This PC any good for...

[Paul Rubin]

For the really critical stuff, I still use a 3.5" MOD. Now 8 years old
and still ultra-reliable.

But ridiculously expensive! Far more than the gold archive CD-R that
the professional archivist community seems to think are just fine.

http://www.medgrade.com/browse.asp?Category=Media:Magneto+Optical+Media

Highest capacity available in 3.5" is 2.3GB at $23.00 per disc or $10
per GB. I think I'd buy a tape drive at that point.

Lately I've heard of some efforts to use MO-like technology
(i.e. heating the media with short laser pulses before writing) on
hard disks, but to increase capacity. I don't know if reliability
will get better or worse.

 

[mike]

Question for those in the UK really...

A relative has been offered a new PC by a local store. She's keen to
purchase from them as they provide good local support. She doesn't play
computer games so would this be a reasonable machine for surfing and word
processing these days?

Sounds like SERIOUS OVERKILL for your "stated" objectives.
Oughta be able to assemble a system adequate for your "stated"
objectives for less than the depreciation costs you'll endure
carrying the new one from the store to your car.

FWIW, I've encountered some unexpected issues when I switched people
from analog to digital monitors. I gave my neighbor a 17" 1280x1024
LCD. "Stuff on the screen is too small." He insists on running it at
800x600 to make stuff bigger, but that makes it fuzzy as it's non-native
resolution. It's not as readable as his old CRT.

Depending on your eyesight, the distance you sit from the screen
might be determined by your glasses.
A bigger display makes for a lot of eye movement
and is actually more tiring to read than a smaller monitor might be.
I find my 15" 1400x1050 laptop less tiring to read at the distance
determined by my reading glasses.
YMMV

mike


What about the chances of it running Vista in the

 

[Fred]

What, please, is a ''decent burner''?

Any of the majors, I like the LGs.

Any DVD-RAM burner will give good results with any
DVD-RAM. No finding of a ''decent'' one required.

Pity about the price and speed of the media.

 

[Arno Wagner]

But ridiculously expensive! Far more than the gold archive CD-R that
the professional archivist community seems to think are just fine.

Actually 8 years ago it was far cheaper than anything else on
the market if you took the media price into acount.
It is not ridiculously expensive even today, considering
the level of reliability and long-term stability you get.
However the cost of media and drives have not decreased for
the last few years, so it appears expensive.

MOD is for archiving, i.e. > 50 years data life is expected.
About 5 years a go a Phillips engineer told me they think >80
years, but that the models would get shaky at that time.
Condidering MOD has been arounf >25 years, the numbers are
still a lot more reliable than for any CD-R.

MOD is pretty popular in Japan and is the standard in medical
imaging, were images have to be archived by law for 20 years.
Personal experience is that I have not lost a single media
in 8 years and had no compatibility issues using other drives.

Even your gold archive CD-R is maybe good for 20 years if stored very
carefully. The >50 years for MOD is if thrown somewhere and forgotten
about it. Heat, humidity, dust, rough handling ,..., all do not matter.

So, e.g. family photographs, may still get lost if on the "archival CD",
they will not if on MOD (single copy is enough...). And the
chances are very good that you can still get a drive that will
read them in a few decades. Currend 3.5" MODs read and write
all 5 media generations.

Of course it is not suitable for high-volume, short duration archiving.
HDDs are better for that.

http://www.medgrade.com/browse.asp?Category=Media:Magneto+Optical+Media

Highest capacity available in 3.5" is 2.3GB at $23.00 per disc or $10
per GB.

Has been constant for several years now. This is a really
mature technology that delivers on its promises.

I think I'd buy a tape drive at that point.

Depends on the volume and the archival time-frame. And on
whether you want a medium with fast random access.

I fiond that About 20GB or trualy reliable archival storage
is enough for me. Backups go on USB/eSATA HDDs.

Lately I've heard of some efforts to use MO-like technology
(i.e. heating the media with short laser pulses before writing) on
hard disks, but to increase capacity. I don't know if reliability
will get better or worse.

I think this is unrelated for the acual effect.

 

[John Turco]

I wouldnt.


