Backing up and Copying data, pictures, etc...

I have some major copies to make of all my photo and mail files ..... My
question is can I do the job on CD or DVD disks ? And what is the
difference in the procedure ?

Thank you,

Dan

"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1BA38BB1-84C5-4D69-A1AD-048A33F4C97F@microsoft.com...
>I have some major copies to make of all my photo and mail files ..... My
> question is can I do the job on CD or DVD disks ? And what is the
> difference in the procedure ?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan


Read the attached excellent analysis from Michael Mahon in an earlier
thread.
Following this I splashed out for a couple of 500gig 'MyBook' external
drives which should be easier, cheaper, and more reliable than the CD/DVD
option [The drives make my desk resonate rather if stood on their own
'feet', but I have them running quietly, stood on a small piece of board
with bubblewrap between it and the desk.]. Deciding on the right backup
options, and arrangement of the images themselves in the new archives is
still taxing the old brain cells a bit... And double checking that the
files copied over actually open, before deleting from the original drive, is
taking time.

S

Hello !

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to my question - you were
a big

help to me !

I was not able to view the recommended attachment analysis from Michael
Mahon but hope to come across it in my searching.

Regards,

Dan



"spamlet" wrote:

>
> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1BA38BB1-84C5-4D69-A1AD-048A33F4C97F@microsoft.com...
> >I have some major copies to make of all my photo and mail files ..... My
> > question is can I do the job on CD or DVD disks ? And what is the
> > difference in the procedure ?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Dan
>
>
> Read the attached excellent analysis from Michael Mahon in an earlier
> thread.
> Following this I splashed out for a couple of 500gig 'MyBook' external
> drives which should be easier, cheaper, and more reliable than the CD/DVD
> option [The drives make my desk resonate rather if stood on their own
> 'feet', but I have them running quietly, stood on a small piece of board
> with bubblewrap between it and the desk.]. Deciding on the right backup
> options, and arrangement of the images themselves in the new archives is
> still taxing the old brain cells a bit... And double checking that the
> files copied over actually open, before deleting from the original drive, is
> taking time.
>
> S
>
>
>
>

Here you are:


"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:-padnZ9rYeq0EpLVnZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve H wrote:
>> Thanks for the up to date tips.
>>
>> So to get this clear:
>>
>> Nobody seems to be saying we need to keep 'permanent' back ups on
>> 'traditional' (still new to me!) media discs any more?
>> Everyone seems happy to put as many files as will fit on a particular
>> storage device, on that device?
>> Everyone seems happy that they will always be able to recover files from
>> that medium in the future?
>
> No matter what medium you choose, you will need to guard against
> obsolescence by re-copying to new media from time to time.
>
> At least hard drives are well known to be stable for many years of
> storage, while their are many cases of writable optical media becoming
> unreadable after relatively short periods. It may be marginal media
> or marginal writing, but the problem nevertheless exists, and is not
> always found by verifying the write soon after writing.
>
> SATA hard drives have an interface which is relatively new and can
> be expected to have a long life--at least ten years, so it would seem
> to be a good choice for a backup medium for the next decade.
>
> Ten years down the line, if SATA seems about to be replaced by a new
> drive interface, the drive can be copied over to a newer (100 times
> bigger) drive very quickly and with almost no trouble.
>
> Much the same can be said for external drives with USB2 or FireWire
> connections. Though their speeds will be somewhat slower than the
> newer SATA links, the proliferation (of USB2 particularly) ensures
> that it will not go away for many years.
>
> Compare that to re-copying, say, 100 DVDs (about 500GB) to Blu-Ray II,
> or whatever the next optical standard will be. Copying 100 disks will
> be a lot more trouble and have a much greater liklihood of errors than
> simply doing a single drive-to-drive copy.
>
> The key to durable storage, as noted earlier in this thread, is multiple
> copies not all in the same place (or even locale--after all, there are
> regional disasters). All copies must be periodically checked for
> deterioration and eventually re-copied to newer media to ensure that
> they will remain usable.
>
> It's best to make the inevitable re-copying to new media/interfaces as
> fast and simple as possible, so that it won't be put off too long.
>
>> 'Flash' drives/'sticks' are not safe?
>> (I once saw a 'Braniac' programme where they tried to destroy a number of
>> different media by doing things like shooting cannons and flame throwers
>> at them. Even when it appeared to have been smashed up, they still
>> managed to get data back off the flash drive - in a laboratory
>> admittedly!)
>
> Flash drives are safe for the short term, but they store data as tiny
> electrically isolated charged regions in silicon chips. The leakage of
> these charged regions is not zero, and rises with temperature. Further,
> ionizing radiation (like cosmic rays) are a continuous source of local
> discharge (usually covered by error correcting codes, until there are
> too many errors). Magnetic drives are not subject to degradation from
> cosmic rays.
>
> As a result, I would not consider flash memory stable for more than a
> a decade. And, of course, the interface to the flash memory (SD,
> CompactFlash, etc.) is a moving target and subject to obsolescence in
> the same timeframe.
>
> So, at best, flash media need to be re-copied at least as often as
> hard drives, and their storage cost is at least 25 times as expensive
> as good hard drives, and their capacity is 100x-200x smaller, meaning
> that one hard drive would store 100-200 flash drives. This translates
> into a considerable difference in effort in re-copying when the time
> comes.
>
> If, at some point, the unit capacities and costs of flash media should
> approach or overtake magnetic hard drives--a situation that is unlikely
> for at least the next decade--then this tradeoff might eventually shift
> toward flash media.
>
>> Additional points:
>>
>> As capacity rises, is JPG on the way out too?
>
> A factor of ten saving in storage space with negligible losses for most
> purposes (think snapshots) virtually ensures that lossy compression will
> always be the norm. It already is for video--there is no uncompressed
> digital video.
>
> A newer compressed photo format may emerge, but it won't be because we
> found a way to increase compression another 4-fold--it will be because
> we found a way to improve dynamic range by a factor of ten without
> adding significantly to file size. And you can be sure that it will be
> "backward compatible" with JPEG. Sheer volume provides real insurance.
>
> If a wonderful file format should be invented, then there will be
> programs to automatically convert all older files to the new format
> in the process of re-copying them to new media.
>
>> Should I be saving pics as TIFF (JPG2000? Raw?) to make best use of the
>> new space, and only converting to JPG/PNG for emailing?
>
> It depends on how much you value relatively invisible but potentially
> useful information in your photos. If they are for "casual" purposes,
> then medium-high quality compression will never be a cause for regret
> and will save you a factor of 10 in storage space, copying time, etc.
>
