photo organising SW
Chris H
Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
for a MAC
I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
pictures out of the directories they are in.
Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
to be free but not looking to spend 100's
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
ray
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that for
months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No software
involved and it's all nicely organized.
Ron Hunter
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
>
>
stores a list of paths, and leaves the images in their original directories.
Photoshop Elements has an organizer, and I know it doesn't move them
around, but rather uses a catalog.
Savageduck
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
Since you are using a Mac and do not want to spend 100's You have
already established a confilct in your goal. It seems the more budget
minded would have gravitated toward a Window/Linux box.
Enough of that, you apparently are not considering Lightroom or
Aperture due to cost?
I use Lightroom with my Mac and find I can organize files and folders
in many different ways, including shoots, key words, Collections, and
Smart Collections where you can create a Smart Collection Folder to
fill with files by Key word, date, place, subject or any criteria you
choose. It works for me.
...but you have to spend 100's.
iPhoto and that system does not grab you, that I understand. It does
not appeal to me.
So I would suggest an affordable Mac-centric data base, Bento
http://www.filemaker.com/products/bento/features.html
This will allow you to build your own data base and leave your Photo
files right where you placed them on your hard drive.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
adobe lightroom or apple aperture. both have free 30 day trials.
nospam
wrote:
> > Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> > to be free but not looking to spend 100's
>
> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that for
> months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No software
> involved and it's all nicely organized.
that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Are you sure that iPhoto moves things around? Most such software just
> stores a list of paths, and leaves the images in their original directories.
> Photoshop Elements has an organizer, and I know it doesn't move them
> around, but rather uses a catalog.
it's a user preference whether iphoto copies the photos and manages
them, or if it leaves them where they are and tracks them by reference.
David J Taylor
>> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
>> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that
>> for months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No
>> software involved and it's all nicely organized.
>
> that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
> few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/ needs very
well. About 38,000 images so far.
David
nospam
Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> >> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
> >> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that
> >> for months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No
> >> software involved and it's all nicely organized.
> >
> > that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
> > few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
>
> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/ needs very
> well. About 38,000 images so far.
how can you keep track of them all?
i can't imagine not being able to pull up pics based on keywords,
location where it was taken or some attribute in the exif data, such as
a particular lens.
also, the latest iphoto can do face recognition, where if you tag a few
pics of a person with their name, it can then find every other photo of
that person.
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
Exactly. I use that method now but it is difficult to add keywords.
Especially when things fall into more than one category
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
Thanks I should RTFM better :-)
Chris H
addr.btopenworld.com>, Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> writes
>> for a MAC
>>
>> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
>> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
>> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>>
>> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
>> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
>
Thanks. I am sure I had that on a PC years ago... could not remember
the name.
The other one that got suggested was Microsoft Expression Media
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <KPxKl.22257$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> >> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
>> >> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that
>> >> for months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No
>> >> software involved and it's all nicely organized.
>> >
>> > that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
>> > few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
>>
>> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/ needs very
>> well. About 38,000 images so far.
>
>how can you keep track of them all?
>
>i can't imagine not being able to pull up pics based on keywords,
>location where it was taken or some attribute in the exif data, such as
>a particular lens.
What do you use for this?
>
>also, the latest iphoto can do face recognition, where if you tag a few
>pics of a person with their name, it can then find every other photo of
>that person.
thanks
David J Taylor
>> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/
>> needs very well. About 38,000 images so far.
>
> how can you keep track of them all?
Events by date.
> i can't imagine not being able to pull up pics based on keywords,
> location where it was taken or some attribute in the exif data, such
> as a particular lens.
Apart from near home, I rarely visit places more than once, so Melbourne
is 2008, Antarctica 2009 etc. I can never recall wanting to find all
those pictures taken by a particular lens.
> also, the latest iphoto can do face recognition, where if you tag a
> few pics of a person with their name, it can then find every other
> photo of that person.
Not a need I have.
The last thing I want is anything interfering with the directory structure
I have, or altering the images behind my back. I wouldn't trust it. Were
I to use an organiser, working with image references rather than the
actual images would be a must.
As I said, what I have suits /my/ needs, it might well not suit others.
Cheers,
David
Justin C
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
I've started to notice limitations in iPhoto too. For example, when I
delete the shots that just didn't work they're only deleted from the
library, they're still on the HD... but where, and how do I find them
all to get rid of them?!
iPhoto does allow the adding of keywords, and, AIUI, more recent
versions actually export those keywords so spotlight can see them.
Another method would be to use, as someone else has suggested, directory
structure photos->year->month->day, and then use something like
Quicksilver to do your keyword tagging. Then spotlight can be used for
searches for specific tags.
There are probably many, many ways to achieve what you want, but I think
you might find none are perfect. I'm about to embark on a similar
exercise myself, let me know how you get on!
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
Bob Larter
Why's that?
> it also doesn't do what he asked.
That's a whole different issue.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
Ditto. I create \photography\year-month-day\shoot\ & throw all my photos
in there. Every week or so, I burn them to DVD-R. It's probably not the
best backup scheme on earth, but it's worked okay for me so far.
Bob Larter
> Apart from near home, I rarely visit places more than once, so Melbourne
> is 2008,
You visited Melbourne in 2008? What parts of Melbourne did you see?
whisky-dave
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:EG5nHfXI...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos.
You don;t have to import all photos.
I have loads of photos in my pictures folder which also contains my iPhoto
library .
You can also have separate iPhot libraries if you wish.
by holding down the option key (between the command and ctrl)
you can create a new library, say if you want one dedicated to cats.
It's beena while sisnce I started using iPhoto so there my be the option
to import all your photos in if iPhoto has a empty library, in a similar way
iTunes does.
I currently have 42GB library.
>I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
They are in Folders on a Mac not directories ! ;-)
>
> Looking to add multiple keywords.
>Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
yes you can do that, in the descriptions or titles.
I've heard lightroom is pretty good and is better for editing photos
than iPhoto
whisky-dave
> In message <010520090017231000%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>>In article <75uusgF...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> > Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
>>> > to be free but not looking to spend 100's
>>>
>>> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
>>> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that for
>>> months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No software
>>> involved and it's all nicely organized.
>>
>>that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
>>few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
>
> Exactly. I use that method now but it is difficult to add keywords.
I've just started doing that.
I select all the images, I can then do a batch changed (by right clicking)
and this adds my text in the description field for all those photos.
The default action is to add, i.e on the first leg of organisation you can
add
say England to the description, then if you're adding cows the text in the
decription will be England cows.
whisky-dave
"Justin C" <justi...@purestblue.com> wrote in message
news:slrngvlhhk.9e...@Macintosh.local...
> In article <EG5nHfXI...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
>> for a MAC
>>
>> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
>> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
>> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
> I've started to notice limitations in iPhoto too. For example, when I
> delete the shots that just didn't work they're only deleted from the
> library, they're still on the HD... but where, and how do I find them
> all to get rid of them?!
I think they are stored in the iPhoto Trash wich is seprate from the system
trash.
There's an option in iPhoto to delete the iphoto trash.
But if you really want to know where any image is stored on the HD just use
spotlight
to find it via it's filename.
Chris H
<bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>David J Taylor wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <75uusgF...@mid.individual.net>, ray
>>> wrote:
>>>> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
>>>> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that
>>>> for months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No
>>>> software involved and it's all nicely organized.
>>>
>>> that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
>>> few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
>> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/
>>needs very well. About 38,000 images so far.