So what ?


I've had a lot more wired mouse failures than
cordless mouse failures, all failures of the cord itself.

<edited>

Hello, Rod:

My first optical mouse - a Microsoft "IntelliPoint Explorer" - went bad,
after a year or so. As it cost me around $60 USD, in 2000, I was anxious
to fix it.

Upon taking it apart, I saw that the cable's internal connector had
become damaged. I needed to cut the cord, a few times, before I was
able to repair the plug in question, but it was still plenty long
enough; best of all, the device worked like new.

I've been using a wireless Explorer, since 2004 (I enjoy the freedom
from tangles it gives me). Sadly, it goes through a pair of alkaline
"AA" cells, in only about two weeks.

When I upgrade to Windows XP, in the near future, I want to buy a
Microsoft cordless mouse, which takes rechargeable batteries. (None
of the current MS ones are compatible with WinME, alas.)


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[John Turco]

It does look like the media are somewhat more expensive than DVD +/- R:

http://meritline.com/dvd-ram-blank-media-panasonic-optodisc-mini.html

there are both cartridge and non-cartridge type media but yes, most
drives don't take cartridge. Here's some that apparently do:

http://meritline.com/panasonic-sw-9574-c-16x-super-multi-dvd-drive.html

Maybe I'll buy one. They cost a lot more relatively speaking, but
they're affordable in absolute terms. I've figured though that sooner
or later I'll have to bite the bullet and buy a tape drive. Right now
I do my archiving on ATA hard disks, which just seems like asking for it.

Hello, Paul:

DVD-RAM drives are damned cheap, today. In September, I got an LG
Electronics GSA-H10N "Super Multi DVD Rewriter" (OEM model), locally,
for $45 USD; it can read and write just about any DVD format, in
existence (short of "Blu-ray" or any of its exotic counterparts, of
course).

As to the discs, themselves, Wal-Mart has Maxell DVD-RAM 3-packs,
at slightly under $10. Admittedly, not nearly as cheap as most other
optical media, yet it's still relatively reasonable.

Thus, "listen" to Arno Wagner and yours truly...DVD-RAM is the only
way to fly! :-J


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[Paul Rubin]

DVD-RAM drives are damned cheap, today. In September, I got an LG
Electronics GSA-H10N "Super Multi DVD Rewriter" (OEM model), locally,
for $45 USD; it can read and write just about any DVD format, in
existence (short of "Blu-ray" or any of its exotic counterparts, of
course).

Those are the caddyless ones, I guess. Arno expresses a preference
for the ones that have the disks in cartridges. I can see how that
would be more reliable.

As to the discs, themselves, Wal-Mart has Maxell DVD-RAM 3-packs,
at slightly under $10. Admittedly, not nearly as cheap as most other
optical media, yet it's still relatively reasonable.

Thus, "listen" to Arno Wagner and yours truly...DVD-RAM is the only
way to fly! :-J

I'm still taken aback at the claim that DVD-RAM is more reliable for
archiving than write-once media. If Arno is here: any idea how
DVD-RAM compares with the 3.5" MO stuff you've been using?

 

[Paul Rubin]

MOD is for archiving, i.e. > 50 years data life is expected.
About 5 years a go a Phillips engineer told me they think >80
years, but that the models would get shaky at that time.

Well, similar claims have been made for CD-R.

Condidering MOD has been arounf >25 years, the numbers are
still a lot more reliable than for any CD-R.

CD-R has been around for 15 years or so, I guess. And there's a far
larger base of experience (more units in use). Of additional concern:
my guess is the MOD of 25 years ago didn't have anything like 2.3 GB
on a 3.5" disk. I tend to expect both high density and erasability to
be the enemy of longevity, thus the preference of archivists for CD-R
over DVD-R, etc.

Even your gold archive CD-R is maybe good for 20 years if stored very
carefully. The >50 years for MOD is if thrown somewhere and forgotten
about it. Heat, humidity, dust, rough handling ,..., all do not matter.

This is interesting.

Depends on the volume and the archival time-frame. And on
whether you want a medium with fast random access.