> If some of your photos have "archival value" that is likely to lead you
> to enhance them further at some later time, then an uncompressed format
> may be appropriate.
>
>> Presumably it is faster/more reliable to connect any new hard drive via
>> cable than wireless?
>
> It seems likely that wired connection will always deliver substantially
> more bandwidth than wireless connections, unless something discontinuous
> happens in the networking space.
>
>> Network storage?
>
> A fine solution for your local network, but quite slow for uploads if
> the storage is accessed over the internet. Most private internet
> connections have upload speeds limited to a few hundred kilobits per
> second--about a factor of ten slower than their download speeds.
>
> And download speeds of, say, 5Mbits per second, translate to about
> 0.5MBytes per second, which is 20-50 times slower than a copy
> from hard disk to hard disk.
>
> If you have a network storage server on your local network, and it
> runs at 100Mbits per second (likely for a wired connection), then
> copies over the network can be expected to reach 5-7MBytes per
> second, still 2-5 times slower than a disk-to-disk copy.
>
>> (For example of why I want to 'get this right for once': I had a habit of
>> compressing old floppy discs, and, only by chance discovered that the
>> ability to mount them went out with W98, before chucking out my W98; now
>> XP is on the way out; my email on OE seems to be on the way out - and
>> hotmail too!; I'm only a quarter way through copying my video tapes to
>> DVD - how nice it is to have access to old programmes with no channel
>> 'water mark' and with the credits not shoved to one side at the end! -,
>> but now expect I will have to do it all over again from DVD to whatever,
>> before I even finish... Presumably 'High Definition' means that soon
>> ordinary DVD will be obsolete because no programmes will fit... Nice to
>> know that storage capacity is rising so rapidly but so it seems is
>> 'losage capacity!)
>
> Progress is, indeed, a two-edged sword. ;-)
>
> The biggest problem, as you have noticed, is large numbers of tapes,
> discs, flash drives, etc., since it makes re-copying slow and usually
> manual.
>
> Having "all your eggs in one, huge basket" (and copied to another huge
> basket, of course) is the solution to this problem. Re-copying is then
> as simple as making one connection and running a copy program.
>
> Of course, if your total storage needs exceed 1TB, then you will need
> multiple hard drives--but *many fewer* of them than of any other, less
> capacious media!
>
> Note that a 1TB drive stores about 40 Blu-Ray disks, and a Blu-Ray
> burner and 40 recordable Blu-Ray disks will cost over $500 for at least
> a few years, while a 1TB drive will cost less than $300 (and dropping
> fast) and will greatly ease copying, handling, and storage for the next
> decade. In a couple of years, the same price point will buy a 2TB
> drive.
>
>> Liked the bit about hard drives 'parking their heads' these days: I am
>> extreemly lucky to be writing this on a laptop where all the info and
>> operating system was almost permanently 'parked' after the owner trod on
>> it. Amazingly, I risked opening the drive, and found that a little manual
>> rotation got it moving again!
>
> Congratulations!
>
>> I hadn't thought of actually putting another hard drive inside the pc
>> enclosure. Ours is a dell Optiplex desktop model, which does not seem to
>> have spare slots like the tower versions do. Are there any 'good ones'
>> you would recommend that might fit?
>
> The price-performance "sweet spot" is 3.5" hard drives. The older ATA
> parallel interface is becoming obsolescent, while SATA is rapidly
> becoming the universal hard disk interface.
>
> If your desktop does not have a spare 3.5" drive bay (all but the very
> compact models do), then you may need to use an external USB2 drive.
> This may slightly reduce your copying speed (depending on your computer)
> but will serve very well. It will have an external power supply, which
> you should ensure is safely connected before use--power failure is an
> inconvenience to avoid, though NTFS is a journaled file system and can
> recover from interrupted actions.
>
> Virtually all desktop motherboards have dual hard disk ports, either
> two separate SATA ports or two daisy-chained ATA ports. If you find
> that your computer can accomodate another internal 3.5" drive, you
> should pick one with the appropriate interface.
>
> When the time comes to upgrade, your new machine will inevitably have
> SATA hard drive ports, and it will very likely have at least one ATA
> port for its optical drive(s) (though SATA is becoming the standard
> for optical drives, too). You can arrange to copy your ATA drive(s) to
> your SATA drives by temporarily connecting your ATA drive(s), one at a
> time, to the spare ATA port and then "dragging and dropping" its files
> to a subdirectory of the new drive (where it will usually occupy only
> a small fraction of the available space).
>
>> I just bought a nice 'dj' storage box for my CD/DVDs too...
>
> That can be a handy way of automating the copy of lots of discs--
> assuming that there is a copy program that will sequence through
> them...
>
>> Keep em coming.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>
> I hope it's helpful. ;-)
>
> -michael
>


