Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes - an update with more woes
On Friday 08 October 2010 19:59:12 Soren wrote:
> Booting from a normally usable floppy on CD (floppy disk emulation),
> it only generates this exact error message:
>
> "Type the name of the command interpreter (e.g.,
> C:\WINDOWS.COMMAND.COM) A>"
Basically that error message is saying "I can't find Command.com on
drive C:" In which case just reply "A:\command.com" assuming a DOS
bootable floppy disk.
Or make sure that the disk is bootable and "Command.com" is in the root
directory of the floppy disk. You may need a "Config.sys" file with
the line "A:\command.com" in it.
> Well, after getting an external USB floppy drive ('only' 45 US bucks
> here in DK...), the laptop now boots properly from a floppy disk,
> except no CD/DVD drive is detected. I tried this with no less than
> eleven diferent boot disks, and all were no-go. "The CD driver isn't
> loaded" is the common error message.
In that case you need a driver for the CD and a line in the "Config.sys"
file pointing to it eg: "A:\CD.sys". You will now need
an "Autoexec.bat" file with the correct parameters for the CD drive.
> The second - and maybe most important thing - is that while it's
> possible to start ghost.exe from this USB floppy drive, the error
> message is "...no drive to clone (11093)..." appears. Nice :)
Thats simply because you don't have a CD driver loaded ! Ghost can't
see the CD drive.
> This could be caused by either the fact that a CD driver is not
> loaded, or that a 2003 Ghost is not supporting newer systems. A
> Google search didn't bring me any closer.
Ghost works just fine from a floppy with access to a usable CD drive.
> To say it straight, forget about Linux's dd, and Acronis in this
> case, as I want absolute reliablity, and neither do serve that.
Rubbish ! If used properly then both work as advertised.
> I know Symantec is working on a new version of Ghost that works
> within Win7, so this could be a common problem?
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> If SATA's the problem (seems obvious), where do I find a boot floppy
> for this??? (bootdisk.com doesn't fix this)
Assuming SATA is supported by the BIOS then it shouldn't be a problem.
If drivers are needed then they will probably be available somewhere on
the net. Though I must admit I've not yet met a situation where I've
needed SATA drivers.
> Thanks.
>
> /soren
HTH, YMMV.
--
Best Regards:
Derrick.
Running Open SuSE 11.1 KDE 3.5.10 Desktop.
Pontefract Linux Users Group.
plug @ play-net.co.uk
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes - an update with more woes
Thanks, but unfortunately a no-go. Acronis has a link on their web site referring to issues with the laptop I'm trying to back up (HP). From what I could dig up on the net, Norton Ghost 2003 should support win7 without any problems (using CLI), only newer versions should not be working properly. Heh, time to become creative: My next attempt will be trying to run Ghost from a VM within a *nix live CD on a USB pen that has all the necessary drivers. *Anything* seems better than Win7 System Restore, as this beast takes forever to finish. Josh MacCraw wrote: As Ghost is not "serving that" either, maybe you should try the Acronis boot disk, no? On 10/8/2010 11:59 AM, Soren wrote: To say it straight, forget about Linux's dd, and Acronis in this case, as I want absolute reliablity, and neither do serve that. I know Symantec is working on a new version of Ghost that works within Win7, so this could be a common problem?
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes - an update with more woes
As Ghost is not "serving that" either, maybe you should try the Acronis boot disk, no? On 10/8/2010 11:59 AM, Soren wrote: To say it straight, forget about Linux's dd, and Acronis in this case, as I want absolute reliablity, and neither do serve that. I know Symantec is working on a new version of Ghost that works within Win7, so this could be a common problem?
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes - an update with more woes
Thanks for the input so far on this.
Suffering from a bad knee injury keeping me immobile even for computer use for
weeks, the status now is:
The laptop is still an HP G62 i3 dual core w/4GB RAM, and 320GB SATA 7.200 HDD.
BIOS is upgraded to latest version. HP support isn't helpfull, to say the least.