>
>Ditto. I create \photography\year-month-day\shoot\ & throw all my
>photos in there. Every week or so, I burn them to DVD-R. It's probably
>not the best backup scheme on earth, but it's worked okay for me so
>far.
I do likewise but I want to add multiple keywords and search on them .
Most systems seem to search on reference which is what I am looking for.
Having spent more time looking Aperture 2 seems the best fit.
Chris H
da...@final.front.ear> writes
>
> >I am looking for something that will not move all the
>> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
>They are in Folders on a Mac not directories ! ;-)
Sorry I am used to UNIX :-)
Chris H
<justi...@purestblue.com> writes
>In article <EG5nHfXI...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
>> for a MAC
>>
>> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
>> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
>> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
>I've started to notice limitations in iPhoto too. For example, when I
>delete the shots that just didn't work they're only deleted from the
>library, they're still on the HD... but where, and how do I find them
>all to get rid of them?!
That is part of my problem also it wants to "import" them though I have
iPhot 5here and not looked at the latest version
>iPhoto does allow the adding of keywords, and, AIUI, more recent
>versions actually export those keywords so spotlight can see them.
>
>Another method would be to use, as someone else has suggested, directory
>structure photos->year->month->day, and then use something like
>Quicksilver to do your keyword tagging. Then spotlight can be used for
>searches for specific tags.
>
>There are probably many, many ways to achieve what you want, but I think
>you might find none are perfect. I'm about to embark on a similar
>exercise myself, let me know how you get on!
Well preliminary look suggested
Aperture2
extensis portfolio
lightroom
iphotoeExpressions Data from MS
I have a MAC, photoshop and Dxo RAW convertor, the camera is a Nikon
D300 (and D70s)
Aperture supports tethered shooting on both of my cameras which is
interesting
Aperture, lightroom and portfolio all have eval versions... the question
is how easy is it to remove them.... :-)
J. Clarke
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This
> is for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all
> of the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
Don't know if it works the same way on a Mac but on a PC Photoshop Elements
has a nice organizer--on Elements 7 you can search on a number of EXIF
fields, keywords, captions, dates, whether there's a face in the picture,
and I believe there are other options, and can add tags and captions from
the organizer. If you use it to import data from your camera or from a card
reader, it will copy the files to its own directory structure, but it
doesn't move existing files when they are added to the catalog.
While it doesn't provide a menu option for opening files in anything but
Elements, dragging a file from the organizer onto an icon for another
program will launch that program with that file loaded (assuming the program
isn't broken in such a way that dragging a file onto its icon doesn't work).
May not be what you want, but it's a really nice piece of software for 90
bucks, and there's a free trial download. Note that the Mac version is 6,
not 7--I dont' know what they've added in 7 over 6, but the organizer even
in version 5 did most of what you're asking for.
G Paleologopoulos
news:49fad0f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>.................................................
> Ditto. I create \photography\year-month-day\shoot\ & throw all my photos
> in there. Every week or so, I burn them to DVD-R. It's probably not the
> best backup scheme on earth, but it's worked okay for me so far.
Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
I personally have two 500 Giga external drives connected to the PC by
FireWire and back up to each one via a little backup prog called SyncBack.
Shoot a couple of gigas and back them up reliably in less than a minute.
Savageduck
I am also using Macs, three of them, a D300, a D70, CS4 & Lightroom.
I can only speak from experience. I have been using Macs for some time
and I have been using Lightroom since the first Beta. I am using
Lightroom now. Lightroom 2 has improved editing ability, but its filing
system is one of its best features.
My suggestion is download the Trial version and see if it will work for you.
As I wrote earlier, use of Keywords, Dates, Sites, Events, Subjects,
etc. give you powerful search filter options.
Also using Smart Collections can create seperate virtual collections
made up of any combination of filtr criteria you choose.
It also works very well in tandem with CS4, or any other advanced
photo-editor of your choice.
I use Lightroom to convert RAW to DNG and maintain my Lightroom archive
in the Lightroom system.
There are many other Lightroom features, I don't want to go on like an
evangelist, but it works for me.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David J Taylor
[]
> You visited Melbourne in 2008? What parts of Melbourne did you see?
Bob,
We were there for the Formula 1 Grand Prix, and were staying in the
Italian quarter (junction of Grattan and Drummond streets), and walked
into the city centre most days. Got out to Phillip Island to see the
Penguin Parade. Super city, excellent food, very friendly people, and
sorry to have to leave for Sydney on the Monday immediately after the
race.
Cheers,
David
Chris H
<jclarke...@cox.net> writes
I have photoshop (not elements)
The problem is that so much functionality over laps.
Erring on the side of Aperture at the monument.
Chris H
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> writes
It's difficult. We have along week end in the UK this week end so I will
look in more depth
I have DXO raw convertor... Aperture is looking good at the moment
ray
> In message <010520090017231000%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>>In article <75uusgF...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> > Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not
>>> > have to be free but not looking to spend 100's
>>>
>>> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
>>> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that
>>> for months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No
>>> software involved and it's all nicely organized.
>>
>>that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
>>few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
>
> Exactly. I use that method now but it is difficult to add keywords.
> Especially when things fall into more than one category
Why is that? At some point you have to enter keywords - no software is
going to be able to do that. You can easily add your keywords to the
comment field in the images and then use a simple search to find what
you're after.
John McWilliams
I prefer Lightroom also, for one, it's cross platform should you ever
decide to go back to PCs. (380 people so far have done this after
converting to *Mac*.)
OTOH, if you're not into RAW format and the ability to do extensive
adjustments, you might be better off with iPhoto, with $$ being a factor.
--
John McWilliams
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> >> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/ needs very
> >> well. About 38,000 images so far.
> >
> >how can you keep track of them all?
> >
> >i can't imagine not being able to pull up pics based on keywords,
> >location where it was taken or some attribute in the exif data, such as
> >a particular lens.
>
> What do you use for this?
i use lightroom.
nospam
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
> > few of them.
>
> Why's that?
it doesn't scale well as the number of images increase. it's also not
that flexible. queries can be on multiple keywords with various
logical operators. and instead of looking at a list of filenames, you
can browse the images visually. thumbnail icons help but those are
still small.
nospam
Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> >> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/
> >> needs very well. About 38,000 images so far.
> >
> > how can you keep track of them all?
>
> Events by date.
you can remember the dates of various events? personally, i'd rather
pull up images based on what it is i want to see, such as yellowstone
national park or images with a particular person in them. plus,
there's no reason why you still can't put them in a folder hierarchy
arranged the way you want, with an app adding functionality.
> > i can't imagine not being able to pull up pics based on keywords,
> > location where it was taken or some attribute in the exif data, such
> > as a particular lens.
>
> Apart from near home, I rarely visit places more than once, so Melbourne
> is 2008, Antarctica 2009 etc. I can never recall wanting to find all
> those pictures taken by a particular lens.
the lens was just an example of something in exif.
although not part of image management, one feature i've used is seeing
which lenses get used the most and at what focal lengths. in fact, i
sold a lens i thought i needed but it turned out i rarely used it.
> The last thing I want is anything interfering with the directory structure
> I have, or altering the images behind my back. I wouldn't trust it. Were
> I to use an organiser, working with image references rather than the
> actual images would be a must.
most don't interfere with the directory structure.
> As I said, what I have suits /my/ needs, it might well not suit others.
fair enough, but i suspect part of that is it's the way you've been
doing it and may not have fully investigated what other options can
offer.
