Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (5308)	1/18/1999 11:21:00 PM
From: Dave Hanson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

I'm with ZP on this one (restores vs. playing DOOM), especially if you have two working machines. Restoring a carefully tweaked system (and I tweak mine a lot) takes TONS of time. So much nicer to have restores for multiple points in the process. BTW, after a chance to think a bit more, I'll post something on why I like working on two machines running at once. It makes things like drive images unbelievably easy and efficient--no waiting, out of commission, while the process takes place. And then there are those times that you want to keep win 9x and NT going at once, or when you want to keep an eye on work or e-mail even while testing something, and on and on...

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (5308)	1/19/1999 12:44:00 AM
From: Nazbuster	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14778

ZP, I finally have my system up and running, except that I can't seem to get the CDROM recognized. I now have the CDROM (a Mitsumi 32x) cabled on the 2nd IDE port, jumpered as a "master". The WD6.4 is also a "master" on the primary IDE port. I have the BIOS set to boot to the CDROM which has NT in it. The DOS display on boot shows the WD 6.4G drive as the IDE Pri. Master, but does NOT show the CDROM at all. Power light comes on at the beginning of the boot, cable is seated. Any suggestions?

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (5308)	1/19/1999 8:59:00 AM
From: Spots	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

>>If the cost is low and it is simple to implement why not maintain a restore option as an insurance policy? If I take your "why not" as a real question rather than as a foregone conclusion that one should maintain an image, then we agree 100%. One should analyze costs and proceed accordingly, that is, genuinely answer the question "why should" or "why not". These costs are not going to be the same for everyone. And, as you point out, discomfort is a cost. An uncle of mine was fond of remarking that "psychosomatic pain hurts." Lot of truth in that. The genuine "why not" answer for me is that my backup OS cost without maintenance is projected to be so low that maintaining a quick-restore is a higher cost. (I do, of course, have several restore options short of a full rebuild, as noted.) Spots PS. I don't really play DOOM <G>.