Booting from a normally usable floppy on CD (floppy disk emulation), it only
generates this exact error message:
"Type the name of the command interpreter (e.g., C:\WINDOWS.COMMAND.COM)
A>"
Using the Redirect command at this stage is new to me, so here I am completely
blank...???
Well, after getting an external USB floppy drive ('only' 45 US bucks here in DK...), the laptop now boots properly from a floppy disk, except no CD/DVD drive is detected.
I tried this with no less than eleven diferent boot disks, and all were no-go. "The CD driver isn't loaded" is the common error message.
The second - and maybe most important thing - is that while it's possible to start ghost.exe from this USB floppy drive, the error message is "...no drive to clone
(11093)..." appears. Nice :)
This could be caused by either the fact that a CD driver is not loaded, or that
a 2003 Ghost is not supporting newer systems. A Google search didn't bring me
any closer.
Any solutions?
Any similar clone programs out there?
To say it straight, forget about Linux's dd, and Acronis in this case, as I
want absolute reliablity, and neither do serve that.
I know Symantec is working on a new version of Ghost that works within Win7, so
this could be a common problem?
Any suggestions?
If SATA's the problem (seems obvious), where do I find a boot floppy for
this??? (bootdisk.com doesn't fix this)
Thanks.
/soren
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
Gary, Agree. We be InSync! I'll have to ruminate on Greg's share a bit more. Yet, I suspect Greg is close to a truth... :) I run on OS for 20yrs before upgrading; I feel no breeze! Best, Duncan On 09/06/2010 20:47, Gary Jackson wrote: Hi Duncan ! My initial comment on the 1 TB HD was meant to be sardonic (?) I think that is the right word. It does boggle my mind how much storage you can cheaply put on a desktop PC for very little money. I remember paying $1000 in 1985 or 86 for a 80 MB external HD for the Mac I had. lol I agree that gaming is driving the desktop market. Boutique companies like Digital Storm seem to be selling a lot of gaming rigs these days. Like you said...no harm, no foul :-) Gary At 07:41 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by DSinc that this shall come to pass: Gary, Fair enough about the OS business. Trying not to sling and start a war. Poking a bit. Sadly, I quite agree with you mostly! About the Video Card business: I have zero clue. I sorta gave up around "GF4-tech." Seems the envelope will be driven by gamers that keep demanding, "Real-Life!" I believe that "gaming" will probably generate most/all hdw upgrades. Looks like the OS folk are just leeching quite a bit for free ATM. :) No harm, no foul! Duncan On 09/06/2010 19:28, Gary Jackson wrote: Hi Duncan, Accepting, I guess yeah to a point. Not sure exactly where that point is to be sure. But I do understand that code efficiency is not valued by large corps for one thing. Another is that the OS of today does a lot more then what say OS/2 or Win 3.1 could do. That has to make a difference too. This is not to say that things couldn't be a lot tighter, just that I am not real worried about the OS taking 14 GB or even 30 GB. Doesn't the nVidia gtx 480 come with something like 1.5 GB DDR5 ram ? And systems with 4 GB+ ram are pretty much the norm on a 64 bit OS...right ? My current PC has a Raid 1 setup. That was fairly exotic at one time, not so anymore. I guess what I am saying is that old guys like us tend to view things with the lens of what they were when we first startedforgetting that things change, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. That's all RegardsGary At 06:09 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by DSinc that this shall come to pass: Gary, So you are accepting OS Bloat? Like because you can now buy a 1TB hard drive? Sorry. I'm still in Soren's camp ATM. I don't expect M$ to be perfect and/or crisp with their OS. I have watched M$ OS since WFWG3.1 (actually MS-DOS v3.1). :) M$ has done a poor job of bloat redux to my view. It seems that each time technology gives us a bigger storage medium, M$ bloats to use as much as it can; under the guise that, "Well, our users have moved to this new/larger "footprint." Sadly, NOT all of "us". Happy that you have really big HD's. I do not. Interesting perspective BTW. Plan to sleep on this one! Best, Duncan On 09/06/2010 18:36, Gary Jackson wrote: Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more "features" I guess. At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come to pass: OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh install can fit on a single CD, using highest compression in Ghost. With drivers and different progs installed, only 2 CDs, or at worst, a single DVD. Come on... 14 GBs for an O/S alone - M$ has some serious issues here. I used to think that e.g. Ubuntu is a piece of bloatware, but this one for sure gets the prize. What happened to OS/2, BTW? I've always wondered why any O/S needs to be more than 64MB's which is more than sufficient with proper coding, even seen with todays' standards. /s
