***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 171 *****
In this thread you may ask any computer related question for which you need help, advice, suggestions or whatever.
Usual rules apply,
No motoring related discussion,
No politics,
No Speeding, speed cameras, traffic calming
No arguments or slanging matches
Nothing which we think is not following the spirit of the thread
Nothing that risks the future of this site (please see the small print for details www.honestjohn.co.uk/credits/index.htm )
Any of the above will be deleted. If the thread becomes difficult to maintain it will simply be removed.
There is a wealth of knowledge in here, much of which is not motoring related, but most of which is useful.
This is Volume 170. Previous Volumes will not be deleted.
A list of previous volumes can be found by clicking Here
PLEASE NOTE:
When posting a NEW question, please "Reply to" the first message in this thread, i.e. this one. This keeps each question in it's own separate segment and stops each new question from getting mixed up in amongst existing questions. Also please remember to change the subject header.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 24/12/2008 at 01:08
|
>f so, then you might find the fact that XP boots up so fast on such machines (even with a >modest processor) as intensely frustrating as I do when compared to a standard desktop >alternative...:-)
You havent tried the Dell netbook then stuartli? that would make you happy. Its is the most appalingly sluggard thing I have ever used.
|
No, it would make me sad - I was comparing the up to a minute of my desktop system compared to the remarkable speed of the small 7in screen models now so prevalent.
The offspring bought one some months ago and stuck XP Pro on it - compared to his couple of years old Dell laptop (also with XP Pro), the smaller alternative boots up in a fraction of the time despite having similar levels of software installed.
Which of the two is taken with him depends on the circumstances for which they are required.
Edited by Stuartli on 12/12/2008 at 15:40
|
|
But it has to be said a lot of the smaller sized machines are now using the dirt cheap Intel Atom processors. It's not slow but not that fast.
|
But it has to be said a lot of the smaller sized machines are now using the dirt cheap Intel Atom processors. It's not slow but not that fast.
you are right and you are wrong.
you are right when you say they use the atom cpu, and you are wrong when you say its not slow. Slow it is.
|
My Atom powered Eee pc starts up and shuts down a lot faster than my Core2Duo full size Toshiba laptop.
Once on the internet - messing around on here - the speed's about the same.
|
I have 10 dell atom netbooks here on my desk that says otherwise.
|
I have 10 dell atom netbooks here on my desk that says otherwise. >>
We can't all be wrong...:-)
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to upload some photos onto a photo sharing website, and failing. I've tried flickr and photobucket - on the latter, if I try to upload a 300kb jpg, it might say it's got to about 30% but then just stops. flickr is similar. It also tends to lock up the browser - I have to kill it from Task Manager.
I've tried this on 2 laptops connected wirelessly, in Windows and Linux, and also in Windows on the wired desktop. However, although I can't upload to these photo websites, I can attach the same file to an email in Gmail, which means the file has effectively been uploaded, albeit perhaps using a different protocol.
I suspect it might be a router security setting, although I've done this sort of thing before and I'm not aware of changing any settings on the router. It's a Netgear router, and at the moment it just has default firewall rules for Outbound (allow always) and Inbound (block always) settings.
Any ideas?
F
Edited by Focus {P} on 13/12/2008 at 15:47
|
|
Haven't solved the upload issue, but have discovered photobucket's email option to email photos instead of uploading them directly. As I said above they are still being uploaded off my machine to Gmail, so why this works...
|
Do you, by any chance, use AOL or TalkTalk?
|
Do you by any chance use AOL or TalkTalk?
No.
I later found I could upload to a Picasa web album ok. Just now I tried uploading to Photobucket again, but Firefox locked up immediately after selecting the file I was going to try downloading (in Linux), and I had to do a 'force quit'. The CPU was mostly idle.
Anyway, I've done what I needed to do (using email instead of uploading), although I'd still be interested to hear any theories.