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> iphotoeExpressions Data from MS
this used to be iview media before microsoft bought it, and it was what
i used to use before lightroom came along.
> Aperture, lightroom and portfolio all have eval versions... the question
> is how easy is it to remove them.... :-)
drag to trash. empty trash.
nospam
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> > I've started to notice limitations in iPhoto too. For example, when I
> > delete the shots that just didn't work they're only deleted from the
> > library, they're still on the HD... but where, and how do I find them
> > all to get rid of them?!
>
> I think they are stored in the iPhoto Trash wich is seprate from the system
> trash.
> There's an option in iPhoto to delete the iphoto trash.
true, it has its own trash.
> But if you really want to know where any image is stored on the HD just use
> spotlight
> to find it via it's filename.
that would only work if iphoto is set to leave photos where they are.
if it's set to manage the photos, then they'll be inside a bundle and
spotlight won't see them (nor will users unless they know what to look
for).
David J Taylor
[]
> you can remember the dates of various events?
Yes, perhaps because I have a relatively small number of such events. I
can't afford dozens of holidays every year!
> personally, i'd rather
> pull up images based on what it is i want to see, such as yellowstone
> national park or images with a particular person in them. plus,
> there's no reason why you still can't put them in a folder hierarchy
> arranged the way you want, with an app adding functionality.
Yes, I could also use a database to reference those images should I wish.
[]
> although not part of image management, one feature i've used is seeing
> which lenses get used the most and at what focal lengths. in fact, i
> sold a lens i thought i needed but it turned out i rarely used it.
I have another program for that:
http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html
Cheers,
David
JoelH
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
I have to say I've been surprisingly happy with Flickr ( http://www.flickr.com;
my pictures: http://flickr.com/photos/joelmhoffman/ ). It does
everything you need, with the added benefit that by default pictures
on flickr enjoy off-site backup.
-Joel
David
Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
I think Aperture allows this as an option - download the manual have a
look
David - who also wants this arangement
Bob Larter
> In message <gtekqs$avr$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
> da...@final.front.ear> writes
>>> I am looking for something that will not move all the
>>> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>> They are in Folders on a Mac not directories ! ;-)
>
> Sorry I am used to UNIX :-)
Folders & directories are the same thing.
Bob Larter
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote
> news:49fad0f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> .................................................
>> Ditto. I create \photography\year-month-day\shoot\ & throw all my
>> photos in there. Every week or so, I burn them to DVD-R. It's probably
>> not the best backup scheme on earth, but it's worked okay for me so far.
>> .................................................
>
> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
Hard disks die of old age. Hopefully, DVD-Rs don't.
> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
Not cheap enough to replace a hundred DVD-Rs. ;^)
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter wrote:
> []
>> You visited Melbourne in 2008? What parts of Melbourne did you see?
>
> Bob,
>
> We were there for the Formula 1 Grand Prix, and were staying in the
> Italian quarter (junction of Grattan and Drummond streets),
Yeah, that's about as Italian as it gets. I haven't been there for
years, but I used to eat there fairly regularly. ;^)
> and walked
> into the city centre most days. Got out to Phillip Island to see the
> Penguin Parade.
Oh good. It's a pity that you didn't get to visit the zoo as well.
> Super city, excellent food, very friendly people, and
> sorry to have to leave for Sydney on the Monday immediately after the race.
If you ever come back, drop me an email & I can take you out for a drink.
Bob Larter
> In article <cRyKl.22289$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>>> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/
>>>> needs very well. About 38,000 images so far.
>>> how can you keep track of them all?
>> Events by date.
>
> you can remember the dates of various events? personally, i'd rather
> pull up images based on what it is i want to see, such as yellowstone
> national park or images with a particular person in them. plus,
> there's no reason why you still can't put them in a folder hierarchy
> arranged the way you want, with an app adding functionality.
I put names & descriptions in the folder name when I create it, which
works pretty well for me. I rarely have trouble finding anything.
Bob Larter
In general, I can remember enough about any given shoot to be able to
search for it by a rough date, & by keywords in the folder name. I can
understand why that wouldn't be a suitable approach for many people, but
it works well for me.
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> We were there for the Formula 1 Grand Prix, and were staying in the
>> Italian quarter (junction of Grattan and Drummond streets),
>
> Yeah, that's about as Italian as it gets. I haven't been there for
> years, but I used to eat there fairly regularly. ;^)
>
>> and walked
>> into the city centre most days. Got out to Phillip Island to see the
>> Penguin Parade.
>
> Oh good. It's a pity that you didn't get to visit the zoo as well.
>
>> Super city, excellent food, very friendly people, and
>> sorry to have to leave for Sydney on the Monday immediately after
>> the race.
>
> If you ever come back, drop me an email & I can take you out for a
> drink.
It was very hot (but not humid) so we were even able to eat breakfast
outside at one of the cafes rather than eating in the hotel. Very nice.
Time was limited, so we didn't get to the zoo. I've made a note of your
address just in case, but most likely it was a a once-in-a-lifetime trip.
Thanks, anyway!
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
> G Paleologopoulos wrote:
[]
>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>
> Hard disks die of old age. Hopefully, DVD-Rs don't.
>
>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>
> Not cheap enough to replace a hundred DVD-Rs. ;^)
I've used CDs and DVDs in the past, but when I got my two external HDs I
found that quite a few DVDs were marginal - they would read in one PC but
not another. Rather like CDs when they first came out. I think now,
although I still write DVDs, I would put more trust in externals HDs
(although the two 2.5-inch 250GB units I use prbably aren't the best HDs
for long-term reliability). The HDs are much faster, which encourages me
to make more frequent backups....
BTW: in the UK 1TB 3.5-inch costs about 60 GBP, AUD $122.
Cheers,
David
Chris H
<post...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> writes
Thanks
Looking at Expansis Porfolio
MS Expression
Aperture
Not sure which of the three but I am warming to Aperture.
Discounted iPhoto
Chris H
<bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <gtekqs$avr$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>> da...@final.front.ear> writes
>>>> I am looking for something that will not move all the
>>>> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>>> They are in Folders on a Mac not directories ! ;-)
>> Sorry I am used to UNIX :-)
>
>Folders & directories are the same thing.
I know... also a Mac *IS* UINX :-)
nospam
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>
> Hard disks die of old age. Hopefully, DVD-Rs don't.
they do. put one in sunlight and it'll happen faster.
> > Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>
> Not cheap enough to replace a hundred DVD-Rs. ;^)
that ignores the additional time for burning and retrieving images.
with a hard drive, they're readily available, not so much with a rack
of dvds...
Bob Larter
> In message <49fc3263$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>> Chris H wrote:
>>> In message <gtekqs$avr$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>> da...@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>> I am looking for something that will not move all the
>>>>> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>>>> They are in Folders on a Mac not directories ! ;-)
>>> Sorry I am used to UNIX :-)
>> Folders & directories are the same thing.
>
> I know... also a Mac *IS* UINX :-)
Well, these days it is. ;^)
Bob Larter
> In article <49fc32f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>> Hard disks die of old age. Hopefully, DVD-Rs don't.
>
> they do. put one in sunlight and it'll happen faster.
I keep them locked up in a black CD/DVD case.
>>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>> Not cheap enough to replace a hundred DVD-Rs. ;^)
>
> that ignores the additional time for burning and retrieving images.
> with a hard drive, they're readily available, not so much with a rack
> of dvds...
True, but I hardly ever need to dig out old shoots.