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
Hi Duncan ! My initial comment on the 1 TB HD was meant to be sardonic (?) I think that is the right word. It does boggle my mind how much storage you can cheaply put on a desktop PC for very little money. I remember paying $1000 in 1985 or 86 for a 80 MB external HD for the Mac I had. lol I agree that gaming is driving the desktop market. Boutique companies like Digital Storm seem to be selling a lot of gaming rigs these days. Like you said...no harm, no foul:-) Gary At 07:41 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by DSinc that this shall come to pass: Gary, Fair enough about the OS business. Trying not to sling and start a war. Poking a bit. Sadly, I quite agree with you mostly! About the Video Card business: I have zero clue. I sorta gave up around "GF4-tech." Seems the envelope will be driven by gamers that keep demanding, "Real-Life!" I believe that "gaming" will probably generate most/all hdw upgrades. Looks like the OS folk are just leeching quite a bit for free ATM. :) No harm, no foul! Duncan On 09/06/2010 19:28, Gary Jackson wrote: Hi Duncan, Accepting, I guess yeah to a point. Not sure exactly where that point is to be sure. But I do understand that code efficiency is not valued by large corps for one thing. Another is that the OS of today does a lot more then what say OS/2 or Win 3.1 could do. That has to make a difference too. This is not to say that things couldn't be a lot tighter, just that I am not real worried about the OS taking 14 GB or even 30 GB. Doesn't the nVidia gtx 480 come with something like 1.5 GB DDR5 ram ? And systems with 4 GB+ ram are pretty much the norm on a 64 bit OS...right ? My current PC has a Raid 1 setup. That was fairly exotic at one time, not so anymore. I guess what I am saying is that old guys like us tend to view things with the lens of what they were when we first startedforgetting that things change, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. That's all RegardsGary At 06:09 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by DSinc that this shall come to pass: Gary, So you are accepting OS Bloat? Like because you can now buy a 1TB hard drive? Sorry. I'm still in Soren's camp ATM. I don't expect M$ to be perfect and/or crisp with their OS. I have watched M$ OS since WFWG3.1 (actually MS-DOS v3.1). :) M$ has done a poor job of bloat redux to my view. It seems that each time technology gives us a bigger storage medium, M$ bloats to use as much as it can; under the guise that, "Well, our users have moved to this new/larger "footprint." Sadly, NOT all of "us". Happy that you have really big HD's. I do not. Interesting perspective BTW. Plan to sleep on this one! Best, Duncan On 09/06/2010 18:36, Gary Jackson wrote: Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more "features" I guess. At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come to pass: OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh install can fit on a single CD, using highest compression in Ghost. With drivers and different progs installed, only 2 CDs, or at worst, a single DVD. Come on... 14 GBs for an O/S alone - M$ has some serious issues here. I used to think that e.g. Ubuntu is a piece of bloatware, but this one for sure gets the prize. What happened to OS/2, BTW? I've always wondered why any O/S needs to be more than 64MB's which is more than sufficient with proper coding, even seen with todays' standards. /s
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
Gary, Fair enough about the OS business. Trying not to sling and start a war. Poking a bit. Sadly, I quite agree with you mostly! About the Video Card business: I have zero clue. I sorta gave up around "GF4-tech." Seems the envelope will be driven by gamers that keep demanding, "Real-Life!" I believe that "gaming" will probably generate most/all hdw upgrades. Looks like the OS folk are just leeching quite a bit for free ATM. :) No harm, no foul! Duncan On 09/06/2010 19:28, Gary Jackson wrote: Hi Duncan, Accepting, I guess yeah to a point. Not sure exactly where that point is to be sure. But I do understand that code efficiency is not valued by large corps for one thing. Another is that the OS of today does a lot more then what say OS/2 or Win 3.1 could do. That has to make a difference too. This is not to say that things couldn't be a lot tighter, just that I am not real worried about the OS taking 14 GB or even 30 GB. Doesn't the nVidia gtx 480 come with something like 1.5 GB DDR5 ram ? And systems with 4 GB+ ram are pretty much the