I could go for freebsd - I worked with it
a little bit when I was running linux
I could always do most everything I want in DOS -
And for win98se and prior - ever since drive costs came down I have never fooled with Ghost, drive copy or similar
Boot to a prompt and run
xcopy C:*.* D: /E /C /H /R /K /Y
and that will clone win9x drives right over to a destination partition ( D in this case) - quick, simple, much faster than tape or CD storage -
Right now win2Kpro is doing what I want, it's quick and stable. Since it's not running on a DOS platform, I don't have the flexiblity and ability to work from a command prompt as I have had in the past.
When I change OS I'm going to go with an open source platform where I will make the effort to learn what is necessary to function at a command prompt.
I think there has been some good info in this thread that I'll take to heart and check out.
ken
a little bit when I was running linux
I could always do most everything I want in DOS -
And for win98se and prior - ever since drive costs came down I have never fooled with Ghost, drive copy or similar
Boot to a prompt and run
xcopy C:*.* D: /E /C /H /R /K /Y
and that will clone win9x drives right over to a destination partition ( D in this case) - quick, simple, much faster than tape or CD storage -
Right now win2Kpro is doing what I want, it's quick and stable. Since it's not running on a DOS platform, I don't have the flexiblity and ability to work from a command prompt as I have had in the past.
When I change OS I'm going to go with an open source platform where I will make the effort to learn what is necessary to function at a command prompt.
I think there has been some good info in this thread that I'll take to heart and check out.
ken
CLONING
Hi,
One major problem when cloning older versions of Win9X under DOS is the lack of support for long file names.
Therefore I used a little proggie called DOSLNFBK that would collect all long names into a database using a batchfile that specified what partitions to search.
For restores you would then use it in reverse.
It was a little masterpiece and moreover it was 100% freeware.
In later incarnations it suported FAT32 filesystems as well.
Xcopy is only useable when running DOS based OSs' and won't even see a NTFS filesystem.
It has a host of other limitations that progs such as Ghost and Drive Image overcome.
Drivecopy is only useful for copying to another HD.It doesn't offer the freedom the others do.
Ken,
These programms save a lot of time especially for the pro when you need network support and removable media such as CDR,CDRW,Iomega drives etc.
On top of that they usually have an option to use the Bios INT 13 address line giving them fast access to drive and media.
If using scsi gear this can then reach speeds of 40Mb/s on a single volume.
With multiple disk packs on raid controller(s) these programs become even more usefull.
One caveat though: IMO none of these support dynamic volumes as you can build in software on W2K server.
In that case only a complete disaster recovery using expensive backup up software (Veritas) and a streamer can save you.
Other than that,it is good to see people still appreciating the power of good ole DOS.
See you,
Hi,
One major problem when cloning older versions of Win9X under DOS is the lack of support for long file names.
Therefore I used a little proggie called DOSLNFBK that would collect all long names into a database using a batchfile that specified what partitions to search.
For restores you would then use it in reverse.
It was a little masterpiece and moreover it was 100% freeware.
In later incarnations it suported FAT32 filesystems as well.
Xcopy is only useable when running DOS based OSs' and won't even see a NTFS filesystem.
It has a host of other limitations that progs such as Ghost and Drive Image overcome.
Drivecopy is only useful for copying to another HD.It doesn't offer the freedom the others do.
Ken,
These programms save a lot of time especially for the pro when you need network support and removable media such as CDR,CDRW,Iomega drives etc.
On top of that they usually have an option to use the Bios INT 13 address line giving them fast access to drive and media.
If using scsi gear this can then reach speeds of 40Mb/s on a single volume.
With multiple disk packs on raid controller(s) these programs become even more usefull.
One caveat though: IMO none of these support dynamic volumes as you can build in software on W2K server.
In that case only a complete disaster recovery using expensive backup up software (Veritas) and a streamer can save you.
Other than that,it is good to see people still appreciating the power of good ole DOS.
