A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Storage & Hardrives
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Loses data when PC shuts down



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 5th 06, 07:22 AM posted to alt.backup-software,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.arch.storage,comp.periphs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loses data when PC shuts down

Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
LOL. WinXP is like a slug compared to 9x, you have
performance quite backwards.


On adequate hardware (256MB RAM and up), XP is faster. Yes, 9x can run on 64MB,
where XP cannot, but on adequate hardware it is not an issue.

Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there
is no reason to shun it.


I see the person who has absolutely stupid issues with the commodity hardware,
which runs fine on modern OSes.

In such a situation, I can really recommend the OS upgrade, and running the
legacy app with a legacy Win9x OS in Virtual PC sandbox. This seems to be the
easiest way of solving her problems with the USB harddisk.


I understand how you are looking at this Maxim. It isn't that simple
though. I've never used MS Virtual PC so I can't say anything about
that. But, I do use System Commander. I need to run Win98 on one PC
because of software that will not run on NT, 2000 or XP. I have tried
putting Win98 and another OS on that PC and that causes problems. The
software I use on 98 has problems with another OS using System
Commander. I'm not an expert on the problem but I'll try to explain
what I know of it. The software has layer problems unless everything
runs a certain way. When I add another OS, many problems start. The
software really doesn't mesh well when I add another OS with System
Commander. I don't know if I'd have the same problems with MS Virtual
PC. It's worth a try though.

The drive isn't USB, although it could be. I am using it with a
firewire card.

Christine

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation

http://www.storagecraft.com


  #22  
Old March 5th 06, 07:24 AM posted to alt.backup-software,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.arch.storage,comp.periphs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loses data when PC shuts down

kony wrote:
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:14:25 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
wrote:

LOL. WinXP is like a slug compared to 9x, you have
performance quite backwards.


On adequate hardware (256MB RAM and up), XP is faster. Yes, 9x can run on 64MB,
where XP cannot, but on adequate hardware it is not an issue.


Nope. The obviousness of XP being slower is more easily
revealed on old hardware, because taking 2-3X as long means
larger fractions of a second wait in turn, but even so it's
still slower on brand new systems. You are correct that
memory is an issue, but one can in fact put 256MB on a
fairly old system (something just new enough to cache the
entire amount) and still see the problem. Any way you look
at it, doing same task and having to juggle around 256MB of
code just takes longer on ALL systems.




Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there
is no reason to shun it.


I see the person who has absolutely stupid issues with the commodity hardware,
which runs fine on modern OSes.


Perhaps. The decision can be taken on a case by case basis.
Remeber it is not a question of "what OS to buy today",
rather one with Win98 is presumed to already have it,
probably even have it running on any given system. The
remaining issue is only whether it suits their needs which
it may NOT do, but for some it does.



In such a situation, I can really recommend the OS upgrade, and running the
legacy app with a legacy Win9x OS in Virtual PC sandbox. This seems to be the
easiest way of solving her problems with the USB harddisk.


Easy?

$100 minimum expense, maybe more (like upgrading hardware
not supported with XP drivers, possible memory needs).
Several hours installing OS, drivers, user preferences,
apps, transferring data, testing the legacy app, etc.

Relatively speaking, there are certainly harder things in
life but so far as PCs go, that's not the easiest way to do
anything.


Those are good points Kony. Also, there are other factors. The software
I need to use will only work with Win98. My younger brother uses the
same software and there are other issues there too. That's a long
story. In brief, he can't go to XP for other reasons besides. I don't
get to visit him often but I know the issues he has.

Also, if the patches hold up, maybe that's all that will be needed.
But, I do want to partition and get the PCI controller card to be safe.

Christine

  #23  
Old March 5th 06, 06:20 PM posted to alt.backup-software,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.arch.storage,comp.periphs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loses data when PC shuts down

Thanks for the suggestion Maxim. That's an idea worth trying. But, why
do you suggest MS Virtual PC instead of System Commander 8 by Vcom?


MS Virtual PC is more comparable to VMWare (direct competitor), while System
Commander is IIRC the "boot manager", which allows you to choose among one of
the OSes to boot.

VPC and VMWare are virtual machines - they allow you to run Win98 in a window
under WinXP.

It's good that MS Virtual PC has a 45 day trial period. In the long
run, is it worth the price?


Good product, and improves each version. For some tasks like Windows NT
kernel-mode debugging, VMWare is better, but VPC is good and fast.

You can try it and decide whether it deserves payment.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation

http://www.storagecraft.com

  #24  
Old March 5th 06, 06:21 PM posted to alt.backup-software,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.arch.storage,comp.periphs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loses data when PC shuts down

better use of large amounts of hardware. So it runs more slowly than
9x on small systems, but it runs faster than 9x on large systems.


This is my experience too. On smaller RAM size, 9x is faster due to lesser
amount of always-loaded OS components. On larger RAM size, NT family is faster
due to better cache management.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation

http://www.storagecraft.com

  #25  
Old March 5th 06, 06:22 PM posted to alt.backup-software,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.arch.storage,comp.periphs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loses data when PC shuts down

Those are good points Kony. Also, there are other factors. The software
I need to use will only work with Win98.


