Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Freeware that will split large picture databases into DVD-sized portions for burning?
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Brian Hofflinger
Dec 31, 2012, 8:46:03 PM12/31/12
to
Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories of
directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
backup onto DVD media.
How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
manually?
MORE INFORMATION:
I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
up.
I can MANUALLY size an arrangement of directories to something less than
4.7 GB, then MOVE that selection to a spot, and then BURN them. After
burning them, I then move them elsewhere, and work on the next set of
file-intensive directories.
(Note: Without moving back and forth, things get confusing really fast.)
All this sizing, arranging, moving, burning, and moving on is tedious.
QUESTION:
Is there freeware out there that can burn an entire collection to
multiple independent DVD disks?
NOTE: A bigger disk isn't a solution (I've been doing that for years).
directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
backup onto DVD media.
How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
manually?
MORE INFORMATION:
I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
up.
I can MANUALLY size an arrangement of directories to something less than
4.7 GB, then MOVE that selection to a spot, and then BURN them. After
burning them, I then move them elsewhere, and work on the next set of
file-intensive directories.
(Note: Without moving back and forth, things get confusing really fast.)
All this sizing, arranging, moving, burning, and moving on is tedious.
QUESTION:
Is there freeware out there that can burn an entire collection to
multiple independent DVD disks?
NOTE: A bigger disk isn't a solution (I've been doing that for years).
Savageduck
Dec 31, 2012, 9:57:54 PM12/31/12
to
On 2012-12-31 17:46:03 -0800, Brian Hofflinger <bhoff...@xxx.com> said:
> Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories of
> directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
> backup onto DVD media.
Why would you want to back up to DVD, single layer(4.7GB)/double
> Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories of
> directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
> backup onto DVD media.
layer(8.5GB) or even Blu-Ray (SL 25GB/DL 50GB) today. It is far more
economical and efficient to have a backup RAID. If not a RAID have two
1TB HDD drives in rotation maintaining mirror images on each. One of
these can be secured off site.
For the price of 110 single layer DVD's I can buy a 1TB HDD. That way I
have a much simpler back up protocol, I don't have to burn 4.7GB at a
time, I don't have to worry about burning "coasters". When importing
with Lightroom, I can use the backup HDD as a secondary location to
write a backup as I import.
> How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
> manually?
I import to Lightroom converting NEF files to DNG. I also copy the RAW
NEF files to an organized directory/folder on my desktop HD.
The one parent directory/folder contains sub directories/folders for
each of my cameras which have produced digital image files. Each of
those in turn, have a sub-folder for each year of operation, and each
annual folder has twelve month sub-folders.
Currently my desktop parent folder has 447GB of image data.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_99.jpg >
I have a 1TB external HDD which has a duplicate of this folder. Along
with that I also have a 1TB PogoPlug device which gives me an
additional level of redundancy with my personal cloud server.
...and as the 1TB HDD's become congested, I have a 3GB RAID which
secures my entire archive and is built as I work.
So, the first layer of contents in the parent folder looks like this:
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_96.jpg >
Going to the D300S folder, this is what you would find:
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_100.jpg >
...and 2012 would contain these:
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_98.jpg >
> MORE INFORMATION:
> I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
never revisit.
> The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
> It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
> up.
> I can MANUALLY size an arrangement of directories to something less than
> 4.7 GB, then MOVE that selection to a spot, and then BURN them. After
> burning them, I then move them elsewhere, and work on the next set of
> file-intensive directories.
> (Note: Without moving back and forth, things get confusing really fast.)
>
> All this sizing, arranging, moving, burning, and moving on is tedious.
> QUESTION:
> Is there freeware out there that can burn an entire collection to
> multiple independent DVD disks?
> NOTE: A bigger disk isn't a solution (I've been doing that for years).
discs, but it is easier to set up an automated redundant backup
protocol with HDDs. Combine that with some of the tools I have
available ( I am a Mac user, Windows users will have some other means
of achieving this) I use "Carbon Copy Cloner" which among other things
can copy and create boot discs.
Primarily, it permits me to schedule a backup of specific
directories/folder, and that does an incremental backup, only adding
those files which have been added to the parent folder, rather than
overwriting the entire directory.
Life is qiute simple and I don't have to spend interminable hours
burning DVD's which would then create a storage problem. Not to mention
worrying ten years down the road that my entire backup effort had
failed because of media failures.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
Dec 31, 2012, 10:22:29 PM12/31/12
to
In article <kbtf4r$p58$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger
dvds are old school and they're a royal pain in the ass. plus with the
size of raw files these days, they don't hold much.
> How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
> manually?
by using software designed to back up, i.e., cloning software. click a
button and a few minutes later, it's done. there's absolutely no need
to move anything at all.
> MORE INFORMATION:
> I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
videos are going to take up even more space than photos do which means
dvds are *not* the solution.
> The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
> It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
> up.
>
> I can MANUALLY size an arrangement of directories to something less than
> 4.7 GB, then MOVE that selection to a spot, and then BURN them. After
> burning them, I then move them elsewhere, and work on the next set of
> file-intensive directories.
>
> (Note: Without moving back and forth, things get confusing really fast.)
>
> All this sizing, arranging, moving, burning, and moving on is tedious.
why are you doing the work the computer can easily do without getting
tired or confused?
the computer is there to do work *for* you, not the other way around.
> QUESTION:
> Is there freeware out there that can burn an entire collection to
> multiple independent DVD disks?
roxio toast, but it's a stupid idea to even consider.
> NOTE: A bigger disk isn't a solution (I've been doing that for years).
it's certainly a much better solution than managing hundreds, perhaps
thousands of dvds.
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
> Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories of
> directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
> backup onto DVD media.
no, definitely not everyone.
> Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories of
> directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
> backup onto DVD media.
dvds are old school and they're a royal pain in the ass. plus with the
size of raw files these days, they don't hold much.
> How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
> manually?
button and a few minutes later, it's done. there's absolutely no need
to move anything at all.
> MORE INFORMATION:
> I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
dvds are *not* the solution.
> The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
> It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
> up.
>
> I can MANUALLY size an arrangement of directories to something less than
> 4.7 GB, then MOVE that selection to a spot, and then BURN them. After
> burning them, I then move them elsewhere, and work on the next set of
> file-intensive directories.
>
> (Note: Without moving back and forth, things get confusing really fast.)
>
> All this sizing, arranging, moving, burning, and moving on is tedious.
tired or confused?
the computer is there to do work *for* you, not the other way around.
> QUESTION:
> Is there freeware out there that can burn an entire collection to
> multiple independent DVD disks?
> NOTE: A bigger disk isn't a solution (I've been doing that for years).
thousands of dvds.
Brian Hofflinger
Dec 31, 2012, 10:36:38 PM12/31/12
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:57:54 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
> Why would you want to back up to DVD
I'm an old man. Been burned many times.
> Why would you want to back up to DVD
I'm dead set against hard disk drives for backup.
It's only because I've lost a LOT of pictures due to
hard disks not only crashing - but the power supplies
going out and losing the proprietary power supplies, etc.
Disks are evil for storage.
DVDs don't need proprietary power supplies.
The problem is sizing a bunch of directories to
4.7GB. It's very slow constantly checking the sizes.
There 'must' be software out there to handle creating
independent 4.7GB directory sets for burning.
Wally
Dec 31, 2012, 10:52:34 PM12/31/12
to
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 03:36:38 +0000 (UTC), Brian Hofflinger
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:57:54 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> Why would you want to back up to DVD
>
>I'm an old man. Been burned many times.
>I'm dead set against hard disk drives for backup.
>
>It's only because I've lost a LOT of pictures due to
>hard disks not only crashing - but the power supplies
>going out and losing the proprietary power supplies, etc.
My hard drives last for years. And backup hard drives don't serve many
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:57:54 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> Why would you want to back up to DVD
>
>I'm an old man. Been burned many times.
>I'm dead set against hard disk drives for backup.
>
>It's only because I've lost a LOT of pictures due to
>hard disks not only crashing - but the power supplies
>going out and losing the proprietary power supplies, etc.
hours and last forever (almost). What are you doing to deserve such
bad luck?
W
Savageduck
Dec 31, 2012, 11:43:45 PM12/31/12
to
On 2012-12-31 19:36:38 -0800, Brian Hofflinger <bhoff...@xxx.com> said:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:57:54 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> Why would you want to back up to DVD
>
> I'm an old man.
Old, what do you call old? Most of the usual suspects in these photo
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:57:54 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> Why would you want to back up to DVD
>
> I'm an old man.
groups are not spring chickens. I am 64 in February, and many are older.
> Been burned many times.
> I'm dead set against hard disk drives for backup.
of various ages, brands and specifications for some 18 years. From
where I am sitting at this keyboard I count 7 portable Firewire HDD
drives of various capacities, two are connected to my desktop computer
via Firewire 800. I also see 3 firewire 800 RAID two of which are
connected to my desktop computer. Then there are three other older FW
HDD's currently not in use.
...and finally I have a 1TB SATA drive attached to my PogoPlug device.
Most importantly I have yet to experience a failure of any of any hard
disc I own.
> It's only because I've lost a LOT of pictures due to
> hard disks not only crashing - but the power supplies
> going out and losing the proprietary power supplies, etc.
If you used USB2/3 or Firewire portable drives you wouldn't have a
power supply to lose, they are bus-powered.
> Disks are evil for storage.
inanimate objects and therefore cannot be evil. All you are doing is
projecting your bias to an inanimate object, and in doing so you are
rejecting the most efficient and logical method to back up your mass of
files.
> DVDs don't need proprietary power supplies.
> The problem is sizing a bunch of directories to
> 4.7GB. It's very slow constantly checking the sizes.
has no guaranty of enduring over time, and there is no redundancy to
your method.
> There 'must' be software out there to handle creating
> independent 4.7GB directory sets for burning.
google is your friend.
I suggest you seriously reconsider your position on your desired method
of backup.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Wally
Jan 1, 2013, 12:48:20 AM1/1/13
to
to fit nicely into the DVDs, AFTER making recovery sets, because DVDs
are prone to suffer bad sectors, and those recovery sets will save
your data in a few years when the dyes in the DVDs start to fade.
W
nospam
Jan 1, 2013, 1:02:32 AM1/1/13
to
In article <kbtlk6$91d$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger
> I'm dead set against hard disk drives for backup.
suit yourself but that's *very* dumb.
> It's only because I've lost a LOT of pictures due to
> hard disks not only crashing - but the power supplies
> going out and losing the proprietary power supplies, etc.
don't buy crappy drives.
anyway, if you make backups you won't lose anything. that's the whole
*point* of backups. if one drive craps out, you have the photos on a
second and third drive, maybe more if the photos are really important.
also, the power supplies are standard. a given enclosure might have a
custom power adapter, but if that fails, replace the enclosure, not the
drive inside. the drive mechanism is almost guaranteed to be fine if
just the power supply fails.
or, look into cloud storage. let someone else worry about all that.
> Disks are evil for storage.
disks are actually very reliable, much more so than dvd.
plus, what happens if you want to retrieve a photo. which dvd is it on?
which dvd has the latest version of that photo? what if that dvd cannot
be read anymore? what if you want a bunch of photos and they're on a
bunch of different dvds? what a mess.
what happens if your house burns down or some other disaster and those
dvds are gone? are you going to have a *second* set of dvds somewhere
else too? even more of a mess.
and what happens when your computer no longer has a dvd drive, as is
the case with ultrabooks and some desktops? dvds are going the way of
the floppy.
> DVDs don't need proprietary power supplies.
neither do disk drives.
in fact, dvd drives use the *same* power supplies as hard drives,
+5/+12v (or just +5v for the portable drives).
> The problem is sizing a bunch of directories to
> 4.7GB. It's very slow constantly checking the sizes.
it's also a *complete* waste of time. that's the kind of thing a
computer should do *for* you, not you do for it.
> There 'must' be software out there to handle creating
> independent 4.7GB directory sets for burning.
roxio toast, but as i said, it's a really dumb way to go. you are
making *way* more work for yourself.
the proper way to do this is buy a couple of hard drives all the same
size and put all of your photos on one of the drives, using the others
for backup. everything will be in one place rather than scattered among
multiple drives and who knows how many folders. talk about an
organizational nightmare. how do you even find stuff?
manage your photos with something like lightroom. clone the drive as
often as you want to the other hard drives. ideally, you have at least
three copies at any given moment, one of which is off site somewhere in
case your house burns down or other disaster.
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
> > Why would you want to back up to DVD
>
> I'm an old man. Been burned many times.
how so?
> > Why would you want to back up to DVD
>
> I'm an old man. Been burned many times.
> I'm dead set against hard disk drives for backup.
> It's only because I've lost a LOT of pictures due to
> hard disks not only crashing - but the power supplies
> going out and losing the proprietary power supplies, etc.
anyway, if you make backups you won't lose anything. that's the whole
*point* of backups. if one drive craps out, you have the photos on a
second and third drive, maybe more if the photos are really important.
also, the power supplies are standard. a given enclosure might have a
custom power adapter, but if that fails, replace the enclosure, not the
drive inside. the drive mechanism is almost guaranteed to be fine if
just the power supply fails.
or, look into cloud storage. let someone else worry about all that.
> Disks are evil for storage.
plus, what happens if you want to retrieve a photo. which dvd is it on?
which dvd has the latest version of that photo? what if that dvd cannot
be read anymore? what if you want a bunch of photos and they're on a
bunch of different dvds? what a mess.
what happens if your house burns down or some other disaster and those
dvds are gone? are you going to have a *second* set of dvds somewhere
else too? even more of a mess.
and what happens when your computer no longer has a dvd drive, as is
the case with ultrabooks and some desktops? dvds are going the way of
the floppy.
> DVDs don't need proprietary power supplies.
in fact, dvd drives use the *same* power supplies as hard drives,
+5/+12v (or just +5v for the portable drives).
> The problem is sizing a bunch of directories to
> 4.7GB. It's very slow constantly checking the sizes.
computer should do *for* you, not you do for it.
> There 'must' be software out there to handle creating
> independent 4.7GB directory sets for burning.
making *way* more work for yourself.
the proper way to do this is buy a couple of hard drives all the same
size and put all of your photos on one of the drives, using the others
for backup. everything will be in one place rather than scattered among
multiple drives and who knows how many folders. talk about an
organizational nightmare. how do you even find stuff?
manage your photos with something like lightroom. clone the drive as
often as you want to the other hard drives. ideally, you have at least
three copies at any given moment, one of which is off site somewhere in
case your house burns down or other disaster.
Brian Hofflinger
Jan 1, 2013, 1:04:12 AM1/1/13
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:52:34 -0700, Wally wrote:
> What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
I'm an old man. Lost much data.
> What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
Over time, all electronics go kaput.
And, at the worst time.
You know the rule.
Brian Hofflinger
Jan 1, 2013, 1:07:35 AM1/1/13
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:43:45 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
> Then you are buying crappy drives. I have been buying and using drive
> of various ages, brands and specifications for some 18 years.
Well, we can argue all day about how much better your disk drives are
> Then you are buying crappy drives. I have been buying and using drive
> of various ages, brands and specifications for some 18 years.
than mine - but that won't get us any closer to the answer, will it?
In all respect, what I'm looking for is software that will automatically
do what I'm doing manually.
I'll keep looking through the answers - as I can't be the only one.
nospam
Jan 1, 2013, 1:27:30 AM1/1/13
to
In article <kbtu8s$oij$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger
then you want something simple, not something that makes more work for
yourself.
> Lost much data.
the only way you can lose data is if you didn't back it up.
if you were backing it up to dvds, then that's proof dvd backups are a
bad idea. it doesn't work.
> Over time, all electronics go kaput.
>
> And, at the worst time.
>
> You know the rule.
that's why you make backups.
then you want something simple, not something that makes more work for
yourself.
> Lost much data.
the only way you can lose data is if you didn't back it up.
if you were backing it up to dvds, then that's proof dvd backups are a
bad idea. it doesn't work.
> Over time, all electronics go kaput.
>
> And, at the worst time.
>
> You know the rule.
nospam
Jan 1, 2013, 1:27:33 AM1/1/13
to
In article <kbtuf7$oij$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger
very clear that you are either buying crappy drives or doing something
very, very wrong with them to cause them to fail so often.
drives are *very* reliable. there might be a bad batch once in a while
but certainly not an ongoing thing. that's why you have *multiple*
copies at any given moment. in the unlikely event a drive does fail,
you have backup drives.
> In all respect, what I'm looking for is software that will automatically
> do what I'm doing manually.
such software has already been mentioned as well as that it's a dumb
idea.
> I'll keep looking through the answers - as I can't be the only one.
yes you can easily be the only one. nobody wants the insanity you
describe.
there are *significantly* better ways to back up photos that are *much*
more reliable than burning stacks of dvds. how the hell do you even
find anything in those stacks?
do you even *have* a second set of dvds?? do you have anything off site
at all? and think of how much space that must take!!
with multiple hard drives and at least one off site, you are guaranteed
to not lose data unless *all* of the drives fail simultaneously,
something that is *extremely* unlikely to happen.
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
> > Then you are buying crappy drives. I have been buying and using drive
> > of various ages, brands and specifications for some 18 years.
>
> Well, we can argue all day about how much better your disk drives are
> than mine - but that won't get us any closer to the answer, will it?
given that almost nobody has as bad luck as you do with drives, it's
> > Then you are buying crappy drives. I have been buying and using drive
> > of various ages, brands and specifications for some 18 years.
>
> Well, we can argue all day about how much better your disk drives are
> than mine - but that won't get us any closer to the answer, will it?
very clear that you are either buying crappy drives or doing something
very, very wrong with them to cause them to fail so often.
drives are *very* reliable. there might be a bad batch once in a while
but certainly not an ongoing thing. that's why you have *multiple*
copies at any given moment. in the unlikely event a drive does fail,
you have backup drives.
> In all respect, what I'm looking for is software that will automatically
> do what I'm doing manually.
idea.
> I'll keep looking through the answers - as I can't be the only one.
describe.
there are *significantly* better ways to back up photos that are *much*
more reliable than burning stacks of dvds. how the hell do you even
find anything in those stacks?
do you even *have* a second set of dvds?? do you have anything off site
at all? and think of how much space that must take!!
with multiple hard drives and at least one off site, you are guaranteed
to not lose data unless *all* of the drives fail simultaneously,
something that is *extremely* unlikely to happen.
Brian Hofflinger
Jan 1, 2013, 1:29:13 AM1/1/13
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:43:45 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
> If you are using the HDD's how the Hell are you losing power supplies?
The older Western Digital 1T drives had proprietary (or DIN) connectors, well before
USB disk drives became common.
Over time, I learned my lesson, having bought 100MB USB drives when they first came out,
250MB, 500MB, 1TB, etc.
I agree. Buying any HDD with proprietary power supplies is crazy - but - as I said,
I'm an old man who has been there, and done that - and learned too many lessons to
repeat here.
Tony Cooper
Jan 1, 2013, 1:30:57 AM1/1/13
to
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:43:45 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>Then you are buying crappy drives. I have been buying and using drive
>of various ages, brands and specifications for some 18 years. From
>where I am sitting at this keyboard I count 7 portable Firewire HDD
>drives of various capacities, two are connected to my desktop computer
>via Firewire 800. I also see 3 firewire 800 RAID two of which are
>connected to my desktop computer. Then there are three other older FW
>HDD's currently not in use.
>...and finally I have a 1TB SATA drive attached to my PogoPlug device.
>Most importantly I have yet to experience a failure of any of any hard
>disc I own.
That brings up my major gripe about computer design. I just bought a
>Then you are buying crappy drives. I have been buying and using drive
>of various ages, brands and specifications for some 18 years. From
>where I am sitting at this keyboard I count 7 portable Firewire HDD
>drives of various capacities, two are connected to my desktop computer
>via Firewire 800. I also see 3 firewire 800 RAID two of which are
>connected to my desktop computer. Then there are three other older FW
>HDD's currently not in use.
>...and finally I have a 1TB SATA drive attached to my PogoPlug device.
>Most importantly I have yet to experience a failure of any of any hard
>disc I own.
new computer. It has four USB ports on the back and two USB ports on
the front. I have nine USB devices currently connected to computer
and also use a USB port for my card reader and a third external HD
that is portable. That means one of my USB ports connects to a D-Link
USB Hub that gives me seven more USB ports.
(I could use the card reader built into the computer but my physical
layout doesn't make that convenient)
The computer designers know that just about every device is going to
require a USB port, but they only give us six. Providing 12 would add
a few pennies to the cost, but they won't do that.
I won't even mention that tangled mess of wires that act like
coathangers and twist around themselves after I've gone to bed.
My printer can be set up as a wireless device, and I could use a
wireless keyboard, mouse, and trackball, but I don't. Except when I
have to move things around and fight the tangle, the wires don't
bother me.
--
Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
Brian Hofflinger
Jan 1, 2013, 1:43:39 AM1/1/13
to
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:02:32 -0500, nospam wrote:
>> There 'must' be software out there to handle creating
>> independent 4.7GB directory sets for burning.