David J Taylor
[]
> I know... also a Mac *IS* UINX :-)
I thought that a Mac could run more than just UNIX?
David
Chris H
<bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <49fc3263$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
>> <bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>>> Chris H wrote:
>>>> In message <gtekqs$avr$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>>> da...@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>> I am looking for something that will not move all the
>>>>>> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>>>>> They are in Folders on a Mac not directories ! ;-)
>>>> Sorry I am used to UNIX :-)
>>> Folders & directories are the same thing.
>> I know... also a Mac *IS* UINX :-)
>
>Well, these days it is. ;^)
>
Actually with everything getting more visual on a PC most of the kids
call them "folders" on a PC now.
As you say folders and directories are one and the same. Hence my remark
that I was used to UNIX (which is what OSX is under the covers.
Chris H
Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
writes
Due to Apple tightly controlling the hardware and software AFAIK since
OSX Macs have only run their version of BSD UNIX (via NEXT-Step)
The older MAC operating systems were their own and AFAIK no UNIX
Now it is an Intel chip I think people have ported OSX to PC's and I am
sure some one has managed to get Windows on a Mac...
nospam
Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> I thought that a Mac could run more than just UNIX?
os x is built on unix but macs can run other operating systems
including linux and windows.
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Due to Apple tightly controlling the hardware and software AFAIK since
> OSX Macs have only run their version of BSD UNIX (via NEXT-Step)
nonsense.
> The older MAC operating systems were their own and AFAIK no UNIX
the older mac os was not unix, but that didn't prevent running other
operating systems on mac hardware. apple even shipped a version of
linux for a while.
> Now it is an Intel chip I think people have ported OSX to PC's and I am
> sure some one has managed to get Windows on a Mac...
os x comes with the ability to dual boot windows, out of the box.
prior to intel macs, the os x kernel (which is open source) ran on
intel pcs.
David J Taylor
That's what I thought, in contrast to what had been written.
Thanks,
David
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <1UoLTPBKnW$JF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
><ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> Due to Apple tightly controlling the hardware and software AFAIK since
>> OSX Macs have only run their version of BSD UNIX (via NEXT-Step)
>
>nonsense.
Care to elaborate as according to all the people I know that is the
case. The people I know being Apple. See the OFFICIAL
www.developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html
where Apple state that OSX is built on Mach 3.0 and FreeBSD 5
Also see the Wiki peadia entry for OSX where is states that Next-Step
was based on Mach 3 and BSD.... when Steve Jobs moved back to Apple they
too developed an OS on Mach-3 and BSD just like Next-Step....
Who which bit is nonsense and where is your evidence.
>> The older MAC operating systems were their own and AFAIK no UNIX
>
>the older mac os was not unix,
I said that.
> but that didn't prevent running other
>operating systems on mac hardware.
> apple even shipped a version of
>linux for a while.
SO apart from the Apple supplied OS's (and Linux for a while what OS did
the Mac's run?
>> Now it is an Intel chip I think people have ported OSX to PC's and I am
>> sure some one has managed to get Windows on a Mac...
>
>os x comes with the ability to dual boot windows, out of the box.
>prior to intel macs, the os x kernel (which is open source) ran on
>intel pcs.
Fair enough
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
Apart from Linux and Windows (though why anyone would want to run a pale
copy of UNIX or windows on a Mac escapes me) what other RTOS run on
Macs?
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Who which bit is nonsense and where is your evidence.
the bit that's nonsense is:
> >> OSX Macs have only run their version of BSD UNIX (via NEXT-Step)
they have run other versions. see below.
> >the older mac os was not unix,
>
> I said that.
>
> > but that didn't prevent running other
> >operating systems on mac hardware.
> > apple even shipped a version of
> >linux for a while.
>
> SO apart from the Apple supplied OS's (and Linux for a while what OS did
> the Mac's run?
netbsd, freebsd, apple's a/ux, linux (several versions in addition to
apple's), windows (intel macs only). supposedly there was a way to run
the powerpc version of windows nt on a powermac.
<http://www.netbsd.org/ports/mac68k/>
<http://www.macbsd.com/macbsd/index.html>
<http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/ppc.html>
<http://www.openbsd.org/macppc.html>
<http://www.ppcnerds.org/index.html>
<http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/>
<http://www.mklinux.org/>
<http://refit.sourceforge.net/>
<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MactelSupportTeam/CommunityHelpPages>
Savageduck
Also, Virtual PC by Connectix was released in 1997, worked on OS9.x on
PPC and was sold as a package with a version of Windows "V. whatever",
OS/2 or Red Hat Linux. Microsoft acquired Virtual PC and an unreleased
"Virtual Server" in 2003.
They allowed??? Innotek Gmbh to produce VirtualBox with similar coding.
In 2006 Microsoft released Virtual PC 2004 for Windows, the equivilant
Mac version was Version 7.
Once Apple started producing Intel Macs, in August 2006 Microsoft
announced it would not port Virtual PC to to the Intel Mac platform.
Basically they gave up in the face of "Bootcamp" which runs XP and
Vista without issue.
So in typical Microsoft behaviour they killed off Virtual PC 2007, just
as they have stopped support for IE for Mac and have effectively closed
down their Mac Business Division. Their normal excuse has been they
believe they couldn't compete with Safari, or Apple Works, or Open
Office, or NeoOffice, or what ever they could think of.
They still haven't been able to drive that stake through Apple's heart.
There were many other emulation programs which ran on Macs, such as Bochs,
Now there are several emulation SW choices such as Parallels, VMware
Fusion, CrossOver 7 (which allows Mac users to run Windows applications
without Windows,) VirtualBox, Emulator & Q.
So pre-OSX, PPC & Intel Macs have had a reasonable ability to run
Windows (with the same degree of frustration as dedicated Windows users
experience) and Linux for some time now.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
> Once Apple started producing Intel Macs, in August 2006 Microsoft
> announced it would not port Virtual PC to to the Intel Mac platform.
> Basically they gave up in the face of "Bootcamp" which runs XP and
> Vista without issue.
> So in typical Microsoft behaviour they killed off Virtual PC 2007, just
> as they have stopped support for IE for Mac and have effectively closed
> down their Mac Business Division. Their normal excuse has been they
> believe they couldn't compete with Safari, or Apple Works, or Open
> Office, or NeoOffice, or what ever they could think of.
> They still haven't been able to drive that stake through Apple's heart.
the mac business unit is busy producing microsoft office for the mac,
and is not in any way closed down. nor would microsoft want to close
it down, since it's very profitable for them.
killing off virtual pc was an odd decision, since until that time, they
owned the market for running windows on a mac and they could have
continued to dominate the market. once they announced they weren't
going to produce vpc for intel macs, parallels (from a russian company
few people heard of) and vmware saw the opportunity and jumped in.
Paul Furman
> On Fri, 01 May 2009 09:14:47 +0100, Chris H wrote:
>
>> In message <010520090017231000%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>>> In article <75uusgF...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not
>>>>> have to be free but not looking to spend 100's
>>>> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that
>>>> for months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No
>>>> software involved and it's all nicely organized.
>>> that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
>> Exactly. I use that method now but it is difficult to add keywords.
>> Especially when things fall into more than one category
>
> Why is that? At some point you have to enter keywords - no software is
> going to be able to do that. You can easily add your keywords to the
> comment field in the images and then use a simple search to find what
> you're after.