What is the software? Is it some old game with very "interesting" soundcard
requirements?

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation

http://www.storagecraft.com

  #26  
Old March 5th 06, 06:24 PM posted to alt.backup-software,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.arch.storage,comp.periphs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loses data when PC shuts down

that. But, I do use System Commander. I need to run Win98 on one PC

No, VPC is another thing. It will allow you to run Win9x in a window under
Win2000 or WinXP.

The drive isn't USB, although it could be. I am using it with a
firewire card.


Such devices usually have both USB and firewire connector. In my measurements,
1394 is a bit faster - 27 MB/s vs. 20.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation

http://www.storagecraft.com

  #27  
Old March 5th 06, 06:31 PM posted to alt.backup-software,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.arch.storage,comp.periphs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loses data when PC shuts down

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:20:28 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

kony writes:

Nope. The obviousness of XP being slower is more easily
revealed on old hardware, because taking 2-3X as long means
larger fractions of a second wait in turn, but even so it's
still slower on brand new systems.


Not necessarily. Like all operating systems in the NT family, XP has
a higher minimum hardware requirement.


That requirement is for the purpose of keeping it fast
enough, because MS KNOWS it runs slower. They could have
easily written for the requirement, "Pentium 1, 128MB of
memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying
faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for
the purposes of speed issuse.


However, it also makes much
better use of large amounts of hardware. So it runs more slowly than
9x on small systems, but it runs faster than 9x on large systems.


No. Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"? It
runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even with all
the eyecandy and much of the default services disabled.


  #28  
Old March 5th 06, 06:34 PM posted to alt.backup-software,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.arch.storage,comp.periphs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loses data when PC shuts down

No. Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"? It
runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even


I did this. Slow, very slow on heavy file operations like subtree copy.

Surely I compare XP on FAT and Win98 on FAT - NTFS is slow, this is a known
fact.

--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation

http://www.storagecraft.com

  #29  
Old March 5th 06, 07:08 PM posted to alt.backup-software,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.arch.storage,comp.periphs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loses data when PC shuts down

kony writes:

That requirement is for the purpose of keeping it fast
enough, because MS KNOWS it runs slower.


There's no conspiracy here. Windows NT and its successors represent a
far more complex (and technically superior) operating system than the
modified MS-DOS environment of Windows 9x. The architecture is
superior and the code is written better, and so the NT-based operating
systems perform better on large configurations. However, the greater
complexity of the OS also imposes a larger minimum hardware
requirement.

This is why NT was slow to catch on initially: hardware platforms at
the time of its introduction were just barely sufficient to run it
(although today they would be considered very small). Today's
hardware can run NT and its successors easily.

Later versions of the operating system have fallen victim to software
bloat, as all software does, but the above remains true.

They could have easily written for the requirement, "Pentium 1,
128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying
faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for
the purposes of speed issuse.


NT will indeed run on that configuration. XP won't because that's not
enough disk space, as I recall. XP should run on a first-generation
Pentium in 128 MB, though--NT sure did, and XP is just a bloated
version of NT.

No. Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"?


Yes, I have, and it runs faster than it runs on small systems.
Unfortunately it doesn't know what to do with all that hardware, and
it is easily crippled by heavy workloads that have no effect at all on
NT-based systems running on the same hardware.

MS-DOS runs even faster than 9x on large systems, but it's also even
more useless. Both operating systems waste hardware on large
configurations. If you want to make optimal use of a large
configuration, you must run something based on NT: NT, 200x, or XP.
Or you can run UNIX.

It runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even with all
the eyecandy and much of the default services disabled.


Try it with 100 applications running at 50 MB each and see how well it
runs. And watch to see how long it runs before it crashes. You'll
find that 9x is a poor choice for large machines running under heavy
loads.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
  #30  
Old March 5th 06, 07:09 PM posted to alt.backup-software,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.arch.storage,comp.periphs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Loses data when PC shuts down

Maxim S. Shatskih writes:

I did this. Slow, very slow on heavy file operations like subtree copy.


Windows 9x doesn't support NTFS, which is vastly superior to FAT.

Surely I compare XP on FAT and Win98 on FAT - NTFS is slow, this is a known
fact.


NTFS runs well on extremely large systems. FAT runs poorly or not at
all.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hard Drive Partitioning JayD Storage (alternative) 29 September 17th 05 02:02 PM
Be a Smart Worker - Projects Available - Data Entry Data Network Forum Storage & Hardrives 0 November 13th 04 07:31 AM
my new mobo o/c's great rockerrock Overclocking AMD Processors 9 June 30th 04 08:17 PM
Sata and Data Corruption Robert Neville Storage (alternative) 27 May 8th 04 06:20 PM
help with motherboard choice S.Boardman Overclocking AMD Processors 30 October 20th 03 10:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.