norm on a 64 bit OS...right ? My current PC has a Raid 1 setup. That was fairly exotic at one time, not so anymore. I guess what I am saying is that old guys like us tend to view things with the lens of what they were when we first startedforgetting that things change, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. That's all RegardsGary At 06:09 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by DSinc that this shall come to pass: Gary, So you are accepting OS Bloat? Like because you can now buy a 1TB hard drive? Sorry. I'm still in Soren's camp ATM. I don't expect M$ to be perfect and/or crisp with their OS. I have watched M$ OS since WFWG3.1 (actually MS-DOS v3.1). :) M$ has done a poor job of bloat redux to my view. It seems that each time technology gives us a bigger storage medium, M$ bloats to use as much as it can; under the guise that, "Well, our users have moved to this new/larger "footprint." Sadly, NOT all of "us". Happy that you have really big HD's. I do not. Interesting perspective BTW. Plan to sleep on this one! Best, Duncan On 09/06/2010 18:36, Gary Jackson wrote: Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more "features" I guess. At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come to pass: OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh install can fit on a single CD, using highest compression in Ghost. With drivers and different progs installed, only 2 CDs, or at worst, a single DVD. Come on... 14 GBs for an O/S alone - M$ has some serious issues here. I used to think that e.g. Ubuntu is a piece of bloatware, but this one for sure gets the prize. What happened to OS/2, BTW? I've always wondered why any O/S needs to be more than 64MB's which is more than sufficient with proper coding, even seen with todays' standards. /s
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
A good quality 1 TB drive can be had for less than $75. --- Brian Sent from my iPhone On 2010-09-06, at 8:10 PM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote: > Freenas won't operate in 64mb now. Driver support does take up a good bit. > But think about functionality we just expect. Os/2 wasn't ready with a > wia/twain acquisition image. Dvd authoring and formatting capability, base > functionality, media center, codecs, hd audio engine, ipv6, etc > > 14gb is not a huge install. Test snow leopard (when done, on the mac I have, > its 21.2gb, and comes on a dual layer dvd). So there is that. Os's have > grown because discs ared cheap and people expect more. Out of the box, > microsoft gives youy almost 1gb of media (sample pictures, videos, tv, as > well as instructional videos.. See the mediacenter setup videos, etc which > ship with it) > > These things are designed to enhance the user experience. Giving up 14gb > isn't much, imho. Hell, 2tb drives are $99 right now down the street from > me. So, a gripe about 14g.. Shoot, I can get a 64gb ssd for sub $100 (well, > just this weekend). > > I have 0 complaints about 7, which really does live up to the hype. Hell, I > finally got the ceton cable card, and now, the damn thing sees all of my > cable networks, all the hd, and I can record four networks at once and mix it > out to my xboxes, or, storing the stuff on my whs, all others on my home > network see the recordings. And it rocks. > > I still have the cd for my last beta of os/2 merlin. I could put it in a vm. > But you know, the thing is, newer OS offers features I didn't even know I > wanted then. Now I couldn't imagine not having. > Sent via BlackBerry > > -Original Message- > From: "Greg Sevart" > Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com > Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:56:46 > To: > Reply-To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes > > Agreed, but with a little different argument. Expecting Microsoft to keep > the same OS footprint, while adding 8+ years of development, 8+ years > additional built-in drivers (this one should not be underestimated--baked in > driver support is a good chunk of total size), and thousands of > features/enhancements (including "under the covers" security/functionality > enhancements, and I'm not interested in the predictable "that feature > doesn't count because _I_ don't use/like it" argument) is not realistic. > It's also just part of the image-based installation approach. Remember how > adding features in XP sometimes requires you to point to Windows > installation files, then (depending) Service Pack files, etc...that's not > ever required in Vista or W7. All components are a checkbox away from > installed. Some may consider that bloat, but given that it makes enhances > the user experience and is less error prone, I consider it progress. Disk > space is cheap, and we just aren't talking about a meaningful amount of > space here. If the