I still use the folders with date & location for each shoot, I'm using
lightroom on top of that now but don't search with LR much. I add Title,
caption & keywords in LR then upload to flickr so the annotation is
automated but then I end up making corrections & such online so online
is really the best way to search my images for something specific.
Pre-LR, pre-flickr, I had little text files with annotation and a php
interface for editing but again, once they went online, there's comments
added, etc so online is the best way to search. This means anyone can
search and their searches refine what sorts to the top of the list. Once
I find an image online, it's easy to locate the folder on my HD. I add
the folder name to the caption now so on flickr it's not necessary to
create sets for each shoot. I might shoot the same location twice a week
on average and upload those all as a set once a month.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
whisky-dave
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:ulWd$8DxQX$JF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <030520090325561853%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>>In article <XLaLl.23228$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>>Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I thought that a Mac could run more than just UNIX?
>>
I think Aplpe erarned some Unix certification program about 4 years ok which
meant
that their type of unix was real unix.
>>os x is built on unix but macs can run other operating systems
>>including linux and windows.
>
> Apart from Linux and Windows (though why anyone would want to run a pale
> copy of UNIX or windows on a Mac escapes me)
Games and there's far more shareware, freeware available for windows.
It might also be used in teaching, I know of a person that while they have a
Mac,
that want to do the UDL (European driving licence) thing which is used to
show computer
literacy, so an employer knows that you can use a computer. Trouble is this
course seems
to be on windows only, so I've lent my friend an old PC laptop.
So and clunky but that's windoze. :)
whisky-dave
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49fc32f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>G Paleologopoulos wrote:
>> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote
>> news:49fad0f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>
>>> .................................................
>>> Ditto. I create \photography\year-month-day\shoot\ & throw all my photos
>>> in there. Every week or so, I burn them to DVD-R. It's probably not the
>>> best backup scheme on earth, but it's worked okay for me so far.
>>> .................................................
>>
>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>
> Hard disks die of old age. Hopefully, DVD-Rs don't.
>
They do, and can deterate quicker than HDs, although that does depend on
how you handle them.
I've heard DVDs are typically 20 years, but it does depend on storage.
The coating on them is similar to film in that it's an organic gelatine that
can get mould
growing on it.
Hard drives should be accessed (started up) about every 6 months as the
motors
can stick due to oil solidifying. One person advised changing the
orientation of an
unused HD every 6 months in order to avoid the possibility of the Earths
magnetic field
affecting the data.
The above I heard on a popcast about such things, although obviously soem
have other
opinions.
>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>
> Not cheap enough to replace a hundred DVD-Rs. ;^)
There's not really much difference price wise once you factor in sleeves or
some sort of
storage for DVDs.
1 DVD disc ~4.5Gb
1TB ~ 222 DVDs
I tend to use a HD, but use DVDs as well if something is extra important.
I must consider some sort of on-line storage too at some point.
J. Clarke
> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:ulWd$8DxQX$JF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <030520090325561853%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>>> In article <XLaLl.23228$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David
>>> J Taylor
>>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I thought that a Mac could run more than just UNIX?
>>>
>
> I think Aplpe erarned some Unix certification program about 4 years
> ok which meant
> that their type of unix was real unix.
"Real UNIX" is UNIX traceable to AT&T source code. The trademark, "UNIX",
however, has variously belonged to AT&T, Lucent, Novell, and most recently
SCO, and to use it involves paying a licensing fee.
Microsoft has produced "real UNIX", called "Xenix", traceble to AT&T source,
but they didn't license the "UNIX" name. IBM has done the same, with "AIX",
and Apple with "A/UX". BSD has always been considered "real UNIX", although
it was never called anything that even resembled "UNIX", it was always just
"BSD". They however have since sanitized their system of all AT&T source
code so that they can distribute it under an open source license.
On the other hand, the *NIX variant that underlies OS/X is not A/UX, which
is AT&T derived, but a variant of BSD built around a Carnegie-Mellon "Mach"
kernel.
Intel Macs should also be able to run SCO UNIX, which is in every possible
sense "real UNIX"--SCO owns the AT&T/Lucent/Novell source code and the
rights to the name and their UNIX is System V Release 4. Not a good choice
though--to use 8 gig of RAM you need to license a data center version for
some unbelievable amount of money and SCO has been trying to survive on
lawsuits rather than agressive product development and giving good value for
money and Linux has long since eaten their lunch.
Chris H
da...@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:49fc32f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>G Paleologopoulos wrote:
>>> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> news:49fad0f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> .................................................
>>>> Ditto. I create \photography\year-month-day\shoot\ & throw all my photos
>>>> in there. Every week or so, I burn them to DVD-R. It's probably not the
>>>> best backup scheme on earth, but it's worked okay for me so far.
>>>> .................................................
>>>
>>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>>
>> Hard disks die of old age. Hopefully, DVD-Rs don't.
>>
>
>They do, and can deterate quicker than HDs, although that does depend on
>how you handle them.
>I've heard DVDs are typically 20 years, but it does depend on storage.
I have none of the HD's I had when I started but most of the data. It
is usually VERY easy and quite quick to copy data from one HD to
another. So I do.
Every few years (about 5) when I upgrade the hard disks/pc's etc the
data gets moved. So it stays fresh. It generally costs a lot less
than lots of floppies, tapes CD's. DVD's Blue Ray etc
Chris H
<jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>whisky-dave wrote:
>> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:ulWd$8DxQX$JF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <030520090325561853%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>>>> In article <XLaLl.23228$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David
>>>> J Taylor
>>>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I thought that a Mac could run more than just UNIX?
>>>>
>>
>> I think Aplpe erarned some Unix certification program about 4 years
>> ok which meant
>> that their type of unix was real unix.
>
>"Real UNIX" is UNIX traceable to AT&T source code. The trademark,
>"UNIX", however, has variously belonged to AT&T, Lucent, Novell, and
>most recently SCO, and to use it involves paying a licensing fee.
>
>Microsoft has produced "real UNIX", called "Xenix"
Are you sure? MS did it?
--
Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner
> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
A hard drive attached to your system is not a backup. It's online
local storage. The two are not the same thing. IMO, an ideal backup
system should be
A) read-only (so a mistake, malware, or hardware error can't delete or
corrupt it)
B) physically distant (so fire, flood, etc. won't take it out at the
same time as your main copy)
C) immediately available
D) incrementally expandable
E) long-lived
F) cheap
Some of these conditions are somewhat mutually incompatible, but
that's the problem with ideals. Again IMO, external media satisfy
conditions A, B, and D. A hard drive attached to your system satisfies
C; if you only attach it to your system when you're actually backing up
or restoring, it satisfies A only as long as it doesn't satisfy C. I
don't trust just about anything to satisfy E, unfortunately...
--
Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
anymore.
-- William Cowper, 1731 - 1800
Chris H
<j...@panix.com> writes
>G Paleologopoulos <gpa...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>
> A hard drive attached to your system is not a backup. It's online
>local storage.
As is a DVD until, like the HD, you remove it.
> The two are not the same thing. IMO, an ideal backup
>system should be
>
>A) read-only (so a mistake, malware, or hardware error can't delete or
>corrupt it)
>B) physically distant (so fire, flood, etc. won't take it out at the
>same time as your main copy)
>C) immediately available
>D) incrementally expandable
>E) long-lived
>F) cheap
>
> Some of these conditions are somewhat mutually incompatible, but
>that's the problem with ideals. Again IMO, external media satisfy
>conditions A, B, and D. A hard drive attached to your system satisfies
>C; if you only attach it to your system when you're actually backing up
>or restoring, it satisfies A only as long as it doesn't satisfy C. I
>don't trust just about anything to satisfy E, unfortunately...
