USB 3.0 accessories

[Char Jackson]

Looks as though it may work; however since I have a iomega eGo with a
nice red case and plastic protector (thick-softener), and there
doesn't appear to be a way of opening the case,

There's always a way to open the case. The only question is whether it
can be done nondestructively, and the answer is almost always yes.
Usually, removing the soft protector will reveal the next steps.

don't know if the case would fit in the NexStar case

No, an external case will never fit inside another external case. They
are made to house a standard-sized hard drive, not a hard drive that's
already in another case.

and if the USB3 female on the drive will plug ingo the NexStar case.

No. The actual drive will likely have a SATA connector.

Will need to call NexStar and iOmega to
ascertain if it will work. A lot of trouble and expense when all is
needed is a connector/converter to plug into eSata/USB2 femalecombo
port on the HP, to USB3 female which should be very inexpensive.

Those are not phone calls I would make, but to each his own. I don't
expect them to help you tear their product apart unless you get crafty
and perhaps tell them you love the case but wish to upgrade the
enclosed hard drive or replace a failed drive, etc. Still, they may
just refer you to their new product sales.

The bottom line is that you bought the wrong item and now Paul is
bending over backwards to try to help you salvage it. Good luck, I
think you'll eventually be successful, even if you just wait long
enough for adapters to arrive on the market, if they ever do.

 

[Paul]

There's always a way to open the case. The only question is whether it
can be done nondestructively, and the answer is almost always yes.
Usually, removing the soft protector will reveal the next steps.


No, an external case will never fit inside another external case. They
are made to house a standard-sized hard drive, not a hard drive that's
already in another case.


No. The actual drive will likely have a SATA connector.


Those are not phone calls I would make, but to each his own. I don't
expect them to help you tear their product apart unless you get crafty
and perhaps tell them you love the case but wish to upgrade the
enclosed hard drive or replace a failed drive, etc. Still, they may
just refer you to their new product sales.

The bottom line is that you bought the wrong item and now Paul is
bending over backwards to try to help you salvage it. Good luck, I
think you'll eventually be successful, even if you just wait long
enough for adapters to arrive on the market, if they ever do.

There is a comment here, from a forum where data recovery experts
hang out. At one time, the iomega cases had a couple screws, but
their latest efforts are those accursed snap together assemblies.

http://forum.hddguru.com/iomega-ego-1tb-external-drive-how-open-case-t17509.html

You open the housing, remove the hard drive, and install it into
the new $25 enclosure. And that gives you the > USB2 sustained transfer
rates. If you're happy with approximately 30MB/sec transfer of USB2,
then just plugging the existing USB3 drive to a USB2 laptop will give
you that. If you want a higher transfer rate, while continuing to
use the original hard drive, then moving the raw drive mechanism
into a new enclosure, does that for you.

USB2 30MB/sec transfer rates, are fine for backup operations. Especially
when the backup is unattended and running overnight while you are
asleep.

Paul

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

There is a comment here, from a forum where data recovery experts
hang out. At one time, the iomega cases had a couple screws, but
their latest efforts are those accursed snap together assemblies.

http://forum.hddguru.com/iomega-ego-1tb-external-drive-how-open-case-t17509.html

You open the housing, remove the hard drive, and install it into
the new $25 enclosure. And that gives you the > USB2 sustained transfer
rates. If you're happy with approximately 30MB/sec transfer of USB2,
then just plugging the existing USB3 drive to a USB2 laptop will give
you that. If you want a higher transfer rate, while continuing to
use the original hard drive, then moving the raw drive mechanism
into a new enclosure, does that for you.

USB2 30MB/sec transfer rates, are fine for backup operations. Especially
when the backup is unattended and running overnight while you are
asleep.

Overnight may be plenty for your little system.
I have nearly 400GB to backup and overnight is not long enough with a USB2
drive even if I don't bother to do a verify afterwards.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Overnight may be plenty for your little system.
I have nearly 400GB to backup and overnight is not long enough with a USB2
drive even if I don't bother to do a verify afterwards.

Odd. I have about 250 GB to back up, and two or three hours seems to
suffice, using USB 2 on both portable (5400 RPM) and full-size drives.
It's true that I usually do incremental image backups or smart clone
backups (belt and suspenders), but IIRC, the full backups initially (and
later, when I start over) don't go beyond three hours. Thus I'd expect
400 GB to require only around five hours.