base OS install was 100GB, I'd completely agree with > you--but it isn't. If there was economic incentive to make their flagstream > client operating system smaller, they would--but I really don't think that a > "Only requires xGB of disk space installed!" sticker on the front of the box > is going to net them any additional meaningful sales. > > 64MB? Is this a serious argument? Even pfSense dropped support for 64MB CF > installs on their embedded releases, and it's little more than a NanoBSD > kernel, pf, and some PHP scripts. You're more than welcome to go back a > decade or more if you're adamant that an OS take up no more than 64MB, but > get real. You can still fit the compressed image on a $0.50 dual layer DVD, > or a $15 USB thumbdrive if you want to carry an image around. > > Frankly, if a system is so space constrained that 14GB is enough to lose > sleep over, it doesn't have any business running Vista or W7--it should be > on the trash pile, or stick with whatever OS version is already on it. > > Greg > >> -Original Message- >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- >> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Gary Jackson >> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 5:37 PM >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >> Subject: Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes >> >> >>Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too >> concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more > "features" >> I guess. >> >> >> At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come t
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
Freenas won't operate in 64mb now. Driver support does take up a good bit. But think about functionality we just expect. Os/2 wasn't ready with a wia/twain acquisition image. Dvd authoring and formatting capability, base functionality, media center, codecs, hd audio engine, ipv6, etc 14gb is not a huge install. Test snow leopard (when done, on the mac I have, its 21.2gb, and comes on a dual layer dvd). So there is that. Os's have grown because discs ared cheap and people expect more. Out of the box, microsoft gives youy almost 1gb of media (sample pictures, videos, tv, as well as instructional videos.. See the mediacenter setup videos, etc which ship with it) These things are designed to enhance the user experience. Giving up 14gb isn't much, imho. Hell, 2tb drives are $99 right now down the street from me. So, a gripe about 14g.. Shoot, I can get a 64gb ssd for sub $100 (well, just this weekend). I have 0 complaints about 7, which really does live up to the hype. Hell, I finally got the ceton cable card, and now, the damn thing sees all of my cable networks, all the hd, and I can record four networks at once and mix it out to my xboxes, or, storing the stuff on my whs, all others on my home network see the recordings. And it rocks. I still have the cd for my last beta of os/2 merlin. I could put it in a vm. But you know, the thing is, newer OS offers features I didn't even know I wanted then. Now I couldn't imagine not having. Sent via BlackBerry -Original Message- From: "Greg Sevart" Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 18:56:46 To: Reply-To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes Agreed, but with a little different argument. Expecting Microsoft to keep the same OS footprint, while adding 8+ years of development, 8+ years additional built-in drivers (this one should not be underestimated--baked in driver support is a good chunk of total size), and thousands of features/enhancements (including "under the covers" security/functionality enhancements, and I'm not interested in the predictable "that feature doesn't count because _I_ don't use/like it" argument) is not realistic. It's also just part of the image-based installation approach. Remember how adding features in XP sometimes requires you to point to Windows installation files, then (depending) Service Pack files, etc...that's not ever required in Vista or W7. All components are a checkbox away from installed. Some may consider that bloat, but given that it makes enhances the user experience and is less error prone, I consider it progress. Disk space is cheap, and we just aren't talking about a meaningful amount of space here. If the base OS install was 100GB, I'd completely agree with you--but it isn't. If there was economic incentive to make their flagstream client operating system smaller, they would--but I really don't think that a "Only requires xGB of disk space installed!" sticker on the front of the box is going to net them any additional meaningful sales. 