Cheers
F
|
>>No>>
This was the reason I asked:
www.talktalkmembers.com/content/view/55/68/
You will notice that the MTU figure of 1432 is lower than the more usual settings - about a year ago I had similar problems with sending e-mails, attachments etc and only found out by accident what was the cause on this page link.
These TT pages are still in Beta form, but at the time it ended a lot of head scratching trying to solve the problem.
|
|
Haven't checked Windows yet, but in Linux my MTU is 1500.
Edited by Focus {P} on 14/12/2008 at 10:58
|
Haven't checked Windows yet but in Linux my MTU is 1500.>>
Windows Default figure is 1500, but this is not always the ideal configuration.
It could be worth trying TCP Optimiser with Windows - it only takes a few seconds to run and returns the correct MTU:
www.speedguide.net/tcpoptimizer.php
With TalkTalk it returns a basic figure of 1400 which, with overheads, pans out at 1432; the difference it made in my case at the end of last year (from 1470 or 1472) was quite remarkable.
Edited by Stuartli on 14/12/2008 at 11:22
|
|
|
|
|
I'm having problems with Google Earth and I want to uninstall/reinstall it. Is it better to uninstall it via All Programs > Google Earth > Uninstall Google Earth or Control Panel > Add or Remove Programs? I have XP Home.
|
|
I think most of the time both would probably end up doing the same thing, but I personally always use the manufacturers uninstaller rather than Control panel. Back in the old days products didn't have uninstallers and the Control Panel uninstall used to leave garbage behind. (although that can still happen with uninstallers - e.g. empty directories, which are sometimes left where they may contain preferences files which you may not intend to lose)
|
|
|
|
Internet Explorer users need to read this -
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7784908.stm
|
Virtually every MS critical update cites very similar reasons for the need to install them...:-)
Mind you I prefer Firefox for 99.9 per cent of my use.
|
|
|
|
Apologies if this has been asked before but I'm a bit of a dinosuar when it comes to searching.....
Two questions on this useful device
1. any know of a mirror site which I can log into to watch / download iplayer BBC when I'm not in the UK (which is virtually every weekday at present) - actually same question for the catch up facility on ITV as well
2. Even though I have tried to reset it on iplayer settings my PC keeps defaulting back to 767mb of available storage space for downloaded programmes, even though the hard disk has bags of capacity - does anyone know the fix for this? At the moment this limits me to 2 x 1 hour programmes
Much obliged - there's only so much German TV a bloke can watch...especially when I'm not that fluent....
Cheers
|
The BBC (and other sites) will check your IP address to determine if you are in the UK. So when you are out of the country you will not be able to access it (easily). There will be no mirror outside of the UK - it is meant for UK viewers who (hopefully) have a TV licence.
There are "proxies" you can use to access some sites protected in this way in the USA - they work by fooling the servers to think you are accessing via a US based IP address so something similar might work for the UK.
As for the capacity issue - no idea why that will be.
My suggestions on overcoming 1 would be:
1. Download the previous week's programmes when home (get someone to do it for you in advance) and then copy them to the laptop. I assume you're back at the weekends? If not, you could open the firewall up at home to allow you to copy the files off - a security risk though.
2. If you have a Sky/Virgin Media box in the UK get a Slingbox which will let you watch any of the channels over the Internet and allow you to control it too. The basic version is not too pricey.
Rob
|
Rob, would you mind elaborating on this Slingbox, i.e. what it is and what it does? I don't think I quite understand but it sounds very interesting.