But maybe that's longer than overnight for you

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Hi, Gene - and Brian.

It's not just a matter of how many GB. How many files and folders might be
even more important.

It doesn't take too long to back up a single file, even if it's 400 GB. But
if your 400 GB is all in files of a single 4 KB cluster each, that¢s 100
million files that have to be individually stored and indexed, one at a
time!

So a few large movie files can be backed up rather quickly. But 400 GB of
small .eml and .nws files - and the folders that hold them - can take
several overnights.

Windows Explorer's estimates of time remaining have to deal with whatever
mixture of large and small files you have on your disk. Let's say you have
one 300 GB file and a million or so smaller ones. If WE copies that big one
first, when it finishes that it thinks, "Okay; one down; took one hour. A
million more will take a million hours. Let's see that¢s...how many days?!"
After it copies a few thousand of the smaller files, it recalculates and
presents a smaller estimate; this process repeats several times as it copies
more smaller files and refines its guesses. But if that large file is at
the end of the job, the early estimates might be way too optimistic.

So take those estimates with a grain of salt and pity the poor developers
who had to design the algorithm and deal with criticisms from both optimists
and pessimists. ;^} It does do a somewhat better job now than what we
griped about during the Vista beta.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message



Odd. I have about 250 GB to back up, and two or three hours seems to
suffice, using USB 2 on both portable (5400 RPM) and full-size drives.
It's true that I usually do incremental image backups or smart clone
backups (belt and suspenders), but IIRC, the full backups initially (and
later, when I start over) don't go beyond three hours. Thus I'd expect
400 GB to require only around five hours.

But maybe that's longer than overnight for you

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).

One of the techniques I use for backing up is cloning. That copies
clusters, not files, and smart cloning copies only clusters that are in
use and that have changed since the previous clone. So the time for a
full backup would depend only on the number of sectors in use, and a
smart subsequent backup would take even less than that (unless every
cluster had changed). Even a dumb backup would take a time depending
only on the size of the drive, not on the arrangement of the files.

I often use the term "incremental" for the later smart backups, but that
is more a metaphorical use of the term, since they don't preserve
history like Macrium does.

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).

One of the techniques I use for backing up is cloning. That copies
clusters, not files, and smart cloning copies only clusters that are in
use and that have changed since the previous clone. So the time for a
full backup would depend only on the number of sectors in use, and a
smart subsequent backup would take even less than that (unless every
cluster had changed). Even a dumb backup would take a time depending
only on the size of the drive, not on the arrangement of the files.

I often use the term "incremental" for the later smart backups, but that
is more a metaphorical use of the term, since they don't preserve
history like Macrium does.

I backup with Drive Snapshot from http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/
It backs up the entire surface of the drive (except it skips unallocated
areas).
Differential backups complete overnight but a full backup with verify takes
longer.
I guess my PC isn't very fast being a single core 1.8GHz P4 with single
channel PC2100 memory system.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Hi, Gene - and Brian.

It's not just a matter of how many GB. How many files and folders might
be
even more important.

It doesn't take too long to back up a single file, even if it's 400 GB.
But
if your 400 GB is all in files of a single 4 KB cluster each, that¢s 100
million files that have to be individually stored and indexed, one at a
time!

So a few large movie files can be backed up rather quickly. But 400 GB
of
small .eml and .nws files - and the folders that hold them - can take
several overnights.

Windows Explorer's estimates of time remaining have to deal with whatever
mixture of large and small files you have on your disk. Let's say you
have
one 300 GB file and a million or so smaller ones. If WE copies that big
one
first, when it finishes that it thinks, "Okay; one down; took one hour.
A
million more will take a million hours. Let's see that¢s...how many
days?!"
After it copies a few thousand of the smaller files, it recalculates and
presents a smaller estimate; this process repeats several times as it
copies
more smaller files and refines its guesses. But if that large file is at
the end of the job, the early estimates might be way too optimistic.

So take those estimates with a grain of salt and pity the poor developers
who had to design the algorithm and deal with criticisms from both
optimists
and pessimists. ;^} It does do a somewhat better job now than what we
griped about during the Vista beta.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate
x64
SP1

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:09:32 -0000, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

Overnight may be plenty for your little system.
I have nearly 400GB to backup and overnight is not long enough with a
USB2
drive even if I don't bother to do a verify afterwards.

