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 (5684)	1/30/1999 1:08:00 AM
From: Clarence Dodge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

zp the cost of reinstalling I don't have a strong opinion about which recovery method is best. I do think any of them would be superior to a reinstall. For the time being I'd like to become familiar with all the methods we've been discussing without trying to decide to implement one and not the other. A year from now I don't know if I'll still feel that all these methodologies are useful on one machine. I do believe trying to implement cross referenced maybe redundant backup/recovery solutions is an excellent way for a newbie to become familiar with his or her system configurations. With enough drives and recovery strategies, who needs application sw to work with and enjoy computers <G> Clarence

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (5684)	1/30/1999 2:46:00 PM
From: Spots	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

>>We disagree on the weight of the OS rebuild vs the weight of making the image and the best time to implement. Well, if you insist we disagree, OK. I believe the weight is very much an individual thing based on lots of factors discussed here at various times. I, naturaly, give my view, but I think YOU should use YOUR weighting for YOUR decision. If that's disagreeing, well, have it your way ... (see, I'm agreeing with you <G>). Now if you want ME to do it YOUR way when my weights are different, THEN we can disagree. Are we fighting yet? <GG> >>I implied from your post that making an image is somehow difficult or time consuming. My experience is that it is neither. I'd've inferred it, but I'm old fashioned <GGG>. Well, look at it this way: I do backup/recovery things which I think are easy and not time consuming (I'm talking about KOT restores, not data backups). I know how to do these. You do images because you think they are easy and not time consuming. You know how to do them. You are reluctant to tackle what I do (I gather, anyhow) because you would need to learn a lot and are not sure of the cost of learning nor whether the result would be satisfactory if you did. I assign exactly the same reasoning to images: I don't do them now; I have a learning curve which I perceive to be of some substance; I am uncertain as to the efficacy of the results versus the efforts. I DO think images have merit. I have simply assigned a (much) lower priority on my weighting scale than you. Also my costs are much higher than yours because of the learning curve and methodolgy design. I assign a high priority to key backups (registry, configuration files, boot sectors, blah, blah), which I find simple and effective, VASTLY reducing the immediacy of images in my scheme of things. In virtually every particular, these seem like exactly symmetric positions. I don't see that we're disagreeing at all (except about the fact of disagreeing<g>).