64MB? Is this a serious argument? Even pfSense dropped support for 64MB CF installs on their embedded releases, and it's little more than a NanoBSD kernel, pf, and some PHP scripts. You're more than welcome to go back a decade or more if you're adamant that an OS take up no more than 64MB, but get real. You can still fit the compressed image on a $0.50 dual layer DVD, or a $15 USB thumbdrive if you want to carry an image around. Frankly, if a system is so space constrained that 14GB is enough to lose sleep over, it doesn't have any business running Vista or W7--it should be on the trash pile, or stick with whatever OS version is already on it. Greg > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Gary Jackson > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 5:37 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes > > > Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too > concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more "features" > I guess. > > > At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come to pass: > >OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should > >be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. > > > >I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several > >propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will > >end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. > > > >Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP > >installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh > >
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
Agreed, but with a little different argument. Expecting Microsoft to keep the same OS footprint, while adding 8+ years of development, 8+ years additional built-in drivers (this one should not be underestimated--baked in driver support is a good chunk of total size), and thousands of features/enhancements (including "under the covers" security/functionality enhancements, and I'm not interested in the predictable "that feature doesn't count because _I_ don't use/like it" argument) is not realistic. It's also just part of the image-based installation approach. Remember how adding features in XP sometimes requires you to point to Windows installation files, then (depending) Service Pack files, etc...that's not ever required in Vista or W7. All components are a checkbox away from installed. Some may consider that bloat, but given that it makes enhances the user experience and is less error prone, I consider it progress. Disk space is cheap, and we just aren't talking about a meaningful amount of space here. If the base OS install was 100GB, I'd completely agree with you--but it isn't. If there was economic incentive to make their flagstream client operating system smaller, they would--but I really don't think that a "Only requires xGB of disk space installed!" sticker on the front of the box is going to net them any additional meaningful sales. 64MB? Is this a serious argument? Even pfSense dropped support for 64MB CF installs on their embedded releases, and it's little more than a NanoBSD kernel, pf, and some PHP scripts. You're more than welcome to go back a decade or more if you're adamant that an OS take up no more than 64MB, but get real. You can still fit the compressed image on a $0.50 dual layer DVD, or a $15 USB thumbdrive if you want to carry an image around. Frankly, if a system is so space constrained that 14GB is enough to lose sleep over, it doesn't have any business running Vista or W7--it should be on the trash pile, or stick with whatever OS version is already on it. Greg > -Original Message- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Gary Jackson > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 5:37 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes > > > Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too > concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more "features" > I guess. > > > At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come to pass: > >OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should > >be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. > > > >I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several > >propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will > >end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. > > > >Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP > >installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh > >install can fit on a single CD, using highest compression in Ghost. With > >drivers and different progs installed, only 2 CDs, or at worst, a single DVD. > > > >Come on... 14 GBs for an O/S alone - M$ has some serious issues here. I > >used to think that e.g. Ubuntu is a piece of bloatware, but this one for > >sure gets the prize. > > > >What happened to OS/2, BTW? I've always wondered why any O/S needs > to be > >more than 64MB's which is more than sufficient with proper coding, even > >seen with todays' standards. > > > >/s > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