A hard drive satisfies
C,d,e,f
It also satisfies B in that you can remove it to another location when
ever you like just as easily as a DVD.
So the only thing a hard drive does not meet is A BUT you can set files
and directories to read only which is a partial A
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> >A) read-only (so a mistake, malware, or hardware error can't delete or
> >corrupt it)
> So the only thing a hard drive does not meet is A BUT you can set files
> and directories to read only which is a partial A
or get a read-only firewire or usb bridge. or if the backup is done to
a disk image file, that can be locked while the drive itself is not.
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
SO a hard drive meets all the criteria and in a better way than DVD's
and in fact the prepares of DVD's has also a fatal flaw in his argument.
I started with IDE hard drives and then moved on to Ultra IDE and now
SetialATA... also moving from the 2GB limit to (no idea now but it is
over a couple of terabytes) all seamlessly.
However how did the "dvd" proponent move from floppies to CD to DVD and
how will he move to blue ray when DVD become obsolete?
Bob Larter
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49fc32f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> G Paleologopoulos wrote:
>>> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> news:49fad0f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>> .................................................
>>>> Ditto. I create \photography\year-month-day\shoot\ & throw all my photos
>>>> in there. Every week or so, I burn them to DVD-R. It's probably not the
>>>> best backup scheme on earth, but it's worked okay for me so far.
>>>> .................................................
>>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>> Hard disks die of old age. Hopefully, DVD-Rs don't.
>>
>
> They do, and can deterate quicker than HDs, although that does depend on
> how you handle them.
Everything depends on how you handle it! ;^)
> I've heard DVDs are typically 20 years, but it does depend on storage.
I keep mine locked up in a black box with desiccant gel.
> The coating on them is similar to film in that it's an organic gelatine that
> can get mould
> growing on it.
Yes, I've seen that with some of my cheap & nasty CDRs. Very ugly.
Hopefully, keeping mine away from moisture will improve their life. Last
night, I pulled out a 3 year old DVD-R to get a really nice photo of a
deceased relative, & the disk read without any problems. Time will tell
me whether it's going to be a problem with older disks.
> Hard drives should be accessed (started up) about every 6 months as the
> motors
> can stick due to oil solidifying.
The industry term is 'stiction'. It's not due to oil solidifying,
though, it's when the heads stick to the platters, usually due to
moisture (ie; humidity) ingress. Firing up a cold drive under those
circumstances will result in the heads being ripped clean off the arm.
This will, obviously, render your data useless.
> One person advised changing the
> orientation of an
> unused HD every 6 months in order to avoid the possibility of the Earths
> magnetic field
> affecting the data.
That's complete bullshit. The coercivity of the platters is *way* higher
than can be affected by the earths magnetic field. You could stick a big
magnet on the case, & it wouldn't harm the data in the slightest.
What will *help* preserve your data is spinning up the drive every now
& then. Drives that are in use 24x7 don't suffer from stiction, although
old drives sometimes do when they're power-cycled for the first time in
years. That's why it's a bad idea to power-cycle servers that have been
running for years. If you have to do it, you back up the data first, in
case the drive doesn't come back up with the system.
> The above I heard on a popcast about such things, although obviously soem
> have other
> opinions.
Trust me, as someone who earns a living worrying about these sorts of
things, I can tell you that it's an old wives tale. ;^)
>>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>> Not cheap enough to replace a hundred DVD-Rs. ;^)
>
> There's not really much difference price wise once you factor in sleeves or
> some sort of
> storage for DVDs.
> 1 DVD disc ~4.5Gb
> 1TB ~ 222 DVDs
Well, I'm up to about 150 DVD-Rs, so far. And I've seen more hard disks
fail than DVD-Rs.
> I tend to use a HD, but use DVDs as well if something is extra important.
Good. Between the two media, hopefully at least one will survive.
> I must consider some sort of on-line storage too at some point.
Buy a NAS box & run automated backups to that & DVD-R, if you really
want to be sure.
Bob Larter
> In message <gtpjsg$sdq$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
> da...@final.front.ear> writes
>> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:49fc32f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> G Paleologopoulos wrote:
>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> news:49fad0f0$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>> .................................................
>>>>> Ditto. I create \photography\year-month-day\shoot\ & throw all my photos
>>>>> in there. Every week or so, I burn them to DVD-R. It's probably not the
>>>>> best backup scheme on earth, but it's worked okay for me so far.
>>>>> .................................................
>>>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>>> Hard disks die of old age. Hopefully, DVD-Rs don't.
>>>
>> They do, and can deterate quicker than HDs, although that does depend on
>> how you handle them.
>> I've heard DVDs are typically 20 years, but it does depend on storage.
>
> I have none of the HD's I had when I started but most of the data. It
> is usually VERY easy and quite quick to copy data from one HD to
> another. So I do.
>
> Every few years (about 5) when I upgrade the hard disks/pc's etc the
> data gets moved. So it stays fresh. It generally costs a lot less
> than lots of floppies, tapes CD's. DVD's Blue Ray etc
Yeah, every time I upgrade, I dump the old data onto the new drive. So
far, I haven't lost any data since 1998, when the old drive had
developed read errors, which I didn't discover until I'd handed back the
machine (laptop) to my previous employer. That kind of sucked, but I was
too busy to worry about it at the time.
Bob Larter
> G Paleologopoulos <gpa...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>
> A hard drive attached to your system is not a backup. It's online
> local storage. The two are not the same thing. IMO, an ideal backup
> system should be
>
> A) read-only (so a mistake, malware, or hardware error can't delete or
> corrupt it)
> B) physically distant (so fire, flood, etc. won't take it out at the
> same time as your main copy)
> C) immediately available
> D) incrementally expandable
> E) long-lived
> F) cheap
Exactly right, although I'd argue with 'cheap'. ;^)
The big problem with using an external disk as backup is that if you get
a big power spike, it'll take out your PC *AND* your external disk.
Ditto for fires, floods & burglaries.
> Some of these conditions are somewhat mutually incompatible, but
> that's the problem with ideals. Again IMO, external media satisfy
> conditions A, B, and D. A hard drive attached to your system satisfies
> C; if you only attach it to your system when you're actually backing up
> or restoring, it satisfies A only as long as it doesn't satisfy C. I
> don't trust just about anything to satisfy E, unfortunately...
Rightly so. Cheap backups are crappy backups. Even tapes are quite
expensive, per GB.
Bob Larter
> In message <gtq5o4$5i4$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner
> <j...@panix.com> writes
>> G Paleologopoulos <gpa...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>> A hard drive attached to your system is not a backup. It's online
>> local storage.
>
> As is a DVD until, like the HD, you remove it.
The difference is that your DVD-R is only in the drive for 10 minutes or
so. If your power goes Kablooie! when your DVD-R is safely in the box,
it'll only take out your PC, not your backup.
> So the only thing a hard drive does not meet is A BUT you can set files
> and directories to read only which is a partial A
Not even close. If it's online, it can be damaged by anything that can
damage your PC, & believe me, there are a lot of things that can damage
your PC.