Odd. I have about 250 GB to back up, and two or three hours seems to
suffice, using USB 2 on both portable (5400 RPM) and full-size drives.
It's true that I usually do incremental image backups or smart clone
backups (belt and suspenders), but IIRC, the full backups initially (and
later, when I start over) don't go beyond three hours. Thus I'd expect
400 GB to require only around five hours.

But maybe that's longer than overnight for you

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).

One of the techniques I use for backing up is cloning. That copies
clusters, not files, and smart cloning copies only clusters that are in
use and that have changed since the previous clone. So the time for a
full backup would depend only on the number of sectors in use, and a
smart subsequent backup would take even less than that (unless every
cluster had changed). Even a dumb backup would take a time depending
only on the size of the drive, not on the arrangement of the files.

I often use the term "incremental" for the later smart backups, but that
is more a metaphorical use of the term, since they don't preserve
history like Macrium does.

I backup with Drive Snapshot from http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/
It backs up the entire surface of the drive (except it skips unallocated
areas).
Differential backups complete overnight but a full backup with verify takes
longer.
I guess my PC isn't very fast being a single core 1.8GHz P4 with single
channel PC2100 memory system.

That ought to be OK (but what do I know, really?). Are you sure you've
got a USB2 port and a USB2 cable?

I've discovered that old USB1 cables don't work right under USB2,
although I don't know why that should be.

But I agree that even USB2 is not a real speed demon either. It does
take hours, but not 8 or 9 of them. Where I can (which is only one
computer in this house) I've used eSATA, but it doesn't actually help a
lot.

I've made enough claims for now - I'll have to run a full backup, or
even one full clone BU and one full image BU, later (when I come back
from lunch, or overnight or tomorrow) and see how wrong I might be

 

[Paul]

Hi, Gene - and Brian.

It's not just a matter of how many GB. How many files and folders might
be
even more important.

It doesn't take too long to back up a single file, even if it's 400 GB.
But
if your 400 GB is all in files of a single 4 KB cluster each, that¢s 100
million files that have to be individually stored and indexed, one at a
time!

So a few large movie files can be backed up rather quickly. But 400 GB
of
small .eml and .nws files - and the folders that hold them - can take
several overnights.

Windows Explorer's estimates of time remaining have to deal with whatever
mixture of large and small files you have on your disk. Let's say you
have
one 300 GB file and a million or so smaller ones. If WE copies that big
one
first, when it finishes that it thinks, "Okay; one down; took one hour.
A
million more will take a million hours. Let's see that¢s...how many
days?!"
After it copies a few thousand of the smaller files, it recalculates and
presents a smaller estimate; this process repeats several times as it
copies
more smaller files and refines its guesses. But if that large file is at
the end of the job, the early estimates might be way too optimistic.

So take those estimates with a grain of salt and pity the poor developers
who had to design the algorithm and deal with criticisms from both
optimists
and pessimists. ;^} It does do a somewhat better job now than what we
griped about during the Vista beta.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate
x64
SP1

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:09:32 -0000, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

Overnight may be plenty for your little system.
I have nearly 400GB to backup and overnight is not long enough with a
USB2
drive even if I don't bother to do a verify afterwards.
Odd. I have about 250 GB to back up, and two or three hours seems to
suffice, using USB 2 on both portable (5400 RPM) and full-size drives.
It's true that I usually do incremental image backups or smart clone
backups (belt and suspenders), but IIRC, the full backups initially (and
later, when I start over) don't go beyond three hours. Thus I'd expect
400 GB to require only around five hours.

But maybe that's longer than overnight for you

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).

One of the techniques I use for backing up is cloning. That copies
clusters, not files, and smart cloning copies only clusters that are in
use and that have changed since the previous clone. So the time for a
full backup would depend only on the number of sectors in use, and a
smart subsequent backup would take even less than that (unless every
cluster had changed). Even a dumb backup would take a time depending
only on the size of the drive, not on the arrangement of the files.

I often use the term "incremental" for the later smart backups, but that
is more a metaphorical use of the term, since they don't preserve
history like Macrium does.

I backup with Drive Snapshot from http://www.drivesnapshot.de/en/
It backs up the entire surface of the drive (except it skips unallocated
areas).
Differential backups complete overnight but a full backup with verify takes
longer.
I guess my PC isn't very fast being a single core 1.8GHz P4 with single
channel PC2100 memory system.

