Anytime Upgrade

G

Gene E. Bloch

"Gene E. Bloch" <[email protected]> écrivait



I've change the drive in my EeePC for a bigger one and it was a similar
process, remove keyboard, be very careful with fragile cable, it was no
joy. That process void the warranty because I had to break a seal but it's
expired now and I had no problem.

There's a panel on the back of that EeePC model but it's for accessing RAM.
The Acer Aspire One requires the same procedure for removing RAM as for
the hard drive - they are next to each other.

Although there's no doubt I could do all that, the procedure is annoying
enough to make me not want to upgrade the hardware. Since it's only a
rather cheap netbook, that's probably a good decision anyway :)

Yeah, those grapes are no doubt pretty sour.
 
K

Ken1943

AV was active on both netbooks when running the test. I have a new drive
The HDtune run on the Toshiba shows a graph that is really all over the
place up and down. Lowest speed is 1m/sec. The EEE PC shows a much more
stable graph.

The Toshiba drive is a Fujitsu.
The EEE PC is a seagate.

Now if I can blame the drive or the chipset is another matter.
Don't know if I want to spend $60 to find out. A ssd is out of the
question price wise as both netbooks are only used when I travel.


KenW
Was the antivirus software disabled when the Fujitsu was being evaluated ?

You can't really afford to have any conflicting software running at
the same time, as otherwise you'll get some very low downward spikes,
when the drive head is doing nothing but seeks back to back.

If you're absolutely sure Indexing, AV, and the like are turned off,
there are no other backups or the like running, then download a
diagnostic for the disk. The computer could even decide to do a
system restore point (but that only happens once a week now).

Some of the disk diagnostic programs, are stand alone boot systems.
And when you boot with the diagnostic disc, there won't be any other software to
interfere. At a minimum the diagnostic will check the SMART statistics,
run a few simple tests. Usually, a longer test scans the disk surface
(but that isn't necessary, if you fail the short test anyway). On the
down-side, I've noticed that the version of FreeDOS included on
diagnostic packages like that, as trouble running on modern hardware.
I have diagnostics that fail to run on my Core2 P5E motherboard, and
they also fail to run on my new laptop. They do seem to work on my older
hardware (like my P4 Northwood system).

http://sdd.toshiba.com/main.aspx?Path=ServicesSupport/FujitsuDrives/SoftwareUtilities

*******

Another thing you can try, is use the HDTune bad block scan (rightmost tab).
Let it scan the entire disk surface. I have one disk here, that behaved
differently after a simple single read pass over the entire surface. The
downward spikes weren't quite as bad on the next benchmark run.

Some drives now, have 4KB sectors, and 512 byte emulation is layered on top
of it. Windows 7 has native 4KB support (there was a patch a while back for it).
Again, I've noticed some strange things with my last three 500GB disks,
in that they have a block size dependency. To give an example, I was
doing block transfers in 1MB chunks (usually bigger chunks work better),
and got only 30% of the transfer speed that could be achieved by reducing
the chunk size to 32768 bytes. I've seen something similar, when dropping all
the way down to 4KB sized chunks in a transfer. And if I specified non-power-of-two
values for transfer size, that also affected performance. I *never* used to see
that on any of my old drives. Your Fujitsu probably won't have that,
as I don't know to what extent Fujitsu got on the "4KB bandwagon" with
the other manufacturers. I thought Fujitsu got rid of at least some
of their storage manufacturing, and I don't know whether they make drives
any more or not. About all that's left now, is Seagate and Western Digital,
as the others disappeared or were bought out. Quite a bit of market
consolidation has occurred. I think even the independent companies
that used to make platters, they got bought up too.

Paul[/QUOTE]


KenW
 
K

Ken1943

I replaced the drive in the Toshiba and that fixed it being slower than
my EEE PC. The HDtune graph is much better and antivirus quick scan is at
10 minutes on both.

