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
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."
:shake:
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.
Even so, John, a 1byte excess on a file currently wastes .5k rather than 4k.
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.
Agreed, John, the benefits are going to be totally dependent on file sizes.
Are we going to be the last two in here with XP Rik?
Probably. :)
Methinks I'll buy a few spare IDE hard drives now as I'm sticking with XP for the foreseeable future.
I was wondering what stock levels I should go for. :)
50 x 1Tb should see you safe :evil:
;D
It depends on how large my DR database grows. :)
I was talking hard drives, not freezers
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? ;)
Quote from: Rik on Mar 09, 2010, 18:06:58
;D
It depends on how large my DR database grows. :)
I thought that was in inches as in the size of ones belt ;)
That's a very big stack of hard drives then, John. :)
I'm with you Rik & 6jb, I love XP and won't be changing anytime soon :thumb:
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.
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 ::) )
I HAVE to go back to XP, each day at work.
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?
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.
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`) >:D
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.
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
Thanks for the info guys. I think I might wait until Service Pack 1 is issued or at least let a year elapse before making the move. Have to say, that XP has been rock solid for me without any security probs (that I am aware of) for many many years, crashes really have been minimal, it has been a good friend.
I as you know have had a few issues running the 64 bit version of 7 but it won't stop me running it as it's clearly a better product than Vista. I will however install and run the 32 bit version to try and get a little more compatibility with some older hardware I have and a few of the applications and gizmos I use regularly that won't run.
So far I can't find much to criticise although I don't like the visual appearance of the launch bar. It uses a lot of space but is quite stark graphically, particularly on the right hand side. The only other thing that concerned me a little is how much memory my default installation was using, well over 1 GB. That seems a little excessive to me and quite a bit more than Vista filled with start up applications.
I shall stick with XP as long as I can, it's the only Microsoft OS I feel I can trust
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Mar 10, 2010, 10:03:19
I as you know have had a few issues running the 64 bit version of 7 but it won't stop me running it as it's clearly a better product than Vista. I will however install and run the 32 bit version to try and get a little more compatibility with some older hardware I have and a few of the applications and gizmos I use regularly that won't run.
So far I can't find much to criticise although I don't like the visual appearance of the launch bar. It uses a lot of space but is quite stark graphically, particularly on the right hand side. The only other thing that concerned me a little is how much memory my default installation was using, well over 1 GB. That seems a little excessive to me and quite a bit more than Vista filled with start up applications.
My copy of Vista was about 1.5Gb startup, I guess it varies on what flavour you had, I have Vista Ultimate on my old Laptop
Quote from: Gary on Mar 10, 2010, 10:28:25
My copy of Vista was about 1.5Gb startup, I guess it varies on what flavour you had, I have Vista Ultimate on my old Laptop
That's interesting because that's the version I'm using and even now while browsing and running a number of small apps it's sitting at 1.05GB. Perhaps it's dependent on hardware and drivers etc :dunno:
That sounds like a challenge. :evil:
;D
Sounds more like Microsoft performing as expected to me :laugh:
;D
Ubuntu :whistle: Ubuntu :whistle: Ubuntu :whistle:
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Mar 10, 2010, 11:56:56
That's interesting because that's the version I'm using and even now while browsing and running a number of small apps it's sitting at 1.05GB. Perhaps it's dependent on hardware and drivers etc :dunno:
Mine had some other bits and bobs maybe to yours at startup and was a laptop, must admit its a dim memory since i got the Mac, and Windows 7 is so much nicer in many ways, although I prefer the OSX dock. I do wonder were Microsoft will go from here, Windows 8 would have to really pull something magic out of the hat.
Quote from: D-Dan on Mar 10, 2010, 20:40:19
Ubuntu :whistle: Ubuntu :whistle: Ubuntu :whistle:
Who are you calling a bunt? ;D
Quote from: Simon on Mar 10, 2010, 22:34:49
Who are you calling a bunt? ;D
I really can't be sure if that's genuinely funny, or a drop of amber nectar has lowered my standards.
I'll get back to you tomorrow, but in the meantime :rofl3:
Steve
My standards are pretty low, Steve. ;D
With an avatar like that, what can you expect. ;D :out:
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Mar 10, 2010, 10:03:19
So far I can't find much to criticise although I don't like the visual appearance of the launch bar. It uses a lot of space but is quite stark graphically, particularly on the right hand side.
I thought that as well but I changed mine back to the XP/Vista look with proper labels along the bottom on a single height taskbar rather than pictures on a dual height one, the other change is always make is icon size and position - I prefer them slightly smaller and close together so a few minutes tinkering and I now have something that resembles my old xp desktop :)
That avatar follows me everywhere, Rik. ;D
;D
It's eyes follow me everywhere.
Quote from: Inkblot on Mar 11, 2010, 08:01:42
I thought that as well but I changed mine back to the XP/Vista look with proper labels along the bottom on a single height taskbar rather than pictures on a dual height one, the other change is always make is icon size and position - I prefer them slightly smaller and close together so a few minutes tinkering and I now have something that resembles my old xp desktop :)
Now that sounds much better, I wasn't aware you could do so much customisation. I shall have a fiddle :thumb: :karma:
Quote from: zappaDPJ on Mar 11, 2010, 20:29:50
Now that sounds much better, I wasn't aware you could do so much customisation. I shall have a fiddle :thumb: :karma:
Thanks :)
Taskbar is easy - right-click it and look at properties and then select the 'use small icons' checkbox and the 'Combine when taskbar is full' option for the 'taskbar buttons'. Don't think I did anything else but even if I did it's all in those menus!
Desktop icons are trickier to find but one way is to right-click the desktop and select 'personalize' (Bloody American spellings) and right at the bottom of the window are the settings for the current theme - 2nd button in is 'Window Color' (Another American spelling). Select this and then pick 'Icon Spacing (Horizontal)' or indeed any other setting to be able to play around with it - I go for 30 for both Horizontal and Vertical on the Icon spacing but then I do have fairly small icons to start with :)