For archiving, I don't care that much about fast random access. I do
have some doubts about the longevity of tape media but I have some DDS
tapes written in the mid 1990's so I should try to read them.

I fiond that About 20GB or trualy reliable archival storage
is enough for me. Backups go on USB/eSATA HDDs.

I doubt if I have 20GB of stuff that needs archiving--the problem is
the very high difficulty of separating important from unimportant
stuff. I'd rather just archive everything.

Come to think of it, my archivable data probably approaches 20GB by
now--digital photos and audio recordings pile up after a while. And
if I were shooting digital video, the amount of data would be even larger.

Any thoughts on how DVD-RAM compares with MOD? I guess I can afford a
DVD-RAM drive.

My plan with DVD (or tape or whatever) backup has generally been to
write several copies, or maybe to use some kind of RAID-like
redundancy scheme, so that if some particular sector rots away, its
contents can be recovered from other pieces of media. To my surprise,
this is not commonly done.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Well, similar claims have been made for CD-R.

Yes, but they are a bit less well-founded. And there have
been numerous instances were these numbers have already not
been met.

CD-R has been around for 15 years or so, I guess. And there's a far
larger base of experience (more units in use). Of additional concern:
my guess is the MOD of 25 years ago didn't have anything like 2.3 GB
on a 3.5" disk.

Initially it was 128MB. Still read and writable on modern MOD drives.

I tend to expect both high density and erasability to
be the enemy of longevity, thus the preference of archivists for CD-R
over DVD-R, etc.

I use 640MB and 230MB MODs. Large enough. Although a complete
(Linux) system backup now takes two of the larger ones. And
don't forget that MOID drives do a physical verufy were all
sectors that have not been written well (i.e. don't have a large
signal margin) are reallocated. (Reallocation is usually due to
dust. Clean and reformat and you are back to tha manufacturers
original defect list. That is right, these are 100% surface tested
by the manufacturer.)

This is interesting.

For archiving, I don't care that much about fast random access. I do
have some doubts about the longevity of tape media but I have some DDS
tapes written in the mid 1990's so I should try to read them.

If it is professional tape, you should get reliable information
from the manufacturer. There are different classes. I think
the best ones also give you something like 50 years. But
they need to pack less bist on the tape and add more error
correction, so there are those only valid for 5 years as well...

I doubt if I have 20GB of stuff that needs archiving--the problem is
the very high difficulty of separating important from unimportant
stuff. I'd rather just archive everything.

This is with several rotating copies. Core data is maybe
some few GBs ;-)

Come to think of it, my archivable data probably approaches 20GB by
now--digital photos and audio recordings pile up after a while. And
if I were shooting digital video, the amount of data would be even larger.

Any thoughts on how DVD-RAM compares with MOD? I guess I can afford a
DVD-RAM drive.

Not quite as reliable, but if you treat the disks well, should be
almost as good. The media are also ISO standardized, so they all
fulfill relatively steep (compared to the consumer trash)
quality requirements.

My plan with DVD (or tape or whatever) backup has generally been to
write several copies, or maybe to use some kind of RAID-like
redundancy scheme, so that if some particular sector rots away, its
contents can be recovered from other pieces of media. To my surprise,
this is not commonly done.

Correct. By now it does not suprise me anymore. A good approach
to redundancy is something like ECCfile (I think that was the name).

Personally I put everything long-term on two MODs. No issues
at all in 8 years. I had disks that refused new writes because of
a lot of dust, but they still read 100%. And after cleaning they
were as good as new.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

Those are the caddyless ones, I guess. Arno expresses a preference
for the ones that have the disks in cartridges. I can see how that
would be more reliable.

I'm still taken aback at the claim that DVD-RAM is more reliable for
archiving than write-once media. If Arno is here: any idea how
DVD-RAM compares with the 3.5" MO stuff you've been using?

DVD-RAM (with cartridge/without cartridge) is a bit less reliable.
But not excessively so. One reason is that with cartridge the
write-verifies are optional. Without cartridge, they do noth
have a cartridge...