I've seen 5MB/sec backup speeds, on hardware configurations that are capable
of going faster.

It's all a matter of performance optimization, no matter what software you use.

As an example, consider the usage of "dd", the sector by sector disk dump
utility. If you don't think carefully about command line options for it,
it reverts to accessing the disk interface, one sector at a time. It
reaches a peak streaming speed of around 13MB/sec, well short of the
30MB+/sec that USB2 can provide. And you can see that same speed,
even on an internal disk.

If instead, you bump up the block size option, and specify both a block
count and block size on the command line, performance jumps to 39MB/sec
on an internal disk (and would be limited to 30MB/sec on a USB2 disk).
And with the right OS running, I've managed to hit over 100MB/sec. Now,
if I saw 100MB/sec, and you saw 13MB/sec, we might easily reach different
conclusions about the utility of the program.

If your software is doing file by file, such as some of the older commercial
software I used to use, the software could only manage around 5MB/sec. Seek time
is part of that, but also, what you're asking the software to do, can account
for poor performance.

For example, in optimizing my backups in the past, I would have to test
with compression enabled and with compression disabled, to see which
actually completes the backup faster. Requesting compression, could make
the backup a lot slower. Especially if the software is single threaded,
and uses only one core of the processor. Bad software, makes a big difference.

You'd also be surprised, how many pieces of software, don't know that
the OS offers non-blocking storage calls. At one time, backup programs
would read from one disk, think, write to another disk. At least some
programs now, have a reader thread and a writer thread, and they're asynchronous,
and don't block. The writer writes, as long as there is something in its queue.
There is no old fashioned serialization, as might have happened in previous
years. You can have temporally overlapping read and write operations,
if the source and destination disks are separate devices. It's possible
Microsoft Robocopy does that. Maybe the reason I saw 100MB/sec the other
day with dd (to an internal disk), is because that particular implementation
used non-blocking I/O.

Paul

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

But I agree that even USB2 is not a real speed demon either. It does
take hours, but not 8 or 9 of them. Where I can (which is only one
computer in this house) I've used eSATA, but it doesn't actually help a
lot.

I've made enough claims for now - I'll have to run a full backup, or
even one full clone BU and one full image BU, later (when I come back
from lunch, or overnight or tomorrow) and see how wrong I might be

I got lazy and just went to the backup programs' log files and also
looked at the backups themselves to get the backup times. The longest
time I saw was 3.5 hours.

Here's what I found:


Casper - cloning software.

Two recent full clones took 3:31 and 3:23 on a 7200 RPM 3.5" USB drive.

The source disk size was 456 GB with 290 GB in use for the second BU
(the first BU is not available because the second one over-wrote it).

The destination disk had 214 GB in use. There was no hiberfil or
pagefile present; beyond that, based on disk usage[1], I think the
shadow images were not there, but I'm not 100% sure how to check that.
When I run ShadowExplorer, it doesn't show any shadow images on that
drive, so I think they're not there.


Macrium - imaging software.

The most recent full backup took 2:27 on a 5400 RPM 2.5" USB drive.

The source disk size was 456 GB with 297.38 GB in use.

The destination disk image had 229 GB in use. Both a hiberfil and a
pagefile were present, and they show the same sizes as on the source
drive. Again based on disk usage[1], I also think that those shadow
images were absent. In this case, ShadowExplorer doesn't even see the
drive as mounted by Macrium, so I know nothing certain.

Macrium compresses its images; this BU file is only 193 GB instead of ,
so that is the actual amount of data written, partially accounting for
the quicker time compared to Casper.

[1] The Macrium image disk usage is 15 GB bigger than the Casper clone's
usage. The source usage for the Macrium BU is 7.4 GB larger (different
date), the pagefile is 3.8 GB, and the hiberfil is 2.4 GB. These three
add up to almost 14 GB. Reasonably consistent, IMO. I think the missing
shadow files account for all of the missing usage and also the slight
difference. Again, I don't know how to see the size of the shadow files
even on C:

Yes I do, I just found the shadow file usage. Control Panel > System and
Security > System > System Protection.

This brings up a window named System Properties. Click on the System
Protection tab there, choose the drive, and click on Configure. There it
is - Current Usage: 42.10 GB, in my case. But that's today, months after
the full backups that I tabulated above.

See? It's easy. Yeah, sure...

I hope someone finds all of this, uh, *stuff*, useful

 

[Roy Smith]

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).