Also a Anytime Upgrade key will not work for a clean install. Glad I
image my drives.

I did a upgrade from Starter to Home on a Toshiba netbook. I guess the
upgrade key I got would allow a clean install from one of the dvd's I
have ?

This netbook is slow compared to a clean install of Win 7 on a eee pc
that came with XP.

I have tried disabling Toshiba utilities, any security software and any
other programs that might doing the dirty deed.

Unless it is the netbook hardware, I thought doing a clean install may
solve the problem.

Any thoughts




KenW

KenW
 
K

Ken1943

I replaced the drive in the Toshiba and that fixed it being slower than
my EEE PC. The HDtune graph is much better and antivirus quick scan is at
10 minutes on both.

Also a Anytime Upgrade key will not work for a clean install. Glad I
image my drives.
I did a upgrade from Starter to Home on a Toshiba netbook. I guess the
upgrade key I got would allow a clean install from one of the dvd's I
have ?

This netbook is slow compared to a clean install of Win 7 on a eee pc
that came with XP.

I have tried disabling Toshiba utilities, any security software and any
other programs that might doing the dirty deed.

Unless it is the netbook hardware, I thought doing a clean install may
solve the problem.

Any thoughts




KenW

KenW
 
E

Ed Cryer

I replaced the drive in the Toshiba and that fixed it being slower than
my EEE PC. The HDtune graph is much better and antivirus quick scan is at
10 minutes on both.

Also a Anytime Upgrade key will not work for a clean install. Glad I
image my drives.



KenW
Snap!
I spot a double-posting with same time-stamp.
Now I have to guess which news-server you use.

Ed
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

I think I've read somewhere (here?) that it can be persuaded to work by
doing the process twice, or something. (Almost certainly not "legal", of
course.)
[]
Snap!
I spot a double-posting with same time-stamp.
I was wondering about that too (-:
 
C

Char Jackson

I think I've read somewhere (here?) that it can be persuaded to work by
doing the process twice, or something.
You might be thinking about using an Upgrade version of Windows for a
clean install. That's where the double install is relevant. I have not
heard anything about Anytime Upgrade being mentioned in this context.
(Almost certainly not "legal", of course.)
It's a behavior or capability that's been there since at least the
beginning of the Vista days. Numerous reports exist of magazine
writers, blog writers, etc., asking Microsoft if this is accidental or
by design, so MS is well aware of the capability and well aware that
the user community is also aware of it. The bottom line is that the
capability is still there after all these years so I'll take the
opposite view and say it's "almost certainly legal" until shown
otherwise. By 'shown otherwise, I mostly mean MS will either close the
hole or explicitly prohibit it in their EULA, as two examples.
 
D

Dominique

I think I've read somewhere (here?) that it can be persuaded to work by
doing the process twice, or something. (Almost certainly not "legal", of
course.)
<snip>

I did a double install with an upgrade DVD on a computer that was
legitimate to upgrade, it had an OEM Vista on it an I wanted a clean
install. I don't see anything illegal since the computer met the upgrade
conditions.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Snap!
I spot a double-posting with same time-stamp.
Now I have to guess which news-server you use.

Ed
NNTP Posting Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:46:01 -0500
NNTP Posting Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:46:58 -0500

I.e., 57 seconds difference.

Both show
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com

I had a similar hiccup a few days back; reason unknown, might've been my
error.
 
E

Ed Cryer

NNTP Posting Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:46:01 -0500
NNTP Posting Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:46:58 -0500

I.e., 57 seconds difference.

Both show
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com

I had a similar hiccup a few days back; reason unknown, might've been my
error.
Have a look at my recent double-posting.
It's in "What most effects better video"
12/09/11 at 17.14

As far as I can see the times are identical to the second; and what's
more they both have the same message-ID.