Bob Larter
> In message <060520090031522733%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>> In article <XhCT+hAd...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
>> <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> A) read-only (so a mistake, malware, or hardware error can't delete or
>>>> corrupt it)
>>> So the only thing a hard drive does not meet is A BUT you can set files
>>> and directories to read only which is a partial A
>> or get a read-only firewire or usb bridge. or if the backup is done to
>> a disk image file, that can be locked while the drive itself is not.
>
> SO a hard drive meets all the criteria and in a better way than DVD's
Not if you get a big power spike, eg; if there's a lightning strike
nearby, or someone runs their car into a power pole. Either will zap
anything that's plugged in at the time. You really want offline backups
as well as online backups.
Bob Larter
> In message <gtpk9...@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
> <jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:ulWd$8DxQX$JF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <030520090325561853%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>>>>> In article <XLaLl.23228$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David
>>>>> J Taylor
>>>>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I thought that a Mac could run more than just UNIX?
>>> I think Aplpe erarned some Unix certification program about 4 years
>>> ok which meant
>>> that their type of unix was real unix.
>> "Real UNIX" is UNIX traceable to AT&T source code. The trademark,
>> "UNIX", however, has variously belonged to AT&T, Lucent, Novell, and
>> most recently SCO, and to use it involves paying a licensing fee.
>>
>> Microsoft has produced "real UNIX", called "Xenix"
>
> Are you sure? MS did it?
Yep, believe it or not. Dunno if their license is still valid, though.
The only times that MS have referred to it recently is in lawsuits. ;^)
Justin C
> In message <gtpk9...@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
> <jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>>"UNIX", however, has variously belonged to AT&T, Lucent, Novell, and
>>most recently SCO, and to use it involves paying a licensing fee.
>>
>>Microsoft has produced "real UNIX", called "Xenix"
>
> Are you sure? MS did it?
If I hadn't only recently thrown the manuals away I could have emailed
you a copy of the copyright/license page. It was surprising to me too.
The only reason I kept it so long was it contained a manual for vi.
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
Chris H
<bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <060520090031522733%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>>> In article <XhCT+hAd...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
>>> <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A) read-only (so a mistake, malware, or hardware error can't delete or
>>>>> corrupt it)
>>>> So the only thing a hard drive does not meet is A BUT you can set files
>>>> and directories to read only which is a partial A
>>> or get a read-only firewire or usb bridge. or if the backup is done to
>>> a disk image file, that can be locked while the drive itself is not.
>> SO a hard drive meets all the criteria and in a better way than
>>DVD's
>
>Not if you get a big power spike, eg; if there's a lightning strike
>nearby, or someone runs their car into a power pole. Either will zap
>anything that's plugged in at the time. You really want offline backups
>as well as online backups.
We use Power conditioning/battery back up on all our computers, external
hard drives, routers etc.
Got any other problems with HD's ?
BTW the server is striped and mirrored
.
Chris H
<bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <gtq5o4$5i4$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner
>> <j...@panix.com> writes
>>> G Paleologopoulos <gpa...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>>>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>>>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>>> A hard drive attached to your system is not a backup. It's online
>>> local storage.
>> As is a DVD until, like the HD, you remove it.
>
>The difference is that your DVD-R is only in the drive for 10 minutes
>or so. If your power goes Kablooie! when your DVD-R is safely in the
>box, it'll only take out your PC, not your backup.
We use power conditioning units on all computers.
>> So the only thing a hard drive does not meet is A BUT you can set files
>> and directories to read only which is a partial A
>
>Not even close. If it's online, it can be damaged by anything that can
>damage your PC, & believe me, there are a lot of things that can damage
>your PC.
Anything that will damage my PC will also take out the DVD;s too. Unless
the are off site. (And we have hot off site back up (on hard dicks )
When in a hole such as you are stop digging.
Chris H
<bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner wrote:
>> G Paleologopoulos <gpa...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>> A hard drive attached to your system is not a backup. It's
>>online
>> local storage. The two are not the same thing. IMO, an ideal backup
>> system should be A) read-only (so a mistake, malware, or hardware
>>error can't delete or
>> corrupt it)
>> B) physically distant (so fire, flood, etc. won't take it out at the
>> same time as your main copy)
>> C) immediately available D) incrementally expandable
>> E) long-lived
>> F) cheap
>
>Exactly right, although I'd argue with 'cheap'. ;^)
>
>The big problem with using an external disk as backup is that if you
>get a big power spike, it'll take out your PC *AND* your external disk.
Not it wont.
>Ditto for fires, floods & burglaries.
Which will also do for the DVD's
>> Some of these conditions are somewhat mutually incompatible, but
>> that's the problem with ideals. Again IMO, external media satisfy
>> conditions A, B, and D. A hard drive attached to your system satisfies
>> C; if you only attach it to your system when you're actually backing up
>> or restoring, it satisfies A only as long as it doesn't satisfy C. I
>> don't trust just about anything to satisfy E, unfortunately...
>
>Rightly so. Cheap backups are crappy backups. Even tapes are quite
>expensive, per GB.
I agree which is why we don't use DVD;s
When in a hole like you are: stop digging.
Chris H
<justi...@purestblue.com> writes
>In article <J3v0ryPp...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H wrote:
>> In message <gtpk9...@news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke...@cox.net> writes
>>>"Real UNIX" is UNIX traceable to AT&T source code. The trademark,
>>>"UNIX", however, has variously belonged to AT&T, Lucent, Novell, and
>>>most recently SCO, and to use it involves paying a licensing fee.
>>>
>>>Microsoft has produced "real UNIX", called "Xenix"
>>
>> Are you sure? MS did it?
>
>If I hadn't only recently thrown the manuals away I could have emailed
>you a copy of the copyright/license page. It was surprising to me too.
You are right, a quick search proves it. Surprised me as I only
remember it on the Apricot PC's and thought it came from somewhere else.
>The only reason I kept it so long was it contained a manual for vi.
Now that is sad :-)
Ray Fischer
>G Paleologopoulos <gpa...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>
> A hard drive attached to your system is not a backup. It's online
>local storage. The two are not the same thing. IMO, an ideal backup
>system should be
The ideal backup is the one that you actually use.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Chris H wrote:
>> Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner
>>> G Paleologopoulos <gpa...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>>>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>>>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>>> A hard drive attached to your system is not a backup. It's online
>>> local storage.
>>
>> As is a DVD until, like the HD, you remove it.
>
>The difference is that your DVD-R is only in the drive for 10 minutes or
>so. If your power goes Kablooie! when your DVD-R is safely in the box,
>it'll only take out your PC, not your backup.
The biggest problem with DVDs is that they're really slow. Doing a
backup of 100GB takes the better part of a day to complete. Who's
going to keep that up on a regular basis?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John McWilliams
> In message <4a017e3d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>> Not even close. If it's online, it can be damaged by anything that can
>> damage your PC, & believe me, there are a lot of things that can damage
>> your PC.
>
> Anything that will damage my PC will also take out the DVD;s too. Unless
> the are off site. (And we have hot off site back up (on hard dicks )
No comment on the F.S. ...... hardly even saw it....
>
> When in a hole such as you are stop digging.
Perhaps you both have different, but equally good, takes on backups.
Your set up, Chris, sounds very professional, etc., but 93% of users
won't be able to follow such a regimen.
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
No; it's one that never needs to get used....
Wally
wrote:
>The big problem with using an external disk as backup is that if you get
>a big power spike, it'll take out your PC *AND* your external disk.
No... my backup external HDs are off line almost all the time.
>Ditto for fires, floods & burglaries.