Thanks!
|
www.slingmedia.com/go/slingbox
As it says in the box, watch your TV anywhere in the world on the end of a network link
Beware however you need cable/DSL - NOT telephone Adsl. (it needs a fast uplink from your home)
|
"Beware however you need cable/DSL - NOT telephone Adsl. (it needs a fast uplink from your home)"
I would read the cable/DSL requirement as needing a cable modem or DSL modem for fast Internet access. All forms of DSL goes over the phone line - it's what the product does, i.e. piggy back a signal on the phone line. They left out the A because you might have SDSL in some places, symmetric digital subscriber line, with the same speed for up and downloads.
|
They left out the A-synchronous part because it doesnt work with A synchronous lines, which most ADSL lines are over telephone. Its the A part that does not work with this boxes - the A is not fast enough.
|
|
|
|
Thanks Rob
So it does not look like an easy job to get iplayer / ITV catch up outside of the UK
1. I get the capacity problem when I try to download at the weekend onto the laptop - even though like I said the hard disk is only 50% full - anybody got any further thoughts
2. where would I find out info on a "slingbox" - they range from about £130 - £170 on amazon - are they any good?
Cheers
Paul
|
I've never looked at Slingbox myself. I have just read about them but they do look interesting - not much use to me though.
A while back Expansys had the basic version on offer - about £49 I think. But they now appear to be £69.99:
www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=170005
I think this one only lets you connect one source to it. As said above you'll need a fairly fast and definately consistent up-link to the Internet. Ignore the part in the spec of having an inbuilt cable tuner - it won't work in the UK*.
* Some parts of Virgin Media does still have analogue channels that can be accessed but they are switched off in most places already - it is freeing up bandwidth for the faster Internet services.
Edited by rtj70 on 16/12/2008 at 14:39
|
|
|
Prices for the original slingbox ( before the pro and solo came along) vary significantly, presumably some shops are running down stocks.
99 quid at tesco :- direct.tesco.com/q/R.200-9319.aspx
70 quid at expansys :- www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=170005&partner=froogle
Personally I've never tried one ( I used orb.com software to remotely control a TV tuner instead), as stated above you need a decent amount of uplink bandwidth to get a reasonable picture, a mate at work tried it via his ADSL line from Thailand for a football match, just about watchable but made youtube look line Cinemascope.
|
|
And the Slingbox does not do wireless - its wired Ethernet, or an adapter to connect via the power sockets or an adapter you'd use on a games console to make it wireless.
|
|
I've got one of the old Slingboxes - basic model - , connected to a V+ Player (SCART connection, though you can use coax). I used to set and watch V+ recordings when I was away in my hotel in Peterborough using a 3G card on my laptop. Watching was sort of OK, even at full screen size, except sometimes the 3G card would be awful slow, in which case the Slingbox would lag a lot while it filled it's buffer and optimised itself to the connection speed. I have a Virgin 20mb internet connection, I think the upspeed is 500k. Would certainly serve your needs, as long as your connections are fast enough at both ends. I can use it on he home LAN at full screen size on a 24" Dell screen - not the best picture but quite watchable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "other" paper has an article headed:
"Internet Explorer users warned to change browser over security fears"
and
"Microsoft?s advice for Internet Explorer users
1. Keep your anti-virus up-to-date. Microsoft has circulated the definitions of these vulnerabilities to all the major anti-virus providers.
2. Reset Internet Explorer to run in protected mode. This is the default mode in Windows Vista but not XP or the earlier versions.
3. Set zone security to high.
4. Ensure Windows is updated. You can do this manually through Windows updater or set it to automatic updates.
More complex and comprehensive approaches are listed on the Microsoft website . "
|
|
Look higher up and Robin Reliant posted an alert to this earlier today.
|
My post refers to the original MS advisory, to comments added to the earlier BBC reference and a link to comments about a popular alternative to IE.
|
My post refers to the original MS advisory ... .... and a link to comments about a popular alternative to IE. >>
Thanks Henry. I had not even bothered to open your link to
blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2304
as I thought it probably referrred to the same media hysteria about the IE flaw. Now I see that it reports:
"December 15th, 2008 - Firefox tops list of 12 most vulnerable apps
Mozilla’s flagship Firefox browser has earned the dubious title of the most vulnerable software program running on the Windows platform.
