N
null
LOL! Hey, if you're not experiencing any problems, why change? If it
works, don't fix it.
Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
LOL! Hey, if you're not experiencing any problems, why change? If it
works, don't fix it.
Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
O
ozzy
Even though it may be hard to tell from this thread, NTFS is the
better way to go in the long run. As others have mentioned, it will be
hard to let go of your old boot disk dos utils, but the pricelessware
sites have good utils plus a wealth of freeware links from the other
posters will make the transistion to ntfs stick
ozzy
J
James
REM said:
REM, it's useful to work your way through Bart's site to 'learn' how the PE
disk is constructed and also to look at adding your own plugins. You do
have to pull together a lot of stuff from different locations to build the
plugins directory for Bart's PE but once you have it done you can add to it
easily.
You might also like to try Ben Burrows "Windows Ultimate Boot CD" (WUBCD) at
www.windowsubcd.com which is also based on Bart's PE but it has the
advantage that Ben has already pulled all the plugins together ready to
download making it easier to create the CD.
For those interested the WUBCD is based on the Ultimate Boot CD at
www.ultimatebootcd.com which is OS independent and has a huge collection of
tools invaluable for working with PC's.
All in all a great collection of free tools.
U
Uncle Buck
howard said:
By that I mean using standard Win32 file API commands, which are
compatible with all file systems.
I'm only going by what the URL states above, which includes the phrase
"freeware" in it. If it's not freeware, then that's not my problem.
My mistake -- I didn't notice the "OS" request. I thought the poster
wanted a command-line based feature for executing commands; not an
actual Operating System.
That's what I used to think, until I got a camcorder with firewire.
Suddenly I really needed NTFS to store those 13 GB video files!
U
Uncle Buck
ozzy said:
Video capture needs a lot of space (typically 13 GB for one hour).
As for DVDs, I said "DVD images", not "DVD files". A DVD disc image,
similar to a CD *.iso image, can be up to 4.9 GB in size in one file,
and is thus impossible to store on a FAT32 drive.
I
INspire
[snip]
Thanks for confirming.
O
ozzy
As mentioned in my earlier posts, I prefer not to use mcafee/norton unless
forced at gunpoint. (long story but it cost my company loads of grief/money
when their software went bad). I did not opt to install it on my PE cd
no kidding
It was run that way but failed to detect anything, that's whybootdisk methods were tried as a backup on the fat32 partition. remember, other
errors were present but unknown at the time.
I think I understand the real problem now, it's Mark, not NTFS
he ever get past Win 3.1?
He never had a computer back then
He is a true newbie & brainwashed earlyin life by 'boot disk' utils.
I know you didn't but I did
IMO ntfs is the way to go but I can not force someone that is head strong on
the old 'dos' ways to let go. They will have to hit rock bottom several times
before they plea for help & ask "..is there anything better..."
I hope we can leave this thread soon. I believe it has overstayed it's [OT]
welcome much too long
ozzy
J
J. S. Pack
I can certainly understand and empathize with Mark and his wife's desire
for simplicity, yes indeed.
Yet things just can't be as simple nowadays as they were when DOS and
dinosaurs ruled the earth and before all these viruses and spyware started
spreading thru the net. It's a bit like trying to repair a modern
automobile as opposed to a classic built in the golden
pre-pollution-control era when shade-tree repairs could be the norm.
You probably read that a recent report stated that unprotected computer is
likely to be infected within 20 minutes of logging on to the internet.
So, yes, you can make DOS diskettes with an antivirus utility, but they
will likely be out of date and hence useless at the time you really need
them. There just ain't gonna *be* any quick and easy "boot with the ol'
diskette and remove the nasty" scenario. Unless perhaps it's an old nasty,
but the oldies seem to go away fairly soon--quarantined or already
protected against.
At that point you've got to get on a network to get the antivir updates or
a fix from somewhere. (Unless you want somebody to come and take your
machine away (sniff) and arghh! remove its hard drive
) With a boot CDsuch as we've been discussing, you can get the fix right away by
downloading it by and to your own machine. Once the download is complete,
you can immediately run it, whether it is a standalone removal/update tool
or an update to your favorite antivir/antispyware program.
Yep--that's the way to do it.
