On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 04:25 US/Pacific, David H. Bailey wrote:
Speaking from the PC world, I don't view drives as consumables with
short shelf lives, either. I have an old Packard-Bell Pentium (yes
the original) which is about 8 years old (or however old the Pentium
chip is) and it has t
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 19:05 US/Pacific, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
wrote:
I wonder what ever happened to the TerraBytes-In-Size-Of-SugarCube
prophecy I heard about in the early 1990s? That's really where the
industry should be heading.
It is. Have you tried the memory drive keychains? 128MB
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 17:08 US/Pacific, David W. Fenton wrote:
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 08:54 US/Pacific, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
wrote:
I never keep daily-use drives more that 10-12 months anyway --
always upgrading to bigger and faster ones. :)
Astounding what PC users perceive as
On 31 Aug 2003 at 10:20, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> This started out with Philip Aker's comments about ATA vs. SCSI
> reliability. I guess, to summarize -- and apologies for so much
> verbiage, but I hope some of it was helpful -- I feel it's wise to
> upgrade regularly not only because it give
On 30 Aug 2003 at 22:00, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> My drive upgrading penchant is more typical than not among users of
> media machines. Admittedly many Finale owners are in the engraving
> business and not multimedia artists or gamers with huge files, but
> large drives are increasingly commo
At 12:52 pm +0200 8/30/03, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
The point is that the problem is in Andrew's OS 9 partition, not the OS X one.
Was it actually in a _ separate_partition_? I thought that Andrew was
using his iMac fairly generically as an out-of-the-box computer and
just booting into OS 9 inste
On 30.08.2003 20:08 Uhr, Philip Aker wrote
> Astounding what PC users perceive as normal--I'm using a 10 year old
> Mac with the original SCSI drive for my print server. And still have
> two other old SCSI drives that still work fine. Granted, we're not
> talkin' 120 Gigs here, but I certainly don
On 31.08.2003 0:27 Uhr, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote
> They are to me, and it's not profligacy. Drives fill quickly with audio,
> images, and video. It doesn't take too many detailed 30MB images, too many
> uncompressed 1.2GB radio shows, or too many 20GB video projects to consume
> vast disk space.
Speaking from the PC world, I don't view drives as consumables with
short shelf lives, either. I have an old Packard-Bell Pentium (yes the
original) which is about 8 years old (or however old the Pentium chip
is) and it has the original drives I put in to replace the original
small drive, and
Dear Dennis and all,
One sunny day I discovered that I could do the same with my 733 G4, so I put
three 120 gb inside. I bought two others for the external Firewire cases.
Now I can backup everything daily and have plenty of space to work with my
video projects.
Ironically, the old disks have ended
Not being fluent in Dutch, it was a bit fuzzy but I gather the person
who wrote it is showing a picture of a CDR that he happened to take in
2001 and another picture of the same CDR that he happened to take in 2003.
I couldn't understand the text, though, so I can't tell what sorts of
controlle
While Andrew's problem (reported by Norton) could be in the hardware, it most likely
is corruption in the volumn information. If so, OSX or OS9 will make no difference.
But Diskwarrior will definitely fix it. And in the unlikely chance that it is in the
hardware, Diskwarrior will tell you that.
At 12:19 PM 8/31/03 +0200, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
>On the other hand, hard disks are not really recommended for long term
>storage. Although they will keep data save for a few years they will
>eventually de-magnetize and you will loose data.
That's true, and exactly the dilemma of anyone looking
Was it actually in a _ separate_partition_? I thought that Andrew
was using his iMac fairly generically as an out-of-the-box computer
and just booting into OS 9 instead of OS X. I didn't think that he
had reformatted his hard drive when he purchased the computer and
created two partitions and i
At 03:46 AM 8/31/03 -0500, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
>This looks like an informative article about the long-term
>reliability of CD-ROM discs.
>Seriously, do you have a link to a version of that article in
>English? It looks like it might be interesting.
This is a Dutch-only magazine, probably th
At 07:25 AM 8/31/03 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
>But I do need to say that I
>have never (knock on wood) had an ATA drive "crumble" at all, let alone
>every 10-12 months.
