Text 60122, 79 rader
Skriven 2010-02-26 08:32:52 av Pontiac (1:129/305)
     Kommentar till en text av Ed Vance
Ärende: Re: Winutilities
========================
-=> Ed Vance wrote to Steven Chranowski <=-

 SC>EV> Nortons Undelete was a lifesaver back in the MS-DOS 2.11 days.
 SC>EV> Why Microsoft hasn't included a undelete utility with their OS softwar
 SC>EV> is a mystery to me.

 SC>The problem with Windows is that it writes a gawd aweful lot of informatio
 SC>the HDD, and depending on where the old data lives, chances of corruption 
 SC>greater.  It would entirely depend on where things are stored physically o
 SC>the drive, and what was written.  I've used the Undelete function from var
 SC>tools before, but never had any real success unless I was playing in DOS a
 SC>knew for a fact that nothing major was written to the drive.

 EV> Steven,

 EV> You're right about Windows and its problems.

heh.. I don't get that kinda comment in forums. ;)

 EV> I never have like seeing the Disk Activity LED blinking when I wasn't
 EV> doing anything at all, but I got use to it.

Neither did I, but back in the Win98 days, I started wondering WTF was up with
that because I was just as annoyed.  Through trial and error I found out that 
Windows actually does a read test at the OS level to validate that the drive 
still actually exists and is working.  I found that out the hard way by 
pulling a secondary drive out of the system from the IDE cable when I somehow 
thought the machine was off.  The experiment wasn't exactly the most 
scientific, however, I noticed similar results when drives started to die.  
The HDD light would come on constant when it was spinning up and spinning down
when the head was trying to re-align.

 EV> Back in the DOS days I could Defrag a drive and watch the chart show
 EV> everything starting at the first cluster until the last cluster(s) were
 EV> packed all together with every cluster after that being empty.

I remember some of those utilities as well, for DOS.  Now I use DiskKeeper.  
Works fantastic and gives me a live view of what its doing.

 EV> I believe it started with Windows 95 when a Defrag would show used
 EV> clusters in 3 seperate groups, with a lot of empty clusters between
 EV> each group/section.

 EV> I never tried to learn why MS wanted it that a way.

Speed I think.  Instead of moving every file to the most inside portion of the
platter, the file was just defragmented to try and get the file in a situation
where it could be read from the first byte to the last byte with as little 
head movement as possible.  The time is reduced by not having to move 
alread-defraged files.

 SC>I used to be the type that never put stuff in the recycling bin as well,
 SC>but with the dawn of 500gig drives, if I did unintentionally delete someth
 SC>with it being in the recycling bin is just a backup for my stupidity.  Now
 SC>when in DOS and running DEL... Well... That'd be another story. heh

 EV> You're right again.

whoah... Marking this one on the calendar. heh

 EV> Habits learned since the 1984 Commodore 64 days are going to have to be
 EV> unlearned.

Ahhhh... The C64.. Gawd I miss having that machine around and having time to 
mess with it.

 EV> I'll keep the Winutilities Undelete program for whenever I might need
 EV> it along with the Freeundelete and PC Inspector File Recovery programs
 EV> I already have.

About the ONLY time I would use some sort of undelete util is if I knew for 
absolute certain that the drive was NOT written to, in the case of a secondary
drive, or a USB drive, or something like that.  I do most of my work on my 
primary drive, and use my other drives just for data storage, images, movies, 
etc, etc.  In my oppinion, it'd be about the only time I could possibly trust 
it.  Otherwise, just hope I have an archive of it somewhere else. ;)

--- Renegade v1.18/Alpha
 * Origin: The Titantic BBS Telnet - ttb.slyip.com (1:129/305)