According to application whitelisting vendor Bit9, Firefox topped the list of 12 widely deployed desktop applications that suffered through critical security vulnerabilities in 2008. These flaws exposed millions of Windows users to remote code execution attacks. ...
... etc. etc. "
Edited by jbif on 17/12/2008 at 11:42
|
|
|
|
|
For the last few days my Back Room log-in details have ceased to be remembered by my computer. The box at top right still says "User: L'escargot", but I have to fill in the log-in details every time I want to log in. I keep checking the "Remember these details" box but to no avail. There haven't been any changes to my computer other than automatic Windows updates, so I'm flummoxed as to the cause. Any ideas?
|
Same for me!
Firefox 3.0.4
p
|
Site support are aware of this now. Thanks
Rob
|
|
|
|
Also check that your system cleaning applications aren't deleting the HJ cookies, in some cleaners you can "mark to keep" or "ignore" by ticking a check box for them.
Billy
|
|
Site support have been made aware of the problem (I get it too). Apologies for the inconvenience.
|
|
|
|
|
What's the difference between cookies called honestjohn.co.uk and www.honestjohn.co.uk? At the moment I have both on my computer. Which one remembers the login details?
|
L'escargot, no idea. If you regularly clear out cookies (either manually or automatically via something like ccleaner) then don't delete either of them. Simple really ;o)
That aside, if you do delete both, they'll only re-appear next time you visit anyway.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 19/12/2008 at 12:25
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, what took me so long you may ask. Well, following the latest MS debacle with IE6, I've witched to Firefox and after a bit of add-on loading everything seems okay - except one thing. When I try to update the speed camera database on my garmin I get an error message "Error: document.Garmin.Updater is undefined: Line 10".
I've emailed Garmin Tech support but I'm getting their usual silent treatment. Does anyone here know if I need to download anything extra to get this to work?
I can still update using IE, but that rather defeates the object of changing doesn't it?
Thanks in advance
|
|
I would guess (and it is a guess) that a plugin is needed for Firefox to use that site. Not being a Garmin user I don't know what the site is based on.
|
|
|
Might be worth a go: tinyurl.com/4au9rf
"Garmin have recently changed the Java code that runs the camera updater - certainly the last time I tried to update cameras on my PC, everything was broken, and I was getting error messages and no uploads.
The fix on PC was to uninstall the Java Virtual Machine, reboot, download the latest JVM from Sun and install that. This fixed the problems - but you do need to make sure that you clean off the old JVM properly first. I initially tried just installing the latest JVM over the top of the old one, and it didn't help.
If the trial worked on your Mac, there is no reason why the full version shouldn't work - I suspect you just have the same Java problems as I had."
Also: www8.garmin.com/products/poiloader/ ?
|
IE and Firefox use a different version of just about every plug in going.
What used to work in IE wont necessarily work immediately in Firefox.
|
|
Most stuff works as well if not better in FIrefox - may take some tweaking, but in the years I've had it never had to revert to IE for long (only to do MIcrosoft things). Its a bit like driving a hand built car like a Morgan compared to a Vauxhall.
|
I have the IE View extension for Firefox - you can launch pages in IE from Firefox:
ieview.mozdev.org/
|
Thanks especially to PU and Stuart. I've installed the IE View extension and after a couple of false starts managed to get it updating okay. I must try it in "native" mode occasionally to see if anything gets fixed. Meanwhile I'm not holding my breath for a reply from Garmin.
What a wonderful bunch of people you (we?) are on this site!
|
You can speed up Firefox straightforwardly rather than manually (i.e.rather than via about:config) if you wish by using Firetune Firefox.
Only takes two or three mouse clicks. See:
www.totalidea.com/product.php?Product=FireTune
|
Thanks, I'll try that too.
By the way, wonder of wonders Garmin have replied and given me some links to update both Java on my computer and the software on my satnav. This has done the trick - I can now update in "native" Firefox mode.
|
Perhaps you were a bit hasty about Garmin...:-)
Java works with either/both Firefox and IE7 as required - it's just a standard installation normally.
|
|
|
|
|
>>Its a bit like driving a hand built car likea Morgan compared to a Vauxhall.