>
> roxio toast, but as i said, it's a really dumb way to go. you are
> making *way* more work for yourself.
I hadn't realized Roxio Toast was Windows & Linux freeware.
>> There 'must' be software out there to handle creating
>> independent 4.7GB directory sets for burning.
>
> roxio toast, but as i said, it's a really dumb way to go. you are
> making *way* more work for yourself.
I thought all the Roxio stuff was payware.
I'll need to check it out to see if it does that you say it can.
Thanks.
Tony Cooper
Jan 1, 2013, 1:53:07 AM1/1/13
to
way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you
are. SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way.
nospam will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will
not let the computer do the work for you.
No matter that it's you doing the work and you prefer to do it the way
you're doing it.
I don't currently use Nero to burn disks, but it seems to me that Nero
used to allow you to load what you wanted to burn even if it was too
large a group of files to burn on one disk. Nero would then burn a
disk, stop and tell you to insert another disk, and continue until
everything was burned. This means you don't have to manually break up
the files into single disk groups.
Nero claims to "Span data efficiently across multiple CDs, DVDs and
Blu-ray Discs", and I think that's what you want to do.
Nero offers a free 15 day trial, so you can try it to see.
BTW...I back up with two external HDs and Lightroom back-up, but I'm
not interested in converting you.
nospam
Jan 1, 2013, 3:35:39 AM1/1/13
to
In article <kbtvnp$rcp$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger
first of all, 1tb drives are relatively recent and usb is not. usb hard
drives have been around for over ten years, back when 100 gig was
'large'. there were no 1tb drives then.
second, hard drives have standard connectors, usually scsi, parallel
ata (pata) or serial ata (sata). that's how you can buy a drive and
swap it into a computer or enclosure. it only needs to be the right
physical size (3.5", 2.5" or 1.8") and interface (pata/sata).
> Over time, I learned my lesson, having bought 100MB USB drives when they
> first came out, 250MB, 500MB, 1TB, etc.
what lesson was that?
that usb can't source enough power so you have to use a dual usb cable
hack or use an off the shelf 5v power adapter?
> I agree. Buying any HDD with proprietary power supplies is crazy
it most certainly is crazy, since that's bullshit.
hard drives do *not* have proprietary power supplies. period.
they use +5v/+12v for 3.5" and +5v for 2.5". they use a standard 4 pin
molex plug for older drives or a newer sata plug (or a combo for the
laptops).
hard drive *enclosures* may have custom power supplies but that's for
the enclosure and not the drive. if one enclosure craps out you buy a
new enclosure to replace it and swap the drive. or you replace the
power adapter which is probably an off the shelf part.
or get a raid5 enclosure with hot-swappable drives. that way, if a
drive fails you just pop it out and replace it with a new drive and the
raid rebuilds the array, *without* powering down. the only way you can
lose data is if you intentionally delete it or every single drive fails
all at the same time (usually 3 or more), which is *very* unlikely.
> - but - as I said,
> I'm an old man who has been there, and done that - and learned too many lessons to
> repeat here.
in other words, you are stubborn.
suit yourself but you are making a shitload more work for yourself with
absolutely no benefit whatsoever. you are almost guaranteed to lose
data going the dvd route, even if for some perverse reason you enjoy
the hassle. the point of backups is not to lose data but to prevent it.
meanwhile, if you have multiple hard drive copies with one or more off
site, you are almost guaranteed to *never* lose data, unless the planet
explodes or something of that magnitude.
or as i said, sync it all to the cloud and let someone else worry about
backups and redundancy.
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
> > If you are using the HDD's how the Hell are you losing power supplies?
>
> The older Western Digital 1T drives had proprietary (or DIN) connectors, well
> before USB disk drives became common.
no they didn't. do you just make this shit up as you go along or what?
> > If you are using the HDD's how the Hell are you losing power supplies?
>
> The older Western Digital 1T drives had proprietary (or DIN) connectors, well
> before USB disk drives became common.
first of all, 1tb drives are relatively recent and usb is not. usb hard
drives have been around for over ten years, back when 100 gig was
'large'. there were no 1tb drives then.
second, hard drives have standard connectors, usually scsi, parallel
ata (pata) or serial ata (sata). that's how you can buy a drive and
swap it into a computer or enclosure. it only needs to be the right
physical size (3.5", 2.5" or 1.8") and interface (pata/sata).
> Over time, I learned my lesson, having bought 100MB USB drives when they
> first came out, 250MB, 500MB, 1TB, etc.
that usb can't source enough power so you have to use a dual usb cable
hack or use an off the shelf 5v power adapter?
> I agree. Buying any HDD with proprietary power supplies is crazy
hard drives do *not* have proprietary power supplies. period.
they use +5v/+12v for 3.5" and +5v for 2.5". they use a standard 4 pin
molex plug for older drives or a newer sata plug (or a combo for the
laptops).
hard drive *enclosures* may have custom power supplies but that's for
the enclosure and not the drive. if one enclosure craps out you buy a
new enclosure to replace it and swap the drive. or you replace the
power adapter which is probably an off the shelf part.
or get a raid5 enclosure with hot-swappable drives. that way, if a
drive fails you just pop it out and replace it with a new drive and the
raid rebuilds the array, *without* powering down. the only way you can
lose data is if you intentionally delete it or every single drive fails
all at the same time (usually 3 or more), which is *very* unlikely.
> - but - as I said,
> I'm an old man who has been there, and done that - and learned too many lessons to
> repeat here.
suit yourself but you are making a shitload more work for yourself with
absolutely no benefit whatsoever. you are almost guaranteed to lose
data going the dvd route, even if for some perverse reason you enjoy
the hassle. the point of backups is not to lose data but to prevent it.
meanwhile, if you have multiple hard drive copies with one or more off
site, you are almost guaranteed to *never* lose data, unless the planet
explodes or something of that magnitude.
or as i said, sync it all to the cloud and let someone else worry about
backups and redundancy.
nospam
Jan 1, 2013, 3:35:42 AM1/1/13
to
In article <rjv4e8tfg324cqao4...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
ports. why pay for something that almost nobody will ever use? don't
force your needs onto everyone else.
what in the hell do you have connected that you need 12 usb ports
anyway?
for my laptop i regularly use 0 usb ports and for my desktops i
regularly use 3 at the most. 12 would be insanely wasteful.
> I won't even mention that tangled mess of wires that act like
> coathangers and twist around themselves after I've gone to bed.
cable clamps.
> My printer can be set up as a wireless device,
wired network is much better and more reliable too.
> and I could use a
> wireless keyboard, mouse, and trackball, but I don't.
i don't understand the obsession with wireless keyboards. replacing
batteries is annoying and it's not like you're going to walk around the
room with a keyboard or sit 20 feet away across the room and type.
> Except when I
> have to move things around and fight the tangle, the wires don't
> bother me.
other than that.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That brings up my major gripe about computer design. I just bought a
> new computer. It has four USB ports on the back and two USB ports on
> the front. I have nine USB devices currently connected to computer
> and also use a USB port for my card reader and a third external HD
> that is portable. That means one of my USB ports connects to a D-Link
> USB Hub that gives me seven more USB ports.
>
> (I could use the card reader built into the computer but my physical
> layout doesn't make that convenient)
>
> The computer designers know that just about every device is going to
> require a USB port, but they only give us six. Providing 12 would add
> a few pennies to the cost, but they won't do that.
they don't do that because most people don't need anywhere near 12 usb
> That brings up my major gripe about computer design. I just bought a
> new computer. It has four USB ports on the back and two USB ports on
> the front. I have nine USB devices currently connected to computer
> and also use a USB port for my card reader and a third external HD
> that is portable. That means one of my USB ports connects to a D-Link
> USB Hub that gives me seven more USB ports.
>
> (I could use the card reader built into the computer but my physical
> layout doesn't make that convenient)
>
> The computer designers know that just about every device is going to
> require a USB port, but they only give us six. Providing 12 would add
> a few pennies to the cost, but they won't do that.
ports. why pay for something that almost nobody will ever use? don't
force your needs onto everyone else.
what in the hell do you have connected that you need 12 usb ports
anyway?
for my laptop i regularly use 0 usb ports and for my desktops i
regularly use 3 at the most. 12 would be insanely wasteful.
> I won't even mention that tangled mess of wires that act like
> coathangers and twist around themselves after I've gone to bed.
> My printer can be set up as a wireless device,
> and I could use a
> wireless keyboard, mouse, and trackball, but I don't.
batteries is annoying and it's not like you're going to walk around the
room with a keyboard or sit 20 feet away across the room and type.
> Except when I
> have to move things around and fight the tangle, the wires don't
> bother me.
nospam
Jan 1, 2013, 3:35:44 AM1/1/13
to
In article <kbu0ir$rpd$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger
> I thought all the Roxio stuff was payware.
it is, and you get what you pay for.
doesn't ease of use matter to you? why are you trying to do things the
hard way?
you said you're an old man, so why do you want all these hassles? it's
time to have the computer do work *for* you so you can go out and spend
time with your kids and probably grandkids as well and enjoy yourself
and take more pics. let the computer do the micromanagement of your
photos and backups. that's what it's good at.
> I'll need to check it out to see if it does that you say it can.
the current version definitely does. i don't remember when they added
that feature though. could have been many years ago but it's there now.
i have been using toast since astarte launched the product over 15
years ago, before adaptec bought it and long before there even was a
roxio. excellent software.
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
> >> There 'must' be software out there to handle creating
> >> independent 4.7GB directory sets for burning.
> >
> > roxio toast, but as i said, it's a really dumb way to go. you are
> > making *way* more work for yourself.
>
> I hadn't realized Roxio Toast was Windows & Linux freeware.
it's not.
> >> There 'must' be software out there to handle creating
> >> independent 4.7GB directory sets for burning.
> >
> > roxio toast, but as i said, it's a really dumb way to go. you are
> > making *way* more work for yourself.
>
> I hadn't realized Roxio Toast was Windows & Linux freeware.
> I thought all the Roxio stuff was payware.
doesn't ease of use matter to you? why are you trying to do things the
hard way?
you said you're an old man, so why do you want all these hassles? it's
time to have the computer do work *for* you so you can go out and spend
time with your kids and probably grandkids as well and enjoy yourself
and take more pics. let the computer do the micromanagement of your
photos and backups. that's what it's good at.
> I'll need to check it out to see if it does that you say it can.
that feature though. could have been many years ago but it's there now.
i have been using toast since astarte launched the product over 15
years ago, before adaptec bought it and long before there even was a
roxio. excellent software.
nospam
Jan 1, 2013, 3:35:45 AM1/1/13
to
In article <1p05e8dqois2ibsc7...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
fortunately, there are others who realize that dvd backup is not a
backup at all and have pointed out just how much of a waste of time it
really is. yes, i may be blunt, but it's exactly correct.
not only is backing up to dvd significantly more work than other
methods, but it's far less reliable too. plus, i can't even imagine how
you can keep track of which photo is where.
dvd backup is a *really* bad idea, unless your goal is to lose data. if
so, then why even bother backing up at all. skip that entirely and save
both the time to do it and the expense of all the dvds.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you
> are. SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way.
> nospam will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will
> not let the computer do the work for you.
tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you
> are. SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way.
> nospam will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will
> not let the computer do the work for you.
long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
fortunately, there are others who realize that dvd backup is not a
backup at all and have pointed out just how much of a waste of time it
really is. yes, i may be blunt, but it's exactly correct.
not only is backing up to dvd significantly more work than other
methods, but it's far less reliable too. plus, i can't even imagine how
you can keep track of which photo is where.
dvd backup is a *really* bad idea, unless your goal is to lose data. if
so, then why even bother backing up at all. skip that entirely and save
both the time to do it and the expense of all the dvds.
Neil Ellwood
Jan 1, 2013, 6:45:17 AM1/1/13
to
making it a chore. I back up to dvd after downloading from the camera so
that I have copies of the Raw files to save. All final copies are backed
up to a usb drive that I can also that to my children (when asked by them)
so they may look at them.
--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.
Brian Hofflinger
Jan 1, 2013, 7:02:12 AM1/1/13
to
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:35:44 -0500, nospam wrote:
>> I hadn't realized Roxio Toast was Windows & Linux freeware.
> it's not.
>
>> I thought all the Roxio stuff was payware.
> it is, and you get what you pay for.
>
> doesn't ease of use matter to you?
> why are you trying to do things the hard way?
To answer your questions, ease of use does matter.
>> I hadn't realized Roxio Toast was Windows & Linux freeware.
> it's not.
>
>> I thought all the Roxio stuff was payware.
> it is, and you get what you pay for.
>
> doesn't ease of use matter to you?
> why are you trying to do things the hard way?
That's why I'm looking for a pre-existing solution for creating DVDs.
(I've already explained why I vastly prefer DVDs over electronics.)
The reason I'm looking for freeware is that, IMHO, freeware almost always
does the job that needs to be done - and - in the rare cases where it
doesn't do the job fully - then (and only then) you can go out and buy
the payware.
The beauty of using the freeware first is that, by the time you realize
the freeware doesn't do the job (which is a rarity in and of itself),
then you know enough to know EXACTLY what you want out of the payware.
In those case, 8 times out of 10, the payware doesn't do the job either!
Brian Hofflinger
Jan 1, 2013, 7:05:46 AM1/1/13
to
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:35:39 -0500, nospam wrote:
> hard drive *enclosures* may have custom power supplies but that's for
> the enclosure and not the drive.
This.
> hard drive *enclosures* may have custom power supplies but that's for
> the enclosure and not the drive.
Savageduck
Jan 1, 2013, 8:54:18 AM1/1/13
to
On 2012-12-31 22:29:13 -0800, Brian Hofflinger <bhoff...@xxx.com> said:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:43:45 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> If you are using the HDD's how the Hell are you losing power supplies?
>
> The older Western Digital 1T drives had proprietary (or DIN)
> connectors, well before
> USB disk drives became common.
So?
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:43:45 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> If you are using the HDD's how the Hell are you losing power supplies?
>
> The older Western Digital 1T drives had proprietary (or DIN)
> connectors, well before
> USB disk drives became common.
I have three LaCie enclosures which have proprietary connectors for
their power supplies. For some strange reason I have yet to lose any of
those power supplies. Nice solid enclosures, but I concede, the power
supply connection was somewhat odd and non-standard.
...and most importantly in my case, the power supplies are not lost.
> Over time, I learned my lesson, having bought 100MB USB drives when
> they first came out,
> 250MB, 500MB, 1TB, etc.
160GB, 320GB, 500GB, 1TB, 1.5TB and then 3 and 4TB RAIDs. All function.
> I agree. Buying any HDD with proprietary power supplies is crazy - but
> - as I said,
> I'm an old man who has been there, and done that - and learned too many
> lessons to
> repeat here.
our fair share of ancients here. The handful of regular youngsters are
in their late 40's & 50's, then we have a bunch in their mid-60's, 70's
and a few octogenarians.
Exactly how old are you, that you feel entitled to use age as an alibi
for employing an unsound backup protocol?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
Jan 1, 2013, 12:57:10 PM1/1/13
to
In article <kbujeq$39i$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger
a standard ac cord just like a computer, or get an enclosure that uses
a normal +12v barrel plug rather than some weird multi-pin plug.
not that it matters because you can buy replacement adapters even if
they have multiple pins, or worst case, replace the enclosure.
anyway, in the unlikely event the power supply fails, the data on the
hard drive will be fine. you haven't lost data like you claimed you
did.
and what happens if the power supply for the dvd drive fails? dvd
enclosures frequently use the very same power adapters, with the
multiple pin plugs.
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
> > hard drive *enclosures* may have custom power supplies but that's for
> > the enclosure and not the drive.
>
> This.
then buy an enclosure that either has a built in power supply and takes
> > hard drive *enclosures* may have custom power supplies but that's for
> > the enclosure and not the drive.
>
> This.
a standard ac cord just like a computer, or get an enclosure that uses
a normal +12v barrel plug rather than some weird multi-pin plug.
not that it matters because you can buy replacement adapters even if
they have multiple pins, or worst case, replace the enclosure.
anyway, in the unlikely event the power supply fails, the data on the
hard drive will be fine. you haven't lost data like you claimed you
did.
and what happens if the power supply for the dvd drive fails? dvd
enclosures frequently use the very same power adapters, with the
multiple pin plugs.
nospam
Jan 1, 2013, 12:57:12 PM1/1/13
to
In article <201301010554186752-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
adapters (you don't need all three drives powered on at the same time
if they're backups), and you can no doubt order a new adapter anyway.
or worst case, you get a new enclosure and swap the drives.
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> If you are using the HDD's how the Hell are you losing power supplies?
> >
> > The older Western Digital 1T drives had proprietary (or DIN)
> > connectors, well before
> > USB disk drives became common.
>
> So?
> I have three LaCie enclosures which have proprietary connectors for
> their power supplies. For some strange reason I have yet to lose any of
> those power supplies. Nice solid enclosures, but I concede, the power
> supply connection was somewhat odd and non-standard.
> ...and most importantly in my case, the power supplies are not lost.
and in the unlikely event one does fail, you already have two spare
> >> If you are using the HDD's how the Hell are you losing power supplies?
> >
> > The older Western Digital 1T drives had proprietary (or DIN)
> > connectors, well before
> > USB disk drives became common.
>
> So?
> I have three LaCie enclosures which have proprietary connectors for
> their power supplies. For some strange reason I have yet to lose any of
> those power supplies. Nice solid enclosures, but I concede, the power
> supply connection was somewhat odd and non-standard.
> ...and most importantly in my case, the power supplies are not lost.
adapters (you don't need all three drives powered on at the same time
if they're backups), and you can no doubt order a new adapter anyway.
or worst case, you get a new enclosure and swap the drives.
nospam
Jan 1, 2013, 12:57:15 PM1/1/13
to
In article <kbuj84$39i$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger
> That's why I'm looking for a pre-existing solution for creating DVDs.
> (I've already explained why I vastly prefer DVDs over electronics.)
and others have explained why that's incredibly stupid but here it is
again:
you mentioned a 1 terabyte drive, which would be around 250 dvds (you
won't get a perfect 4.3 gig for every disc). you will also need at
least two backups to be safe, with one copy off site in case of fire,
flood, theft, etc., so that's 500 dvds.
that's a lot of dvds. where are you going to put them all? how are you
going to find anything in there?
if you update any of those photos on the hard drive, you will have to
either burn everything all over again or figure out which dvds contain
the photos that changed and update those dvds. if you make a mistake
(which is incredibly likely with 500 dvds), you will lose files.
as i and others have said, a much better way is buy a second terabyte
hard drive (and third for the offsite copy), clone it and you're done.
any time there's a change you clone it again. the subsequent clones
take a minute or two because it only copies what changes (and the
computer figures that out).
leave the offsite drive at work, at a friend's house or even in a bank
vault. rotate that every couple of weeks or whatever is appropriate for
how often you add/change photos.
and you should be backing up the rest of your files too, not just
photos. certainly you have other important data as well.
> The reason I'm looking for freeware is that, IMHO, freeware almost always
> does the job that needs to be done - and - in the rare cases where it
> doesn't do the job fully - then (and only then) you can go out and buy
> the payware.
there are exceptions, but freeware tends to not do the job particularly
well. there is little incentive for the authors to make freeware better
than the bare minimum. free software doesn't put food on people's
tables. there is no freeware that comes anywhere close to what toast
does, or photoshop or many other software titles.
> The beauty of using the freeware first is that, by the time you realize
> the freeware doesn't do the job (which is a rarity in and of itself),
> then you know enough to know EXACTLY what you want out of the payware.
that excuse does not hold any water.
nearly everything these days has a free downloadable trial. you don't
have to pay unless you are sure it does what you need.
> In those case, 8 times out of 10, the payware doesn't do the job either!
how are you picking software? throwing darts at the wall with names on
it?
either the web site where you get the software says it does what you
need or you download a trial copy and find out yourself.
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
> > doesn't ease of use matter to you?
> > why are you trying to do things the hard way?
>
> To answer your questions, ease of use does matter.
then why are you picking the most difficult method possible?
> > doesn't ease of use matter to you?
> > why are you trying to do things the hard way?
>
> To answer your questions, ease of use does matter.
> That's why I'm looking for a pre-existing solution for creating DVDs.
> (I've already explained why I vastly prefer DVDs over electronics.)
again:
you mentioned a 1 terabyte drive, which would be around 250 dvds (you
won't get a perfect 4.3 gig for every disc). you will also need at
least two backups to be safe, with one copy off site in case of fire,
flood, theft, etc., so that's 500 dvds.
that's a lot of dvds. where are you going to put them all? how are you
going to find anything in there?
if you update any of those photos on the hard drive, you will have to
either burn everything all over again or figure out which dvds contain
the photos that changed and update those dvds. if you make a mistake
(which is incredibly likely with 500 dvds), you will lose files.
as i and others have said, a much better way is buy a second terabyte
hard drive (and third for the offsite copy), clone it and you're done.
any time there's a change you clone it again. the subsequent clones
take a minute or two because it only copies what changes (and the
computer figures that out).
leave the offsite drive at work, at a friend's house or even in a bank
vault. rotate that every couple of weeks or whatever is appropriate for
how often you add/change photos.
and you should be backing up the rest of your files too, not just
photos. certainly you have other important data as well.