That's not weird, it's what a newsreader is supposed to do.


--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Thunderbird 3.1.9
Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:30:57 PM

 

[Char Jackson]

Hi, Gene - and Brian.

It's not just a matter of how many GB. How many files and folders might be
even more important.

So take those estimates with a grain of salt and pity the poor developers
who had to design the algorithm and deal with criticisms from both optimists
and pessimists. ;^} It does do a somewhat better job now than what we
griped about during the Vista beta.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:09:32 -0000, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

Overnight may be plenty for your little system.
I have nearly 400GB to backup and overnight is not long enough with a USB2
drive even if I don't bother to do a verify afterwards.

But maybe that's longer than overnight for you

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).

That's not weird, it's what a newsreader is supposed to do.

The only thing after the sig delimiter should be the sig itself.

Things do get weird, and complicated, when people all of a sudden
decide to top post in a bottom-posted thread AND put their sig
delimiter at the bottom of their own post rather than at the bottom of
the entire post where it belongs. It has been suggested to R.C. before
that he should fix his posting style, but he politely declined.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:33:33 -0500, R. C. White wrote:

Hi, Gene - and Brian.

It's not just a matter of how many GB. How many files and folders might be
even more important.

So take those estimates with a grain of salt and pity the poor developers
who had to design the algorithm and deal with criticisms from both optimists
and pessimists. ;^} It does do a somewhat better job now than what we
griped about during the Vista beta.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:09:32 -0000, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

Overnight may be plenty for your little system.
I have nearly 400GB to backup and overnight is not long enough with a USB2
drive even if I don't bother to do a verify afterwards.

But maybe that's longer than overnight for you

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).

That's not weird, it's what a newsreader is supposed to do.

The only thing after the sig delimiter should be the sig itself.

Things do get weird, and complicated, when people all of a sudden
decide to top post in a bottom-posted thread AND put their sig
delimiter at the bottom of their own post rather than at the bottom of
the entire post where it belongs. It has been suggested to R.C. before
that he should fix his posting style, but he politely declined.

Thanks, Char. You saved me from having to point out that it's absolutely
*not* what a newsreader is supposed to do

 

[Char Jackson]

On 3/23/2011 10:51 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:33:33 -0500, R. C. White wrote:

Hi, Gene - and Brian.

It's not just a matter of how many GB. How many files and folders might be
even more important.

So take those estimates with a grain of salt and pity the poor developers
who had to design the algorithm and deal with criticisms from both optimists
and pessimists. ;^} It does do a somewhat better job now than what we
griped about during the Vista beta.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:09:32 -0000, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

Overnight may be plenty for your little system.
I have nearly 400GB to backup and overnight is not long enough with a USB2
drive even if I don't bother to do a verify afterwards.

But maybe that's longer than overnight for you

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).


That's not weird, it's what a newsreader is supposed to do.

The only thing after the sig delimiter should be the sig itself.

Things do get weird, and complicated, when people all of a sudden
decide to top post in a bottom-posted thread AND put their sig
delimiter at the bottom of their own post rather than at the bottom of
the entire post where it belongs. It has been suggested to R.C. before
that he should fix his posting style, but he politely declined.

Thanks, Char. You saved me from having to point out that it's absolutely
*not* what a newsreader is supposed to do

No problem. Roy knows what's up so I suspect he simply misread what
he was responding to, or maybe he was limiting his remarks to the part
of your 'weird' post where you said that text below the sig delimiter
was greyed out. THAT part is normal, but the fact that there was any
actual text down there at all was NOT normal.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 3/23/2011 10:51 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:33:33 -0500, R. C. White wrote:

Hi, Gene - and Brian.

It's not just a matter of how many GB. How many files and folders might be
even more important.

So take those estimates with a grain of salt and pity the poor developers
who had to design the algorithm and deal with criticisms from both optimists
and pessimists. ;^} It does do a somewhat better job now than what we
griped about during the Vista beta.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:09:32 -0000, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

Overnight may be plenty for your little system.
I have nearly 400GB to backup and overnight is not long enough with a USB2
drive even if I don't bother to do a verify afterwards.

But maybe that's longer than overnight for you

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).


That's not weird, it's what a newsreader is supposed to do.

The only thing after the sig delimiter should be the sig itself.