Surely you mean a Ford??
|
Its a bit like driving a hand built car like a Morgan compared to a Vauxhall.
I think he means that with its very limited number of users, it is expensive [high cost and maintainance], unreliable and full of holes.
blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2304
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/17/mozilla_3_0_5_and.../
"Mozilla has rushed out updates to plug a few critical holes in versions 2 and 3 of its popular open source Firefox browser.
Firefox 3.0.5 fixes three critical security flaws in the browser, while 2.0.0.19 stitches four critical vulns."
Opera and Apple not immune either:
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/opera_update/
Opera releases update for 'extremely severe' vulns
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/apple_patch_relea.../
Apple update purges 21 security vulns from OS X
p.s. IE hotfix issued two days ago:
www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms08-0...x
Edited by jbif on 19/12/2008 at 21:29
|
>>. IE hotfix issued two days ago:>>
See earlier postings above on the subject...:-)
The main difference is that the BBC, for some reason or another, decided to highlight this particular example rather than the dozens which have appeared before.
|
See earlier postings above on the subject...:-)
I think they were reporting the problem, not the solution. :-0
|
>>I think they were reporting the problem, not the solution. :-0>>
In the normal course of events, this would be a regular monthly posting then...:-)
|
|
I think it was because MS issued this one outside their normal update cycle, such was the urgency. Someone told me yesterday that it was an exploit which Chinese people were using to capture game licence data which can then be sold on t'internet.
|
|
All software needs patching, jbif. Always has, always will. Are you surprised by that?
More important than the number of vulnerabilities however, are the seriousness of them and the time the software is left exposed. Mozilla generally has an excellent record in both of these regards. The browser was engineered from the beginning with security in mind and it issues patches as they are ready, rather than waiting for the next monthly 'patch Tuesday' bundle. This can mean patches sometimes come out close together. And being open source they can't ignore the existence of vulnerabilities when they are found.
For a comparison of the general level of exposure of the two browsers take a look at the (Secunia) metrics for the current browsers here:
Firefox 3.x (8 vulnerabilities, 1 unpatched, risk level: Not Critical):
secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/
IE7 (33 vulnerabilities, 8 unpatched, risk level: Moderately Critical):
secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/
And for the old timers:
IE6 (135 vulnerabilities, 22 unpatched, risk level: Moderately Critical):
secunia.com/advisories/product/11/
Security is a good reason to choose Firefox, but the main arguments in favour of it are its functionality and extensibility.
|
All software needs patching, jbif. Always has, always will. Are you surprised by that?
Baskerville, I think a clever person like you shouyld know that you are addressing that comment to the wrong person [unless you failed to work out that the point you made was was exactly the message in my post! ]. ;-)
You need to tell that to the scaremongers who posted the IE threat news further up.
Edited by jbif on 20/12/2008 at 15:39
|
No, I don't think your post makes the same point mine did at all. Not explicitly anyway, though that may have been what you were thinking.
The 'scaremongering' was in fact related to an extremely serious bug, which had been around for a while and wasn't going to be patched until January 9th. They are rarely as serious as this one, which is why it was patched out of the schedule. It was also important to 'scaremonger' in the press because large numbers of Windows users don't update soon enough.
|
No, I don't think ..
No you don't. ;-)
Seems that someone on the internet is right or wrong again, and is true to form [anti anything MS, pro anything non-MS.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Father Christmas is getting my daughter a laptop for Christmas and managed to get a reasonable deal and spec on a Dell Vostro. However, it only has 1GB RAM. To up this to 2 or 3GB should be fairly painless but I seem to remember that when Vista was launched, one of its features was the ability to be able to use certain types of USB memory sticks as RAM.