> The reason I'm looking for freeware is that, IMHO, freeware almost always
> does the job that needs to be done - and - in the rare cases where it
> doesn't do the job fully - then (and only then) you can go out and buy
> the payware.
well. there is little incentive for the authors to make freeware better
than the bare minimum. free software doesn't put food on people's
tables. there is no freeware that comes anywhere close to what toast
does, or photoshop or many other software titles.
> The beauty of using the freeware first is that, by the time you realize
> the freeware doesn't do the job (which is a rarity in and of itself),
> then you know enough to know EXACTLY what you want out of the payware.
nearly everything these days has a free downloadable trial. you don't
have to pay unless you are sure it does what you need.
> In those case, 8 times out of 10, the payware doesn't do the job either!
it?
either the web site where you get the software says it does what you
need or you download a trial copy and find out yourself.
Eric Stevens
Jan 1, 2013, 5:02:18 PM1/1/13
to
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:35:39 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <kbtvnp$rcp$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger
><bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>> > If you are using the HDD's how the Hell are you losing power supplies?
>>
>> The older Western Digital 1T drives had proprietary (or DIN) connectors, well
>> before USB disk drives became common.
>
>no they didn't. do you just make this shit up as you go along or what?
>
>first of all, 1tb drives are relatively recent and usb is not. usb hard
>drives have been around for over ten years, back when 100 gig was
>'large'. there were no 1tb drives then.
>
>second, hard drives have standard connectors, usually scsi, parallel
>ata (pata) or serial ata (sata). that's how you can buy a drive and
>swap it into a computer or enclosure. it only needs to be the right
>physical size (3.5", 2.5" or 1.8") and interface (pata/sata).
>
>> Over time, I learned my lesson, having bought 100MB USB drives when they
>> first came out, 250MB, 500MB, 1TB, etc.
>
>what lesson was that?
>
>that usb can't source enough power so you have to use a dual usb cable
>hack or use an off the shelf 5v power adapter?
>
>> I agree. Buying any HDD with proprietary power supplies is crazy
>
>it most certainly is crazy, since that's bullshit.
>
>hard drives do *not* have proprietary power supplies. period.
External HDDs most certainly do and unreliable it is they can be too.
I've gone through two Seagates and am now relying on a Samsung which
(touch wood) seems to be outlasting the other two combined.
I have two computers on a network, one of which has a 2TB external
drive. I back up image files from A to B and from B to A. Both A and B
are backed up to the external drive.
I don't have to do anything myself. All the backups are automatic
using Second Copy http://www.secondcopy.com The computers are
physically separated so I will only lose everything if something wipes
the whole property clean.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <kbtvnp$rcp$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger
><bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
>
>> > If you are using the HDD's how the Hell are you losing power supplies?
>>
>> The older Western Digital 1T drives had proprietary (or DIN) connectors, well
>> before USB disk drives became common.
>
>no they didn't. do you just make this shit up as you go along or what?
>
>first of all, 1tb drives are relatively recent and usb is not. usb hard
>drives have been around for over ten years, back when 100 gig was
>'large'. there were no 1tb drives then.
>
>second, hard drives have standard connectors, usually scsi, parallel
>ata (pata) or serial ata (sata). that's how you can buy a drive and
>swap it into a computer or enclosure. it only needs to be the right
>physical size (3.5", 2.5" or 1.8") and interface (pata/sata).
>
>> Over time, I learned my lesson, having bought 100MB USB drives when they
>> first came out, 250MB, 500MB, 1TB, etc.
>
>what lesson was that?
>
>that usb can't source enough power so you have to use a dual usb cable
>hack or use an off the shelf 5v power adapter?
>
>> I agree. Buying any HDD with proprietary power supplies is crazy
>
>it most certainly is crazy, since that's bullshit.
>
>hard drives do *not* have proprietary power supplies. period.
I've gone through two Seagates and am now relying on a Samsung which
(touch wood) seems to be outlasting the other two combined.
drive. I back up image files from A to B and from B to A. Both A and B
are backed up to the external drive.
I don't have to do anything myself. All the backups are automatic
using Second Copy http://www.secondcopy.com The computers are
physically separated so I will only lose everything if something wipes
the whole property clean.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Yuhler G
Jan 1, 2013, 5:10:33 PM1/1/13
to
On article <kbtf4r$p58$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Brian Hofflinger wrote:
>
> Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories of
> directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
> backup onto DVD media.
>
> How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
> manually?
>
> MORE INFORMATION:
> I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
>
> The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
> It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
> up.
>
> I can MANUALLY size an arrangement of directories to something less than
> 4.7 GB, then MOVE that selection to a spot, and then BURN them. After
> burning them, I then move them elsewhere, and work on the next set of
> file-intensive directories.
>
> (Note: Without moving back and forth, things get confusing really fast.)
>
> All this sizing, arranging, moving, burning, and moving on is tedious.
>
> QUESTION:
> Is there freeware out there that can burn an entire collection to
> multiple independent DVD disks?
>
> NOTE: A bigger disk isn't a solution (I've been doing that for years).
I'd try Cobian Backup <http://www.cobiansoft.com/> though you'd need a burning
software like ImgBurn <http://www.imgburn.com/>. This process can be automated
by Cobian Backup post backup process.
--
Best,
Yuhler G.
Please, reply preferably to the list.
Reply-To: yuhler at gmail dot com
Due to spam I'm filtering-out GoogleGroups. Sorry. :(
DanP
Jan 2, 2013, 6:41:58 AM1/2/13
to
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:46:03 +0000, Brian Hofflinger wrote:
> Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories
> of directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections
> for backup onto DVD media.
>
> How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
> manually?
>
> MORE INFORMATION:
> I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
>
> The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
> It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
> up.
Burning 100 DVD at once is a PITA. Keeping track of them is another PITA.
> Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories
> of directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections
> for backup onto DVD media.
>
> How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
> manually?
>
> MORE INFORMATION:
> I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
>
> The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
> It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
> up.
Buy portable USB HDDs, if you are lucky to have USB 3 on your computer
get USB 3 HDDs and do it in one go.
You can do it with regular 3.5" HDDs through a bay adaptor.
Backup to 2 units and keep them at different locations.
Get a NAS RAID unit and have your data accessible all the time, some
units allow up to 12Tb. Just don't think of it as a reliable backup.
DanP
DanP
Jan 2, 2013, 7:20:41 AM1/2/13
to
They would not be used much therefore failure risk would be low.
If you are still concerned get 3 brands. Or get slow cheap 32GB SD cards.
I bet your data loss happened because your HDD inside your computer
failed. Well, some do after a number of years. USB HDDs would see
something like a month of running time.
Besides imagine how you would retrieve data from DVDs.
DanP
DanP
Jan 2, 2013, 8:04:01 AM1/2/13
to
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:35:45 -0500, nospam wrote:
> In article <1p05e8dqois2ibsc7...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
>> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
>> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
>> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
>> the computer do the work for you.
>
> tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
> long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
> In article <1p05e8dqois2ibsc7...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
>> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
>> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
>> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
>> the computer do the work for you.
>
> tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
> long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
If you care if he loses his data you have to get your point across and
antagonising will never help.
DanP
Savageduck
Jan 2, 2013, 9:49:09 AM1/2/13
to
data, it is Brian's outright rejection of good advice, given in the
various expressions of sincerity each of us have been able to muster.
Right or wrong, I try to give whatever advice I can in good faith, and
all I ask is the recipient consider it. I believe Tony feels the same.
Brian used the most feeble of reasons, in this of all groups, to tell
us he was never going to listen to us because his age justified his
position.
He was determined to use the most time consuming, least convenient, and
most unreliable backup method, in the face of good advice. All he does
is splutter on about being an "old man" without even saying thanks for
our efforts to provide good information. With that attitude, several
hundred DVD's as a backup, and little guaranty that the full set would
be intact if the need to access his archive should ever arise, why
should any of us care when he obviously does not?
It is certainly no skin off this old fart's nose, regardless of
whatever unreliable backup method that old fart uses.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Mayayana
Jan 2, 2013, 9:51:23 AM1/2/13
to
| > What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
|
| I'm an old man. Lost much data.
| Over time, all electronics go kaput.
| And, at the worst time.
|
I'm with you. USB is good and external hard drives are
|
| I'm an old man. Lost much data.
| Over time, all electronics go kaput.
| And, at the worst time.
|
OK. RAID arrays are good in a corporate situation where
all data is critical. But one close lightning strike, power
surge, or short circuit that blows the power supply will
fry both RAID drives. I've experienced the two latter
cases. In 2001 there was a massive power failure in the
Northeast US and I didn't have a UPS. There was apparently
a giant surge as the Massachusetts power grid auto-
disconnected from the rest of the country. My PC was
running at the time. It rebooted by itself and everything
was gone.
I like to back up work and settings to partitions on a
second hard disk, then write that periodically to CD. Nothing
I do is so critical that it needs instant RAID backup. I prefer
to just have a second hard disk with partitions that I can use.
ANNEX and STORAGE are on drive #1. CLOSET, ATTIC and
BACK 40 are on drive #2. :) C drive is only a 3GB partition
with software installed, so that if I lose Windows I can restore
a disk image and be back up quickly without affecting data. In
these times of 100+ GB hard disks it makes no sense to have
a single partition. I also use DVDs but don't have nearly the
volume of data you're talking about. My first reaction would be,
"Why do you save so many photos, and why at such large
resolution?" But that's none of my business.
If you want to write it all to DVDs, the re-organizing
could be done with a script. I'd be surprised if there's
software specifically for that. I'd be more surprised if
there's software that will sort your folders *and* set up
a DVD queue.
But I wonder how you find your photos after you've shuffled
them around. And if you don't mind shuffling them around
then why not just store them in DVD-size folders in the first
place?
gordo
Jan 2, 2013, 9:50:18 AM1/2/13
to
Burning 100 DVD at once is a PITA. Keeping track of them is another PITA.
Buy portable USB HDDs, if you are lucky to have USB 3 on your computer
get USB 3 HDDs and do it in one go.
You can do it with regular 3.5" HDDs through a bay adaptor.
Backup to 2 units and keep them at different locations.
Get a NAS RAID unit and have your data accessible all the time, some
units allow up to 12Tb. Just don't think of it as a reliable backup.
DanP
Has anyone addressed the problem of storing your backups offsite? Your house
Buy portable USB HDDs, if you are lucky to have USB 3 on your computer
get USB 3 HDDs and do it in one go.
You can do it with regular 3.5" HDDs through a bay adaptor.
Backup to 2 units and keep them at different locations.
Get a NAS RAID unit and have your data accessible all the time, some
units allow up to 12Tb. Just don't think of it as a reliable backup.
DanP
could be destroyed by natural or man-made disaster; fire, earthquake, gas
explosion, etc. I have only around 12000 photos. I do back up to DVDs and
store them in a bank safety deposit box.
Of course, this is not the only way, you could have a friend store a hard
drive and you could store his.
My point is that you should consider a different location for your backups.
Gordo
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 9:55:45 AM1/2/13
to
In article <5fWEs.982008$vW7....@fx19.am4>, DanP <po...@vatican.org>
change.
wrote:
> >> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
> >> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
> >> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
> >> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
> >> the computer do the work for you.
> >
> > tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
> > long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
>
> Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
nope. tony said the person wants to back up to dvd so don't tell him to
> >> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
> >> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
> >> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
> >> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
> >> the computer do the work for you.
> >
> > tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
> > long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
>
> Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
change.
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 10:29:19 AM1/2/13
to
In article <ZPXEs.17832$Ep5....@newsfe08.iad>, gordo <no...@phony.net>
wrote:
> Has anyone addressed the problem of storing your backups offsite?
i mentioned it several times.
> Your house
> could be destroyed by natural or man-made disaster; fire, earthquake, gas
> explosion, etc. I have only around 12000 photos. I do back up to DVDs and
> store them in a bank safety deposit box.
>
> Of course, this is not the only way, you could have a friend store a hard
> drive and you could store his.
>
> My point is that you should consider a different location for your backups.
not only consider, but actually do it.
wrote:
> Has anyone addressed the problem of storing your backups offsite?
> Your house
> could be destroyed by natural or man-made disaster; fire, earthquake, gas
> explosion, etc. I have only around 12000 photos. I do back up to DVDs and
> store them in a bank safety deposit box.
>
> Of course, this is not the only way, you could have a friend store a hard
> drive and you could store his.
>
> My point is that you should consider a different location for your backups.
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 10:29:22 AM1/2/13
to
In article <kc1hg5$kgv$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
it's cheap, but it will rarely, if ever, fry the drives.
i've had a few surges, one caused by a squirrel outside my window who
climbed a pole and electrocuted himself, taking out the power to the
neighborhood. you could smell the burnt meat for many hours. anyway,
one of my hard drives fried in the surge, so i took the drive mechanism
out and put it in a new enclosure and was back in business.
not that it really matters since there's always multiple backups.
also, raid is *not* a backup.
> I've experienced the two latter
> cases.
get a surge suppressor.
> In 2001 there was a massive power failure in the
> Northeast US and I didn't have a UPS. There was apparently
> a giant surge as the Massachusetts power grid auto-
> disconnected from the rest of the country. My PC was
> running at the time. It rebooted by itself and everything
> was gone.
if it rebooted, then everything was *not* gone.
that means that the data was likely still there and could easily be
recovered with a recovery utility.
> I like to back up work and settings to partitions on a
> second hard disk, then write that periodically to CD. Nothing
> I do is so critical that it needs instant RAID backup. I prefer
> to just have a second hard disk with partitions that I can use.
> ANNEX and STORAGE are on drive #1. CLOSET, ATTIC and
> BACK 40 are on drive #2. :) C drive is only a 3GB partition
> with software installed, so that if I lose Windows I can restore
> a disk image and be back up quickly without affecting data. In
> these times of 100+ GB hard disks it makes no sense to have
> a single partition.
it makes no sense to have multiple partitions anymore unless you need
to boot off different system versions for development.
another problem is you can't predict how much space you will need on a
given partition, which means you will run out of space on one partition
and have wasted space on another. plus it's a pain to manage for
backups.
> I also use DVDs but don't have nearly the
> volume of data you're talking about. My first reaction would be,
> "Why do you save so many photos, and why at such large
> resolution?" But that's none of my business.
1 terabyte of photos is not that many photos especially these days with
40 megabyte raw files.
he said he has kids and takes lots of photos and videos. it's not
surprising he can fill a terabyte drive with just photos, nevermind
videos.
> If you want to write it all to DVDs, the re-organizing
> could be done with a script. I'd be surprised if there's
> software specifically for that. I'd be more surprised if
> there's software that will sort your folders *and* set up
> a DVD queue.
then be surprised, since there is.
> But I wonder how you find your photos after you've shuffled
> them around. And if you don't mind shuffling them around
> then why not just store them in DVD-size folders in the first
> place?
that was the problem he had, managing dvd size folders. he wants to
automate it.
unfortunately, dvd backup is a dumb idea. buy a backup drive and just
clone it. done. better yet, buy two and keep one off site.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> | > What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
> |
> | I'm an old man. Lost much data.
> | Over time, all electronics go kaput.
> | And, at the worst time.
> |
> I'm with you. USB is good and external hard drives are
> OK. RAID arrays are good in a corporate situation where
> all data is critical. But one close lightning strike, power
> surge, or short circuit that blows the power supply will
> fry both RAID drives.
only if you have a crappy raid. a surge might fry the power supply if
> | > What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
> |
> | I'm an old man. Lost much data.
> | Over time, all electronics go kaput.
> | And, at the worst time.
> |
> I'm with you. USB is good and external hard drives are
> OK. RAID arrays are good in a corporate situation where
> all data is critical. But one close lightning strike, power
> surge, or short circuit that blows the power supply will
> fry both RAID drives.
it's cheap, but it will rarely, if ever, fry the drives.
i've had a few surges, one caused by a squirrel outside my window who
climbed a pole and electrocuted himself, taking out the power to the
neighborhood. you could smell the burnt meat for many hours. anyway,
one of my hard drives fried in the surge, so i took the drive mechanism
out and put it in a new enclosure and was back in business.
not that it really matters since there's always multiple backups.
also, raid is *not* a backup.
> I've experienced the two latter
> cases.
> In 2001 there was a massive power failure in the
> Northeast US and I didn't have a UPS. There was apparently
> a giant surge as the Massachusetts power grid auto-
> disconnected from the rest of the country. My PC was
> running at the time. It rebooted by itself and everything
> was gone.
that means that the data was likely still there and could easily be
recovered with a recovery utility.
> I like to back up work and settings to partitions on a
> second hard disk, then write that periodically to CD. Nothing
> I do is so critical that it needs instant RAID backup. I prefer
> to just have a second hard disk with partitions that I can use.
> ANNEX and STORAGE are on drive #1. CLOSET, ATTIC and
> BACK 40 are on drive #2. :) C drive is only a 3GB partition
> with software installed, so that if I lose Windows I can restore
> a disk image and be back up quickly without affecting data. In
> these times of 100+ GB hard disks it makes no sense to have
> a single partition.
to boot off different system versions for development.
another problem is you can't predict how much space you will need on a
given partition, which means you will run out of space on one partition
and have wasted space on another. plus it's a pain to manage for
backups.
> I also use DVDs but don't have nearly the
> volume of data you're talking about. My first reaction would be,
> "Why do you save so many photos, and why at such large
> resolution?" But that's none of my business.
40 megabyte raw files.
he said he has kids and takes lots of photos and videos. it's not
surprising he can fill a terabyte drive with just photos, nevermind
videos.
> If you want to write it all to DVDs, the re-organizing
> could be done with a script. I'd be surprised if there's
> software specifically for that. I'd be more surprised if
> there's software that will sort your folders *and* set up
> a DVD queue.
> But I wonder how you find your photos after you've shuffled
> them around. And if you don't mind shuffling them around
> then why not just store them in DVD-size folders in the first
> place?
automate it.
unfortunately, dvd backup is a dumb idea. buy a backup drive and just
clone it. done. better yet, buy two and keep one off site.
Mayayana
Jan 2, 2013, 10:46:02 AM1/2/13
to
| I do back up to DVDs and
| store them in a bank safety deposit box.
|
I do the same, but I usually don't admit to it publicly. :)
| store them in a bank safety deposit box.
|
Tony Cooper
Jan 2, 2013, 11:14:02 AM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 06:49:09 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2013-01-02 05:04:01 -0800, DanP <po...@vatican.org> said:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:35:45 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1p05e8dqois2ibsc7...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>>> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
>>>> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
>>>> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
>>>> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
>>>> the computer do the work for you.
>>>
>>> tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
>>> long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
>>
>> Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
>>
>> If you care if he loses his data you have to get your point across and
>> antagonising will never help.
>>
>> DanP
>
>The issue is, not whether Tony, or any of us care if Brian loses his
>data, it is Brian's outright rejection of good advice, given in the
>various expressions of sincerity each of us have been able to muster.
Why is there anything wrong with Brian rejecting advice? Brian
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2013-01-02 05:04:01 -0800, DanP <po...@vatican.org> said:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:35:45 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1p05e8dqois2ibsc7...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>>> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
>>>> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
>>>> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
>>>> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
>>>> the computer do the work for you.
>>>
>>> tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
>>> long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
>>
>> Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
>>
>> If you care if he loses his data you have to get your point across and
>> antagonising will never help.
>>
>> DanP
>
>The issue is, not whether Tony, or any of us care if Brian loses his
>data, it is Brian's outright rejection of good advice, given in the
>various expressions of sincerity each of us have been able to muster.
evidently has a system that he's comfortable with that works for him.
He didn't ask for suggestions for a better system; he asked if there
is software around that would make one step in his present system a
bit easier.
There were a few suggestions about what software might do this, but
the discussion turned to suggestions about another system. It wasn't
just a discussion, either. nospam, in his usual bullying bombastic
style, insulted the man six ways from the middle for not seeing the
wisdom of nospam's way of doing things.
For Christ's sake...if the man wants to do it his way, let him.
He isn't necessarily going to lose any data his way. There's a
possibility, but there's a possibility of loss of data in any system.
>Right or wrong, I try to give whatever advice I can in good faith, and
>all I ask is the recipient consider it. I believe Tony feels the same.
>Brian used the most feeble of reasons, in this of all groups, to tell
>us he was never going to listen to us because his age justified his
>position.
>
>He was determined to use the most time consuming, least convenient, and
>most unreliable backup method, in the face of good advice.
Yeah, but so what? They're his images. It's his time. He can utilize
>He was determined to use the most time consuming, least convenient, and
>most unreliable backup method, in the face of good advice.
it any way he wants.
>All he does is splutter on about being an "old man" without even saying thanks for
>our efforts to provide good information.
spluttering old man feeble responses, why should he be grateful? He
came asking a specific question and was pilloried for not doing what
some of think is the best way to do things. He didn't get a good
answer to his specific question. What does he have to be thankful
about?