You see, commandline versions (come to that) of antivir programs aren't
dependent on a particular filesystem. IF you're running that version from
an XP cmd prompt, it's gonna work just fine no matter where it is. In fact
the win version of the antivir on the hard drive will *probably* run from
Bart's w/o having to be reinstalled into Bart's registry.(Sorry, I'm too
lazy to try it for you myself.) Of course if you install an
antivir/antispyware as a Bart's plugin, the point is moot except that the
need for the immediate update remains.
Therefore if clinging to a DOS diskette for a lucky rabbit's foot is of
critical importance, you may keep the antivir on the DOS diskette but run
it, or a fix or patch copied to it, from the fine 2XExplorer window
provided on the Bart's CD-ROM AFTER you've downloaded the update using the
Off By One web browser also provided by Bart's.
. Would that be havingyour cake and eating too or what? You'd only need to burn one lil' ol' CD,
right? Maybe ozzy would kindly do it for Mark and his wife? Be a lot less
work than removing a hard drive, obviously
.And so Mark and his wife could ahhh! go back to using their much more
reliable, robust, and superior NTFS (which they're no doubt missing
already) and not have to run scandisks and sfc all the time when their
computer gets shutdown prematurely or has a glitch and then have to rummage
around in .chk files looking for whatever got trashed (could have been just
*anything*, right?) in that ol' FAT32 filesystem.
Here Mark and his wife didn't want to have taken the time and trouble to
burn a CD and run the browser/antivir therefrom, yet they spent two days
frustrated and another day or so having their computer removed and opened
and their hard drive removed, scanned, and yes (the horror! the horror!)
reformatted!. Which, if they continue to hold the same wishful thinking,
will be *exactly* what happens again the next time around (one of millions,
though) as well. Except for the reformatting, of course.
You KNOW it ain't rational. But whatever, long as it's paid for.
This is not to mention all the other kinds of problems a Windows XP disk
may have that require more sophisticated utilities than a DOS diskette can
normally provide. (We're on topic here, sorta, Bart's being freeware.)
Finally I should note that in this particular instance all Mark had to do
was to type in "shutdown -a" to stop the rebooting while he was on the 'net
and then go get the MSBLAST and Sasser worm fixes/patches from Microsoft
(or download the latest Stinger) and run them. An extra diskette or CD was
in fact not even needed, let alone an HD removal and reformat.
But of course as an average home user he wouldn't have known that. Yep,
things have gotten more complicated. Nevertheless, googling via his nifty
Bart's browser might have given him that information.
Seems likely they weren't doing much in the way of preventative measures.
Virus-wise, I mean of course. I trust that's all changed. SP2, if nothing
else (also freeware
).
O
ozzy
You're pretty generous.....20 minutes indeed..... try maybe 20 secs
I swear that the moment they got their pc home; the nasties were just sitting
there on the end of their phone cable; waiting for them to connect. A
millisecond later Kazaa was running & they downloaded & executed something they
should NOT have
You are probably asking yourself..."what happened to AVG that I installed..."
Well somehow these newbies managed to accidently tun it off. (I am still trying
to figure that one out)
Guess what state they are in now J.S ? Betcha a beer you'll never, ever guess
in a million years ;o) LOL
Here Mark and his wife didn't want to have taken the time and trouble to
burn a CD and run the browser/antivir therefrom, yet they spent two days
frustrated and another day or so having their computer removed and opened
and their hard drive removed, scanned, and yes (the horror! the horror!)
reformatted!. Which, if they continue to hold the same wishful thinking,
will be *exactly* what happens again the next time around (one of millions,
though) as well. Except for the reformatting, of course.
Wanna bet another beer or two that they *might* listen now & do it right this
time. Maybe sit down & learn a few things *before* going online again
Seems likely they weren't doing much in the way of preventative measures.
Virus-wise, I mean of course. I trust that's all changed. SP2, if nothing
else (also freeware
Nope they weren't. They thought the antivirus software that came with their pc
was automatic & magic and all that
ozzy
T
The Horny Goat
Interesting - my mother's Toshiba laptop runs with 128 meg RAM.
Performance (particularly with multiple MS Word Windows) REALLY sucks
- but last I heard Toshiba was considered reputable...
D
derek / nul
[/QUOTE]
I would love to know where you got that information, XP isn't that smart.
Which benchmarks?
H
howard schwartz
Double interesting for me: I bought an, admittedly used IBM PC installed with
NTFS and windows 2000, and some other MS goodies that took up 1 Gig of the
drive -- also supplied with only 128 megs of ram. Just about any windows OS
runs a whole lot better and faster if you double the minimum required ram, yes?