See you,
Re: CLONING
One thing that amazes me as this thread continues is all the little pieces of software are needed to do things that just seem natural (and are built-in) to the MacOS, the older ones or X.
It is no wonder that support staff for a Windoz-based organization outnumber the staff for a mac-based one 10-1.
dave
fdegrove said:
One thing that amazes me as this thread continues is all the little pieces of software are needed to do things that just seem natural (and are built-in) to the MacOS, the older ones or X.
It is no wonder that support staff for a Windoz-based organization outnumber the staff for a mac-based one 10-1.
dave
PART&PARCEL.
Hi,
Quite a lot of the possibilties are actually there and often far more than people actually realize.
The most important tool however is experience and the will to learn.
This was especially true when Win95 came out.
Once you'd wrestled through that all that followed was a natural progression.
Still to this day I think that NT4 in its' latest reincarnations is a very good system.
Win2K however offers possibilities with software that used to require a vast investment on hardware,rendering 80% of the functionality of a raid controller redundant overnight is no small feat.
I'm not defending Microsoft here it's just that they had that brillant sense of economics Steve Jobbs never saw.
After all tens of thousands of people are making a good living supporting this oh so flawed OS.
(Note the irony.)
Looking at it that way I can only welcome competition but so far nobody had the same clout.
Majors such as IBM tried but failed,too bad but it is the truth.
Open source,Linux, BSD you name it is not going to change that overnight.
Running a Mac was always a mystery to me since I did not know what to do short of installing everything afresh.
I'm pretty much convinced the system is not perfect either despite what enthusiasts may claim.
Looking at another aspect that is very important to a lot of people and quite likely the number one reason for the succes of the PC is that you can upgrade hardware quite easily and you can easily put together your own machine without too much technical knowledge.
Were I to work for the graphical sector,I'd say the Mac still offers advantages but not as much as say 15 years ago.
What I like about the Mac though is that it is easy to work with and quite likely require less attention to run (although when it goes South I'ld be at a total loss).
Oh well,
Hi,
Quite a lot of the possibilties are actually there and often far more than people actually realize.
The most important tool however is experience and the will to learn.
This was especially true when Win95 came out.
Once you'd wrestled through that all that followed was a natural progression.
Still to this day I think that NT4 in its' latest reincarnations is a very good system.
Win2K however offers possibilities with software that used to require a vast investment on hardware,rendering 80% of the functionality of a raid controller redundant overnight is no small feat.
I'm not defending Microsoft here it's just that they had that brillant sense of economics Steve Jobbs never saw.
After all tens of thousands of people are making a good living supporting this oh so flawed OS.
(Note the irony.)
Looking at it that way I can only welcome competition but so far nobody had the same clout.
Majors such as IBM tried but failed,too bad but it is the truth.
Open source,Linux, BSD you name it is not going to change that overnight.
Running a Mac was always a mystery to me since I did not know what to do short of installing everything afresh.
I'm pretty much convinced the system is not perfect either despite what enthusiasts may claim.
Looking at another aspect that is very important to a lot of people and quite likely the number one reason for the succes of the PC is that you can upgrade hardware quite easily and you can easily put together your own machine without too much technical knowledge.
Were I to work for the graphical sector,I'd say the Mac still offers advantages but not as much as say 15 years ago.
What I like about the Mac though is that it is easy to work with and quite likely require less attention to run (although when it goes South I'ld be at a total loss).
Oh well,
Re: PART&PARCEL.
With 18 years Mac experience (my original 128 (upgraded to the max) holds up one corner of my coffee table) i know that with pre-X OSs there is hardly ever a situation where you need to start fresh. Now with X i'm starting a fresh learning curve as far as the guts go, the UI even thou quite different in many ways falls to hand quite quickly.
Creative organizations would still be crazy to not use Macs. 1 simple statistic. Macs 27 billable hours in a 40 hr week (and this was with the Classic OS), vrs 18 for PCs (and a large number of the missing 9 hrs have the artist type, watching the IT type fix their computer).