At 08:03 AM 8/31/03 -0400, David H. Bailey wrote:
>I remember a doom-and-gloom message from a computer-industry worker
>co
While Andrew's problem (reported by Norton) could be in the
hardware, it most likely is corruption in the volumn information. If
so, OSX or OS9 will make no difference. But Diskwarrior will
definitely fix it. And in the unlikely chance that it is in the
hardware, Diskwarrior will tell you that.
I should add that while DiskWarrior has never caused me the slightest problem and
meanwhile has solved numerous quite bizarre ones, it is always a good idea to make a
full backup before doing any kind of disk repair.
This is not to say I always follow this advice--far from it. But in this case I
At 03:49 PM 8/30/03 -0700, Philip Aker wrote:
>I wonder what ever happened to the
>TerraBytes-In-Size-Of-SugarCube prophecy I heard about in the early
>1990s? That's really where the industry should be heading.
It is. Have you tried the memory drive keychains? 128MB or memory on a
little stick?
At 08:16 PM 8/30/03 -0400, David Fenton wrote:
>I wouldn't recommend swapping drives for no reason at all, just
>because they are 6 months old, because the drives that are still in
>good working order after 6 months are the ones that are going to be
>reliable for 5 or 10 years of use.
Warranty
On 30 Aug 2003 at 18:27, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
> At 11:08 AM 8/30/03 -0700, Philip Aker wrote:
> >On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 08:54 US/Pacific, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
> >wrote:
> >> I never keep daily-use drives more that 10-12 months anyway --
> >> always upgrading to bigger and faster ones
On 30 Aug 2003 at 11:08, Philip Aker wrote:
> On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 08:54 US/Pacific, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
> wrote:
>
> >> Compared to SCSI, I find ATA drives to be unreliable. With OS 8-9,
> >> it
> >> was guaranteed that the one I have would crumble every 10-12
> >> months
> >> wher
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 15:27 US/Pacific, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
wrote:
But I think your comment had to do with ATA vs. SCSI drive life. I
think this may be new vs. old more than anything else. These days the
same
hardware usually ends up in both kinds of consumer drives, so a more
reasona
At 11:08 AM 8/30/03 -0700, Philip Aker wrote:
>On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 08:54 US/Pacific, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>wrote:
>> I never keep daily-use drives more that 10-12 months anyway -- always
>> upgrading to bigger and faster ones. :)
>
>Astounding what PC users perceive as normal--I'm using
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 08:54 US/Pacific, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
wrote:
Compared to SCSI, I find ATA drives to be unreliable. With OS 8-9, it
was guaranteed that the one I have would crumble every 10-12 months
whereas the older SCSI ones I have just keep on going.
I never keep daily-use d
At 08:32 AM 8/30/03 -0700, Philip Aker wrote:
>Compared to SCSI, I find ATA drives to be unreliable. With OS 8-9, it
>was guaranteed that the one I have would crumble every 10-12 months
>whereas the older SCSI ones I have just keep on going.
I never keep daily-use drives more that 10-12 months
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 02:33 US/Pacific, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
I would never think to run Norton, or any other disk utility, against
my boot disk; I would always either boot from another disk or CD. This
may be a paranoid attitude, but until I know far more about OS X I
feel that it i
On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 02:33 US/Pacific, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
(who likes the consumer-enabled low-level access of SCSI and is
fighting tooth and nail -- but with reducing pocketbook -- against
moving his new Mac machines to ATA)
Compared to SCSI, I find ATA drives to be unreliable. Wi
On 30.08.2003 11:33 Uhr, Dennis W. Manasco wrote
> Normally I would agree with you and would have given this advice if I
> thought that it would have helped. Indeed, one of the reasons that I
> did not is that OS X is such a different beast from OS <= 9.x that I
> would never think to run Norton,
At 9:59 am -0400 8/29/03, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Thanks especially to Dennis Manasco for his technical explanation of
my bad-blocks problem.
You are welcome.
The upshot appears to be that I should do nothing, because a)
whatever info is in the bad blocks is certainly not compromising my
machine
At 4:23 pm +0200 8/29/03, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Before you do this I would definitely run Norton from it's CD and
see whether it can solve the problem more easily. If it runs into
severe problems it will tell you.
Johannes
On 29.08.2003 12:01 Uhr, Dennis W. Manasco wrote
...