128 Megs of ram would be `heaven' for any windows 9x.
I also suspect, if one eliminated various services and such that are not
needed by many single home users, XP may not take such a performance
hit with less ram. I heard of folks `upgrading' to XP on their 128 Meg
machines, reporting a 20% or more performance hit, not realizing, as usual
that each new edition of microsoft anything typically requires more ram and
more disk space for similar end user functionality.
NTFS and windows 2000, and some other MS goodies that took up 1 Gig of the
drive -- also supplied with only 128 megs of ram. Just about any windows OS
runs a whole lot better and faster if you double the minimum required ram, yes?
128 Megs of ram would be `heaven' for any windows 9x.
I also suspect, if one eliminated various services and such that are not
needed by many single home users, XP may not take such a performance
hit with less ram. I heard of folks `upgrading' to XP on their 128 Meg
machines, reporting a 20% or more performance hit, not realizing, as usual
that each new edition of microsoft anything typically requires more ram and
more disk space for similar end user functionality.
J
J. S. Pack
With 128 you got to tweak XP to get decent performance comparable to Win98,
speedwise. Turn off services & eyecandy, for example.
J
John
This is a good read .
23 Ways To Speed WinXP Without Defrag
http://www.techbuilder.org/article.htm?ArticleID=47626
P
PuppyKatt
Fantastic article, and a great link to Tweak XP. Thank you.
: (e-mail address removed) (howard schwartz) wrote in message
: > Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT
technology.
: > I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with
our old and
: > beloved freeware are connected to software that can not read/write
to NTFS.
: > I may be wrong here: I realize virtually all old software that tries
to talk to
: > the disk directly will run into the inpenetrable `hardware layer
interface' or
: > whatever it is called. If software talks to the (NTFS) disk through
the bios, I
: > suppose the bios can translate, yes?
: >
: > On the other hand NTFS has a lot of cooporate intended features
(security,
: > etc.) that may not be important to single home users, and probably
takes
: > unknown abouts of resources and ram to keep up.
: >
: > Windows 9x does not run on NTFS, and 2000 and XP do not have a
simple
: > command line OS that can be used in times of trouble.
: >
: > Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old,
tried and true
: > programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery software, etc.
: > that freeware folks already know and use?
:
: This is a good read .
:
: 23 Ways To Speed WinXP Without Defrag
: http://www.techbuilder.org/article.htm?ArticleID=47626
: (e-mail address removed) (howard schwartz) wrote in message
: > Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT
technology.
: > I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with
our old and
: > beloved freeware are connected to software that can not read/write
to NTFS.
: > I may be wrong here: I realize virtually all old software that tries
to talk to
: > the disk directly will run into the inpenetrable `hardware layer
interface' or
: > whatever it is called. If software talks to the (NTFS) disk through
the bios, I
: > suppose the bios can translate, yes?
: >
: > On the other hand NTFS has a lot of cooporate intended features
(security,
: > etc.) that may not be important to single home users, and probably
takes
: > unknown abouts of resources and ram to keep up.
: >
: > Windows 9x does not run on NTFS, and 2000 and XP do not have a
simple
: > command line OS that can be used in times of trouble.
: >
: > Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old,
tried and true
: > programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery software, etc.
: > that freeware folks already know and use?
:
: This is a good read .
:
: 23 Ways To Speed WinXP Without Defrag
: http://www.techbuilder.org/article.htm?ArticleID=47626
J
John
Glad you liked PuppyKatt
P
Papageno
John said:
Partly good read. Partly nonsense.
"If a PC has less than 512 MB of RAM, add more memory."
Rubbish. If you are starved for memory, add more. Otherwise, don't.
"Upgrade the cabling."
Necessary only if the wrong cabling was installed originally. Quite rare.
"Remove any unnecessary or unused programs"
Rubbish.
"Visit Microsoft's Windows update site regularly, and download all updates
labeled Critical."
For security, sure. But this page is titled "Speed Win XP". Critical
security updates are another issue.
"Check the system's RAM to ensure it is operating properly."
If memory is faulty, it should be replaced. But this is so very rare.
And the topper ...
"At least once a year, open the computer's cases and blow out all the dust
and debris."
Sure, keep it clean. But what has this to do with SPEED?