>With that attitude,
Who has the "attitude" here? Brian, who is comfortable in doing
things the way he's doing them, or the people who ridicule and insult
Brian for not doing things in what they consider to be the right way?
>several
>hundred DVD's as a backup, and little guaranty that the full set would
>be intact if the need to access his archive should ever arise, why
>should any of us care when he obviously does not?
I think you, and others, did the right thing in bringing up other ways
to back-up his images. That could have been helpful to him. It
stopped being the right thing, though, when it became an insulting
dialog because Brian wasn't interested in following the suggestions.
Tony Cooper
Jan 2, 2013, 11:26:12 AM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 09:55:45 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
I said that I back-up on external hard drives and in the Lightroom
back-up function, but that if Brian wants to continue to use his
present system that that's Brian's decision to make.
You, or I, have no business *telling* him to change. You can suggest
an alternative system, and discuss the benefits of an alternative
system, but it's Brian's decision to make.
Just in case you don't understand, yes, I do feel that if he wants to
continue to back-up on DVD that we should not tell him to change.
wrote:
back-up function, but that if Brian wants to continue to use his
present system that that's Brian's decision to make.
You, or I, have no business *telling* him to change. You can suggest
an alternative system, and discuss the benefits of an alternative
system, but it's Brian's decision to make.
Just in case you don't understand, yes, I do feel that if he wants to
continue to back-up on DVD that we should not tell him to change.
Savageduck
Jan 2, 2013, 11:44:53 AM1/2/13
to
On 2013-01-02 08:14:02 -0800, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> said:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 06:49:09 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-01-02 05:04:01 -0800, DanP <po...@vatican.org> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:35:45 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1p05e8dqois2ibsc7...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>>>> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
>>>>> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
>>>>> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
>>>>> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
>>>>> the computer do the work for you.
>>>>
>>>> tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
>>>> long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
>>>
>>> Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
>>>
>>> If you care if he loses his data you have to get your point across and
>>> antagonising will never help.
>>>
>>> DanP
>>
>> The issue is, not whether Tony, or any of us care if Brian loses his
>> data, it is Brian's outright rejection of good advice, given in the
>> various expressions of sincerity each of us have been able to muster.
>
> Why is there anything wrong with Brian rejecting advice?
Not a thing. Just the manner of his rejection.
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 06:49:09 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-01-02 05:04:01 -0800, DanP <po...@vatican.org> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 03:35:45 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1p05e8dqois2ibsc7...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>>>> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
>>>>> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
>>>>> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
>>>>> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
>>>>> the computer do the work for you.
>>>>
>>>> tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
>>>> long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
>>>
>>> Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
>>>
>>> If you care if he loses his data you have to get your point across and
>>> antagonising will never help.
>>>
>>> DanP
>>
>> The issue is, not whether Tony, or any of us care if Brian loses his
>> data, it is Brian's outright rejection of good advice, given in the
>> various expressions of sincerity each of us have been able to muster.
>
> Why is there anything wrong with Brian rejecting advice?
> Brian evidently has a system that he's comfortable with that works for him.
> He didn't ask for suggestions for a better system; he asked if there
> is software around that would make one step in his present system a
> bit easier.
does not mean that it is bad form to point out that his particular
method is not good, even with good software assistance. Especially with
the quantity of data he wants to backup.
> There were a few suggestions about what software might do this, but
> the discussion turned to suggestions about another system. It wasn't
> just a discussion, either. nospam, in his usual bullying bombastic
> style, insulted the man six ways from the middle for not seeing the
> wisdom of nospam's way of doing things.
> For Christ's sake...if the man wants to do it his way, let him.
that includes your suggestion for "Nero" which at $110 is certainly not
the freeware solution he wants.
> He isn't necessarily going to lose any data his way. There's a
> possibility, but there's a possibility of loss of data in any system.
recovery are far longer.
>> Right or wrong, I try to give whatever advice I can in good faith, and
>> all I ask is the recipient consider it. I believe Tony feels the same.
>> Brian used the most feeble of reasons, in this of all groups, to tell
>> us he was never going to listen to us because his age justified his
>> position.
>
> That's his prerogative.
>> He was determined to use the most time consuming, least convenient, and
>> most unreliable backup method, in the face of good advice.
>
> Yeah, but so what? They're his images. It's his time. He can utilize
> it any way he wants.
>> All he does is splutter on about being an "old man" without even saying
>> thanks for
>> our efforts to provide good information.
>
> After the comments made about him, including your reference to his
> spluttering old man feeble responses, why should he be grateful? He
> came asking a specific question and was pilloried for not doing what
> some of think is the best way to do things. He didn't get a good
> answer to his specific question. What does he have to be thankful
> about?
...and "pilloried"? The responses he got for his summary rejection of
the good suggestions offered him, could hardly be described as being
pilloried.
>
>> With that attitude,
>
> Who has the "attitude" here? Brian, who is comfortable in doing
> things the way he's doing them, or the people who ridicule and insult
> Brian for not doing things in what they consider to be the right way?
things. He is having issues creating DVD size directories, a problem
which vanishes if he goes to an HDD system with an incremental backup
protocol. He came to this group to find a way to make his awkward
method easy, and most of us advised him to change methods to something
more efficient and reliable. He didn't want to hear that, because, in
his mind, his qualification as an "old man" justified his obstinacy.
>> several
>> hundred DVD's as a backup, and little guaranty that the full set would
>> be intact if the need to access his archive should ever arise, why
>> should any of us care when he obviously does not?
>
> Exactly.
>
> I think you, and others, did the right thing in bringing up other ways
> to back-up his images. That could have been helpful to him. It
> stopped being the right thing, though, when it became an insulting
> dialog because Brian wasn't interested in following the suggestions.
given, but the manner of the rejection, and the "I'm an old man"
justification for his position which irked me.
You will note I only used my "spluttering old man" comment in my prior
post currently being discussed. I could have said worse, and most
"insulting dialog" was pretty tame given some of the language and
posturing we are exposed to in the usenet flame wars.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Wally
Jan 2, 2013, 11:54:56 AM1/2/13
to
No, a milk would be much better for you.
But it's none of the bartender's business, even if he is right!
You can certainly provide the advice you think you should, but it's
the OP's decision, not yours, whether to follow it.
Wally
Savageduck
Jan 2, 2013, 12:21:44 PM1/2/13
to
advise, but I must forego his suggestion due to my lactose intolerance,
I would expect him to honor my request and serve the whiskey. If not I
will take my trade elsewhere, the man is in the business of tending a
BAR, not a milk bar.
As for the OP it is always his decision, and never mine. I never said
it was. If he makes what I feel to be a poor decision, that does me no
harm, just don't give an irrational justification for rejecting advice
given in good faith.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 12:34:53 PM1/2/13
to
In article <o6n8e8tr3dhcobods...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
to get criticism for bad decisions.
> Just in case you don't understand, yes, I do feel that if he wants to
> continue to back-up on DVD that we should not tell him to change.
that's where we disagree.
he is headed for disaster if he doesn't change his ways. he will lose
photos if he continues with what he's doing.
i'd rather not see him lose his precious photos, ones that cannot be
replaced.
you obviously don't care if he loses photos.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
> >> >> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
> >> >> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
> >> >> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
> >> >> the computer do the work for you.
> >> >
> >> > tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
> >> > long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
> >>
> >> Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
> >
> >nope. tony said the person wants to back up to dvd so don't tell him to
> >change.
>
> I said that I back-up on external hard drives and in the Lightroom
> back-up function, but that if Brian wants to continue to use his
> present system that that's Brian's decision to make.
>
> You, or I, have no business *telling* him to change. You can suggest
> an alternative system, and discuss the benefits of an alternative
> system, but it's Brian's decision to make.
yes it is his decision, but by posting in a public forum, he is going
> >> >> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
> >> >> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
> >> >> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
> >> >> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
> >> >> the computer do the work for you.
> >> >
> >> > tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
> >> > long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
> >>
> >> Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
> >
> >nope. tony said the person wants to back up to dvd so don't tell him to
> >change.
>
> I said that I back-up on external hard drives and in the Lightroom
> back-up function, but that if Brian wants to continue to use his
> present system that that's Brian's decision to make.
>
> You, or I, have no business *telling* him to change. You can suggest
> an alternative system, and discuss the benefits of an alternative
> system, but it's Brian's decision to make.
to get criticism for bad decisions.
> Just in case you don't understand, yes, I do feel that if he wants to
> continue to back-up on DVD that we should not tell him to change.
he is headed for disaster if he doesn't change his ways. he will lose
photos if he continues with what he's doing.
i'd rather not see him lose his precious photos, ones that cannot be
replaced.
you obviously don't care if he loses photos.
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 12:35:05 PM1/2/13
to
In article <0kk8e897t5ilipamu...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
how to burn hundreds of dvds.
> He didn't ask for suggestions for a better system; he asked if there
> is software around that would make one step in his present system a
> bit easier.
which was answered.
unfortunately, his system is just asking for trouble. it needs to
change.
> There were a few suggestions about what software might do this, but
> the discussion turned to suggestions about another system. It wasn't
> just a discussion, either. nospam, in his usual bullying bombastic
> style, insulted the man six ways from the middle for not seeing the
> wisdom of nospam's way of doing things.
i didn't insult him at all. i criticized his choice of backup method.
not him.
i also said his claims about nonstandard connectors and hard drives
being unreliable were bogus, which they most definitely are. that's not
a matter of opinion.
> For Christ's sake...if the man wants to do it his way, let him.
if he wants to do meth, let him. hey it's his choice.
he's playing with fire and he will get burned. you obviously don't care
what he does.
> He isn't necessarily going to lose any data his way. There's a
> possibility, but there's a possibility of loss of data in any system.
wrong. very wrong.
there is a *significant* probability he will lose data if he does it
his way. in fact, it's nearly guaranteed, if for no other reason that
keeping track of which photos are where is near impossible and he could
easily skip something and not realize it.
then there's dvd failure, plus he'll have to replace his dvd burner
fairly frequently if he regularly burns that many dvds.
on the other hand, the likelihood of losing data with multiple hard
drive backup is almost zero. for that to happen, *all* hard drives
would have to fail at the same time, and with one drive off site, the
chances of that is *so* close to zero that it can be considered zero.
if a natural disaster takes out his house *and* a hard drive many miles
away, then there's going to be a lot more to worry about than the hard
drives.
> >Right or wrong, I try to give whatever advice I can in good faith, and
> >all I ask is the recipient consider it. I believe Tony feels the same.
> >Brian used the most feeble of reasons, in this of all groups, to tell
> >us he was never going to listen to us because his age justified his
> >position.
>
> That's his prerogative.
> >
> >He was determined to use the most time consuming, least convenient, and
> >most unreliable backup method, in the face of good advice.
>
> Yeah, but so what? They're his images. It's his time. He can utilize
> it any way he wants.
he can, but as has been said, there are much better ways.
> >All he does is splutter on about being an "old man" without even saying
> >thanks for our efforts to provide good information.
>
> After the comments made about him, including your reference to his
> spluttering old man feeble responses, why should he be grateful? He
> came asking a specific question and was pilloried for not doing what
> some of think is the best way to do things. He didn't get a good
> answer to his specific question. What does he have to be thankful
> about?
he got an answer to his question, but he should be thankful that people
pointed out that his backup method is deeply flawed. he *will* lose
images if he continues, something he doesn't want to happen.
as i said, he might as well save the time and money because it's not
really a backup at all. it's really a waste of time.
> >With that attitude,
>
> Who has the "attitude" here? Brian, who is comfortable in doing
> things the way he's doing them, or the people who ridicule and insult
> Brian for not doing things in what they consider to be the right way?
you, for ridiculing those who don't want to see him lose photos.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
> >>>> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
> >>>> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
> >>>> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
> >>>> the computer do the work for you.
> >>>
> >>> tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
> >>> long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
> >>
> >> Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
> >>
> >> If you care if he loses his data you have to get your point across and
> >> antagonising will never help.
> >>
> >> DanP
> >
> >The issue is, not whether Tony, or any of us care if Brian loses his
> >data, it is Brian's outright rejection of good advice, given in the
> >various expressions of sincerity each of us have been able to muster.
>
> Why is there anything wrong with Brian rejecting advice? Brian
> evidently has a system that he's comfortable with that works for him.
it's obviously *not* working for him, otherwise he wouldn't have asked
> >>>> That's the way of this group, Brian. If you are not doing things the
> >>>> way certain other people do them, they will tell you how wrong you are.
> >>>> SavageDuck will tell you, but in a polite and informative way. nospam
> >>>> will rudely tell you that you are a foolish Luddite who will not let
> >>>> the computer do the work for you.
> >>>
> >>> tony will let you do stupid things that will end up hurting you in the
> >>> long run. he doesn't actually care if you lose data.
> >>
> >> Tony just told him to go the HDD way but he knows that it not happen.
> >>
> >> If you care if he loses his data you have to get your point across and
> >> antagonising will never help.
> >>
> >> DanP
> >
> >The issue is, not whether Tony, or any of us care if Brian loses his
> >data, it is Brian's outright rejection of good advice, given in the
> >various expressions of sincerity each of us have been able to muster.
>
> Why is there anything wrong with Brian rejecting advice? Brian
> evidently has a system that he's comfortable with that works for him.
how to burn hundreds of dvds.
> He didn't ask for suggestions for a better system; he asked if there
> is software around that would make one step in his present system a
> bit easier.
unfortunately, his system is just asking for trouble. it needs to
change.
> There were a few suggestions about what software might do this, but
> the discussion turned to suggestions about another system. It wasn't
> just a discussion, either. nospam, in his usual bullying bombastic
> style, insulted the man six ways from the middle for not seeing the
> wisdom of nospam's way of doing things.
not him.
i also said his claims about nonstandard connectors and hard drives
being unreliable were bogus, which they most definitely are. that's not
a matter of opinion.
> For Christ's sake...if the man wants to do it his way, let him.
he's playing with fire and he will get burned. you obviously don't care
what he does.
> He isn't necessarily going to lose any data his way. There's a
> possibility, but there's a possibility of loss of data in any system.
there is a *significant* probability he will lose data if he does it
his way. in fact, it's nearly guaranteed, if for no other reason that
keeping track of which photos are where is near impossible and he could
easily skip something and not realize it.
then there's dvd failure, plus he'll have to replace his dvd burner
fairly frequently if he regularly burns that many dvds.
on the other hand, the likelihood of losing data with multiple hard
drive backup is almost zero. for that to happen, *all* hard drives
would have to fail at the same time, and with one drive off site, the
chances of that is *so* close to zero that it can be considered zero.
if a natural disaster takes out his house *and* a hard drive many miles
away, then there's going to be a lot more to worry about than the hard
drives.
> >Right or wrong, I try to give whatever advice I can in good faith, and
> >all I ask is the recipient consider it. I believe Tony feels the same.
> >Brian used the most feeble of reasons, in this of all groups, to tell
> >us he was never going to listen to us because his age justified his
> >position.
>
> That's his prerogative.
> >
> >He was determined to use the most time consuming, least convenient, and
> >most unreliable backup method, in the face of good advice.
>
> Yeah, but so what? They're his images. It's his time. He can utilize
> it any way he wants.
> >All he does is splutter on about being an "old man" without even saying
> >thanks for our efforts to provide good information.
>
> After the comments made about him, including your reference to his
> spluttering old man feeble responses, why should he be grateful? He
> came asking a specific question and was pilloried for not doing what
> some of think is the best way to do things. He didn't get a good
> answer to his specific question. What does he have to be thankful
> about?
pointed out that his backup method is deeply flawed. he *will* lose
images if he continues, something he doesn't want to happen.
as i said, he might as well save the time and money because it's not
really a backup at all. it's really a waste of time.
> >With that attitude,
>
> Who has the "attitude" here? Brian, who is comfortable in doing
> things the way he's doing them, or the people who ridicule and insult
> Brian for not doing things in what they consider to be the right way?
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 12:35:25 PM1/2/13
to
In article <1ap8e8pvfv3hkv4m6...@4ax.com>, Wally
if you've had dozens of drinks and can barely stand up, they might say
no more drinks for you.
> But it's none of the bartender's business, even if he is right!
actually, it is.
bartenders have been held responsible for injuries or deaths from
having served the person booze.
<Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:
> You go into a bar and say, Give me a whisky. The bartender replies,
> No, a milk would be much better for you.
bartenders cut people off all the time.
> You go into a bar and say, Give me a whisky. The bartender replies,
> No, a milk would be much better for you.
if you've had dozens of drinks and can barely stand up, they might say
no more drinks for you.
> But it's none of the bartender's business, even if he is right!
bartenders have been held responsible for injuries or deaths from
having served the person booze.
Tony Cooper
Jan 2, 2013, 12:46:59 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:44:53 -0800, Savageduck
It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
indicating that he doesn't want to change.
>> There were a few suggestions about what software might do this, but
>> the discussion turned to suggestions about another system. It wasn't
>> just a discussion, either. nospam, in his usual bullying bombastic
>> style, insulted the man six ways from the middle for not seeing the
>> wisdom of nospam's way of doing things.
>
>...and did you expect anything less from nospam, once the rejection was stated?
>
>> For Christ's sake...if the man wants to do it his way, let him.
>
>He is going to do what he wants regardless of any suggestions here,
>that includes your suggestion for "Nero" which at $110 is certainly not
>the freeware solution he wants.
I made the suggestion to do a free download of Nero to see if it works
the way he wants. From then on, it was up to him if he wanted to pay
the $110. I didn't try to bully him to do so.
>> He isn't necessarily going to lose any data his way. There's a
>> possibility, but there's a possibility of loss of data in any system.
>
>Agreed, but with the DVD method, the odds for a successful data
>recovery are far longer.
>
>>> Right or wrong, I try to give whatever advice I can in good faith, and
>>> all I ask is the recipient consider it. I believe Tony feels the same.
>>> Brian used the most feeble of reasons, in this of all groups, to tell
>>> us he was never going to listen to us because his age justified his
>>> position.
>>
>> That's his prerogative.
>
>Prerogative! He was never going to take any useful suggestion.
Yes, it's his prerogative. He can reject any unwanted suggestions he
wants to. He doesn't need to provide a reason to reject or a reason
that suits us. The "old man" defense is sufficient.
>>> He was determined to use the most time consuming, least convenient, and
>>> most unreliable backup method, in the face of good advice.
>>
>> Yeah, but so what? They're his images. It's his time. He can utilize
>> it any way he wants.
>
>Agreed. However one can only suggest a more efficient method.
And that is what should have been done...suggest, inform, and stop
there. Stop short of using words like "stupid" (not that you did).
>> I think you, and others, did the right thing in bringing up other ways
>> to back-up his images. That could have been helpful to him. It
>> stopped being the right thing, though, when it became an insulting
>> dialog because Brian wasn't interested in following the suggestions.
>
>The point is, it was not so much his rejection of the suggestions
>given, but the manner of the rejection, and the "I'm an old man"
>justification for his position which irked me.
You don't think some of the responses could have irked him?
Let's say you are planning a visit to Florida, Duck, landing in
Orlando and going down to Key West, and ask someone for some
out-of-the-way route between the two cities.
How would you feel about a response telling you take the Florida
Turnpike and that taking local roads was a slow, inefficient and
old-fashioned way to travel?
So then you respond that you are retired and have the time, you prefer
the back roads and the photo opportunities, and you've always liked to
take back roads. The "old man" defense.
Then, you get a response saying you are wasting gas, increasing your
tire wear, not taking advantage of the modern way to travel,
increasing your chance of an accident, and generally being stupid for
not using the Turnpike.
Might you be a bit irked?
Might you never have intended to take any advice about using the
Turnpike?
to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
indicating that he doesn't want to change.
>> There were a few suggestions about what software might do this, but
>> the discussion turned to suggestions about another system. It wasn't
>> just a discussion, either. nospam, in his usual bullying bombastic
>> style, insulted the man six ways from the middle for not seeing the
>> wisdom of nospam's way of doing things.
>
>...and did you expect anything less from nospam, once the rejection was stated?
>
>> For Christ's sake...if the man wants to do it his way, let him.
>
>He is going to do what he wants regardless of any suggestions here,
>that includes your suggestion for "Nero" which at $110 is certainly not
>the freeware solution he wants.
the way he wants. From then on, it was up to him if he wanted to pay
the $110. I didn't try to bully him to do so.
>> He isn't necessarily going to lose any data his way. There's a
>> possibility, but there's a possibility of loss of data in any system.
>
>Agreed, but with the DVD method, the odds for a successful data
>recovery are far longer.
>
>>> Right or wrong, I try to give whatever advice I can in good faith, and
>>> all I ask is the recipient consider it. I believe Tony feels the same.
>>> Brian used the most feeble of reasons, in this of all groups, to tell
>>> us he was never going to listen to us because his age justified his
>>> position.
>>
>> That's his prerogative.
>
>Prerogative! He was never going to take any useful suggestion.
wants to. He doesn't need to provide a reason to reject or a reason
that suits us. The "old man" defense is sufficient.