Johannes,
Norm
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 05:58 PM, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Another factor, which cannot be underestimated, is to become
familiar with OS X in general so as to take advantage of it. For
instance, adapting to a new emailer, backup mechanism, becoming
familiar with the layout and organiza
Another factor, which cannot be underestimated, is to become
familiar with OS X in general so as to take advantage of it. For
instance, adapting to a new emailer, backup mechanism, becoming
familiar with the layout and organization of the file system, or
finding out which things replace assort
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 07:23 US/Pacific, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 29.08.2003 15:59 Uhr, Andrew Stiller wrote
Speaking of which: my virgin OSX is System 10.0, so I will have to
upgrade it to use FinMac 2K4 when it arrives. I see that Apple is
about to release 10.3 ("Panther"), but they do
On 29.08.2003 15:59 Uhr, Andrew Stiller wrote
> Speaking of which: my virgin OSX is System 10.0, so I will have to
> upgrade it to use FinMac 2K4 when it arrives. I see that Apple is
> about to release 10.3 ("Panther"), but they don't say when. Should I
> upgrade to 10.2 now, or wait for the newer
Before you do this I would definitely run Norton from it's CD and see
whether it can solve the problem more easily. If it runs into severe
problems it will tell you.
Johannes
On 29.08.2003 12:01 Uhr, Dennis W. Manasco wrote
> Andrew --
>
> From what you've said I'm not certain _precisely_ what
Thanks especially to Dennis Manasco for his technical explanation of
my bad-blocks problem. The upshot appears to be that I should do
nothing, because a) whatever info is in the bad blocks is certainly
not compromising my machine's performance and b) I'm going to be
waving goodbye to System 9 a
At 4:11 pm -0400 8/28/03, Andrew Stiller wrote:
As long as we're on this general subject, let me pose another such
problem, also on the Mac.
Norton Utilities keeps telling me that I have a couple of bad blocks
on my hard drive that it can't repair because they are in "vital
areas" of, I assume
On 28.08.2003 22:11 Uhr, Andrew Stiller wrote
> As long as we're on this general subject, let me pose another such
> problem, also on the Mac.
>
> Norton Utilities keeps telling me that I have a couple of bad blocks
> on my hard drive that it can't repair because they are in "vital
> areas" of, I
Thanks to all who replied. A combination of many tips eventually led me on
the right track and I have repaired the problem (which ended up being more
severe than just undeletable files, and I am very happy I could fix it).
Norton Utilities eventually did the job. The problem seems to have been
rela
Thanks to all who replied. A combination of many tips eventually led me on
the right track and I have repaired the problem (which ended up being more
severe than just undeletable files, and I am very happy I could fix it).
Norton Utilities eventually did the job. The problem seems to have been
rela
Sorry for an OT question, but I need help by a Mac guru:
I have three files in my waste basket that I can't seem to get rid of. I can
empty the trash, but they will stay. I ran Norton on the disk, no luck.
I don't even get an error message when I empty the thing, and the files are
definitely not
I second this recommendation (DiskWarrior). It is an essential tool, and the new OSX
version is better than ever.
http://www.alsoft.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Eden - Lawrence D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The program for handling this situation is DiskWarrior.
___
At 5:22 AM -0400 8/28/03, Eden - Lawrence D. wrote:
>The program for handling this situation is DiskWarrior. This program deals
>with directories on the Mac, and is well worth the investment.
While DiskWarrior is an excellent tool, a Google search will turn up other
ways to delete difficult files
The program for handling this situation is DiskWarrior. This program deals
with directories on the Mac, and is well worth the investment.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> Sorry for an OT question, but I need help by a Mac guru:
>
> I have three files in my waste basket that I ca
At 11:00 PM +0200 8/27/03, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Sorry for an OT question, but I need help by a Mac guru:
I have three files in my waste basket that I can't seem to get rid of. I can
empty the trash, but they will stay. I ran Norton on the disk, no luck.
I don't even get an error message when I
Sorry for an OT question, but I need help by a Mac guru:
I have three files in my waste basket that I can't seem to get rid of. I can
empty the trash, but they will stay. I ran Norton on the disk, no luck.
I don't even get an error message when I empty the thing, and the files are
definitely not
47 matches
Mail list logo