True... impractical to put stuff off-site every day, though. Once a
year should be okay.
I wish there was a practical archival medium for archiving files. In
50-100 years most of today's files will be lost no matter what you do.
Wally
Chris H
<jp...@comcast.net> writes
Why not. I used a PC with a UPS and external HD and AV SW that had off
site back up for many years. Even at home
Justin C
>
> I wish there was a practical archival medium for archiving files. In
> 50-100 years most of today's files will be lost no matter what you do.
But who will care? If it's data worth preserving other copies will have
been taken. It it's not worth preserving then it's no loss.
Justin C
> whisky-dave wrote:
>
>> I tend to use a HD, but use DVDs as well if something is extra important.
As soon as you get a replacement for the failure of one, back up the
other again - the law of sod says that you're about to lose the other.
Justin C
> In message <slrnh02upb.4e...@Macintosh.local>, Justin C
> <justi...@purestblue.com> writes
>
> Now that is sad :-)
Well, it didn't have instructions for emacs, so maybe MS are responsible
for my *nix editor of choice![1]
Justin.
1. MicroSoft prefer vi to emacs - maybe that should be blogged!
Justin C
Let's face it, real back-up is expensive in both time and money[1],
whether it be media or time. How much you spend on back-up (time or
money) should be based on the value of your data, and the cost of the
time that the data may be off-line (or the value of that data in some
other measure).
If, for example, you're Amazon.com would it be unreasonable to spend one
million dollars on back-ups? I think not, and I'd not be surprised if
they spend ten times that. But, for me, an average Joe with a very basic
web-site, and not much that is really critical by way of data stored, I
copy my servers to each other once a week. I back-up my laptop
(excluding music and photos) once in a blue-moon. What would I lose if
it all went tits up? In the scheme of things, not much; personally, I'd
be upset - but it'd not be the end of my life.
Most people are, I expect, somewhere in between. What people have to
realise is that the greater the physical distance they can put between
the original hardware and the back-up the better. The more regular you
carry out your back-ups the better. And not verifying your back-ups is
no better than not backing-up at all. *You must test your back-up*
failure to do so will come back and bite you, and prove that you were
just wasting your time.
Most of what I've written is applicable to business, what about real
people? It's *so* difficult to put a value on photos of the kids - there
aren't many of me as a child or adult, there are hundreds of my cousin;
I was (am) an only child to a single-parent who couldn't afford a camera
but my cousin's father is a very good amateur... What about the photos
of the child that died? Or the grand-parent, or parent? The data doesn't
seem so valuable when there is the opportunity to get another photo, but
each opportunity is a one off - birthdays, weddings, etc. People
eventually die, and then you can't get another photo. It's not possible
to put a monetary value on this personal data, for the generation that
captured the data it may be priceless, it will be valuable too to the
next generation (providing we were good at editing out and deleting the
crap), but to each subsequent generation it will have less value... You
have to face it, once you are a "great-great" relative, interest in you
has pretty much gone. So, how much do you want to spend backing up this
junk? It really isn't easy to decide.
Justin.
1. When specifying a server for a small company I've been told that the price looks expensive. I explain the hardware in the server and it's cost, and when I get to the back-up device that's when they choke. No one ever *expects* their hardware to fail, that is a user's biggest error. On a long enough time-line hardware *always* fails. What I say to the bean counters is this: All of your data, details of everything anyone owes you is gone, you could get no income from any debt that you currently have, and you wouldn't know that you should how do you recover? *This* back-up device will ensure that that doesn't happen.... That tends to persuade most people.
Wally
A generation from now many people will have no photos of their
childhood. Just because they weren't backed up every 5-10 years
doesn't mean they will be of no interest.
Wally
Bob Larter
> In article <4a017bc3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter wrote:
>> whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>>> I tend to use a HD, but use DVDs as well if something is extra important.
>
> As soon as you get a replacement for the failure of one, back up the
> other again - the law of sod says that you're about to lose the other.
Ayup.
Bob Larter
> In message <4a01...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>> Chris H wrote:
>>> In message <060520090031522733%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>>>> In article <XhCT+hAd...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
>>>> <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> A) read-only (so a mistake, malware, or hardware error can't delete or
>>>>>> corrupt it)
>>>>> So the only thing a hard drive does not meet is A BUT you can set files
>>>>> and directories to read only which is a partial A
>>>> or get a read-only firewire or usb bridge. or if the backup is done to
>>>> a disk image file, that can be locked while the drive itself is not.
>>> SO a hard drive meets all the criteria and in a better way than
>>> DVD's
>> Not if you get a big power spike, eg; if there's a lightning strike
>> nearby, or someone runs their car into a power pole. Either will zap
>> anything that's plugged in at the time. You really want offline backups
>> as well as online backups.
>
> We use Power conditioning/battery back up on all our computers, external
> hard drives, routers etc.
That'll prevent most common power problems, but I've seen sites where
really big spikes have taken out the protectors/UPSes *and* the
computers. For example, a nearby ground strike can arc right across the
breaker contacts, even though they've opened.
> Got any other problems with HD's ?
Heat is the number one thing that kills hard disks. If you make sure
that they have adequate airflow, (ie; the drive feels cool to the touch
after being on for several hours), you can easily get 10 years or more
out a decent quality drive. If they run hot, don't be surprised if they
fail in only a few months.
> BTW the server is striped and mirrored
Good, although it won't help you if the +5V or +12V rail goes kablooey
on your power supply. (Not common, but it does happen.)
Bob Larter
> In message <4a017e3d$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobby...@gmail.com> writes
>> Chris H wrote:
>>> In message <gtq5o4$5i4$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner
>>> <j...@panix.com> writes
>>>> G Paleologopoulos <gpa...@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>>>>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>>>>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>>>> A hard drive attached to your system is not a backup. It's online
>>>> local storage.
>>> As is a DVD until, like the HD, you remove it.
>> The difference is that your DVD-R is only in the drive for 10 minutes
>> or so. If your power goes Kablooie! when your DVD-R is safely in the
>> box, it'll only take out your PC, not your backup.
>
> We use power conditioning units on all computers.
>
>>> So the only thing a hard drive does not meet is A BUT you can set files
>>> and directories to read only which is a partial A
>> Not even close. If it's online, it can be damaged by anything that can
>> damage your PC, & believe me, there are a lot of things that can damage
>> your PC.
>
> Anything that will damage my PC will also take out the DVD;s too. Unless
> the are off site.
Huh? How will a PSU failure on your PC harm your DVD-Rs?
> (And we have hot off site back up (on hard dicks )
Good.
> When in a hole such as you are stop digging.
You think I'm in a hole? Mate, I earn my living dealing with these sorts
of problems in businesses. I've had to disassemble hard disks & swap out
fried controllers to rescue critical data for businesses that *thought*
they had good backups - until they tried to do a restore. I've seen
hard disks & motherboards with the tracks burnt off & the tops blown off
half the chips from a nearby lightning strike - those guys thought that
UPSes & power filters were foolproof protection as well. Nearby lighting
strikes laugh at fuses, transorbs, breakers & relays, & will destroy
anything connected to the power, the network, or the phonelines.
Those sorts of disasters are rare, but they *do* happen.
Bob Larter
<nods> It depends very much on how much you need to backup. I only back
up data I really care about, such as my business records, correspondence
&, of course, my photos. For me, that works out to a couple of DVD-Rs a
week, at a about 6 minutes a disk, on this burner. Anything else I can
reinstall from my install disks.