Does anyone have any experience of these i.e. are they worth getting for convenience/price/performance over conventional RAM?
|
No experience, but it sounds interesting so I looked it up:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost
|
...and Tom's Hardware has a good article, including some test results:
tinyurl.com/5xwj9o
|
|
PST. Worst case scenario for increasing memory is you already have 2 x 512Mb modules so you need to remove one and add another. So I'd then a 2G module. If the current memory is a single 1Gb SODIMM then I'd add a 2Gb one. Memory is cheap.
If you're running Vista 32bit then it can never use 4Gb RAM - I won't bore you with the technicalities but it's often only 3.5Gb seen. Hence companies selling laptops with 3Gb :-)
In answer to the USB question - Vista uses it to speed up file access by caching frequently used files. It make a difference but it's not instead of RAM. You'll probably pay no more than 25 quid (probably less) for a 2Gb DDR2 SODIMM.
|
Thanks guys - RAM it is then. Out of curiosity I will get one of the memory sticks too - they're very cheap and it'll be interesting to see if it makes an impact.
Paul
|
PST,
Don't forget to get the right speed memory - it will almost certainly be DDR RAM as a type. A poster below mentioned crucial memory and it can be worth using them because they will match RAM to make/model of laptop.
|
|
|
|
>f you're running Vista 32bit then it can never use 4Gb RAM - I won't bore you with the >technicalities but it's often only 3.5Gb seen. Hence companies selling laptops with 3Gb :-)
yes but with ram the price it is the extra 500meg is handy and cheap. Always specify 4gig with vista.,
|
Only Vista 64bit can see all 4Gb. You will lose up to 512Mb because 32-bit Windows is... well 32-bit and can only address 4Gb RAM.*
* Yes I know with PAE the server products can map in more memory. But XP/Vista do not.
|
Only Vista 64bit can see all 4Gb. You will lose up to 512Mb because 32-bit Windows is... well 32-bit and can only address 4Gb RAM.*
yes i know that but if you don't put in 4 gig you don't get 3.5 gig for vista to use do you.
So as i said, with memory the price it is, always spec a machine with 4 gig, so you get 3.5 gig and not 3 for vista to play with.
|
My point was if it has a single 1Gb SODIMM (probable) then adding another 2Gb SODIMM is probably all he needs. 3GB for most things on a laptop (short of video and photo editing) will be fine.
If they later upgrade to Windows 7 (which is only 64-bit) then upgrading memory makes sense. Might even be possible to swap the original 1Gb SODIMM for a 4Gb one by then.
But if the laptop has 2 x 512Mb SODIMMs then I'd go for 4Gb.
|
My Acer laptop had 1 Gb ( 2 x 512Mb).
Upgraded last week to 2Gb (2x 1Gb) Magic all for £18.40 via mail order - Crucial.com ordered last Monday, arrived Tuesday and it took 30 mins to fit - 25 mins to get the cover off and 5 mins to fit memory and get covers back on.
|
Memory - both RAM and flash - are unbelievably cheap now. Although I have a large USB 2.5" drive for my laptop for backups etc. I have recently gone back to an old trick to keep documents backed up at all times...
I have put an 8Gb CompactFlash card in a PCMIA adapter (shows up as an 8Gb disc) and have some software continually backing up changes made to "My Documents" it. Used to do it but that was when Flash was more so the one I used smaller so limited the content. Forget about it until recently.
Yes you could do with a USB flash drive too... but this stays in the laptop at all times.
|
|
|
|
"...If they later upgrade to Windows 7 (which is only 64-bit)..."
Is that statement correct?
"...Though I had expected Windows 7 to ship only in 64-bit versions, Microsoft now says it will be the final Windows version to ship in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions..."
"...Additional details about Windows Seven are scarce, but Microsoft has offered additional confirmation that Windows Vista will not be the last 32-bit client operating system. In this regard, Windows Seven will be offered in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors, just like Vista...."
