I am not going to swap 1700 bluray discs to backup everything. -- http://2blog.kreme.com People only think for themselves if you tell them to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank <gno52@windstream.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-22 03:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <789746ba-348f-4040-af38-4b76b48960f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69887 |
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 7:00:17 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote: > have windows7 OS on Dell and OS-X v 10.9.5 on mac mini > > Too many unsatisfactory experiences on both with reliability of CD and DVD disks. Should I just discard remaining unformatted disks and use only flash drives? Never have had one of them to fail; weak link with them seems to hubs rather than the media. Thanks for all the replies.. many were very informative to me. On the flash drives is the weak link the connection (male on drive - female on computer) or is it the innards of the flash drive? If the former would the durability be enhanced by never disconnecting them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-23 09:36 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <230220150936119311%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70091 |
In article <789746ba-348f-4040-af38-4b76b48960f2@googlegroups.com>, Frank <gno52@windstream.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 7:00:17 AM UTC-5, Frank wrote: > > > > have windows7 OS on Dell and OS-X v 10.9.5 on mac mini > > > > Too many unsatisfactory experiences on both with reliability of CD and DVD > > disks. Should I just discard remaining unformatted disks and use only > > flash drives? Never have had one of them to fail; weak link with them > > seems to hubs rather than the media. > > Thanks for all the replies.. many were very informative to me. On the flash > drives is the weak link the connection (male on drive - female on computer) > or is it the innards of the flash drive? If the former would the durability > be enhanced by never disconnecting them? Probably the biggest problem with flash drives is the physical size ... most of them are so small it's easy to lose them (for example, falling out of your pocket without you noticing, forgetting to unplug them when leaving the computer). Many of them have some way to attach them to your keyring, but unless you only have a couple of keys, that's becomes cumbersome when you want to plug the flash drive in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-22 18:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54ea67e5$0$46591$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70109 |
In article <230220150936119311%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > Probably the biggest problem with flash drives is the physical size ... > most of them are so small it's easy to lose them (for example, falling > out of your pocket without you noticing, forgetting to unplug them when > leaving the computer). Many of them have some way to attach them to > your keyring, but unless you only have a couple of keys, that's becomes > cumbersome when you want to plug the flash drive in. There's some newer ones that I wouldn't trust with someone unfamiliar with them. They come with the connectors exposed (makes them thin, frequently shaped like keys) so it's possible to put them in up-side-down. I don't know what the results of that would be, but I don't want (say) my sister-in-law blindly plugging one in. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-23 13:24 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <230220151324197910%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #70116 |
In article <54ea67e5$0$46591$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <230220150936119311%YourName@YourISP.com>, > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > > Probably the biggest problem with flash drives is the physical size ... > > most of them are so small it's easy to lose them (for example, falling > > out of your pocket without you noticing, forgetting to unplug them when > > leaving the computer). Many of them have some way to attach them to > > your keyring, but unless you only have a couple of keys, that's becomes > > cumbersome when you want to plug the flash drive in. > > There's some newer ones that I wouldn't trust with someone unfamiliar > with them. They come with the connectors exposed (makes them thin, > frequently shaped like keys) so it's possible to put them in > up-side-down. I don't know what the results of that would be, but I > don't want (say) my sister-in-law blindly plugging one in. All the ones I seen like that still only have the connectors on one side (just like the regular plug ones do), so putting them in upside-down won't do anything at all. Of course, Apple has patented the reversible USB so it won't matter which way is "up" (assuming anyone actually uses that patent in a device).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-22 17:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mcdv8o$vrr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70116 |
In article <54ea67e5$0$46591$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <230220150936119311%YourName@YourISP.com>, > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > Probably the biggest problem with flash drives is the physical size ... > > most of them are so small it's easy to lose them (for example, falling > > out of your pocket without you noticing, forgetting to unplug them when > > leaving the computer). Many of them have some way to attach them to > > your keyring, but unless you only have a couple of keys, that's becomes > > cumbersome when you want to plug the flash drive in. > > There's some newer ones that I wouldn't trust with someone unfamiliar > with them. They come with the connectors exposed (makes them thin, > frequently shaped like keys) so it's possible to put them in > up-side-down. I don't know what the results of that would be, but I > don't want (say) my sister-in-law blindly plugging one in. Plug any USB item in upside down, and nothing will happen. This is because of how the connector is laid out. Electrically speaking, it'll be exactly the same as plugging in a piece of cardboard. Someone MAY be able to jam it into the socket (whether right side up or upside down) in such a way as to cause physical damage, but a USB plug can only make electrical connection with the socket it's being plugged into when the plug is "right side up". -- Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-22 21:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54ea8f74$0$42993$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #70123 |
In article <mcdv8o$vrr$1@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote: > Plug any USB item in upside down, and nothing will happen. This is > because of how the connector is laid out. Electrically speaking, it'll > be exactly the same as plugging in a piece of cardboard. Someone MAY be > able to jam it into the socket (whether right side up or upside down) in > such a way as to cause physical damage, but a USB plug can only make > electrical connection with the socket it's being plugged into when the > plug is "right side up". Fair enough, but some of them are metal -- can plugging it in upside down cause a short of some kind? I know that sounds uninformed, but I've still never really come to terms with "hot-swapping" (even though I do it). -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web