Ed
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Char Jackson said:
You might be thinking about using an Upgrade version of Windows for a
clean install. That's where the double install is relevant. I have not
heard anything about Anytime Upgrade being mentioned in this context.
You are right. I hadn't spotted the word "Anytime".
It's a behavior or capability that's been there since at least the
beginning of the Vista days. Numerous reports exist of magazine
writers, blog writers, etc., asking Microsoft if this is accidental or
by design, so MS is well aware of the capability and well aware that
the user community is also aware of it. The bottom line is that the
capability is still there after all these years so I'll take the
opposite view and say it's "almost certainly legal" until shown
otherwise. By 'shown otherwise, I mostly mean MS will either close the
hole or explicitly prohibit it in their EULA, as two examples.
There's a difference between "legal" (or at least, intended by Microsoft
- I don't think they can make laws!) and "something Microsoft don't
bother to do anything about". Others have suggested that, though they
are well aware of it, they aren't bothering to clamp down on it (or
block registrations/activations of such systems), since due to the
moderate complexity of the process required, they lose less revenue than
the loss of goodwill that would ensue if they did. I don't know myself.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Have a look at my recent double-posting.
It's in "What most effects better video"
12/09/11 at 17.14

As far as I can see the times are identical to the second; and what's
more they both have the same message-ID.

Ed
I agree about the times, but not the Message-IDs:

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

Still, these double messages are pretty weird, IMO.

I had to laugh at myself when I saw 12/09/11 and thought "December?",
until I remembered the ocean that separates us and changes some things
:)
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

In message <[email protected]>, Gene E. Bloch
Still, these double messages are pretty weird, IMO.

I had to laugh at myself when I saw 12/09/11 and thought "December?",
until I remembered the ocean that separates us and changes some things
:)
In the same way I wondered - and then got irritated - about why your
side kept going on and on about the ninth of November. Especially since
it's done without the year.

The time of this posting is 26:08:29 - logical or what (-:?
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

In message <[email protected]>, Gene E. Bloch

In the same way I wondered - and then got irritated - about why your
side kept going on and on about the ninth of November. Especially since
it's done without the year.

The time of this posting is 26:08:29 - logical or what (-:?
Now I *am* confused :)

Expanding the headers I get
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:27:51 UTC
and
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:26:50 +0100

so I guess you wrote the minute, the hour, and 29.

I'll come back to discuss this further after I down another brandy.

It's OK, though. I like some modern music and some surrealistic
literature, so I don't mind if you offer no explanation :)
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

(Sorry, I'd have taken this to email, but Gene doesn't give a demunged.)


(Especially when I ribbed a correspondent about it, but he completely
missed my point, and asked did I mean Kristallnacht, which apparently
was indeed on [_our_] 9/11!)
Now I *am* confused :)

Expanding the headers I get
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:27:51 UTC
and
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:26:50 +0100

so I guess you wrote the minute, the hour, and 29.

I'll come back to discuss this further after I down another brandy.

It's OK, though. I like some modern music and some surrealistic
literature, so I don't mind if you offer no explanation :)
Sorry, it was an attempt to show that the US order of the date really is
illogical, not just unfamiliar. In fact to avoid confusion I give dates
thus 2011-10-4 - the year being first makes people stop and think. (OK,
that's still ambiguous if anywhere uses y-d-m, but I'm unlikely to meet
such people - if there is anywhere - where I write.)
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

(Sorry, I'd have taken this to email, but Gene doesn't give a demunged.)

Gene E. Bloch said:
In message <[email protected]>, Gene E. Bloch
[]
Still, these double messages are pretty weird, IMO.

I had to laugh at myself when I saw 12/09/11 and thought "December?",
until I remembered the ocean that separates us and changes some things
:)

In the same way I wondered - and then got irritated - about why your
side kept going on and on about the ninth of November. Especially since
it's done without the year.
(Especially when I ribbed a correspondent about it, but he completely
missed my point, and asked did I mean Kristallnacht, which apparently
was indeed on [_our_] 9/11!)
Now I *am* confused :)

Expanding the headers I get
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:27:51 UTC
and
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:26:50 +0100

so I guess you wrote the minute, the hour, and 29.