..and there are a number of 32-bit pre-betas floating around
|
Someone at work who works closely with Microsoft told me... they could have changed their minds as they often do. Like extending support and availability of XP because it's selling and making them money. A lot of people would probably go for Linux if they could not get XP.
I'll try checking my fact out... ;-)
|
lets not get too carried away by Windows 7. It is nothing more than Vista in new clothes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just bought a Lenovo ThinkPad (running XP) that's supposed to have a 40GB disk. However, the C: drive is only 32.5GB and there aren't any others on the machine. The pagefile is only 0.75GB.
Have I been sold a machine with less disk space then it's supposed to have? If not does anybody know how I can find out what's happened to the other 6.75GB? Thanks.
PS I realize that manufacurers calculate disk-space in 'base 10' but even allowing for this I'm still missing about 5GB
|
Are you saying total disk space is only 32.5Gb or available disk space? You mention the pagefile but that is a file which as you say will be taking 0.75Gb of the total disk space.
You sure there aren't any other partitions on the disk that are not visible? Have you tried running the disk management program (MMC plugin)? Right click on My Computer, select Manage and then when it opens up click on Disk Management.
|
|
I assume this is a second hand notebook? Does anyone make 40Gb 2.5" hard discs any more?
|
|
|
|
|
The stated size of the HD is always the unformatted size, and you always lose a fair chunk when formatting takes place. I have no idea whether the amount you have lost is a reasonable amount for this, but a possible explanation?
|
|
The loss of 7.5Gb is not down to quoted hard disc sizes vs formatted size.
Edited by rtj70 on 23/12/2008 at 18:50
|
It's due to hard drive manufacturers regarding a megabyte as 1,000 kilobytes, rather than 1,024.
|
It's due to hard drive manufacturers regarding a megabyte as 1 000 kilobytes rather than 1 024.
but that's only 2.4% difference, the OP has 'lost' 20% plus somewhere. Even allowing for maybe 2GB of file allocation tables there still seem to be a few GB missing.
|
|
|
If we're talking international standards they messed with all this in 1999. I believe according to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Gigabyte, Megabyte, Kilobyte, etc all have a base 10 meaning. So the drive manufacturers are right now.
For base 2 they introduced Gibi, Mebi, Kibi as the prefixes. Not what they all meant originally. But a hard drive might be 40 Gigabytes but the RAM on a PC will be x GiB (Gibibytes) or xxx MiB (Mebibytes).
|
|
|
|
|
It's the recovery partition.
www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/MIGR-4UFUYK.ht...l
Kevin...
|
Agree with Kevin.
It's the HIDDEN recovery partition.
|
|
Which is why I suggested he run disk manager to check the partitions...
|
>Which is why I suggested he run disk manager to check the partitions...
As jbif said, it's hidden. I'm probably on my tenth Thinkpad now and disk manager doesn't see it.
AE will be able to explain the finer details when he wakes up in the Spring.
Kevin...
|
|
Partitions are not hidden in my experience. They might not have a drive letter assinged (but you can mount a partition under a directory with NTFS these days) but should show up in a disk management tool under Windows.
|
|
The laptop I am using has a 200GB disc according the the sticker on it. It has a single partition of 176GB and a hidden, presumably recovery, one of 10GB. Still feels like a swizz.
|
But we should al realise that hard disks are quoted as 200Gb but that is a base-10 unit but memory on a computer is base-2.
For RAM, 1Kb (now a kibibyte!) is 2 20 or 1048576 bytes.
For disk, 1Kb (still a Kilobyte) is 1000000 bytes. 1
But for a 200Gb hard disk as labelled, I'd expect about 186Gb or thereabouts so yours seems fine. Just the difference of how its measured.
The new standards came in due to network bandwidth/transfer calculations. Your 10Mbit broadband is base-10 too.