Michael!

This is one of the best bits of writing I have seen in these groups.
I am sure I did not deserve such a thorough and thoughtful response!
Your advice will be going straight to my desktop and passed on at every
opportunity.

Thank you very much indeed.

And so on to checking what exactly is in our pc box...

Cheers :-)

S


"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3F9679DE-F7E9-4028-B65D-4D233CACF8C6@microsoft.com...
> Hello !
>
> Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to my question - you
> were
> a big
>
> help to me !
>
> I was not able to view the recommended attachment analysis from
> Michael
> Mahon but hope to come across it in my searching.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> "spamlet" wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:1BA38BB1-84C5-4D69-A1AD-048A33F4C97F@microsoft.com...
>> >I have some major copies to make of all my photo and mail files ..... My
>> > question is can I do the job on CD or DVD disks ? And what is the
>> > difference in the procedure ?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> > Dan
>>
>>
>> Read the attached excellent analysis from Michael Mahon in an earlier
>> thread.
>> Following this I splashed out for a couple of 500gig 'MyBook' external
>> drives which should be easier, cheaper, and more reliable than the CD/DVD
>> option [The drives make my desk resonate rather if stood on their own
>> 'feet', but I have them running quietly, stood on a small piece of board
>> with bubblewrap between it and the desk.]. Deciding on the right backup
>> options, and arrangement of the images themselves in the new archives is
>> still taxing the old brain cells a bit... And double checking that the
>> files copied over actually open, before deleting from the original drive,
>> is
>> taking time.
>>
>> S
>>
>>
>>
>>

spamlet wrote:
> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:1BA38BB1-84C5-4D69-A1AD-048A33F4C97F@microsoft.com...
>> I have some major copies to make of all my photo and mail files ..... My
>> question is can I do the job on CD or DVD disks ? And what is the
>> difference in the procedure ?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Dan
>
>
> Read the attached excellent analysis from Michael Mahon in an earlier
> thread.
> Following this I splashed out for a couple of 500gig 'MyBook' external
> drives which should be easier, cheaper, and more reliable than the CD/DVD
> option [The drives make my desk resonate rather if stood on their own
> 'feet', but I have them running quietly, stood on a small piece of board
> with bubblewrap between it and the desk.]. Deciding on the right backup
> options, and arrangement of the images themselves in the new archives is
> still taxing the old brain cells a bit... And double checking that the
> files copied over actually open, before deleting from the original drive, is
> taking time.
>
> S
>
>
>
Hi,

I tried several times to read the attachment, but all that I get is a
blank screen. I'm running Vista and SeaMonkey
Any help will be appreciated.
Morton

"Morton" <mort@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:487163f5$0$5010$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> spamlet wrote:
>> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:1BA38BB1-84C5-4D69-A1AD-048A33F4C97F@microsoft.com...
>>> I have some major copies to make of all my photo and mail files ..... My
>>> question is can I do the job on CD or DVD disks ? And what is the
>>> difference in the procedure ?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>>
>> Read the attached excellent analysis from Michael Mahon in an earlier
>> thread.
>> Following this I splashed out for a couple of 500gig 'MyBook' external
>> drives which should be easier, cheaper, and more reliable than the CD/DVD
>> option [The drives make my desk resonate rather if stood on their own
>> 'feet', but I have them running quietly, stood on a small piece of board
>> with bubblewrap between it and the desk.]. Deciding on the right backup
>> options, and arrangement of the images themselves in the new archives is
>> still taxing the old brain cells a bit... And double checking that the
>> files copied over actually open, before deleting from the original drive,
>> is taking time.
>>
>> S
>>
>>
>>
> Hi,
>
> I tried several times to read the attachment, but all that I get is a
> blank screen. I'm running Vista and SeaMonkey
> Any help will be appreciated.
> Morton

I pasted the thread into my reply of 17:52

S

I'm have win, XP and I have a canon camera program installed. Everything
works fine except when I'm trying to download a large vidoe clip(4th of July
fireworks) to my pictures. I get the error that there is not enough storage.
the video is 1.7 gig and I have over 39 gig on my hard drive. any takers?

--
waiting for help


"Dan" wrote:

> I have some major copies to make of all my photo and mail files ..... My
> question is can I do the job on CD or DVD disks ? And what is the
> difference in the procedure ?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan
>

vinnie wrote:
> I'm have win, XP and I have a canon camera program installed.
> Everything works fine except when I'm trying to download a large
> vidoe clip(4th of July fireworks) to my pictures. I get the error
> that there is not enough storage. the video is 1.7 gig and I have
> over 39 gig on my hard drive. any takers?
================================
What size is your hard drive?

Do you have a Memory Card Reader? If you
do...try using it instead of connecting the camera.

When your camera is connected and turned
on...have you tried going to My Computer and
left clicking the icon for your camera. Maybe
you could just drag/drop the file to your desktop.

And...maybe the following article will offer
some ideas:

(814390) File Transfer from Digital Camera Fails
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=814390

--

John Inzer