>>> He was determined to use the most time consuming, least convenient, and
>>> most unreliable backup method, in the face of good advice.
>>
>> Yeah, but so what? They're his images. It's his time. He can utilize
>> it any way he wants.
>
>Agreed. However one can only suggest a more efficient method.
there. Stop short of using words like "stupid" (not that you did).
>> I think you, and others, did the right thing in bringing up other ways
>> to back-up his images. That could have been helpful to him. It
>> stopped being the right thing, though, when it became an insulting
>> dialog because Brian wasn't interested in following the suggestions.
>
>The point is, it was not so much his rejection of the suggestions
>given, but the manner of the rejection, and the "I'm an old man"
>justification for his position which irked me.
Let's say you are planning a visit to Florida, Duck, landing in
Orlando and going down to Key West, and ask someone for some
out-of-the-way route between the two cities.
How would you feel about a response telling you take the Florida
Turnpike and that taking local roads was a slow, inefficient and
old-fashioned way to travel?
So then you respond that you are retired and have the time, you prefer
the back roads and the photo opportunities, and you've always liked to
take back roads. The "old man" defense.
Then, you get a response saying you are wasting gas, increasing your
tire wear, not taking advantage of the modern way to travel,
increasing your chance of an accident, and generally being stupid for
not using the Turnpike.
Might you be a bit irked?
Might you never have intended to take any advice about using the
Turnpike?
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 1:02:53 PM1/2/13
to
In article <nsq8e81i2a9mqsp5g...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
you obviously don't care what happens.
> Let's say you are planning a visit to Florida, Duck, landing in
> Orlando and going down to Key West, and ask someone for some
> out-of-the-way route between the two cities.
>
> How would you feel about a response telling you take the Florida
> Turnpike and that taking local roads was a slow, inefficient and
> old-fashioned way to travel?
>
> So then you respond that you are retired and have the time, you prefer
> the back roads and the photo opportunities, and you've always liked to
> take back roads. The "old man" defense.
>
> Then, you get a response saying you are wasting gas, increasing your
> tire wear, not taking advantage of the modern way to travel,
> increasing your chance of an accident, and generally being stupid for
> not using the Turnpike.
>
> Might you be a bit irked?
not a good analogy.
a better analogy would be that the route you picked goes through bad
neighborhoods and you really don't want to go there, particularly in an
easy to pick out rental car and especially at night. you might not come
back alive.
finding out just how stupid it is could be a live saver.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
> to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
> indicating that he doesn't want to change.
it's bad form to let someone continue on a path to disaster.
> It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
> to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
> indicating that he doesn't want to change.
you obviously don't care what happens.
> Let's say you are planning a visit to Florida, Duck, landing in
> Orlando and going down to Key West, and ask someone for some
> out-of-the-way route between the two cities.
>
> How would you feel about a response telling you take the Florida
> Turnpike and that taking local roads was a slow, inefficient and
> old-fashioned way to travel?
>
> So then you respond that you are retired and have the time, you prefer
> the back roads and the photo opportunities, and you've always liked to
> take back roads. The "old man" defense.
>
> Then, you get a response saying you are wasting gas, increasing your
> tire wear, not taking advantage of the modern way to travel,
> increasing your chance of an accident, and generally being stupid for
> not using the Turnpike.
>
> Might you be a bit irked?
a better analogy would be that the route you picked goes through bad
neighborhoods and you really don't want to go there, particularly in an
easy to pick out rental car and especially at night. you might not come
back alive.
finding out just how stupid it is could be a live saver.
me
Jan 2, 2013, 3:01:47 PM1/2/13
to
WinRAR.
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 01:46:03 +0000 (UTC), Brian Hofflinger
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
>Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories of
>directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
>backup onto DVD media.
>
>How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
>manually?
>
>MORE INFORMATION:
>I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
>
>The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
>It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
>up.
>
On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 01:46:03 +0000 (UTC), Brian Hofflinger
<bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
>Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories of
>directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
>backup onto DVD media.
>
>How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
>manually?
>
>MORE INFORMATION:
>I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
>
>The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
>It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
>up.
>
Tony Cooper
Jan 2, 2013, 3:46:01 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:02:53 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <nsq8e81i2a9mqsp5g...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
>> to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
>> indicating that he doesn't want to change.
>
>it's bad form to let someone continue on a path to disaster.
Bullshit. There's no disaster involved. People have been backing up
on CDs and DVDs for years. Before that, they were backing up on
diskettes and ZIP drives, and before that, tapes. We don't have a
field of disaster out there of lost data.
There's a possibility of a problem, but that possibility exists no
matter how we back-up. It's more likely to have a "disaster" by
accidently deleting images in a back-up process.
We don't have the ability to "let", or not let, a person to do
anything. I think you come across as a semi-literate fool that hasn't
mastered the Shift key, but it's not within my power to not to let you
continue to do this.
>you obviously don't care what happens.
Care? Brian's an "old guy"; a grown-up. He's got this far in life
making his own decisions. I don't see what caring has to do with it.
I don't believe that your posts are because you "care". You just
can't stand someone not thinking that what you recommend is the only
path to take.
>> Let's say you are planning a visit to Florida, Duck, landing in
>> Orlando and going down to Key West, and ask someone for some
>> out-of-the-way route between the two cities.
>>
>> How would you feel about a response telling you take the Florida
>> Turnpike and that taking local roads was a slow, inefficient and
>> old-fashioned way to travel?
>>
>> So then you respond that you are retired and have the time, you prefer
>> the back roads and the photo opportunities, and you've always liked to
>> take back roads. The "old man" defense.
>>
>> Then, you get a response saying you are wasting gas, increasing your
>> tire wear, not taking advantage of the modern way to travel,
>> increasing your chance of an accident, and generally being stupid for
>> not using the Turnpike.
>>
>> Might you be a bit irked?
>
>not a good analogy.
>
>a better analogy would be that the route you picked goes through bad
>neighborhoods and you really don't want to go there, particularly in an
>easy to pick out rental car and especially at night. you might not come
>back alive.
>
>finding out just how stupid it is could be a live saver.
It would be appropriate to warn him of the neighborhood, to inform him
of the conditions, but Duck's a grown-up, too. He wouldn't want me
trying to bully him and make him look stupid. Maybe he wants to shoot
some "street" shots.
No analogy of mine would suit you. Anyone who doesn't follow your own
path is automatically wrong in your little mind.
wrote:
>In article <nsq8e81i2a9mqsp5g...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
>> to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
>> indicating that he doesn't want to change.
>
>it's bad form to let someone continue on a path to disaster.
on CDs and DVDs for years. Before that, they were backing up on
diskettes and ZIP drives, and before that, tapes. We don't have a
field of disaster out there of lost data.
There's a possibility of a problem, but that possibility exists no
matter how we back-up. It's more likely to have a "disaster" by
accidently deleting images in a back-up process.
We don't have the ability to "let", or not let, a person to do
anything. I think you come across as a semi-literate fool that hasn't
mastered the Shift key, but it's not within my power to not to let you
continue to do this.
>you obviously don't care what happens.
making his own decisions. I don't see what caring has to do with it.
I don't believe that your posts are because you "care". You just
can't stand someone not thinking that what you recommend is the only
path to take.
>> Let's say you are planning a visit to Florida, Duck, landing in
>> Orlando and going down to Key West, and ask someone for some
>> out-of-the-way route between the two cities.
>>
>> How would you feel about a response telling you take the Florida
>> Turnpike and that taking local roads was a slow, inefficient and
>> old-fashioned way to travel?
>>
>> So then you respond that you are retired and have the time, you prefer
>> the back roads and the photo opportunities, and you've always liked to
>> take back roads. The "old man" defense.
>>
>> Then, you get a response saying you are wasting gas, increasing your
>> tire wear, not taking advantage of the modern way to travel,
>> increasing your chance of an accident, and generally being stupid for
>> not using the Turnpike.
>>
>> Might you be a bit irked?
>
>not a good analogy.
>
>a better analogy would be that the route you picked goes through bad
>neighborhoods and you really don't want to go there, particularly in an
>easy to pick out rental car and especially at night. you might not come
>back alive.
>
>finding out just how stupid it is could be a live saver.
of the conditions, but Duck's a grown-up, too. He wouldn't want me
trying to bully him and make him look stupid. Maybe he wants to shoot
some "street" shots.
No analogy of mine would suit you. Anyone who doesn't follow your own
path is automatically wrong in your little mind.
Wally
Jan 2, 2013, 4:01:34 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:01:47 -0500, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:
>WinRAR.
Simple and effective.
Will split the compressed volume into convenient parts as specified by
the user.
And makes recovery records, which is very useful for archival storage,
especially on DVDs which tend to develop bad sectors.
W
>WinRAR.
Simple and effective.
Will split the compressed volume into convenient parts as specified by
the user.
And makes recovery records, which is very useful for archival storage,
especially on DVDs which tend to develop bad sectors.
W
Eric Stevens
Jan 2, 2013, 4:20:35 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:20:41 GMT, DanP <po...@vatican.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:04:12 +0000, Brian Hofflinger wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:52:34 -0700, Wally wrote:
>>
>>> What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
>>
>> I'm an old man. Lost much data.
>>
>> Over time, all electronics go kaput.
>>
>> And, at the worst time.
>>
>> You know the rule.
>
>Get 2 different brands of USB HDDs.
>They would not be used much therefore failure risk would be low.
>If you are still concerned get 3 brands. Or get slow cheap 32GB SD cards.
Try and buy a HDD with the longest warranty. After my past experiences
>On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:04:12 +0000, Brian Hofflinger wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:52:34 -0700, Wally wrote:
>>
>>> What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
>>
>> I'm an old man. Lost much data.
>>
>> Over time, all electronics go kaput.
>>
>> And, at the worst time.
>>
>> You know the rule.
>
>Get 2 different brands of USB HDDs.
>They would not be used much therefore failure risk would be low.
>If you are still concerned get 3 brands. Or get slow cheap 32GB SD cards.
I won't touch anything less than three years.
Be aware that some HDDs with 3 year warranties are no better than
those with 1 year. It's just that they are charging you more to cover
the risk that they may have to front up with a new one within the
warranty period.
>
>I bet your data loss happened because your HDD inside your computer
>failed. Well, some do after a number of years. USB HDDs would see
>something like a month of running time.
>
>Besides imagine how you would retrieve data from DVDs.
>
>
>DanP
--
>I bet your data loss happened because your HDD inside your computer
>failed. Well, some do after a number of years. USB HDDs would see
>something like a month of running time.
>
>Besides imagine how you would retrieve data from DVDs.
>
>
>DanP
Regards,
Eric Stevens
David Dyer-Bennet
Jan 2, 2013, 4:25:40 PM1/2/13
to
Brian Hofflinger <bhoff...@xxx.com> writes:
> Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories of
> directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
> backup onto DVD media.
Personally, I gave up on optical media as my primary backup years and
> Everyone must have a similar problem in splitting up large directories of
> directories on external USB drives into DVD-sized (4.7GB) collections for
> backup onto DVD media.
years ago. They're just too small for the quantities we generate these
days (even after I bought a BluRay writer, which stores 25 GB on the
base disk).
Also, even with MAM gold archival media, we don't know that convincingly
how long the disks are good in storage. For BluRay of course even
moreso, and last I checked there weren't even media advertised as
long-lived there.
> How do you backup if you don't move photo & video directories around
> manually?
ordinary CDs (or DVDs), not something special, so I could read them on
any computer with the proper drive. (Which is one reason none of the
specific backup products appeal to me.)
> MORE INFORMATION:
> I take tons of pictures & videos of the kids & family just like you do.
>
> The files each go in a directory, more or less organized by name.
> It's time to back it up to DVD media when the 500GB (or 1TB) disks fill
> up.
>
> I can MANUALLY size an arrangement of directories to something less than
> 4.7 GB, then MOVE that selection to a spot, and then BURN them. After
> burning them, I then move them elsewhere, and work on the next set of
> file-intensive directories.
>
> (Note: Without moving back and forth, things get confusing really fast.)
>
> All this sizing, arranging, moving, burning, and moving on is tedious.
> QUESTION:
> Is there freeware out there that can burn an entire collection to
> multiple independent DVD disks?
Solaris or Windows, and if it produces "plain" disks that can be read on
anything supporting some major optical disk filesystem standard.
Good luck.
> NOTE: A bigger disk isn't a solution (I've been doing that for years).
everything on line (and hence my backup hard drives) are under 2TB. I'm
getting *big* benefits for me from the lucky fact that my backup size
still fits on a single hard drive.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
Jan 2, 2013, 4:26:59 PM1/2/13
to
Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> writes:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:01:47 -0500, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:
>
>>WinRAR.
>
> Simple and effective.
>
> Will split the compressed volume into convenient parts as specified by
> the user.
I'd rule it out due to compression; it won't gain me much on a
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:01:47 -0500, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:
>
>>WinRAR.
>
> Simple and effective.
>
> Will split the compressed volume into convenient parts as specified by
> the user.
collection that's mostly photos, and it means that one sector error
invalidates the rest of the entire volume.
Eric Stevens
Jan 2, 2013, 4:31:52 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:29:22 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
I'm not sure that I agre with you. I have always regarded my data as
falling into two categories: 'system' and 'data'. 'Data' is the stuff
I want to preserve and which I back up religiously. 'System' are the
bits which are in constant flux and which have to be recreated from
scratch. With Windows that includes all those things which require to
be written to the Registry.
Basically, I have all software writtent to drive C: and data to drive
D:. D: is the drive which I back up religiously. I'm resigned to the
fact that if anything happens to C: I have to laboriously reconstruct
it, but I would have to do that anyway.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
falling into two categories: 'system' and 'data'. 'Data' is the stuff
I want to preserve and which I back up religiously. 'System' are the
bits which are in constant flux and which have to be recreated from
scratch. With Windows that includes all those things which require to
be written to the Registry.
Basically, I have all software writtent to drive C: and data to drive
D:. D: is the drive which I back up religiously. I'm resigned to the
fact that if anything happens to C: I have to laboriously reconstruct
it, but I would have to do that anyway.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Mayayana
Jan 2, 2013, 5:07:53 PM1/2/13
to
| >it makes no sense to have multiple partitions anymore unless you need
| >to boot off different system versions for development.
|
| I'm not sure that I agre with you. I have always regarded my data as
| falling into two categories: 'system' and 'data'. 'Data' is the stuff
| I want to preserve and which I back up religiously. 'System' are the
| bits which are in constant flux and which have to be recreated from
| scratch. With Windows that includes all those things which require to
| be written to the Registry.
|
| Basically, I have all software writtent to drive C: and data to drive
| D:. D: is the drive which I back up religiously. I'm resigned to the
| fact that if anything happens to C: I have to laboriously reconstruct
| it, but I would have to do that anyway.
I also use multiple partitions as a way to organize for
| >to boot off different system versions for development.
|
| I'm not sure that I agre with you. I have always regarded my data as
| falling into two categories: 'system' and 'data'. 'Data' is the stuff
| I want to preserve and which I back up religiously. 'System' are the
| bits which are in constant flux and which have to be recreated from
| scratch. With Windows that includes all those things which require to
| be written to the Registry.
|
| Basically, I have all software writtent to drive C: and data to drive
| D:. D: is the drive which I back up religiously. I'm resigned to the
| fact that if anything happens to C: I have to laboriously reconstruct
| it, but I would have to do that anyway.
data backup. All the most important things -- files
worked on in different programs, personal software
settings from the Application Data folders, email, etc. --
fit on a small partition that I write to CD periodically.
That makes it easy to find and update the things that
need frequent backup. Then I have a partition for
graphics, a partition for programming docs and general
documentation, a partition for general resources like
large software installers, etc. I can then more easily
track how often I back those up. Just a matter of personal
preference, though. A separate data partition(s) is important,
but whether it's one or many is not critical.
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 5:14:38 PM1/2/13
to
In article <pb69e8lue0b82bj5i...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> People have been backing up
> on CDs and DVDs for years. Before that, they were backing up on
> diskettes and ZIP drives, and before that, tapes. We don't have a
> field of disaster out there of lost data.
bullshit right back. none of those are particularly reliable and more
importantly, very few people bother backing up because doing so is
work. backing up is not fun, so people didn't do it.
who looks forward to burning 200+ dvds for a terabyte hard drive? even
burning 5 dvds is a pain in the ass, nevermind 200.
the solution is to automate it so users don't need to do anything
special. if it happens automatically in the background, it gets done.
otherwise, it won't, which means people *will* lose data.
> There's a possibility of a problem, but that possibility exists no
> matter how we back-up. It's more likely to have a "disaster" by
> accidently deleting images in a back-up process.
nope. by burning hundreds of dvds and moving files and folders around,
that chance goes *way* up. plus there is the unreliability of dvds.
it's a bad idea.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
> >> to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
> >> indicating that he doesn't want to change.
> >
> >it's bad form to let someone continue on a path to disaster.
>
> Bullshit. There's no disaster involved.
it's always a disaster when important and irreplaceable files are lost.
> >> It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
> >> to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
> >> indicating that he doesn't want to change.
> >
> >it's bad form to let someone continue on a path to disaster.
>
> Bullshit. There's no disaster involved.
> People have been backing up
> on CDs and DVDs for years. Before that, they were backing up on
> diskettes and ZIP drives, and before that, tapes. We don't have a
> field of disaster out there of lost data.
importantly, very few people bother backing up because doing so is
work. backing up is not fun, so people didn't do it.
who looks forward to burning 200+ dvds for a terabyte hard drive? even
burning 5 dvds is a pain in the ass, nevermind 200.
the solution is to automate it so users don't need to do anything
special. if it happens automatically in the background, it gets done.
otherwise, it won't, which means people *will* lose data.
> There's a possibility of a problem, but that possibility exists no
> matter how we back-up. It's more likely to have a "disaster" by
> accidently deleting images in a back-up process.
that chance goes *way* up. plus there is the unreliability of dvds.
it's a bad idea.
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 5:14:40 PM1/2/13
to
In article <5a99e89fl1a7rarin...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
why have the partition at all and back up everything?
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> I like to back up work and settings to partitions on a
> >> second hard disk, then write that periodically to CD. Nothing
> >> I do is so critical that it needs instant RAID backup. I prefer
> >> to just have a second hard disk with partitions that I can use.
> >> ANNEX and STORAGE are on drive #1. CLOSET, ATTIC and
> >> BACK 40 are on drive #2. :) C drive is only a 3GB partition
> >> with software installed, so that if I lose Windows I can restore
> >> a disk image and be back up quickly without affecting data. In
> >> these times of 100+ GB hard disks it makes no sense to have
> >> a single partition.
> >
> >it makes no sense to have multiple partitions anymore unless you need
> >to boot off different system versions for development.
>
> I'm not sure that I agre with you. I have always regarded my data as
> falling into two categories: 'system' and 'data'. 'Data' is the stuff
> I want to preserve and which I back up religiously. 'System' are the
> bits which are in constant flux and which have to be recreated from
> scratch. With Windows that includes all those things which require to
> be written to the Registry.
>
> Basically, I have all software writtent to drive C: and data to drive
> D:. D: is the drive which I back up religiously. I'm resigned to the
> fact that if anything happens to C: I have to laboriously reconstruct
> it, but I would have to do that anyway.
why not back up both?
> >> I like to back up work and settings to partitions on a
> >> second hard disk, then write that periodically to CD. Nothing
> >> I do is so critical that it needs instant RAID backup. I prefer
> >> to just have a second hard disk with partitions that I can use.
> >> ANNEX and STORAGE are on drive #1. CLOSET, ATTIC and
> >> BACK 40 are on drive #2. :) C drive is only a 3GB partition
> >> with software installed, so that if I lose Windows I can restore
> >> a disk image and be back up quickly without affecting data. In
> >> these times of 100+ GB hard disks it makes no sense to have
> >> a single partition.
> >
> >it makes no sense to have multiple partitions anymore unless you need
> >to boot off different system versions for development.
>
> I'm not sure that I agre with you. I have always regarded my data as
> falling into two categories: 'system' and 'data'. 'Data' is the stuff
> I want to preserve and which I back up religiously. 'System' are the
> bits which are in constant flux and which have to be recreated from
> scratch. With Windows that includes all those things which require to
> be written to the Registry.
>
> Basically, I have all software writtent to drive C: and data to drive
> D:. D: is the drive which I back up religiously. I'm resigned to the
> fact that if anything happens to C: I have to laboriously reconstruct
> it, but I would have to do that anyway.
why have the partition at all and back up everything?
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 5:19:32 PM1/2/13
to
In article <kc2b2j$ots$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
software does. a computer can easily find modified files a whole lot
faster than you can, and more accurately.
> Then I have a partition for
> graphics, a partition for programming docs and general
> documentation, a partition for general resources like
> large software installers, etc. I can then more easily
> track how often I back those up. Just a matter of personal
> preference, though. A separate data partition(s) is important,
> but whether it's one or many is not critical.
what a mess.
simply search for all files modified after the time you did the last
backup. those are the files that changed. backup programs do that
automatically, and track it for you.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> I also use multiple partitions as a way to organize for
> data backup. All the most important things -- files
> worked on in different programs, personal software
> settings from the Application Data folders, email, etc. --
> fit on a small partition that I write to CD periodically.