1 Worst still are floppy disks. A 1.44Mb floppy is not based on a base-2 or base-10 figure.
Edited by rtj70 on 23/12/2008 at 22:19
|
|
|
|
I have an XP Pro installation disk so wouldn't appreciate the problem....:-)
|
and your IBM expert says.,,,,,
Its the recovery partition. All think pads after a certain age were built with thinkvantage tools installed. One is called Rapid Restore with Rescue & Recovery. Its an inteligent recovery tool (like if you kill vital window files so that it wont boot, RRwRR will boot instead offering to recover your windows for you)
you cant see it because it a special compressed space.
|
But IBM sold it's PC/laptop business to Lenovo a few years back... so you must also be a Lenovo expert. IBM does not make PCs or laptops anymore ;-) They might also be selling their x86 server business too?
Pedant hat off for the night now...
Bet you see in a proper disk partition editor or Linux though.
Edited by rtj70 on 23/12/2008 at 22:49
|
And the tools were renamed to Lenovo think vantage technologies. And yes I am also a Lenovo expert. And the X86 line is only called the "X-Series" And no they wont sell it because it would mean getting out of the blade space, and blades are hot (in more ways than one)
|
Most data centres cannot take too many blades is the irony (not having a good at you AE or IBM).... heat output means you can have 42U racks full of normal servers next to each other. Start using blades and your use of floor space goes down. It's a little ironic. Yes you can add cooling to racks...
but we digress... the OP asked about loss of disk space. If his Lenovo laptop has a hidden partition then fine. But XP surely does not need an 7.5GB partition for restore surely?
|
Most data centres cannot take too many blades is the irony
hence the "blades are hot (in more ways than one) comment
but we digress... the OP asked about loss of disk space. If his Lenovo laptop has a hidden partition then fine. But XP surely does not need an 7.5GB partition for restore surely?
you missed the full title of the tool "rapid restore with Rescue and Recovery"
It can do incremental, it can be several full system recoveries, it can recover ALL the system, including apps up to nearly full disk size.
its not just a windows xp system restore.
|
|
|
|
Bet you see in a proper disk partition editor or Linux though.
no you cant "read it" with anything other than RRwRR, but yes you can get rid of it with most partitioning editor tools. It is only a partition at the end of the day albeit one that has no drive letter or file system.
|
AE all I said was see it... i.e. know the partition is there. Not "read, delete or mount" it ;-)
I haven't touched IBM hardware hands on for a bit...
|
|
|
|
>Pedant hat off for the night now...
Oh dear!
>For disk, 1Kb (still a Kilobyte)
I think you mean KB.
As for the IEC's kibibyte, I hope you don't use that term in professional IT circles.
Kevin...
|
Kevin
I certainly do not. I think they are stupid. Computers as we all use are binary and therefore everything should be base-2 derived.
I have been into IT since 1978 with my first computer in 1980 (aged 10) :-) I do work in IT though. My first computer came came with 1KB of RAM which was upgraded to 16KB soon after!
Hard disk companies (not many left) have a lot to explain but the use of the base-10 stuff came from networking too. A true 100Mbit/s connection is a lot different to what we actually get ;-)
Seasons greeting
|
>A true 100Mbit/s connection is a lot different to what we actually get ;-)
Not the link's fault I'm afraid.
Assuming you are talking about file transfer speeds, there are a number of reasons why you won't see full speed.
The biggest problem is usually due to small buffer spaces in the application. The application can't keep up with the network.
The next biggest problem is packet size. Every packet carries a protocol overhead (packet headers, checksum etc.) so the smaller the packet the greater the respective loss.
With fast CPUs, big buffers and jumbo packets we can saturate multiple 10Gb/s links quite easily.
It helps if interactive traffic is routed through a seperate network.
Kevin...
|
Kevin
My point was not made clear. It's not that I don't see the speeds expected (my 10Mbit/s connection can hit 11Mbit/s) but these are base-10 figures....so 1Mbit/s is therefore 10 6 (1000000) and not 2 20 (1048576).
Edited by rtj70 on 24/12/2008 at 00:41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
