Future XP problems

Glenn · Mar 09, 2010, 14:22:31

If you buy a replacement HDU next year for your aging XP machine, make sure it is XP compatiable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8557144.stm

Rik · Mar 09, 2010, 15:49:09

QuoteThis fine resolution on hard drives is causing a problem, he said, because of the wasted space associated with each tiny block.

Each 512 byte sector has a marker showing where it begins and an area dedicated to storing error correction codes. In addition a tiny gap has to be left between each sector. In large drives this wasted space where data cannot be stored can take up a significant proportion of the drive.

Moving to an advanced format of 4K sectors means about eight times less wasted space but will allow drives to devote twice as much space per block to error correction.

This puzzled me. The prospect for slack is 8x larger with 4k sectors than 0.5k, so I am not sure how the reduced overheads will amount to greater capacity in day to day use.

Quote"We can put more data on the disk," he said. "It's about 7-11% more efficient as a format."

john · Mar 09, 2010, 17:41:14

The way I read it was that each sector on the disk includes an overhead of an area which identifies the sector and has error codes etc (not sure without looking it up whether this is part of the sector or an additional area). However if the sectors were larger then this overhead per sector is still the same size so the percentage of the disk it takes up compared to the area for actual data is smaller.

I stand to be corrected if this is not the case.

I expect that manufactures will still be making XP compatible drives for some time though.

Rik · Mar 09, 2010, 17:42:15

Even so, John, a 1byte excess on a file currently wastes .5k rather than 4k.

john · Mar 09, 2010, 17:49:27

I take your point Rik but that would depend on the number of partially used sectors, if the number of these was small compared to the number of fully used sectors then it might make sense to go for bigger sectors.

Rik · Mar 09, 2010, 17:50:55

Agreed, John, the benefits are going to be totally dependent on file sizes.

JB · Mar 09, 2010, 17:52:33

Are we going to be the last two in here with XP Rik?

Rik · Mar 09, 2010, 17:53:15

Probably.

sobranie · Mar 09, 2010, 17:55:13

Methinks I'll buy a few spare IDE hard drives now as I'm sticking with XP for the foreseeable future.

Rik · Mar 09, 2010, 18:01:33

I was wondering what stock levels I should go for.

Glenn · Mar 09, 2010, 18:06:14

50 x 1Tb should see you safe

Rik · Mar 09, 2010, 18:06:58

It depends on how large my DR database grows.

Glenn · Mar 09, 2010, 18:10:43

I was talking hard drives, not freezers

Rik · Mar 09, 2010, 18:13:17

Me too, we run catalogues, so that we (a) know what's in stock and (b) use it in correct date order. Anal or what?

john · Mar 09, 2010, 18:46:53

Quote from: Rik on Mar 09, 2010, 18:06:58

It depends on how large my DR database grows.

I thought that was in inches as in the size of ones belt

Rik · Mar 09, 2010, 18:48:20

That's a very big stack of hard drives then, John.

quandam · Mar 09, 2010, 18:51:25

I'm with you Rik & 6jb, I love XP and won't be changing anytime soon

Rik · Mar 09, 2010, 18:53:26

I will when I must, Q, which will be the next machine, I guess. It's OK, but I didn't see enough in it to make me want to upgrade.

DorsetBoy · Mar 09, 2010, 18:59:03

The big issue with anything pre Vista is the vulnerability to so many exploits which have never been patched but are not present in Vista and Win7.

Having run Win7 for the last 3 months I can say I would definitely NOT go back to XP (or Vista

)

Glenn · Mar 09, 2010, 19:00:37

I HAVE to go back to XP, each day at work.

quandam · Mar 09, 2010, 19:00:42

Quote from: DorsetBoy on Mar 09, 2010, 18:59:03
The big issue with anything pre Vista is the vulnerability to so many exploits which have never been patched but are not present in Vista and Win7.

Having run Win7 for the last 3 months I can say I would definitely NOT go back to XP (or Vista )

Why?

Gary · Mar 10, 2010, 09:30:51

Quote from: quandam on Mar 09, 2010, 19:00:42
Why?

I'm guessing its ability to resist vulnerabilities is a big one Q, also ease of use, using a ten year old OS in times with powerful malware is going to eventually bite you, as no AV can protect against OS holes to start. Also the GUI is cleaner more intuitive. Having used Vista I would have not gone back to XP and my wifes Laptop got upgraded to 7 which is a very sound OS, better coding a snappier and more up to date feature set, less holes and also more reliable drivers that don't bring the whole system down due to the way its been designed, for me its safer and that's the big move forward.

Den · Mar 10, 2010, 09:43:59

People who say they will not upgrade to what is a much superior OS are the same folk who will not have a mobile phone but go around searching for a phone box. Go on try it you will wonder why you stuck with XP ( or 95,98 etc`)

DorsetBoy · Mar 10, 2010, 09:46:27

Quote from: quandam on Mar 09, 2010, 19:00:42
Why?

1) As someone that has been extremely critical about Microsoft products in the past I have to admit that Win7 is an excellent OS, they really have got it right this time.

2) Previous versions are open to very serious exploits that cannot touch Win7

3) It works, I have not seen a single problem,no freezes,hiccups ,it just works and boot times are considerably better.

4) I have been able to install and run older software that simply would not work in Vista.

5) The 3 machines we have it installed on are definitely faster and more responsive,my son has a stack of games written for XP, we ran the installs without any problems and he will tell you that they are definitely much better on Win7, clearer sharper graphics and faster snappier play, he is VERY pleased with the result.

6)The Explorer layout and libraries system which at first view seemed odd is in fact a vast improvement on previous versions.

Gary · Mar 10, 2010, 09:50:57

Quote from: DorsetBoy on Mar 10, 2010, 09:46:27
1) As someone that has been extremely critical about Microsoft products in the past I have to admit that Win7 is an excellent OS, they really have got it right this time.

2) Previous versions are open to very serious exploits that cannot touch Win7

3) It works, I have not seen a single problem,no freezes,hiccups ,it just works and boot times are considerably better.

4) I have been able to install and run older software that simply would not work in Vista.

5) The 3 machines we have it installed on are definitely faster and more responsive,my son has a stack of games written for XP, we ran the installs without any problems and he will tell you that they are definitely much better on Win7, clearer sharper graphics and faster snappier play, he is VERY pleased with the result.

6)The Explorer layout and libraries system which at first view seemed odd is in fact a vast improvement on previous versions.

It is a good OS, my main one is OSX 10.6.2 as I did the jump to Apple late last year, one I am still pleased with, but Windows 7 is really a very sound OS, Microsoft did get it right, I just like not having a registry

My wife took to 7 easily and thats a big plus as well, she found it very easy to use, and I know that what she does is safe, something I would not be happy about were she using XP