> That makes it easy to find and update the things that
> need frequent backup.
huh? why do *you* have to find the things to backup? that's what backup
> I also use multiple partitions as a way to organize for
> data backup. All the most important things -- files
> worked on in different programs, personal software
> settings from the Application Data folders, email, etc. --
> fit on a small partition that I write to CD periodically.
> That makes it easy to find and update the things that
> need frequent backup.
software does. a computer can easily find modified files a whole lot
faster than you can, and more accurately.
> Then I have a partition for
> graphics, a partition for programming docs and general
> documentation, a partition for general resources like
> large software installers, etc. I can then more easily
> track how often I back those up. Just a matter of personal
> preference, though. A separate data partition(s) is important,
> but whether it's one or many is not critical.
simply search for all files modified after the time you did the last
backup. those are the files that changed. backup programs do that
automatically, and track it for you.
me
Jan 2, 2013, 5:35:16 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:26:59 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:
>Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:01:47 -0500, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:
>>
>>>WinRAR.
>>
>> Simple and effective.
>>
>> Will split the compressed volume into convenient parts as specified by
>> the user.
>
>I'd rule it out due to compression; it won't gain me much on a
>collection that's mostly photos, and it means that one sector error
>invalidates the rest of the entire volume.
Why did you edit out the portion of Wally's reply that specifically
spoke to this issue, the ability to create recovery records? Also,
given the file compression is not just applied per each individual
file but across multiple files some real compression can be achieved.
I've seen 20-30% reduction in size with multiple multi-GB binary
computational fluid dynamics solutions which would be lucky to see 2%
reduction with Winzip. Sounds like you may not be up to speed on
WinRAR specifically.
wrote:
>Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:01:47 -0500, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:
>>
>>>WinRAR.
>>
>> Simple and effective.
>>
>> Will split the compressed volume into convenient parts as specified by
>> the user.
>
>I'd rule it out due to compression; it won't gain me much on a
>collection that's mostly photos, and it means that one sector error
>invalidates the rest of the entire volume.
spoke to this issue, the ability to create recovery records? Also,
given the file compression is not just applied per each individual
file but across multiple files some real compression can be achieved.
I've seen 20-30% reduction in size with multiple multi-GB binary
computational fluid dynamics solutions which would be lucky to see 2%
reduction with Winzip. Sounds like you may not be up to speed on
WinRAR specifically.
nick c
Jan 2, 2013, 5:36:42 PM1/2/13
to
old dog myself (most people older than I am are probably dead), I
wouldn't use my age as being an excuse for not wanting to learn new
tricks. Just because I'm used to doing things one way doesn't mean
there's not a better way to do something. If there is a better way to do
something I would be open to consider it regardless of age or what my
past habits have been. Ultimately, I am always "the captain of my ship."
The fact that Brian is using a computer should be sufficient information
to show he will change if changing will bring about an easier or perhaps
a more foolproof method to do something.
Eric Stevens
Jan 2, 2013, 6:00:29 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:14:40 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Mainly because of problems associated with the Windows Registry. If
the registry and the software is not in synch at the moment that
things go down then you can have all kinds of problems on startup.
Mind you, it's years ago that I ran into this problem and things may
have changed. But I'm a cantankerous old fart stuck in my ways.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
the registry and the software is not in synch at the moment that
things go down then you can have all kinds of problems on startup.
Mind you, it's years ago that I ran into this problem and things may
have changed. But I'm a cantankerous old fart stuck in my ways.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Jan 2, 2013, 6:06:46 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:46:01 -0500, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:02:53 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <nsq8e81i2a9mqsp5g...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
>>> to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
>>> indicating that he doesn't want to change.
>>
>>it's bad form to let someone continue on a path to disaster.
>
>Bullshit. There's no disaster involved. People have been backing up
>on CDs and DVDs for years. Before that, they were backing up on
>diskettes and ZIP drives, and before that, tapes. We don't have a
>field of disaster out there of lost data.
I do. I've had compressed backups scrambled on diskettes. I've had 30%
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:02:53 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <nsq8e81i2a9mqsp5g...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
>>> to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
>>> indicating that he doesn't want to change.
>>
>>it's bad form to let someone continue on a path to disaster.
>
>Bullshit. There's no disaster involved. People have been backing up
>on CDs and DVDs for years. Before that, they were backing up on
>diskettes and ZIP drives, and before that, tapes. We don't have a
>field of disaster out there of lost data.
of HP's backup tapes prove unreadable. I've had DVD's report errors on
what were perfectly good sectors. I've had complete
folders/directories vanish of HDDs. Nothing is perfect.
But one thing I will not change my mind on. The backup and recovery
process has to be simple. Otherwise confusion and error will take its
toll. I can't help feeling that Brian Hofflinger has stretched his
current procedures to in excess of their practical limits.
Eric Stevens
Chris Malcolm
Jan 2, 2013, 6:45:54 PM1/2/13
to
In rec.photo.digital Brian Hofflinger <bhoff...@xxx.com> wrote:
The backup rule is to have enough backups to survive the level of risk
of death of one of your backups. Back in the early days of very
unreliable and badly calibrated 8" floppy drives that meant having
always having four backups two of them copies taken on a different
computer. And I probably should have had more, since there were
several nail biting occasions when the first three backups failed.
I find good quality modern hard disks to be extremely reliable. In the
last twenty years I've had one die on me out of very vaguely a few
dozen and that was a cheap one I'd been given. I backup my images to
two remote terabyte hard discs which are only switched on and
connected to do archiving or recover an old image. I've got a few
terabytes of photographs in total. The reliability testing research
I've checked suggests that modern good quality hard drives are a lot
more reliable than than any kind of CD or DVD technology.
--
Chris Malcolm
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 20:52:34 -0700, Wally wrote:
>> What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
> I'm an old man. Lost much data.
> Over time, all electronics go kaput.
> And, at the worst time.
> You know the rule.
>> What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
> I'm an old man. Lost much data.
> Over time, all electronics go kaput.
> And, at the worst time.
The backup rule is to have enough backups to survive the level of risk
of death of one of your backups. Back in the early days of very
unreliable and badly calibrated 8" floppy drives that meant having
always having four backups two of them copies taken on a different
computer. And I probably should have had more, since there were
several nail biting occasions when the first three backups failed.
I find good quality modern hard disks to be extremely reliable. In the
last twenty years I've had one die on me out of very vaguely a few
dozen and that was a cheap one I'd been given. I backup my images to
two remote terabyte hard discs which are only switched on and
connected to do archiving or recover an old image. I've got a few
terabytes of photographs in total. The reliability testing research
I've checked suggests that modern good quality hard drives are a lot
more reliable than than any kind of CD or DVD technology.
--
Chris Malcolm
Tommy
Jan 2, 2013, 7:17:46 PM1/2/13
to
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ope9e8praqmgd0392...@4ax.com...
I have 2 practically unused Iomega Zip drives - and 2 X 250 MB zip discs,
with 2 sets of wedding photos, (from their albums) - first wedding was 8
years ago, pics are still perfect condition. These are Usb attached with
their own power supply, seem to recall they were bought at a stall for about
20 Euros. Discs are still available
I'm quite surprised nobody has suggested *paid for* solutions -
I've used one of these - ( a bit pricey)
Check out the second url
http://www.superwarehouse.com/c2.cfm?c=2324
http://www.superwarehouse.com/Iomega--REV-series.htm
Sorry for introducing cash into the equation, but sometimes a mans gotta
spend to protect what is considered valuable - to him :-))
Cheers
Tommy
news:ope9e8praqmgd0392...@4ax.com...
with 2 sets of wedding photos, (from their albums) - first wedding was 8
years ago, pics are still perfect condition. These are Usb attached with
their own power supply, seem to recall they were bought at a stall for about
20 Euros. Discs are still available
I'm quite surprised nobody has suggested *paid for* solutions -
I've used one of these - ( a bit pricey)
Check out the second url
http://www.superwarehouse.com/c2.cfm?c=2324
http://www.superwarehouse.com/Iomega--REV-series.htm
Sorry for introducing cash into the equation, but sometimes a mans gotta
spend to protect what is considered valuable - to him :-))
Cheers
Tommy
David Dyer-Bennet
Jan 2, 2013, 7:44:55 PM1/2/13
to
me <m...@mine.net> writes:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:26:59 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:01:47 -0500, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>WinRAR.
>>>
>>> Simple and effective.
>>>
>>> Will split the compressed volume into convenient parts as specified by
>>> the user.
>>
>>I'd rule it out due to compression; it won't gain me much on a
>>collection that's mostly photos, and it means that one sector error
>>invalidates the rest of the entire volume.
>
>
> Why did you edit out the portion of Wally's reply that specifically
> spoke to this issue, the ability to create recovery records?
Because I didn't understand it that way.
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:26:59 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Wally <Wa...@luxx.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:01:47 -0500, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>WinRAR.
>>>
>>> Simple and effective.
>>>
>>> Will split the compressed volume into convenient parts as specified by
>>> the user.
>>
>>I'd rule it out due to compression; it won't gain me much on a
>>collection that's mostly photos, and it means that one sector error
>>invalidates the rest of the entire volume.
>
>
> Why did you edit out the portion of Wally's reply that specifically
> spoke to this issue, the ability to create recovery records?
In general, I far prefer plain vanilla disks, because there are so many
more ways to read, study, test, and recover them.
> Also, given the file compression is not just applied per each
> individual file but across multiple files some real compression can be
> achieved. I've seen 20-30% reduction in size with multiple multi-GB
> binary computational fluid dynamics solutions which would be lucky to
> see 2% reduction with Winzip. Sounds like you may not be up to speed
> on WinRAR specifically.
productive, now that I think about it (depends what I'm optimizing the
camera setup for). Hmmm. Thanks!
Tony Cooper
Jan 2, 2013, 8:20:59 PM1/2/13
to
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:36:42 -0800, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net>
wrote:
>Tony, I don't intend to get into a barking contest with you but being an
>old dog myself (most people older than I am are probably dead), I
>wouldn't use my age as being an excuse for not wanting to learn new
>tricks.
Nor I, and I'm approaching 525 years-old in barking years.
What Brian's reasons are, or excuses - if you prefer - are immaterial.
The point is Brian has been advised of a different (and I agree,
better) system but he doesn't choose to use it. That's his business.
Who knows what Brian's position is? "Old man" may be just his way of
saying "Not interested" or "I don't want to spend the money".
I encourage the suggestion of better ways, but not this bullying
insistence and references to being stupid. It could just as well
drive him into being even more stubborn.
nospam is carrying on like all of Brian's 100s of DVDs will melt next
week. That's not going to happen. It is kinda funny that there's
this the-sky-is-falling threat about DVDs failing, and how much better
external drives are, but most people recommend two external back-up
drives. Why are two needed if they don't fail?
Personally, I use two external drives and sometimes a third for files
I'm still revising. But , I've got 12 year-old CDs with images on
them that are still fully functional.
>Just because I'm used to doing things one way doesn't mean
>there's not a better way to do something. If there is a better way to do
>something I would be open to consider it regardless of age or what my
>past habits have been. Ultimately, I am always "the captain of my ship."
You're Captain, so let Brian be Captain of his own ship. He's been
advised of a better way. Let's all back off and let Brian make his
own decision.
wrote:
>Tony, I don't intend to get into a barking contest with you but being an
>old dog myself (most people older than I am are probably dead), I
>wouldn't use my age as being an excuse for not wanting to learn new
>tricks.
What Brian's reasons are, or excuses - if you prefer - are immaterial.
The point is Brian has been advised of a different (and I agree,
better) system but he doesn't choose to use it. That's his business.
Who knows what Brian's position is? "Old man" may be just his way of
saying "Not interested" or "I don't want to spend the money".
I encourage the suggestion of better ways, but not this bullying
insistence and references to being stupid. It could just as well
drive him into being even more stubborn.
nospam is carrying on like all of Brian's 100s of DVDs will melt next
week. That's not going to happen. It is kinda funny that there's
this the-sky-is-falling threat about DVDs failing, and how much better
external drives are, but most people recommend two external back-up
drives. Why are two needed if they don't fail?
Personally, I use two external drives and sometimes a third for files
I'm still revising. But , I've got 12 year-old CDs with images on
them that are still fully functional.
>Just because I'm used to doing things one way doesn't mean
>there's not a better way to do something. If there is a better way to do
>something I would be open to consider it regardless of age or what my
>past habits have been. Ultimately, I am always "the captain of my ship."
advised of a better way. Let's all back off and let Brian make his
own decision.
Mayayana
Jan 2, 2013, 8:32:24 PM1/2/13
to
| > I also use multiple partitions as a way to organize for
| > data backup. All the most important things -- files
| > worked on in different programs, personal software
| > settings from the Application Data folders, email, etc. --
| > fit on a small partition that I write to CD periodically.
| > That makes it easy to find and update the things that
| > need frequent backup.
|
| huh? why do *you* have to find the things to backup? that's what backup
| software does. a computer can easily find modified files a whole lot
| faster than you can, and more accurately.
|
I do it because I'm organized. I don't need to
| > data backup. All the most important things -- files
| > worked on in different programs, personal software
| > settings from the Application Data folders, email, etc. --
| > fit on a small partition that I write to CD periodically.
| > That makes it easy to find and update the things that
| > need frequent backup.
|
| huh? why do *you* have to find the things to backup? that's what backup
| software does. a computer can easily find modified files a whole lot
| faster than you can, and more accurately.
|
back up every file that's been modified. I need
to back up specific files. I need a few specific
files and folders that will allow me to update a
refreshed disk image without loss of data, should
I lose Windows. If you knew which files
you'll wish you had backed up after a crash then
you wouldn't need backup software to perform
a constant, automated dumb backup for you.
But, to each their own. Backup software is better
than nothing... assuming you know what to do with
it after a crash.
Mayayana
Jan 2, 2013, 9:47:10 PM1/2/13
to
| nospam is carrying on like all of Brian's 100s of DVDs will melt next
| week.
He doesn't even know what he's saying -- or what anyone
| week.
else is saying -- half the time. It's just compulsive contrariness.
It's really up to the OP not to get entangled with that.
| Personally, I use two external drives and sometimes a third for files
| I'm still revising. But , I've got 12 year-old CDs with images on
| them that are still fully functional.
|
I don't know for sure that that's the best way, but I
have 10-year-old CDs that are still good and I just
don't know about hard disks. What if they're exposed to
a magnetic field? What if the bearings seize up after
a fews years of not being used? Or maybe the charge
representing the data can gradually dissipate? Will I
even be able to use EIDE drives in 5-10 years? Those
may not be serious risks but I don't want to trust such
storage for years without being sure. I'd rather trust
repeat, periodic CD/DVD backup.
On the other hand, I don't need 250 DVDs to back
up my data. To me the more pertinent question here
is why people have batches of 1 TB backups to do. That
sounds to me like more of a housekeeping issue than a
backup issue.
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 11:39:23 PM1/2/13
to
In article <kc2n22$t7i$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
has nothing to do with being organized or not.
get a hard drive as big (or bigger) than your main drive and let the
computer worry about what gets backed up. it will do a better job than
you can.
> But, to each their own. Backup software is better
> than nothing... assuming you know what to do with
> it after a crash.
what's there to know?
if a drive crashes you swap one of the clone drives in place and
continue working, or you click restore if the original drive is still
functional. very easy. maybe too easy, since you seem to like doing
things the hard way.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> | > I also use multiple partitions as a way to organize for
> | > data backup. All the most important things -- files
> | > worked on in different programs, personal software
> | > settings from the Application Data folders, email, etc. --
> | > fit on a small partition that I write to CD periodically.
> | > That makes it easy to find and update the things that
> | > need frequent backup.
> |
> | huh? why do *you* have to find the things to backup? that's what backup
> | software does. a computer can easily find modified files a whole lot
> | faster than you can, and more accurately.
>
> I do it because I'm organized. I don't need to
> back up every file that's been modified. I need
> to back up specific files. I need a few specific
> files and folders that will allow me to update a
> refreshed disk image without loss of data, should
> I lose Windows. If you knew which files
> you'll wish you had backed up after a crash then
> you wouldn't need backup software to perform
> a constant, automated dumb backup for you.
disk space is cheap. there's no point in cherry picking files, and it
> | > I also use multiple partitions as a way to organize for
> | > data backup. All the most important things -- files
> | > worked on in different programs, personal software
> | > settings from the Application Data folders, email, etc. --
> | > fit on a small partition that I write to CD periodically.
> | > That makes it easy to find and update the things that
> | > need frequent backup.
> |
> | huh? why do *you* have to find the things to backup? that's what backup
> | software does. a computer can easily find modified files a whole lot
> | faster than you can, and more accurately.
>
> I do it because I'm organized. I don't need to
> back up every file that's been modified. I need
> to back up specific files. I need a few specific
> files and folders that will allow me to update a
> refreshed disk image without loss of data, should
> I lose Windows. If you knew which files
> you'll wish you had backed up after a crash then
> you wouldn't need backup software to perform
> a constant, automated dumb backup for you.
has nothing to do with being organized or not.
get a hard drive as big (or bigger) than your main drive and let the
computer worry about what gets backed up. it will do a better job than
you can.
> But, to each their own. Backup software is better
> than nothing... assuming you know what to do with
> it after a crash.
if a drive crashes you swap one of the clone drives in place and
continue working, or you click restore if the original drive is still
functional. very easy. maybe too easy, since you seem to like doing
things the hard way.
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 11:39:25 PM1/2/13
to
In article <kc2re8$hua$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
wrong.
> | Personally, I use two external drives and sometimes a third for files
> | I'm still revising. But , I've got 12 year-old CDs with images on
> | them that are still fully functional.
> |
>
> If I were using external drives I'd still use CDs/DVDs.
you haven't learned anything from this discussion either?
> I don't know for sure that that's the best way, but I
> have 10-year-old CDs that are still good
have you actually tried to read them? chances are that at least some of
those cds have problems.
> and I just
> don't know about hard disks. What if they're exposed to
> a magnetic field?
probably nothing, unless it's at the levels of a cat scan machine. do
you happen to have a cat scan machine in your house? no? then nothing
to worry about.
> What if the bearings seize up after
> a fews years of not being used? Or maybe the charge
> representing the data can gradually dissipate?
that's why you have multiple copies.
> Will I
> even be able to use EIDE drives in 5-10 years?
why wouldn't you?
and why are you still using ide anyway?
> Those
> may not be serious risks but I don't want to trust such
> storage for years without being sure. I'd rather trust
> repeat, periodic CD/DVD backup.
will you be able to read cds in 5-10 years?
what if you accidentally scratch a cd? what if someone steps on a cd?
what if you leave it exposed to sunlight? those are more likely than
some rogue magnetic field strong enough to affect a hard drive.
> On the other hand, I don't need 250 DVDs to back
> up my data. To me the more pertinent question here
> is why people have batches of 1 TB backups to do. That
> sounds to me like more of a housekeeping issue than a
> backup issue.
it has nothing to do with housekeeping. someone who has 1 tb of data
will need to back up 1 tb of data.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> | nospam is carrying on like all of Brian's 100s of DVDs will melt next
> | week.
>
> He doesn't even know what he's saying -- or what anyone
> else is saying -- half the time. It's just compulsive contrariness.
> It's really up to the OP not to get entangled with that.
i know what i'm saying, certainly more than you do. i keep proving you
> | nospam is carrying on like all of Brian's 100s of DVDs will melt next
> | week.
>
> He doesn't even know what he's saying -- or what anyone
> else is saying -- half the time. It's just compulsive contrariness.
> It's really up to the OP not to get entangled with that.
wrong.
> | Personally, I use two external drives and sometimes a third for files
> | I'm still revising. But , I've got 12 year-old CDs with images on
> | them that are still fully functional.
> |
>
> If I were using external drives I'd still use CDs/DVDs.
> I don't know for sure that that's the best way, but I
> have 10-year-old CDs that are still good
those cds have problems.
> and I just
> don't know about hard disks. What if they're exposed to
> a magnetic field?
you happen to have a cat scan machine in your house? no? then nothing
to worry about.
> What if the bearings seize up after
> a fews years of not being used? Or maybe the charge
> representing the data can gradually dissipate?
> Will I
> even be able to use EIDE drives in 5-10 years?
and why are you still using ide anyway?
> Those
> may not be serious risks but I don't want to trust such
> storage for years without being sure. I'd rather trust
> repeat, periodic CD/DVD backup.
what if you accidentally scratch a cd? what if someone steps on a cd?
what if you leave it exposed to sunlight? those are more likely than
some rogue magnetic field strong enough to affect a hard drive.
> On the other hand, I don't need 250 DVDs to back
> up my data. To me the more pertinent question here
> is why people have batches of 1 TB backups to do. That
> sounds to me like more of a housekeeping issue than a
> backup issue.
will need to back up 1 tb of data.