Hi Duncan, Accepting, I guess yeah to a point. Not sure exactly where that point is to be sure. But I do understand that code efficiency is not valued by large corps for one thing. Another is that the OS of today does a lot more then what say OS/2 or Win 3.1 could do. That has to make a difference too. This is not to say that things couldn't be a lot tighter, just that I am not real worried about the OS taking 14 GB or even 30 GB. Doesn't the nVidia gtx 480 come with something like 1.5 GB DDR5 ram ? And systems with 4 GB+ ram are pretty much the norm on a 64 bit OS...right ? My current PC has a Raid 1 setup. That was fairly exotic at one time, not so anymore.I guess what I am saying is that old guys like us tend to view things with the lens of what they were when we first startedforgetting that things change, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. That's all RegardsGary At 06:09 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by DSinc that this shall come to pass: Gary, So you are accepting OS Bloat? Like because you can now buy a 1TB hard drive? Sorry. I'm still in Soren's camp ATM. I don't expect M$ to be perfect and/or crisp with their OS. I have watched M$ OS since WFWG3.1 (actually MS-DOS v3.1). :) M$ has done a poor job of bloat redux to my view. It seems that each time technology gives us a bigger storage medium, M$ bloats to use as much as it can; under the guise that, "Well, our users have moved to this new/larger "footprint." Sadly, NOT all of "us". Happy that you have really big HD's. I do not. Interesting perspective BTW. Plan to sleep on this one! Best, Duncan On 09/06/2010 18:36, Gary Jackson wrote: Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more "features" I guess. At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come to pass: OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh install can fit on a single CD, using highest compression in Ghost. With drivers and different progs installed, only 2 CDs, or at worst, a single DVD. Come on... 14 GBs for an O/S alone - M$ has some serious issues here. I used to think that e.g. Ubuntu is a piece of bloatware, but this one for sure gets the prize. What happened to OS/2, BTW? I've always wondered why any O/S needs to be more than 64MB's which is more than sufficient with proper coding, even seen with todays' standards. /s
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
Gary, So you are accepting OS Bloat? Like because you can now buy a 1TB hard drive? Sorry. I'm still in Soren's camp ATM. I don't expect M$ to be perfect and/or crisp with their OS. I have watched M$ OS since WFWG3.1 (actually MS-DOS v3.1). :) M$ has done a poor job of bloat redux to my view. It seems that each time technology gives us a bigger storage medium, M$ bloats to use as much as it can; under the guise that, "Well, our users have moved to this new/larger "footprint." Sadly, NOT all of "us". Happy that you have really big HD's. I do not. Interesting perspective BTW. Plan to sleep on this one! Best, Duncan On 09/06/2010 18:36, Gary Jackson wrote: Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more "features" I guess. At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come to pass: OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh install can fit on a single CD, using highest compression in Ghost. With drivers and different progs installed, only 2 CDs, or at worst, a single DVD. Come on... 14 GBs for an O/S alone - M$ has some serious issues here. I used to think that e.g. Ubuntu is a piece of bloatware, but this one for sure gets the prize. What happened to OS/2, BTW? I've always wondered why any O/S needs to be more than 64MB's which is more than sufficient with proper coding, even seen with todays' standards. /s
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
Given that you can buy a 1tb drive for $75.00, I guess I am not too concerned at how large the OS is. That is the downside for more "features" I guess. At 05:14 PM 9/6/2010, It was written by Soren that this shall come to pass: OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh install can fit on a single CD, using highest compression in Ghost. With drivers and different progs installed, only 2 CDs, or at worst, a single DVD. Come on... 14 GBs for an O/S alone - M$ has some serious issues here. I used to think that e.g. Ubuntu is a piece of bloatware, but this one for sure gets the prize. What happened to OS/2, BTW? I've always wondered why any O/S needs to be more than 64MB's which is more than sufficient with proper coding, even seen with todays' standards. /s
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