There is no perfect OS (and there never will be), but Mac OS X with its marriage of a UI evolved from the classic Mac OS sitting on top of the industrial strength UNIX developed originally for the NeXT, and a pdf imaging model, with excellent OpenGL support built-in is as good as it gets for day-to-day use in 2002. And the native development environment, derived from NeXT-Step allows developers to get aps out in a fraction of the time it takes for Windows (or Classic Mac OS for that matter). Couple that with all the UNIX aps waiting for an Aqua-face and we should see aps just keep coming (i'd love to get involved [or funded] to do a killer audio ap).
And it is only at version 1.2.1 with Apple working like crazy to improve it.
As to hardware, it is true that Apple's full OS only runs on Macs* (Darwin runs on almost everything), but that isn't too much of a hardship considering that the quality of the hardware is 1st rate and not really equalled by any box wearing the "Intel Inside" warning label.
*Apple (is reputed to) keep a fully up-to-date version of X running on Intel, ostensibly to help weed out bugs, but if it ever turns to their advantage to release it you could have X for Intel in the time it takes to put together a killer ad campaign.
dave
(Note: the author of this message is VERY biased, and he thinks with good reason)
fdegrove said:
With 18 years Mac experience (my original 128 (upgraded to the max) holds up one corner of my coffee table) i know that with pre-X OSs there is hardly ever a situation where you need to start fresh. Now with X i'm starting a fresh learning curve as far as the guts go, the UI even thou quite different in many ways falls to hand quite quickly.
Creative organizations would still be crazy to not use Macs. 1 simple statistic. Macs 27 billable hours in a 40 hr week (and this was with the Classic OS), vrs 18 for PCs (and a large number of the missing 9 hrs have the artist type, watching the IT type fix their computer).
There is no perfect OS (and there never will be), but Mac OS X with its marriage of a UI evolved from the classic Mac OS sitting on top of the industrial strength UNIX developed originally for the NeXT, and a pdf imaging model, with excellent OpenGL support built-in is as good as it gets for day-to-day use in 2002. And the native development environment, derived from NeXT-Step allows developers to get aps out in a fraction of the time it takes for Windows (or Classic Mac OS for that matter). Couple that with all the UNIX aps waiting for an Aqua-face and we should see aps just keep coming (i'd love to get involved [or funded] to do a killer audio ap).
And it is only at version 1.2.1 with Apple working like crazy to improve it.
As to hardware, it is true that Apple's full OS only runs on Macs* (Darwin runs on almost everything), but that isn't too much of a hardship considering that the quality of the hardware is 1st rate and not really equalled by any box wearing the "Intel Inside" warning label.
*Apple (is reputed to) keep a fully up-to-date version of X running on Intel, ostensibly to help weed out bugs, but if it ever turns to their advantage to release it you could have X for Intel in the time it takes to put together a killer ad campaign.
dave
(Note: the author of this message is VERY biased, and he thinks with good reason)
sangram said:
X is a whole new ball-game. It completely transforms your Mac (mostly for the better -- X still has some rough edges, but they are working on them -- 10.2.2 shipped yesterday, my Update control panel told me it was there, i clicked the update button, it automatically downloaded it from the net and installed itself while i was working away on other things, reboot and i'm up-to-date!
Doesn't take a new Mac to run X, anything from a Beige G3 on will run it.
dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: PART&PARCEL.
That time may be sooner than any one of us thinks. Windows is being rapidly replaced by Linux in the Corporate and Server Market, and the e-Mac and $200 LinTel PC may cause M$ to do some serious re-thinking... Compaq (though not a good enough example) has already started offering PCs with a Linux option (that are about $100 cheaper).
planet10 said:
That time may be sooner than any one of us thinks. Windows is being rapidly replaced by Linux in the Corporate and Server Market, and the e-Mac and $200 LinTel PC may cause M$ to do some serious re-thinking... Compaq (though not a good enough example) has already started offering PCs with a Linux option (that are about $100 cheaper).