Things do get weird, and complicated, when people all of a sudden
decide to top post in a bottom-posted thread AND put their sig
delimiter at the bottom of their own post rather than at the bottom of
the entire post where it belongs. It has been suggested to R.C. before
that he should fix his posting style, but he politely declined.

Thanks, Char. You saved me from having to point out that it's absolutely
*not* what a newsreader is supposed to do

No problem. Roy knows what's up so I suspect he simply misread what
he was responding to, or maybe he was limiting his remarks to the part
of your 'weird' post where you said that text below the sig delimiter
was greyed out. THAT part is normal, but the fact that there was any
actual text down there at all was NOT normal.

+1

 

[Roy Smith]

On 3/23/2011 10:51 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:33:33 -0500, R. C. White wrote:

Hi, Gene - and Brian.

It's not just a matter of how many GB. How many files and folders might be
even more important.

So take those estimates with a grain of salt and pity the poor developers
who had to design the algorithm and deal with criticisms from both optimists
and pessimists. ;^} It does do a somewhat better job now than what we
griped about during the Vista beta.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:09:32 -0000, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

Overnight may be plenty for your little system.
I have nearly 400GB to backup and overnight is not long enough with a USB2
drive even if I don't bother to do a verify afterwards.

But maybe that's longer than overnight for you

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).


That's not weird, it's what a newsreader is supposed to do.

The only thing after the sig delimiter should be the sig itself.

Things do get weird, and complicated, when people all of a sudden
decide to top post in a bottom-posted thread AND put their sig
delimiter at the bottom of their own post rather than at the bottom of
the entire post where it belongs. It has been suggested to R.C. before
that he should fix his posting style, but he politely declined.

Thanks, Char. You saved me from having to point out that it's absolutely
*not* what a newsreader is supposed to do

No problem. Roy knows what's up so I suspect he simply misread what
he was responding to, or maybe he was limiting his remarks to the part
of your 'weird' post where you said that text below the sig delimiter
was greyed out. THAT part is normal, but the fact that there was any
actual text down there at all was NOT normal.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt... you are correct in that
what I was referring to was Gene's "weird" statement. That's normal
even if the text that's after the sig delimiter isn't supposed to be
there i.e. someone's reply to a previous post.


--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Thunderbird 3.1.9
Friday, March 25, 2011 7:24:01 PM

 

[Char Jackson]

Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt... you are correct in that
what I was referring to was Gene's "weird" statement. That's normal
even if the text that's after the sig delimiter isn't supposed to be
there i.e. someone's reply to a previous post.

Roger that! We're all on the same page now.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:10:35 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On 3/23/2011 10:51 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:33:33 -0500, R. C. White wrote:

Hi, Gene - and Brian.

It's not just a matter of how many GB. How many files and folders might be
even more important.

So take those estimates with a grain of salt and pity the poor developers
who had to design the algorithm and deal with criticisms from both optimists
and pessimists. ;^} It does do a somewhat better job now than what we
griped about during the Vista beta.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:09:32 -0000, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

Overnight may be plenty for your little system.
I have nearly 400GB to backup and overnight is not long enough with a USB2
drive even if I don't bother to do a verify afterwards.

But maybe that's longer than overnight for you

Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied).


That's not weird, it's what a newsreader is supposed to do.

The only thing after the sig delimiter should be the sig itself.

Things do get weird, and complicated, when people all of a sudden
decide to top post in a bottom-posted thread AND put their sig
delimiter at the bottom of their own post rather than at the bottom of
the entire post where it belongs. It has been suggested to R.C. before
that he should fix his posting style, but he politely declined.

Thanks, Char. You saved me from having to point out that it's absolutely
*not* what a newsreader is supposed to do

No problem. Roy knows what's up so I suspect he simply misread what
he was responding to, or maybe he was limiting his remarks to the part
of your 'weird' post where you said that text below the sig delimiter
was greyed out. THAT part is normal, but the fact that there was any
actual text down there at all was NOT normal.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt... you are correct in that
what I was referring to was Gene's "weird" statement. That's normal
even if the text that's after the sig delimiter isn't supposed to be
there i.e. someone's reply to a previous post.

What you missed was that what I thought was weird was not the greying
out of the text below the sig delimiter, but the presence of quoted
matter below the sig delimiter.

To refresh your memory, here's what I said, copied and pasted from above
in this reply:
"Weird - you put the quoted posts after your sig delimiter, so they
disappeared in this reply (and they were greyed out before I replied)."