OK, so far my impressions are that the Win7 installation footprint should be in the area of "only" around 14 GB. I need to do some partition resizing and so, including deletion of several propreritary HP progs, and cleaning up the registry. Hopefully, this will end satisfactory. In a few days I'll know. Yes, I know I'm acting paranoid :), but I usually deal with XP installations (dumped Vista completely at first sight) where a fresh install can fit on a single CD, using highest compression in Ghost. With drivers and different progs installed, only 2 CDs, or at worst, a single DVD. Come on... 14 GBs for an O/S alone - M$ has some serious issues here. I used to think that e.g. Ubuntu is a piece of bloatware, but this one for sure gets the prize. What happened to OS/2, BTW? I've always wondered why any O/S needs to be more than 64MB's which is more than sufficient with proper coding, even seen with todays' standards. /s
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
Inline.. tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote: Win7 install footprint is nowhere near that. Not even remotely close. Nope, I figured that out pretty quick :) But most oems load it down with things, swap file and a hibernation file can add a couple gig, etc. Oh yes, tons of useless apps, but these are already either uninstalled or disabled. This is why I'm a bit lost... Win7 has most of the basic drivers built in for the most part. A 32bit win7 install can be done in a 16g drive. A 64 in a 20. My sizes at base were: 10.7, 13.9. Ymmv. My thoughts, too. The install is a 32/64 hybrid of the Premium Home version. Don't know if that particular version is special for Europe or not. Note: is is about 60% of a vista install, so its slimmed down quite a bit I hear you. Slipstreaming is the next subject on the menu. /s --Original Message-- From: Soren Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] Backing up Win7 woes Sent: Sep 3, 2010 3:37 PM Hi, I recently bought my mom a laptop with Win7. Fine. Not so fine is that the C: partition seems to occupy +34 gigabytes. What I want is to be able to make a ghost image within reasonable limits. +34 gigabytes doesn't seem so. As of yet unexperienced with Win7, is this the normal disk (ab)use of the O/S? Slipstreaming? /s Sent via BlackBerry
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
I just installed Win7 64-bit Ultimate on one of my partitions. It's taking up about 20 GB, which includes a 3 GB hibernation file and a 4 GB pagefile. No OEM apps or utilities. Gary VanderMolen, Microsoft MVP (Mail) -- -Original Message- From: Soren Not so fine is that the C: partition seems to occupy +34 gigabytes.
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
It can appear to be that large depending the method used to check volume usage because of all the symbolic links. On 9/3/2010 2:02 PM, tmse...@rlrnews.com wrote: Win7 install footprint is nowhere near that. Not even remotely close. But most oems load it down with things, swap file and a hibernation file can add a couple gig, etc. Win7 has most of the basic drivers built in for the most part. A 32bit win7 install can be done in a 16g drive. A 64 in a 20. My sizes at base were: 10.7, 13.9. Ymmv. Note: is is about 60% of a vista install, so its slimmed down quite a bit --Original Message-- From: Soren Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] Backing up Win7 woes Sent: Sep 3, 2010 3:37 PM Hi, I recently bought my mom a laptop with Win7. Fine. Not so fine is that the C: partition seems to occupy +34 gigabytes. What I want is to be able to make a ghost image within reasonable limits. +34 gigabytes doesn't seem so. As of yet unexperienced with Win7, is this the normal disk (ab)use of the O/S? Slipstreaming? /s Sent via BlackBerry
Re: [H] Backing up Win7 woes
Win7 install footprint is nowhere near that. Not even remotely close. But most oems load it down with things, swap file and a hibernation file can add a couple gig, etc. Win7 has most of the basic drivers built in for the most part. A 32bit win7 install can be done in a 16g drive. A 64 in a 20. My sizes at base were: 10.7, 13.9. Ymmv. Note: is is about 60% of a vista install, so its slimmed down quite a bit --Original Message-- From: Soren Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] Backing up Win7 woes Sent: Sep 3, 2010 3:37 PM Hi, I recently bought my mom a laptop with Win7. Fine. Not so fine is that the C: partition seems to occupy +34 gigabytes. What I want is to be able to make a ghost image within reasonable limits. +34 gigabytes doesn't seem so. As of yet unexperienced with Win7, is this the normal disk (ab)use of the O/S? Slipstreaming? /s Sent via BlackBerry
[H] Backing up Win7 woes
Hi, I recently bought my mom a laptop with Win7. Fine. Not so fine is that the C: partition seems to occupy +34 gigabytes. What I want is to be able to make a ghost image within reasonable limits. +34 gigabytes doesn't seem so. As of yet unexperienced with Win7, is this the normal disk (ab)use of the O/S? Slipstreaming? /s