Re: Downloading Red Hat 8 now
I'm interested in knowing how that turns out. The biggest single factor in Linux's way are professional applications, or rather, the lack of Linux versions of professional applications - photo editing, sound and music recording and composition, 3D modelling, animation...
Linux needs to start getting support in a big way from other vendors if it is to grow. I guess it's OK for the home market on one hand and the server market on the other, it can also be easily used on the corporate desktop, but not by the professional user (I imagine a large proportion of this audience would be on Macs or alternative hardware anyway, so supporting Linux may not be on the agenda for the developers in the first place...)
Hey, this is a audio forum. Why are we discussing tech in here? Whatever goes...
Ken L said:Will take a while to get a drive ready to put it on.
Ken
I'm interested in knowing how that turns out. The biggest single factor in Linux's way are professional applications, or rather, the lack of Linux versions of professional applications - photo editing, sound and music recording and composition, 3D modelling, animation...
Linux needs to start getting support in a big way from other vendors if it is to grow. I guess it's OK for the home market on one hand and the server market on the other, it can also be easily used on the corporate desktop, but not by the professional user (I imagine a large proportion of this audience would be on Macs or alternative hardware anyway, so supporting Linux may not be on the agenda for the developers in the first place...)
Hey, this is a audio forum. Why are we discussing tech in here?
Whatever goes... Banned
Joined 2002
so far i have used and liked the following
mandrake all versions they just get better i can see mandrake becoming a desktop lots of utilities and help menues for support and ect
Redhat was good but i didnt like it no utilities and the one program i like that mandrake had that redhat didnt was hard drake ( witch is a hard ware finder and installer )
iv tryed turbo linux kinda cool looking
os-x jaguar mac ( witch is what im running now
os 9
windows 95 , 98 me 2000 win2000 server windows xp corp profesional
bsd all versions.
and probably more. i guess ill be talking to planet 10 alot soon when i get my mac for help. im using my girl friends i book verry nice of her to let me use it for my audio stuff. and email but i ssee that i need more power so ya im getting a dual prossessor g4 i SO CANT WAIT eheh
Jaosn
mandrake all versions they just get better i can see mandrake becoming a desktop lots of utilities and help menues for support and ect
Redhat was good but i didnt like it no utilities and the one program i like that mandrake had that redhat didnt was hard drake ( witch is a hard ware finder and installer )
iv tryed turbo linux kinda cool looking
os-x jaguar mac ( witch is what im running now
os 9
windows 95 , 98 me 2000 win2000 server windows xp corp profesional
bsd all versions.
and probably more. i guess ill be talking to planet 10 alot soon when i get my mac for help. im using my girl friends i book verry nice of her to let me use it for my audio stuff. and email but i ssee that i need more power so ya im getting a dual prossessor g4 i SO CANT WAIT eheh
Jaosn
Re: Re: Downloading Red Hat 8 now
It'll be several weeks or more but I'll post my results - I'm running two boxes, I've got one of those promised out as soon as I build the P4 and mobo that I've got sitting here, then I'll get a P933 I think it is, back in that is running fine - that's what I figure I'll set up Linux on - I'm hopeful that Red Hat has most of the hardware drivers with the package- Then I hope that the native RedHat win emulation will take care of all I need - That can be my surfer box and I'll still have a Win2Kpro box I can use for apps, etc.
Ken
sangram said:
It'll be several weeks or more but I'll post my results - I'm running two boxes, I've got one of those promised out as soon as I build the P4 and mobo that I've got sitting here, then I'll get a P933 I think it is, back in that is running fine - that's what I figure I'll set up Linux on - I'm hopeful that Red Hat has most of the hardware drivers with the package- Then I hope that the native RedHat win emulation will take care of all I need - That can be my surfer box and I'll still have a Win2Kpro box I can use for apps, etc.
Ken
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.