I think cartridge-less they are only certified for 10.000 overwrites,
but they will fail on writing, AFAIK, not some time later. And if
you treat them well, you should get far more overwrites. MOD has 30
Million overwrites.

I think DVD-RAM should be good enough if you put all stuff
at least onto two disks.

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

My first optical mouse - a Microsoft "IntelliPoint Explorer"
- went bad, after a year or so. As it cost me around $60
USD, in 2000, I was anxious to fix it.

Upon taking it apart, I saw that the cable's internal connector had
become damaged. I needed to cut the cord, a few times, before
I was able to repair the plug in question, but it was still plenty
long enough; best of all, the device worked like new.

Yeah, I had a lot of A4 mice that I had been using fail due to a bad cord.

They were so cheap it wasnt worth trying to repair them, just bought another.

I've been using a wireless Explorer, since 2004
(I enjoy the freedom from tangles it gives me).

Yeah, I compute from a deep arm chair with my feet up with
the mouse running around on a cover of an A4 book on my
lap, so a cordless mouse works much better in my situation.

Sadly, it goes through a pair of alkaline "AA" cells, in only about two weeks.

My cordless mouse is a Logitech MX700 which you put in a garage
type charger every couple of days. Its low battery indication is so
conservative so that even if you forget to charge it, you can still use
it all day with the low battery indication and just charge it that night.

Its definitely heavier than wired mice but thats no more
than a quirk, you dont get wrist problems from it at all.

My only real reservation with it is that its a bit easier to drop a cordless
mouse in my situation and since I have a hard floor I wondered how long
it would last. Turned out to be fine, it hasnt died yet.

When I upgrade to Windows XP, in the near future, I want to buy
a Microsoft cordless mouse, which takes rechargeable batteries.
(None of the current MS ones are compatible with WinME, alas.)

Bout time you stopped dinosauring away.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Those are the caddyless ones, I guess. Arno expresses a preference
for the ones that have the disks in cartridges.

I can see how that would be more reliable.

You can, huh.

I'm still taken aback at the claim that DVD-RAM is more reliable for
archiving than write-once media.

If Arno is here:

Now that is one very stupid question.

 

[John Turco]

Those are the caddyless ones, I guess. Arno expresses a preference
for the ones that have the disks in cartridges. I can see how that
would be more reliable.


I'm still taken aback at the claim that DVD-RAM is more reliable for
archiving than write-once media. If Arno is here: any idea how
DVD-RAM compares with the 3.5" MO stuff you've been using?

Hello, Paul:

A word of caution, concerning the Panasonic SW-9574 (mentioned in this
URL, posted in one of your earlier replies):

Meritline.com/Panasonic SW-9574-C 16X Super Multi DVD Drive - $135 USD
http://meritline.com/panasonic-sw-9574-c-16x-super-multi-dvd-drive.html

It seems to be an updated "Super Multi" version of the SW-9571, my first
DVD "burner," purchased in June of 2003 (OEM, $148 USD). The SW-9571 was
always extremely LOUD, reminding me of a B-52 bomber, taxiing on the
runway. That's a large reason I replaced it with the GSA-H10N, which is
a rather quiet drive.

As to using the SW-9571, to play DVD movies? Bad move, as its roar would
virtually drown out the sound track!


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[John Turco]

Yeah, I compute from a deep arm chair with my feet up with
the mouse running around on a cover of an A4 book on my
lap, so a cordless mouse works much better in my situation.

My only real reservation with it is that its a bit easier to drop a cordless
mouse in my situation and since I have a hard floor I wondered how long
it would last. Turned out to be fine, it hasnt died yet.

<edited>

Hello, Rod:

The carpet beneath my computer chair wore out, some years ago, so I just
cut it off, exposing the wood floor. On a couple of separate occasions,
I've accidentally dropped my cordless Microsoft "IntelliPoint Explorer,"
and it hit that firm surface fairly hard (from a height of over two
feet), both times.

No significant damage done, I'm happy to report. (Except, the second
mishap put a small scratch, on the mouse's hump.)