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 11:39:26 PM1/2/13
to
In article <d1f9e8db0jqookc8b...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
not only does it have to be simple but it has to be automatic. people
don't bother otherwise.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >>> It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
> >>> to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
> >>> indicating that he doesn't want to change.
> >>
> >>it's bad form to let someone continue on a path to disaster.
> >
> >Bullshit. There's no disaster involved. People have been backing up
> >on CDs and DVDs for years. Before that, they were backing up on
> >diskettes and ZIP drives, and before that, tapes. We don't have a
> >field of disaster out there of lost data.
>
> I do. I've had compressed backups scrambled on diskettes. I've had 30%
> of HP's backup tapes prove unreadable. I've had DVD's report errors on
> what were perfectly good sectors. I've had complete
> folders/directories vanish of HDDs. Nothing is perfect.
>
> But one thing I will not change my mind on. The backup and recovery
> process has to be simple. Otherwise confusion and error will take its
> toll. I can't help feeling that Brian Hofflinger has stretched his
> current procedures to in excess of their practical limits.
very true.
> >>> It's not bad form to point out other ways to back-up. It is bad form
> >>> to insist that the person should change his ways despite the person
> >>> indicating that he doesn't want to change.
> >>
> >>it's bad form to let someone continue on a path to disaster.
> >
> >Bullshit. There's no disaster involved. People have been backing up
> >on CDs and DVDs for years. Before that, they were backing up on
> >diskettes and ZIP drives, and before that, tapes. We don't have a
> >field of disaster out there of lost data.
>
> I do. I've had compressed backups scrambled on diskettes. I've had 30%
> of HP's backup tapes prove unreadable. I've had DVD's report errors on
> what were perfectly good sectors. I've had complete
> folders/directories vanish of HDDs. Nothing is perfect.
>
> But one thing I will not change my mind on. The backup and recovery
> process has to be simple. Otherwise confusion and error will take its
> toll. I can't help feeling that Brian Hofflinger has stretched his
> current procedures to in excess of their practical limits.
not only does it have to be simple but it has to be automatic. people
don't bother otherwise.
nospam
Jan 2, 2013, 11:39:27 PM1/2/13
to
In article <akjv5i...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
>
> > I'm an old man. Lost much data.
>
> > Over time, all electronics go kaput.
>
> > And, at the worst time.
>
> > You know the rule.
>
> The backup rule is to have enough backups to survive the level of risk
> of death of one of your backups. Back in the early days of very
> unreliable and badly calibrated 8" floppy drives that meant having
> always having four backups two of them copies taken on a different
> computer. And I probably should have had more, since there were
> several nail biting occasions when the first three backups failed.
>
> I find good quality modern hard disks to be extremely reliable. In the
> last twenty years I've had one die on me out of very vaguely a few
> dozen and that was a cheap one I'd been given. I backup my images to
> two remote terabyte hard discs which are only switched on and
> connected to do archiving or recover an old image. I've got a few
> terabytes of photographs in total. The reliability testing research
> I've checked suggests that modern good quality hard drives are a lot
> more reliable than than any kind of CD or DVD technology.
exactly correct.
> >> What are you doing to deserve such bad luck?
>
> > I'm an old man. Lost much data.
>
> > Over time, all electronics go kaput.
>
> > And, at the worst time.
>
> > You know the rule.
>
> The backup rule is to have enough backups to survive the level of risk
> of death of one of your backups. Back in the early days of very
> unreliable and badly calibrated 8" floppy drives that meant having
> always having four backups two of them copies taken on a different
> computer. And I probably should have had more, since there were
> several nail biting occasions when the first three backups failed.
>
> I find good quality modern hard disks to be extremely reliable. In the
> last twenty years I've had one die on me out of very vaguely a few
> dozen and that was a cheap one I'd been given. I backup my images to
> two remote terabyte hard discs which are only switched on and
> connected to do archiving or recover an old image. I've got a few
> terabytes of photographs in total. The reliability testing research
> I've checked suggests that modern good quality hard drives are a lot
> more reliable than than any kind of CD or DVD technology.
Peter
Jan 3, 2013, 12:24:13 AM1/3/13
to
On 1/2/2013 12:21 PM, Savageduck wrote:
<snip>
> True. However, if I respond to the bartender that I appreciate his good
> advise, but I must forego his suggestion due to my lactose intolerance,
> I would expect him to honor my request and serve the whiskey. If not I
> will take my trade elsewhere, the man is in the business of tending a
> BAR, not a milk bar.
A duck waddles into a bar and asks for a malted milk.
The bartender says: " I'm sorry sir, we don't serve malted milks.
The duck leave and comse back about an hour later, asking for a malted
milk .
The bartender says: are you a freakin wiseguy? If you ask fr a malted
milk again i'll nail your web feet to th bar.
Quacking with fear the duck flies out of the bar.
About an hour later the duck came back and asks for a hammer and nails.
the bartnder said: "I'm sorry sir, we don't have any hammer or nails."
The duck said" "Good, give me a malted milk."
--
PeterN
<snip>
> True. However, if I respond to the bartender that I appreciate his good
> advise, but I must forego his suggestion due to my lactose intolerance,
> I would expect him to honor my request and serve the whiskey. If not I
> will take my trade elsewhere, the man is in the business of tending a
> BAR, not a milk bar.
A duck waddles into a bar and asks for a malted milk.
The bartender says: " I'm sorry sir, we don't serve malted milks.
The duck leave and comse back about an hour later, asking for a malted
milk .
The bartender says: are you a freakin wiseguy? If you ask fr a malted
milk again i'll nail your web feet to th bar.
Quacking with fear the duck flies out of the bar.
About an hour later the duck came back and asks for a hammer and nails.
the bartnder said: "I'm sorry sir, we don't have any hammer or nails."
The duck said" "Good, give me a malted milk."
--
PeterN
nick c
Jan 3, 2013, 12:25:55 AM1/3/13
to
On 1/2/2013 5:20 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:36:42 -0800, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Tony, I don't intend to get into a barking contest with you but being an
>> old dog myself (most people older than I am are probably dead), I
>> wouldn't use my age as being an excuse for not wanting to learn new
>> tricks.
>
> Nor I, and I'm approaching 525 years-old in barking years.
>
> What Brian's reasons are, or excuses - if you prefer - are immaterial.
> The point is Brian has been advised of a different (and I agree,
> better) system but he doesn't choose to use it. That's his business.
>
> Who knows what Brian's position is? "Old man" may be just his way of
> saying "Not interested" or "I don't want to spend the money".
>
> I encourage the suggestion of better ways, but not this bullying
> insistence and references to being stupid. It could just as well
> drive him into being even more stubborn.
Terms such as /stupid/ are often used in an attempt to describe a
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:36:42 -0800, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Tony, I don't intend to get into a barking contest with you but being an
>> old dog myself (most people older than I am are probably dead), I
>> wouldn't use my age as being an excuse for not wanting to learn new
>> tricks.
>
> Nor I, and I'm approaching 525 years-old in barking years.
>
> What Brian's reasons are, or excuses - if you prefer - are immaterial.
> The point is Brian has been advised of a different (and I agree,
> better) system but he doesn't choose to use it. That's his business.
>
> Who knows what Brian's position is? "Old man" may be just his way of
> saying "Not interested" or "I don't want to spend the money".
>
> I encourage the suggestion of better ways, but not this bullying
> insistence and references to being stupid. It could just as well
> drive him into being even more stubborn.
specific condition needed to be emphasized and not meant to indicate a
reality. As for driving him to be more stubborn, well ... that might
well be stupid.
>
> nospam is carrying on like all of Brian's 100s of DVDs will melt next
> week. That's not going to happen. It is kinda funny that there's
> this the-sky-is-falling threat about DVDs failing, and how much better
> external drives are, but most people recommend two external back-up
> drives. Why are two needed if they don't fail?
>
> Personally, I use two external drives and sometimes a third for files
> I'm still revising. But , I've got 12 year-old CDs with images on
> them that are still fully functional.
However, technological advancements seems to render many methods to
eventually become obsolete. What we seem to appear to fight, yet at the
same time somehow approve, is equipment obsolescence.
>
>> Just because I'm used to doing things one way doesn't mean
>> there's not a better way to do something. If there is a better way to do
>> something I would be open to consider it regardless of age or what my
>> past habits have been. Ultimately, I am always "the captain of my ship."
>
> You're Captain, so let Brian be Captain of his own ship. He's been
> advised of a better way. Let's all back off and let Brian make his
> own decision.
>
>
>
the suggestions being submitted. However, storage on DVD's of data that
consistently gets revised is troublesome and not a good idea regardless
of his rejections. For example, the plastic coating on a DVD is
absorbent and highly vulnerable to damage.
He's asking for freeware so that might indicate he's not in a position
to shell-out some cash or it might indicate a certain degree of thrift.
But buying DVD's isn't cheap either. Therefore, age itself, or cost, is
not a reasonable cause for rejection But ... just simply refusing to
change an age old habit practiced over an eon of time is certainly a
viable reason for rejection.
Bear in mind, he had asked for specific guidance and received guidance
far better than what he asked for. For sure, what he finally does is his
business, however, how he responds to those trying to help him just may
cost him a lack of guidance should he again ask for help.
Savageduck
Jan 3, 2013, 12:33:34 AM1/3/13
to
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Jan 3, 2013, 12:35:29 AM1/3/13
to
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Tony Cooper
Jan 3, 2013, 1:44:28 AM1/3/13
to
the end of the month I backed up the month's files. The CD or the DVD
was not revised. I should also mention that if I had a set of images
that I particularly cared about that would burn them immediately after
processing. Most images, though, could wait until the end of the
month.
I don't do that anymore. Files are downloaded to C:, processed in C:,
and then as soon as I've finished the processing I run a program that
backs-up new and changed to an external drive alternating between two
externals.
I'm strictly an amateur photographer, so my files are just images that
appeal to me. I might do things differently if I was a pro and my
images were worth something.
At any rate, I've never lost an image due to equipment or media
failure.
The only time now that I burn DVDs are family images for other family
members. There are some family members who like to receive DVDs of
images and movies that they can stick in their DVD players and watch
on their television.
>> He's asking for freeware so that might indicate he's not in a position
>> to shell-out some cash or it might indicate a certain degree of thrift.
>> But buying DVD's isn't cheap either. Therefore, age itself, or cost, is
>> not a reasonable cause for rejection But ... just simply refusing to
>> change an age old habit practiced over an eon of time is certainly a
>> viable reason for rejection.
>>
>> Bear in mind, he had asked for specific guidance and received guidance
>> far better than what he asked for. For sure, what he finally does is
>> his business, however, how he responds to those trying to help him just
>> may cost him a lack of guidance should he again ask for help.
interested in changing is not impolite. He's under no obligation to
change.
Mayayana
Jan 3, 2013, 10:01:25 AM1/3/13
to
| > | huh? why do *you* have to find the things to backup? that's what
backup
| > | software does. a computer can easily find modified files a whole lot
| > | faster than you can, and more accurately.
| >
| > I do it because I'm organized. I don't need to
| > back up every file that's been modified. I need
| > to back up specific files. I need a few specific
| > files and folders that will allow me to update a
| > refreshed disk image without loss of data, should
| > I lose Windows. If you knew which files
| > you'll wish you had backed up after a crash then
| > you wouldn't need backup software to perform
| > a constant, automated dumb backup for you.
|
| disk space is cheap. there's no point in cherry picking files, and it
| has nothing to do with being organized or not.
|
| get a hard drive as big (or bigger) than your main drive and let the
| computer worry about what gets backed up. it will do a better job than
| you can.
|
Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
backup
| > | software does. a computer can easily find modified files a whole lot
| > | faster than you can, and more accurately.
| >
| > I do it because I'm organized. I don't need to
| > back up every file that's been modified. I need
| > to back up specific files. I need a few specific
| > files and folders that will allow me to update a
| > refreshed disk image without loss of data, should
| > I lose Windows. If you knew which files
| > you'll wish you had backed up after a crash then
| > you wouldn't need backup software to perform
| > a constant, automated dumb backup for you.
|
| disk space is cheap. there's no point in cherry picking files, and it
| has nothing to do with being organized or not.
|
| get a hard drive as big (or bigger) than your main drive and let the
| computer worry about what gets backed up. it will do a better job than
| you can.
|
you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
(And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
Eric Stevens
Jan 3, 2013, 2:42:31 PM1/3/13
to
stacks of CD/DVDs?
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
nick c
Jan 3, 2013, 4:13:12 PM1/3/13
to
drive. As photos are worked or stored, that folder would be consistently
undergoing change. Therefore, the backup folder(s) would be subject to
periodic changes.
> When I was backing up to CDs or DVDs, at
> the end of the month I backed up the month's files. The CD or the DVD
> was not revised.
In the vicissitude of time one would expect to become wiser and change
accordingly as we undergo expected or unexpected experiences.
> I should also mention that if I had a set of images
> that I particularly cared about that would burn them immediately after
> processing. Most images, though, could wait until the end of the
> month.
>
> I don't do that anymore. Files are downloaded to C:, processed in C:,
> and then as soon as I've finished the processing I run a program that
> backs-up new and changed to an external drive alternating between two
> externals.
You can color me Dumbo if I opted to store my photographic treasures on
DVDs. "Oops" has no place in my system of things.
>
> I'm strictly an amateur photographer, so my files are just images that
> appeal to me. I might do things differently if I was a pro and my
> images were worth something.
which continue to appeal to me. Shoot ... I'll bet we have a degree of
commonality between us, so why are we engaged in a debate? Huh! :)
>
> At any rate, I've never lost an image due to equipment or media
> failure.
Ever spill hot black coffee on a batch of DVDs and have it remain there
for a minute or two while you look to get something to clean them off
with? Sometimes they can still be read, sometimes they can't.
>
> The only time now that I burn DVDs are family images for other family
> members. There are some family members who like to receive DVDs of
> images and movies that they can stick in their DVD players and watch
> on their television.
endorsing that method of storage. I try to organize my photographs
and/or classify them and store them on external mobile hard drives.
Backup photo folders are consistently being updated as photo's are added
to their respective folders. Once I give (send or burn) family photo's
to family members I'm no longer connected with the photo's so what
happens to them is of no concern to me.
>
>>> He's asking for freeware so that might indicate he's not in a position
>>> to shell-out some cash or it might indicate a certain degree of thrift.
>>> But buying DVD's isn't cheap either. Therefore, age itself, or cost, is
>>> not a reasonable cause for rejection But ... just simply refusing to
>>> change an age old habit practiced over an eon of time is certainly a
>>> viable reason for rejection.
>>>
>>> Bear in mind, he had asked for specific guidance and received guidance
>>> far better than what he asked for. For sure, what he finally does is
>>> his business, however, how he responds to those trying to help him just
>>> may cost him a lack of guidance should he again ask for help.
>
> I didn't see any impolite response from him. Saying that he wasn't
> interested in changing is not impolite.
He posted a request for help and somewhat progressively dictated the
terms under which help would be accepted or appreciated.
>He's under no obligation to
> change.
request for help are under no obligation to waste their time trying to
educate and advisedly help him. As for impoliteness, a simple display of
interest or gratitude for the sound help that was being offered would
have been the polite thing to do.
Who would have displayed impoliteness .... those who seriously offered
help or those who say the help offered, though useful, does not support
the methodology requested in the posting requesting help. I read into
the posts of Savageduck and Nospam information that is thoughtful and sound.
Oh well ... I neither have a problem or encountered problems in storing
backup data and have no knowledge of a program that can divide data into
sections that can be stored to the limited capacity of DVDs.
John Wayne (the super hero who won the war in the South Pacific and also
tamed Indian tribes) supposedly once said "Life is hard. It's harder
when you're stupid." That's what he supposedly said, yep ... he
supposedly said that. :)
>
>
>
>
Mayayana
Jan 3, 2013, 4:27:16 PM1/3/13
to
| > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
| >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
| >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
| >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
| > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
| >
| Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
| stacks of CD/DVDs?
| --
Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
| >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
| >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
| >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
| > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
| >
| Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
| stacks of CD/DVDs?
| --
but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
I'm not going to spend my time and money because
my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
can't understand it. :)
nospam
Jan 3, 2013, 5:19:42 PM1/3/13
to
In article <kc4t2f$4c0$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> | > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
> | >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
> | >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
> | >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
> | > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
> | >
> | Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
> | stacks of CD/DVDs?
>
> | > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
> | >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
> | >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
> | >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
> | > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
> | >
> | Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
> | stacks of CD/DVDs?
>
> Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
> but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
> get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
> happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
> I'm not going to spend my time and money because
> my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
> can't understand it. :)
i'm not fuming. i don't care what you do.
> but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
> get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
> happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
> I'm not going to spend my time and money because
> my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
> can't understand it. :)
however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
Eric Stevens
Jan 3, 2013, 5:39:13 PM1/3/13
to
so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
nospam
Jan 3, 2013, 5:55:55 PM1/3/13
to
In article <pv1ce8h9ioslnncmu...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
burning hundreds of dvds takes a *lot* of time and constant attention
swapping dvds.
cloning a hard drive is one click and you can go do something else
while it copies. let it run overnight and it's done when you wake up
the next morning.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >| > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
> >| >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
> >| >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
> >| >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
> >| > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
> >| >
> >| Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
> >| stacks of CD/DVDs?
> >
> >| > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
> >| >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
> >| >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
> >| >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
> >| > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
> >| >
> >| Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
> >| stacks of CD/DVDs?
> >
> > Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
> >but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
> >get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
> >happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
> >I'm not going to spend my time and money because
> >my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
> >can't understand it. :)
>
> It's just that you threw in "and since you see the cost as negligible"
> so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
> burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
> time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
only if you ignore the value of your time.
> >but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
> >get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
> >happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
> >I'm not going to spend my time and money because
> >my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
> >can't understand it. :)
>
> It's just that you threw in "and since you see the cost as negligible"
> so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
> burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
> time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
burning hundreds of dvds takes a *lot* of time and constant attention
swapping dvds.
cloning a hard drive is one click and you can go do something else
while it copies. let it run overnight and it's done when you wake up
the next morning.
Mayayana
Jan 3, 2013, 6:05:46 PM1/3/13
to
| i'm not fuming. i don't care what you do.
|
| however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
If you say so. Lucky for me, I live in my experience
|
| however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
of my world and not in your fantasy of it. :)
nospam
Jan 3, 2013, 6:11:12 PM1/3/13
to
In article <kc52r5$erj$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
you have a *partial* backup, and one which is not all that up to date
either.
one day, you will have an oh shit moment and realize you need a
particular file and it isn't on any of your dvds because you didn't
think you'd need it so you didn't back it up, or what you have is not
that recent.
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> | however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
>
> If you say so. Lucky for me, I live in my experience
> of my world and not in your fantasy of it. :)
you said you don't back up all files.
> | however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
>
> If you say so. Lucky for me, I live in my experience
> of my world and not in your fantasy of it. :)
you have a *partial* backup, and one which is not all that up to date
either.
one day, you will have an oh shit moment and realize you need a
particular file and it isn't on any of your dvds because you didn't
think you'd need it so you didn't back it up, or what you have is not
that recent.
Tony Cooper
Jan 3, 2013, 6:25:44 PM1/3/13
to
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:19:42 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
You were on a rant earlier because I don't "care" about the other
guy's potential problem of losing images.
>however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
What do you call images copied to disks, then?
wrote:
guy's potential problem of losing images.
>however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
Tony Cooper
Jan 3, 2013, 6:43:11 PM1/3/13
to
of a retired person like me or the OP? And, who do we bill?
A DVD-R is about 20 cents in a spindle of 100. An external drive is
about $100. (They are available for more and for less, but that's
pretty close to an average cost) That's the cost of 500 DVD-Rs.
Five hundred DVD-Rs will hold about 2,350,000 jpgs at 1mb per file.
Fewer RAW files, but it's hard to come up with a number for RAW files
because different cameras have different size RAW output. Movie
files, of course, take *much* more space.
I believe in, and use, external drives. But, I don't see the costs of
DVD vs EHD as equal.
Tony Cooper
Jan 3, 2013, 6:52:20 PM1/3/13
to
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:55:55 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <pv1ce8h9ioslnncmu...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >| > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
>> >| >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
>> >| >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
>> >| >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
>> >| > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
>> >| >
>> >| Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
>> >| stacks of CD/DVDs?
>> >
>> > Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
>> >but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
>> >get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
>> >happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
>> >I'm not going to spend my time and money because
>> >my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
>> >can't understand it. :)
>>
>> It's just that you threw in "and since you see the cost as negligible"
>> so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
>> burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
>> time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
>
>only if you ignore the value of your time.
What value is one's time? For a value to be assigned, something that
would bring in income has to be forfeited in favor of burning the DVD.
What's forfeited?
If you look at time spent doing something like this being a cost, the
time spent taking the photographs or the movies should be assigned a
cost. There's more time spent in this than burning the DVDs, so the
obvious money-saving solution is to not take photographs.
>burning hundreds of dvds takes a *lot* of time and constant attention
>swapping dvds.