I'll come back to discuss this further after I down another brandy.

It's OK, though. I like some modern music and some surrealistic
literature, so I don't mind if you offer no explanation :)
Sorry, it was an attempt to show that the US order of the date really is
illogical, not just unfamiliar. In fact to avoid confusion I give dates
thus 2011-10-4 - the year being first makes people stop and think. (OK,
that's still ambiguous if anywhere uses y-d-m, but I'm unlikely to meet
such people - if there is anywhere - where I write.)
OK, I missed *that* joke :)

I use a similar way to write dates on filenames, e.g. 20111003 for
today's date (in my time zone!). It makes them sort better. OTOH,
looking at your use of hyphens, I realize I could make my filenames a
bit more readable :)

I always write a one-digit day or month with a leading zero in
filenames, but when I write m/d/y for regular text, I don't do that on
months. In some formatting notations, I do m/dd/yy.

I try to be consistent, even if I'm wrong :)
 
B

blank

About all that's left now, is Seagate and Western Digital,

That's a pity. I was unfortunate enough to buy a Western Digital Passport
portable hard drive for backups. It has some firmware in the casing that
insists it is the boot drive and hangs up my machine if it is plugged in a
bootup time!
 
P

Paul

blank said:
About all that's left now, is Seagate and Western Digital,

That's a pity. I was unfortunate enough to buy a Western Digital Passport
portable hard drive for backups. It has some firmware in the casing that
insists it is the boot drive and hangs up my machine if it is plugged in a
bootup time!
Check to see if it emulates a hard drive and a CDROM at the same time.

Some USB products use that approach. They use the CDROM emulation,
plus autorun, to automatically install drivers into Windows, when the
device is detected by Plug and Play. There was a USB LCD monitor that
worked that way. Generally, few OSes are covered by the driver package,
so it's not like the concept works really well. If you're a Linux
user, chances are the scheme wouldn't work at all (no drivers, Linux
users ignored).

In some cases, the manufacturer has a utility, that allows returning
the USB enclosure or USB pen drive configuration, to something more
normal. For example, in USB pen drive land, there were drives with
"U3", and there was a utility to remove the U3 portable application
part.

So have a good look at the interface the thing presents, when
it is booted up, and see if it is a composite device with
more than one personality. That could be what is confusing
things at boot time. I don't have any direct evidence of
such a thing, but that's where I'd start looking.

Paul
 
B

blank

Paul said:
Check to see if it emulates a hard drive and a CDROM at the same time.

Some USB products use that approach. They use the CDROM emulation,
plus autorun, to automatically install drivers into Windows, when the
device is detected by Plug and Play. There was a USB LCD monitor that
worked that way. Generally, few OSes are covered by the driver package,
so it's not like the concept works really well. If you're a Linux
user, chances are the scheme wouldn't work at all (no drivers, Linux
users ignored).

In some cases, the manufacturer has a utility, that allows returning
the USB enclosure or USB pen drive configuration, to something more
normal. For example, in USB pen drive land, there were drives with
"U3", and there was a utility to remove the U3 portable application
part.

So have a good look at the interface the thing presents, when
it is booted up, and see if it is a composite device with
more than one personality. That could be what is confusing
things at boot time. I don't have any direct evidence of
such a thing, but that's where I'd start looking.

Paul
Sure, but htat doesn't cure it. If I do a boot interrupt on my Tosh laptop I
see the outboard drive alongside the main hard drivce, and inseparable (so I
can't change the sequence). If you Google (or use another search engine that
has not just been ruined by Google) you will see that it is a well reported
issue, with WD themselves offering the advice 'don't boot up with the disk
plugged in" which means they have no soution for this obvious design
blunder. When I use a hard disk *I* want to decide how it is to be used, not
be dictated to by the manufacturer!
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top