Other than being a bit ponderous and an obvious energy hog, I've
been basically pleased with the unit, overall; I think Microsoft offers
the best "mice," of any manufacturer. Their buttons are invariably
silky-smooth, from my experience -- whereas, I've used other companies'
devices that left a lot to be desired, in this repect.


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

The carpet beneath my computer chair wore out, some years ago,

You were warned about your carpet shredding antics...

so I just cut it off, exposing the wood floor. On a couple of
separate occasions, I've accidentally dropped my cordless
Microsoft "IntelliPoint Explorer," and it hit that firm surface
fairly hard (from a height of over two feet), both times.

No significant damage done, I'm happy to report.

Yeah, I've dropped the MX700s a few times,
onto concrete, and they've survived that fine.

(Except, the second mishap put a small scratch, on the mouse's hump.)

I didnt even get that. The charging garage does leave a mark on
the top of the mouse and the silvered parts do end up with significant
wear marks from the fingers, but thats all you get with the MX700.

Other than being a bit ponderous and an obvious energy
hog, I've been basically pleased with the unit, overall;

Yeah, I love my MX700s. I prefer the extra
buttons it has over the MS cordless mice.

I think Microsoft offers the best "mice," of any manufacturer.

Nope, the MX700 leaves them for dead.

In spades with the charging garage approach which MS doesnt have.

Their buttons are invariably silky-smooth, from my experience
-- whereas, I've used other companies' devices that left a lot
to be desired, in this repect.

The MX700 is fine in that respect and is much more convenient
with the charging garage approach and the extra buttons.

 

[John Turco]

Nope, the MX700 leaves them for dead.

In spades with the charging garage approach which MS doesnt have.


The MX700 is fine in that respect and is much more convenient
with the charging garage approach and the extra buttons.

Hello, Rod:

Yeah, I most definitely will get one with a charging "cradle." I'm tired
of replacing alkaline cells, so often!

Incidentally, does your Logitech MX700 perform all functions, in every
program? I used a "Medion" wireless mouse, for a while, and its wheel
wouldn't scroll, within certain dialog boxes.


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

Yeah, I most definitely will get one with a charging "cradle."

Yeah, only way to go IMO, particularly when the low battery indication
is early enough so it will run fine all day with the low battery indicating
so its a complete yawn if you forget to charge it one night etc.

I'm tired of replacing alkaline cells, so often!

Yeah, complete pain in the arse.

Incidentally, does your Logitech MX700 perform all functions, in every program?

Depends on what you mean by all functions. The back and forward buttons doesnt
work auto in all Access forms, depends on how you set those up in the form.

I used a "Medion" wireless mouse, for a while, and
its wheel wouldn't scroll, within certain dialog boxes.

The only effect you get with the MX700 is that what scrolls varys with the context.

If you select an entry in a box in the web form, thats what scrolls
when you scroll after that, it scroll thru the available entrys until
you click outside that, when it scrolls in the page itself as usual.

 

[John Turco]

Depends on what you mean by all functions. The back and forward buttons doesnt
work auto in all Access forms, depends on how you set those up in the form.


The only effect you get with the MX700 is that what scrolls varys with the context.

If you select an entry in a box in the web form, thats what scrolls
when you scroll after that, it scroll thru the available entrys until
you click outside that, when it scrolls in the page itself as usual.

Hello, Rod:

I suspect that companies design their "mice" to support specific
features, within certain applications.

For instance, with Netscape Communicator 4.8 (on Windows Millennium), I
can't use a Microsoft mouse's side buttons, to go "back" or "forward,"
in the Web browser; they work perfectly fine on Internet Explorer,
however.

No shock, there, right? <g>


Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

I suspect that companies design their "mice" to
support specific features, within certain applications.

The problem is more that they'd prefer to be able to offer general
functionality but that that isnt easy when you try to do that with a
mouse when there isnt a standardised interface/API for that stuff.

For instance, with Netscape Communicator 4.8 (on Windows Millennium),
I can't use a Microsoft mouse's side buttons, to go "back" or "forward,"
in the Web browser; they work perfectly fine on Internet Explorer, however.

For the reason above.

No shock, there, right? <g>

I'm deeply shocked and will need some counselling or sumfin |-(