Who burns hundreds of DVDs at a time when backing-up? Anyone using
this system burns a couple a month unless they're burning movie files.
>cloning a hard drive is one click and you can go do something else
>while it copies. let it run overnight and it's done when you wake up
>the next morning.
That's how you burn DVDs. You click a few times and do something else
while it burns.
An external hard drive is a better way to go. But, making silly-ass
arguments like the above doesn't make the case.
wrote:
>In article <pv1ce8h9ioslnncmu...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >| > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
>> >| >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
>> >| >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
>> >| >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
>> >| > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
>> >| >
>> >| Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
>> >| stacks of CD/DVDs?
>> >
>> > Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
>> >but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
>> >get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
>> >happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
>> >I'm not going to spend my time and money because
>> >my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
>> >can't understand it. :)
>>
>> It's just that you threw in "and since you see the cost as negligible"
>> so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
>> burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
>> time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
>
>only if you ignore the value of your time.
would bring in income has to be forfeited in favor of burning the DVD.
What's forfeited?
If you look at time spent doing something like this being a cost, the
time spent taking the photographs or the movies should be assigned a
cost. There's more time spent in this than burning the DVDs, so the
obvious money-saving solution is to not take photographs.
>burning hundreds of dvds takes a *lot* of time and constant attention
>swapping dvds.
this system burns a couple a month unless they're burning movie files.
>cloning a hard drive is one click and you can go do something else
>while it copies. let it run overnight and it's done when you wake up
>the next morning.
while it burns.
An external hard drive is a better way to go. But, making silly-ass
arguments like the above doesn't make the case.
nospam
Jan 3, 2013, 7:25:48 PM1/3/13
to
In article <3n4ce89rimb8kaghm...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> >however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
>
> What do you call images copied to disks, then?
copies of images. nothing more.
what about everything *other* than photos?
what about everything that changed in the past month, since you say you
burn monthly?
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> | > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
> >> | >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
> >> | >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
> >> | >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
> >> | > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
> >> | >
> >> | Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
> >> | stacks of CD/DVDs?
> >>
> >> Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
> >> but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
> >> get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
> >> happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
> >> I'm not going to spend my time and money because
> >> my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
> >> can't understand it. :)
> >
> >i'm not fuming. i don't care what you do.
>
> You were on a rant earlier because I don't "care" about the other
> guy's potential problem of losing images.
it wasn't a rant and it's certainly not fuming.
> >> | > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
> >> | >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
> >> | >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
> >> | >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
> >> | > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
> >> | >
> >> | Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
> >> | stacks of CD/DVDs?
> >>
> >> Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
> >> but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
> >> get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
> >> happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
> >> I'm not going to spend my time and money because
> >> my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
> >> can't understand it. :)
> >
> >i'm not fuming. i don't care what you do.
>
> You were on a rant earlier because I don't "care" about the other
> guy's potential problem of losing images.
> >however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
>
> What do you call images copied to disks, then?
what about everything *other* than photos?
what about everything that changed in the past month, since you say you
burn monthly?
nospam
Jan 3, 2013, 7:25:49 PM1/3/13
to
In article <ms4ce85ohs5e7lkgv...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
the time you spend burning dvds takes away from more enjoyable
activities.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>| > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
> >>| >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
> >>| >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
> >>| >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
> >>| > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
> >>| >
> >>| Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
> >>| stacks of CD/DVDs?
> >>| --
> >>
> >> Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
> >>but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
> >>get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
> >>happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
> >>I'm not going to spend my time and money because
> >>my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
> >>can't understand it. :)
> >>
> >
> >It's just that you threw in "and since you see the cost as negligible"
> >so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
> >burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
> >time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
>
> What are the labor or time costs? What's the billable rate per hour
> of a retired person like me or the OP? And, who do we bill?
you don't have to bill anyone for your time to be worth something.
> >>| > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
> >>| >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
> >>| >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
> >>| >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
> >>| > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
> >>| >
> >>| Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
> >>| stacks of CD/DVDs?
> >>| --
> >>
> >> Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
> >>but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
> >>get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
> >>happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
> >>I'm not going to spend my time and money because
> >>my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
> >>can't understand it. :)
> >>
> >
> >It's just that you threw in "and since you see the cost as negligible"
> >so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
> >burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
> >time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
>
> What are the labor or time costs? What's the billable rate per hour
> of a retired person like me or the OP? And, who do we bill?
the time you spend burning dvds takes away from more enjoyable
activities.
nospam
Jan 3, 2013, 7:25:51 PM1/3/13
to
In article <at5ce8hvv7p2ohoes...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> If you look at time spent doing something like this being a cost, the
> time spent taking the photographs or the movies should be assigned a
> cost. There's more time spent in this than burning the DVDs, so the
> obvious money-saving solution is to not take photographs.
bizarre rationalization.
the time you spend burning dvds could be spent doing something else
that's a lot more enjoyable, whatever it may be.
> >burning hundreds of dvds takes a *lot* of time and constant attention
> >swapping dvds.
>
> Who burns hundreds of DVDs at a time when backing-up? Anyone using
> this system burns a couple a month unless they're burning movie files.
if you have a 1 terabyte drive full of stuff and want to back up to
dvd, you are going to need to burn hundreds of dvds for a complete
backup. that is going to take a week or two to finish, by which time
the backup will be well out of date. and that's assuming no coasters in
the process.
once you have everything burned to dvd, then you can fall back to
burning a couple of discs a month for the incrementals.
> >cloning a hard drive is one click and you can go do something else
> >while it copies. let it run overnight and it's done when you wake up
> >the next morning.
>
> That's how you burn DVDs. You click a few times and do something else
> while it burns.
and then go back 10 minutes later to put a new dvd in and start the
process again.
and then again 10 minutes after that.
and again. and again. and again.
and again.
that gets old, *really* fast.
if you want to go out for lunch, then no dvds get burned during that
time. if you want to go to a movie at night, then no dvds get burned
then either.
meanwhile, a hard drive clone runs unattended until it's done. no
babysitting necessary.
> An external hard drive is a better way to go.
absolutely. that's what i said long ago.
> But, making silly-ass
> arguments like the above doesn't make the case.
it's not a silly ass argument and actually it does make the case.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It's just that you threw in "and since you see the cost as negligible"
> >> so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
> >> burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
> >> time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
> >
> >only if you ignore the value of your time.
>
> What value is one's time? For a value to be assigned, something that
> would bring in income has to be forfeited in favor of burning the DVD.
> What's forfeited?
there need not be income for it to have value.
> >> It's just that you threw in "and since you see the cost as negligible"
> >> so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
> >> burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
> >> time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
> >
> >only if you ignore the value of your time.
>
> What value is one's time? For a value to be assigned, something that
> would bring in income has to be forfeited in favor of burning the DVD.
> What's forfeited?
> If you look at time spent doing something like this being a cost, the
> time spent taking the photographs or the movies should be assigned a
> cost. There's more time spent in this than burning the DVDs, so the
> obvious money-saving solution is to not take photographs.
the time you spend burning dvds could be spent doing something else
that's a lot more enjoyable, whatever it may be.
> >burning hundreds of dvds takes a *lot* of time and constant attention
> >swapping dvds.
>
> Who burns hundreds of DVDs at a time when backing-up? Anyone using
> this system burns a couple a month unless they're burning movie files.
dvd, you are going to need to burn hundreds of dvds for a complete
backup. that is going to take a week or two to finish, by which time
the backup will be well out of date. and that's assuming no coasters in
the process.
once you have everything burned to dvd, then you can fall back to
burning a couple of discs a month for the incrementals.
> >cloning a hard drive is one click and you can go do something else
> >while it copies. let it run overnight and it's done when you wake up
> >the next morning.
>
> That's how you burn DVDs. You click a few times and do something else
> while it burns.
process again.
and then again 10 minutes after that.
and again. and again. and again.
and again.
that gets old, *really* fast.
if you want to go out for lunch, then no dvds get burned during that
time. if you want to go to a movie at night, then no dvds get burned
then either.
meanwhile, a hard drive clone runs unattended until it's done. no
babysitting necessary.
> An external hard drive is a better way to go.
> But, making silly-ass
> arguments like the above doesn't make the case.
Savageduck
Jan 3, 2013, 8:08:02 PM1/3/13
to
rate must be taken into account along with the time to verify each
freshly burned DVD. The problem with the DVD method is it leads to
procrastination, and ultimately avoidance because it is such a PITA.
That said, the DVD backup method is better than no method at all, but
not by much.
It is somewhat like bailing out of a plane with an umbrella, hoping to
land in a snow drift, instead of using the perfectly good parachute
which was right next to the umbrella.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Tony Cooper
Jan 3, 2013, 8:20:07 PM1/3/13
to
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:13:12 -0800, nick c <nche...@ontheverizon.net>
You can revise a DVD-RW, but I wouldn't think that's what would be
used. I sure never did it that way. A file is copied on a DVD-R and
the DVD is put away and not used again unless the data is needed.
I've got a spindle of about 75 DVD-Rs left of the 100, and I'll
probably never use the rest. I don' burn many anymore.
>
>> When I was backing up to CDs or DVDs, at
>> the end of the month I backed up the month's files. The CD or the DVD
>> was not revised.
>
>When I was backing up to CDs or DVDs I was a lot younger and less wiser.
>In the vicissitude of time one would expect to become wiser and change
>accordingly as we undergo expected or unexpected experiences.
>
>> I should also mention that if I had a set of images
>> that I particularly cared about that would burn them immediately after
>> processing. Most images, though, could wait until the end of the
>> month.
>>
>> I don't do that anymore. Files are downloaded to C:, processed in C:,
>> and then as soon as I've finished the processing I run a program that
>> backs-up new and changed to an external drive alternating between two
>> externals.
>
>Sounds good to me.
>
>You can color me Dumbo if I opted to store my photographic treasures on
>DVDs. "Oops" has no place in my system of things.
Well, like I said...I used external drives now. When I was using DVDs
and CDs, I never had a problem.
>
>Ever spill hot black coffee on a batch of DVDs and have it remain there
>for a minute or two while you look to get something to clean them off
>with? Sometimes they can still be read, sometimes they can't.
Hasn't happened to me, but would have just burned a new one. The
files are still on C:.
>>
>> I didn't see any impolite response from him. Saying that he wasn't
>> interested in changing is not impolite.
>
>Nonetheless, thoughtlessly he has been impolite.
>
>He posted a request for help and somewhat progressively dictated the
>terms under which help would be accepted or appreciated.
That seemed to me to be the result of progressively strident demands
that he conform to the system of others.
I've been in the same boat almost. I have Lightroom, but I don't edit
in Lightroom. I use it just for a file system. I edit in Photoshop.
That's the way I prefer to work. I don't mind suggestions about using
LR for editing, but I don't like being pressed to change.
used. I sure never did it that way. A file is copied on a DVD-R and
the DVD is put away and not used again unless the data is needed.
I've got a spindle of about 75 DVD-Rs left of the 100, and I'll
probably never use the rest. I don' burn many anymore.
>
>> When I was backing up to CDs or DVDs, at
>> the end of the month I backed up the month's files. The CD or the DVD
>> was not revised.
>
>When I was backing up to CDs or DVDs I was a lot younger and less wiser.
>In the vicissitude of time one would expect to become wiser and change
>accordingly as we undergo expected or unexpected experiences.
>
>> I should also mention that if I had a set of images
>> that I particularly cared about that would burn them immediately after
>> processing. Most images, though, could wait until the end of the
>> month.
>>
>> I don't do that anymore. Files are downloaded to C:, processed in C:,
>> and then as soon as I've finished the processing I run a program that
>> backs-up new and changed to an external drive alternating between two
>> externals.
>
>Sounds good to me.
>
>You can color me Dumbo if I opted to store my photographic treasures on
>DVDs. "Oops" has no place in my system of things.
and CDs, I never had a problem.
>
>Ever spill hot black coffee on a batch of DVDs and have it remain there
>for a minute or two while you look to get something to clean them off
>with? Sometimes they can still be read, sometimes they can't.
files are still on C:.
>>
>> I didn't see any impolite response from him. Saying that he wasn't
>> interested in changing is not impolite.
>
>Nonetheless, thoughtlessly he has been impolite.
>
>He posted a request for help and somewhat progressively dictated the
>terms under which help would be accepted or appreciated.
that he conform to the system of others.
I've been in the same boat almost. I have Lightroom, but I don't edit
in Lightroom. I use it just for a file system. I edit in Photoshop.
That's the way I prefer to work. I don't mind suggestions about using
LR for editing, but I don't like being pressed to change.
Tony Cooper
Jan 3, 2013, 8:25:23 PM1/3/13
to
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:25:48 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <3n4ce89rimb8kaghm...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> | > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
>> >> | >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
>> >> | >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
>> >> | >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
>> >> | > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
>> >> | >
>> >> | Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
>> >> | stacks of CD/DVDs?
>> >>
>> >> Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
>> >> but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
>> >> get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
>> >> happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
>> >> I'm not going to spend my time and money because
>> >> my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
>> >> can't understand it. :)
>> >
>> >i'm not fuming. i don't care what you do.
>>
>> You were on a rant earlier because I don't "care" about the other
>> guy's potential problem of losing images.
>
>it wasn't a rant and it's certainly not fuming.
Weasel.
>
>> >however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
>>
>> What do you call images copied to disks, then?
>
>copies of images. nothing more.
>
>what about everything *other* than photos?
>
>what about everything that changed in the past month, since you say you
>burn monthly?
I didn't say that. I said I burned monthly *and* immediately after
processing with some image files. And, that I don't do that anymore.
I use EHDs and back-up incrementally for new and changed whenever I
work with that file.
wrote:
>In article <3n4ce89rimb8kaghm...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> | > Okey doke. Since it's so important to you, and since
>> >> | >you see the cost as negligible, I'll get a big, extra hard
>> >> | >disk for additional backup. I want you to be happy.
>> >> | >When can I expect your check to cover the costs?
>> >> | > (And don't forget to add in for my labor. :)
>> >> | >
>> >> | Are you suggesting there are no costs or labour involved in burning
>> >> | stacks of CD/DVDs?
>> >>
>> >> Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
>> >> but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
>> >> get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
>> >> happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
>> >> I'm not going to spend my time and money because
>> >> my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
>> >> can't understand it. :)
>> >
>> >i'm not fuming. i don't care what you do.
>>
>> You were on a rant earlier because I don't "care" about the other
>> guy's potential problem of losing images.
>
>it wasn't a rant and it's certainly not fuming.
>
>> >however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
>>
>> What do you call images copied to disks, then?
>
>copies of images. nothing more.
>
>what about everything *other* than photos?
>
>what about everything that changed in the past month, since you say you
>burn monthly?
processing with some image files. And, that I don't do that anymore.
I use EHDs and back-up incrementally for new and changed whenever I
work with that file.
Tony Cooper
Jan 3, 2013, 8:30:33 PM1/3/13
to
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:25:51 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <at5ce8hvv7p2ohoes...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> It's just that you threw in "and since you see the cost as negligible"
>> >> so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
>> >> burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
>> >> time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
>> >
>> >only if you ignore the value of your time.
>>
>> What value is one's time? For a value to be assigned, something that
>> would bring in income has to be forfeited in favor of burning the DVD.
>> What's forfeited?
>
>there need not be income for it to have value.
Weasel. What is the value?
>the time you spend burning dvds could be spent doing something else
>that's a lot more enjoyable, whatever it may be.
No one sits there and stares into space when the burning process is in
progress. In Windows, you just alt-tab and do something else.
>> >burning hundreds of dvds takes a *lot* of time and constant attention
>> >swapping dvds.
>>
>> Who burns hundreds of DVDs at a time when backing-up? Anyone using
>> this system burns a couple a month unless they're burning movie files.
>
>if you have a 1 terabyte drive full of stuff and want to back up to
>dvd, you are going to need to burn hundreds of dvds for a complete
>backup. that is going to take a week or two to finish, by which time
>the backup will be well out of date. and that's assuming no coasters in
>the process.
Yeah, right. That's what we're talking about, people with 1 tb drives
that back-up the entire drive at one time. Another weasel.
wrote:
>In article <at5ce8hvv7p2ohoes...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> It's just that you threw in "and since you see the cost as negligible"
>> >> so I was pointing out that there are real costs associated with DVD
>> >> burning and shuffling also. I would not be surprised to find that the
>> >> time and money costs of the two methods are comparable.
>> >
>> >only if you ignore the value of your time.
>>
>> What value is one's time? For a value to be assigned, something that
>> would bring in income has to be forfeited in favor of burning the DVD.
>> What's forfeited?
>
>there need not be income for it to have value.
>
>> If you look at time spent doing something like this being a cost, the
>> time spent taking the photographs or the movies should be assigned a
>> cost. There's more time spent in this than burning the DVDs, so the
>> obvious money-saving solution is to not take photographs.
>
>bizarre rationalization.
No more bizarre than your joke of a post.
>> If you look at time spent doing something like this being a cost, the
>> time spent taking the photographs or the movies should be assigned a
>> cost. There's more time spent in this than burning the DVDs, so the
>> obvious money-saving solution is to not take photographs.
>
>bizarre rationalization.
>the time you spend burning dvds could be spent doing something else
>that's a lot more enjoyable, whatever it may be.
progress. In Windows, you just alt-tab and do something else.
>> >burning hundreds of dvds takes a *lot* of time and constant attention
>> >swapping dvds.
>>
>> Who burns hundreds of DVDs at a time when backing-up? Anyone using
>> this system burns a couple a month unless they're burning movie files.
>
>if you have a 1 terabyte drive full of stuff and want to back up to
>dvd, you are going to need to burn hundreds of dvds for a complete
>backup. that is going to take a week or two to finish, by which time
>the backup will be well out of date. and that's assuming no coasters in
>the process.
that back-up the entire drive at one time. Another weasel.
nospam
Jan 3, 2013, 8:58:13 PM1/3/13
to
In article <2jace89qn5a0pk09i...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
you can't burn another copy when you are restoring. it's too late at
that point.
you really don't understand this stuff, do you?
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Ever spill hot black coffee on a batch of DVDs and have it remain there
> >for a minute or two while you look to get something to clean them off
> >with? Sometimes they can still be read, sometimes they can't.
>
> Hasn't happened to me, but would have just burned a new one. The
> files are still on C:.
not when your hard drive crashes, they aren't.
> >Ever spill hot black coffee on a batch of DVDs and have it remain there
> >for a minute or two while you look to get something to clean them off
> >with? Sometimes they can still be read, sometimes they can't.
>
> Hasn't happened to me, but would have just burned a new one. The
> files are still on C:.
you can't burn another copy when you are restoring. it's too late at
that point.
you really don't understand this stuff, do you?
nospam
Jan 3, 2013, 8:58:14 PM1/3/13
to
In article <dmbce8tioi1kofh9u...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
you don't get to fabricate what i was doing and then claim i'm changing
it.
> >> >however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
> >>
> >> What do you call images copied to disks, then?
> >
> >copies of images. nothing more.
> >
> >what about everything *other* than photos?
> >
> >what about everything that changed in the past month, since you say you
> >burn monthly?
>
> I didn't say that. I said I burned monthly *and* immediately after
> processing with some image files.
which means non-image files are at risk plus any images you didn't burn
immediately after processing (you said 'some').
> And, that I don't do that anymore.
> I use EHDs and back-up incrementally for new and changed whenever I
> work with that file.
a much better system.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
> >> >> but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
> >> >> get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
> >> >> happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
> >> >> I'm not going to spend my time and money because
> >> >> my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
> >> >> can't understand it. :)
> >> >
> >> >i'm not fuming. i don't care what you do.
> >>
> >> You were on a rant earlier because I don't "care" about the other
> >> guy's potential problem of losing images.
> >
> >it wasn't a rant and it's certainly not fuming.
>
> Weasel.
nothing weasel about it. i wasn't ranting and i wasn't fuming.
> >> >> Not at all. I'm saying that my backup works fine,
> >> >> but that nospam is fuming and adamant that I should
> >> >> get a new hard disk for backup. I'm just saying that I'm
> >> >> happy to do that for his sake if he wants to pay for it.
> >> >> I'm not going to spend my time and money because
> >> >> my backup already works fine, despite that nospam
> >> >> can't understand it. :)
> >> >
> >> >i'm not fuming. i don't care what you do.
> >>
> >> You were on a rant earlier because I don't "care" about the other
> >> guy's potential problem of losing images.
> >
> >it wasn't a rant and it's certainly not fuming.
>
> Weasel.
you don't get to fabricate what i was doing and then claim i'm changing
it.
> >> >however, you don't have a backup. you might think you do, though.
> >>
> >> What do you call images copied to disks, then?
> >
> >copies of images. nothing more.
> >
> >what about everything *other* than photos?
> >
> >what about everything that changed in the past month, since you say you
> >burn monthly?
>
> I didn't say that. I said I burned monthly *and* immediately after
> processing with some image files.
immediately after processing (you said 'some').
> And, that I don't do that anymore.
> I use EHDs and back-up incrementally for new and changed whenever I
> work with that file.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages