|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#106
September 18th 13, 12:05 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:22:48 +0100, choro wrote:
But here is the proof of the pudding... See my remarks in Message-ID: addressing another post where you stated the same opinion. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) 
|
| Ads |
|
#107
September 18th 13, 12:14 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:37:04 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote: On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:05:46 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: I am generally against incremental backup. It backs up only those things that need to be backed up, and that's good. But what's bad is that if you restore from it, you get back files you've deleted. That may not always be a problem, but it can be. If you restore from an incremental backup, you only get the files that are in that backup[1]. If it was deleted prior to a given backup, it will be absent from that backup. [1] People seem not to have figured this out: when Macrium, at least, makes an incremental backup, the latest image file includes all the information needed to completely reconstruct the disk as it existed at the time of the backup. The latest file only includes changes. Unchanged stuff is fetched from the earlier incrementals. Deleted stuff is not fetched. Same with ShadowProtect. But to restore from any given incremental, you have to have all of the preceding incrementals and the original full backup that this is an incremental of. I think we're probably saying the same thing. -- Robin Bignall Herts, England
|
|
#108
September 18th 13, 12:21 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 00:14:10 +0100, Robin Bignall wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:37:04 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch" wrote: On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:05:46 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: I am generally against incremental backup. It backs up only those things that need to be backed up, and that's good. But what's bad is that if you restore from it, you get back files you've deleted. That may not always be a problem, but it can be. If you restore from an incremental backup, you only get the files that are in that backup[1]. If it was deleted prior to a given backup, it will be absent from that backup. [1] People seem not to have figured this out: when Macrium, at least, makes an incremental backup, the latest image file includes all the information needed to completely reconstruct the disk as it existed at the time of the backup. The latest file only includes changes. Unchanged stuff is fetched from the earlier incrementals. Deleted stuff is not fetched. Same with ShadowProtect. But to restore from any given incremental, you have to have all of the preceding incrementals and the original full backup that this is an incremental of. I think we're probably saying the same thing. Probably. But you have clarified my remarks for those who didn't read between the lines to figure out what I should have said :-) Thanks for the correction. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
|
|
#109
September 18th 13, 01:03 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:37:04 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote: On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:05:46 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: I am generally against incremental backup. It backs up only those things that need to be backed up, and that's good. But what's bad is that if you restore from it, you get back files you've deleted. That may not always be a problem, but it can be. If you restore from an incremental backup, you only get the files that are in that backup[1]. If it was deleted prior to a given backup, it will be absent from that backup. Of course. But if you first backed up and then deleted, you get back the deleted files. And it's very easy to not remember that you had deleted them.
|
|
#110
September 18th 13, 01:05 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:50:21 -0500, "R. C. White"
wrote: Hi, Ken. Yes, I've read a little about that, but I don't understand it fully, so I didn't try to explain it. Nor do I, which is why I didn't try to go onto details. And I'm not sure if it applies to the final cluster of a long file, or only to a single-cluster file. As far as I know, only small, single-cluster files. Thanks for reminding me. You're welcome. Glad to help.
|
|
#111
September 18th 13, 01:26 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:03:45 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:37:04 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch" wrote: On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:05:46 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: I am generally against incremental backup. It backs up only those things that need to be backed up, and that's good. But what's bad is that if you restore from it, you get back files you've deleted. That may not always be a problem, but it can be. If you restore from an incremental backup, you only get the files that are in that backup[1]. If it was deleted prior to a given backup, it will be absent from that backup. Of course. But if you first backed up and then deleted, you get back the deleted files. And it's very easy to not remember that you had deleted them. OK, but I didn't think that's what you meant. Also, please note that I specified "if it was deleted prior to a given backup..." But of course, all of the above is true of *any* backup method, not just image backups, incremental or otherwise. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
|
|
#113
September 18th 13, 02:29 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
On 18/09/2013 01:27, R. C. White wrote:
Hi, Choro. Not only one has to edit the English text but one has got to compare the translation with the text in the original language the novel was written it. Hence I have been editing the translation and resaving it again and again as I go along. Of course I keep a pristine copy of the original translation as well. As an English-only speaking American, I greatly admire people who are fluent in multiple languages. I took Spanish in college; made A's; couldn't speak Spanish at the end of the course and still can't, 60 years later. :( Picked up a smattering of other languages, but can't read or speak more than the simplest sentence in any of them. I'm actually picking up more Spanish now from just reading product labels in both languages. ;} Which program(s) are you using to edit and translate the text? Perhaps the program: 1. Saves both the original and the translation, or at least some of it. 2. Saves notes you might make about ambiguities or other items. 3. Saves notes about the history and progress of the translation. These features could cause each successive Save to be a little bigger - or smaller. Perhaps others here have experience with such software and can add more insight than I can. RC -- R. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010) Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3508.0205) in Win8 Pro I've heard about such programs but that's about it. I believe MS Word has some tricks up its sleeve too. But to be frank with you, I am merely using very simple methods. *Keep it simple is my principle*. I use different color texts for corrections and for expressing my opinions which makes it simple as just by deleting one particular color of text, one is left with the edited copy. A simple Select All and change text color to default black, leaves one with a clean edited text. To be honest there is nothing so extraordinary about what I am doing. It is a question of interest and of putting your mind to it. I've helped an old childhood friend of mine who after his retirement decided to write his lifestory. He is English but he took on board a lot of my advice about rewording a lot of passages in his lifestory. My secret, if there is one, is that I have got a musical ear and a bit of musical training which I believe helps with learning languages. It is a question of the flow of words, not all that much different from the flow of notes in music. And also I spent nearly a decade in a job that involved languages, keying out the equivalent of at least a paperback every month. That experience of course has been of great help. And even though I wasted a quarter century of my life in retailing, ideas flow, hopefully rationally, from my mind. I'll let you in on another secret. I happen to be a very good touch typist. How does this help with the flow of ideas, I can hear some people asking. Well, the truth is that it does not, with the emphasis on not. But being a good touch typist enables one to concentrate on the flow of ideas and not get distracted by other physical distractions. This is the way musicians play. They don't even think about technique. That becomes a sub-conscious thing. I remember once reading *Zen in the Art of Archery*. I'd recommend that book to anyone and everyone. It takes going over the book slowly and carefully to fully grasp the message. Another book I'd recommend is Jonathan Livingstone Seagull. You can probably read it in one 30-minute sitting. But it takes several reads to let the message sink in. Well worth the effort. And the illustrations depicting seagulls are very simple but very apt and effective. It is one of the books I think very highly of which I feel everybody should read several times until the message sinks in. The secret to anything is focusing one's attention and concentrating on the matter at hand to the exclusion of everything else. One trick I have found out by chance is to take a coffee break after a bout of concentrated effort. But have your coffee break elsewhere, say in the kitchen, where you won't be distracted by other things, and you will soon find yourself solving particular problems that have been exercising your mind. I find this both relaxing and extremely productive. But also bear in mind that people are not all that different from one another. The human mind is capable of only so much. And if one delves too deep into a particular field at the expense of other aspects of life, one eventually pays the price. But this is something we have to decide for ourselves. One can't have everything in life. So be happy with what you have got and with what you are doing. Life's aim, after all, should be to find happiness. And do have just a few few, not many, real and sincere friends. That's one of the most important things in life. -- choro ***** "choro" wrote in message ... On 17/09/2013 21:50, R. C. White wrote: Hi, Ken. Yes, I've read a little about that, but I don't understand it fully, so I didn't try to explain it. And I'm not sure if it applies to the final cluster of a long file, or only to a single-cluster file. Thanks for reminding me. Look guys, I don't claim to be a computer or computing expert. What I learned, I learned on my own, by observing and experimenting and occasional reading. Files DO take up less space if they are saved in one go as opposed to being re-edited and saved time and time again. And here is the proof... One particular file I am working on is the English translation of a historic novel. The translators have done a good job but the author has still trusted me to edit the translation. Naturally this is a long, laborious process. Not only one has to edit the English text but one has got to compare the translation with the text in the original language the novel was written it. Hence I have been editing the translation and resaving it again and again as I go along. Of course I keep a pristine copy of the original translation as well. But here is the proof of the pudding... The version of the file I am working on takes up X+3,520 Bytes of HD space which. The the version of the file that I have been working on and which I have just re-saved under a slightly different name takes up less than X Bytes. In fact the version of the file saved over and over again and again takes up around 4% MORE space on the HD. Of course this is an insignificant saving of HD space when re-saving the file in ONE GO under a different name which names it into a completely different file. The same happens when xcopying or xxcopying. You DO gain some if insignificant HD space when you xcopy or xxcopy. I need no further proof than this little experiment I have just done to convince me that what I have been saying all along is true. Now, contiguity is another matter altogether.
|
|
#114
September 18th 13, 03:49 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
Hi, Choro.
Lots of good thoughts and advice in your post. Wish I had time to comment on several of them. But one in particular triggered a distinctly OT thought for me: I read Jonathan Livingston Seagull; was not terribly impressed; maybe I need to read it again, slowly. I never saw the movie. But my client "flew the camera" to make the movie. He was a world champion aerobatic pilot who flew the camera for several movies. He told me that the Seagull movie required him to fly into a cliff - almost. He said he became so intent on what he was filming that he almost forgot to pull up and nearly crashed into the cliffs a few times. A few years later, he flew the camera to film "Top Gun". The last words his ground crew heard from him were, "We've got a problem here." He died in that crash. If you see that movie, watch at the very end while the credits roll - forever, it seems. Finally, the very last line says the film is dedicated to his memory. When watching a movie, especially an action adventure or nature documentary, I often ask myself, "Where was the cameraman?" RC -- R. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010) Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3508.0205) in Win8 Pro "choro" wrote in message ... On 18/09/2013 01:27, R. C. White wrote: Hi, Choro. Not only one has to edit the English text but one has got to compare the translation with the text in the original language the novel was written it. Hence I have been editing the translation and resaving it again and again as I go along. Of course I keep a pristine copy of the original translation as well. As an English-only speaking American, I greatly admire people who are fluent in multiple languages. I took Spanish in college; made A's; couldn't speak Spanish at the end of the course and still can't, 60 years later. :( Picked up a smattering of other languages, but can't read or speak more than the simplest sentence in any of them. I'm actually picking up more Spanish now from just reading product labels in both languages. ;} Which program(s) are you using to edit and translate the text? Perhaps the program: 1. Saves both the original and the translation, or at least some of it. 2. Saves notes you might make about ambiguities or other items. 3. Saves notes about the history and progress of the translation. These features could cause each successive Save to be a little bigger - or smaller. Perhaps others here have experience with such software and can add more insight than I can. RC -- R. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010) Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3508.0205) in Win8 Pro I've heard about such programs but that's about it. I believe MS Word has some tricks up its sleeve too. But to be frank with you, I am merely using very simple methods. *Keep it simple is my principle*. I use different color texts for corrections and for expressing my opinions which makes it simple as just by deleting one particular color of text, one is left with the edited copy. A simple Select All and change text color to default black, leaves one with a clean edited text. To be honest there is nothing so extraordinary about what I am doing. It is a question of interest and of putting your mind to it. I've helped an old childhood friend of mine who after his retirement decided to write his lifestory. He is English but he took on board a lot of my advice about rewording a lot of passages in his lifestory. My secret, if there is one, is that I have got a musical ear and a bit of musical training which I believe helps with learning languages. It is a question of the flow of words, not all that much different from the flow of notes in music. And also I spent nearly a decade in a job that involved languages, keying out the equivalent of at least a paperback every month. That experience of course has been of great help. And even though I wasted a quarter century of my life in retailing, ideas flow, hopefully rationally, from my mind. I'll let you in on another secret. I happen to be a very good touch typist. How does this help with the flow of ideas, I can hear some people asking. Well, the truth is that it does not, with the emphasis on not. But being a good touch typist enables one to concentrate on the flow of ideas and not get distracted by other physical distractions. This is the way musicians play. They don't even think about technique. That becomes a sub-conscious thing. I remember once reading *Zen in the Art of Archery*. I'd recommend that book to anyone and everyone. It takes going over the book slowly and carefully to fully grasp the message. Another book I'd recommend is Jonathan Livingstone Seagull. You can probably read it in one 30-minute sitting. But it takes several reads to let the message sink in. Well worth the effort. And the illustrations depicting seagulls are very simple but very apt and effective. It is one of the books I think very highly of which I feel everybody should read several times until the message sinks in. The secret to anything is focusing one's attention and concentrating on the matter at hand to the exclusion of everything else. One trick I have found out by chance is to take a coffee break after a bout of concentrated effort. But have your coffee break elsewhere, say in the kitchen, where you won't be distracted by other things, and you will soon find yourself solving particular problems that have been exercising your mind. I find this both relaxing and extremely productive. But also bear in mind that people are not all that different from one another. The human mind is capable of only so much. And if one delves too deep into a particular field at the expense of other aspects of life, one eventually pays the price. But this is something we have to decide for ourselves. One can't have everything in life. So be happy with what you have got and with what you are doing. Life's aim, after all, should be to find happiness. And do have just a few few, not many, real and sincere friends. That's one of the most important things in life. -- choro ***** "choro" wrote in message ... On 17/09/2013 21:50, R. C. White wrote: Hi, Ken. Yes, I've read a little about that, but I don't understand it fully, so I didn't try to explain it. And I'm not sure if it applies to the final cluster of a long file, or only to a single-cluster file. Thanks for reminding me. Look guys, I don't claim to be a computer or computing expert. What I learned, I learned on my own, by observing and experimenting and occasional reading. Files DO take up less space if they are saved in one go as opposed to being re-edited and saved time and time again. And here is the proof... One particular file I am working on is the English translation of a historic novel. The translators have done a good job but the author has still trusted me to edit the translation. Naturally this is a long, laborious process. Not only one has to edit the English text but one has got to compare the translation with the text in the original language the novel was written it. Hence I have been editing the translation and resaving it again and again as I go along. Of course I keep a pristine copy of the original translation as well. But here is the proof of the pudding... The version of the file I am working on takes up X+3,520 Bytes of HD space which. The the version of the file that I have been working on and which I have just re-saved under a slightly different name takes up less than X Bytes. In fact the version of the file saved over and over again and again takes up around 4% MORE space on the HD. Of course this is an insignificant saving of HD space when re-saving the file in ONE GO under a different name which names it into a completely different file. The same happens when xcopying or xxcopying. You DO gain some if insignificant HD space when you xcopy or xxcopy. I need no further proof than this little experiment I have just done to convince me that what I have been saying all along is true. Now, contiguity is another matter altogether.
|
|
#115
September 18th 13, 05:18 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 13:43:01 -0500, "R. C. White" wrote:
Hi, Steve. I made several attempts to install Linux on my D: drive, but most of them did not work, and the latest one, which did work, is not recognised as D: by Windows. I've already pleaded ignorance regarding Linux (including GRUB). But I think that Linux, like Windows, has to depend on the Partition Table in the MBR sector on the currently-defined boot device to define Disk # and Partition #. Windows assigns "drive" letters to those partitions - not to the entire disk, of course. But Windows probably does not tell Linux what letters it has assigned. And vice-versa? And the Partition Table itself knows NOTHING about drive LETTERS. When you installed Linux on your "D: drive", which Disk # and Partition # was that? When you boot Windows and run Disk Management, which letter is assigned to that Disk#/Partition#? Originally D on Disk 1, but now none. It just says 105.09 GB Healthy (Active) ...a program installed on the E drive keeps its registry on the C drive, No. A program does not have a Registry. It makes entries into THE Registry maintained by Windows. It is in the Boot Folder on the Boot Volume, and this is USUALLY C:\Windows on Drive C:, but it can be on any "drive". It can very well be E:\Windows, depending on the instructions you gave to Windows' Setup.exe when you installed Windows - and whether you booted from the Windows DVD or ran Setup from an existing Windows installation. OK, I should have said "keeps its registry entry". but when I restore it from Acronis on a completely new disk with a different partition size, it still manages to find it. I've never used a program from Acronis, either. But when you restored Windows to a new disk, you probably restored the System Partition, too, and that contains the Boot Configuration Data (BCD), which tells the startup file (bootmgr) where to find Windows. Changing the SIZE of a partition does not change the letter that was assigned to it. A 500 GB Drive C: shrunk to 8 or 80 GB is still Drive C:. And it may still be the third partition on the second HDD, as shown in the Partition Table in the System Partition, probably partition 1 on Disk 0. Of course, if you restored only to Disk 1, then the System Partition on Disk 0 has not been touched. Well my point was that I had backed up the partitions using Acronis, and when I got the new computer I booted from the Acronis Rescue Disc and restored the C: partition on Drive 0 and the D, E, F, and G partitions on Drive 1. After the restoration, programs installed on the E and F partitions ran with no problems, which I think was the question being asked -- whether one could restore a program installed in a partition other than the one in which the registry is kept. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
|
|
#116
September 18th 13, 05:26 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:27:41 -0500, "R. C. White" wrote:
Hi, Choro. Not only one has to edit the English text but one has got to compare the translation with the text in the original language the novel was written it. Hence I have been editing the translation and resaving it again and again as I go along. Of course I keep a pristine copy of the original translation as well. As an English-only speaking American, I greatly admire people who are fluent in multiple languages. I took Spanish in college; made A's; couldn't speak Spanish at the end of the course and still can't, 60 years later. :( Picked up a smattering of other languages, but can't read or speak more than the simplest sentence in any of them. I'm actually picking up more Spanish now from just reading product labels in both languages. ;} Which program(s) are you using to edit and translate the text? Perhaps the program: 1. Saves both the original and the translation, or at least some of it. 2. Saves notes you might make about ambiguities or other items. 3. Saves notes about the history and progress of the translation. These features could cause each successive Save to be a little bigger - or smaller. Perhaps others here have experience with such software and can add more insight than I can. In my experience MS Word files can grow much bigger than the actual size of the material added to them. I have the impression that that is the result of the structure of the file, rather than the way the file is stored on disk. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
|
|
#117
September 18th 13, 05:45 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
That's sad. Very sad. But then we can say about him that he did what he
wanted. He did the impossible. And I bet he was very happy doing it. The accident of course is sad. You read JLS again and read it several times. And try to understand the author was really commenting on man and the seagull was his medium. That philosophy, that attitude that nothing is impossible is very true. Man can achieve wonders once he puts his mind to something. I recently met a young lady who not only has got a superb singing voice but she composes some lovely songs too. She is working on her 2nd CD at the moment and recently sent me a new song she has composed. The track she sent me is still not the finalized track that will go on the CD. Some instrumental tracks to be added to the song are still to be recorded. But it is already a beautiful song. The amount of concentration needed for composing even such a short song is immense. I only met her on holiday and she went out of her way to help me when she had absolutely no obligation to. For some reason I had fallen very anemic and weak. We were waiting for a bus at a bus terminal. She realized that I could do with some help and did offer to help me. I took her up on her offer to help and she really went out of her way to be helpful to me. I was really touched. And believe it or not that was the very first time we had met. We were perfect strangers. You know, it raises one's spirits and hope for mankind when one comes across such people. Seeing her kindness, her caring attitude I decided there and then that I must not lose touch with this young lady and we have been corresponding since. She was over the moon when I recently sent her some manuscripts of songs. But I will remember what you related to me about the JLS cameraman. Actually I have seen the film but I will watch the ending carefully next time. The photography is absolutely superb. I'll think of him every time I have a look at the book. You know that in the book JLS flies into the cliff but he lives and rises into another world where he meets his old master I believe. Of course it is not the actual tale that is important but the message that it carries. The scene where he is cast out of the community of seagulls is also very meaningful. But in fact the impossible do happen all around us all the time. Of course, JLS should not be taken literally. It is the meaning and the message concealed in the story that is important. -- choro ***** On 18/09/2013 03:49, R. C. White wrote: Hi, Choro. Lots of good thoughts and advice in your post. Wish I had time to comment on several of them. But one in particular triggered a distinctly OT thought for me: I read Jonathan Livingston Seagull; was not terribly impressed; maybe I need to read it again, slowly. I never saw the movie. But my client "flew the camera" to make the movie. He was a world champion aerobatic pilot who flew the camera for several movies. He told me that the Seagull movie required him to fly into a cliff - almost. He said he became so intent on what he was filming that he almost forgot to pull up and nearly crashed into the cliffs a few times. A few years later, he flew the camera to film "Top Gun". The last words his ground crew heard from him were, "We've got a problem here." He died in that crash. If you see that movie, watch at the very end while the credits roll - forever, it seems. Finally, the very last line says the film is dedicated to his memory. When watching a movie, especially an action adventure or nature documentary, I often ask myself, "Where was the cameraman?" RC -- R. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010) Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3508.0205) in Win8 Pro "choro" wrote in message ... On 18/09/2013 01:27, R. C. White wrote: Hi, Choro. Not only one has to edit the English text but one has got to compare the translation with the text in the original language the novel was written it. Hence I have been editing the translation and resaving it again and again as I go along. Of course I keep a pristine copy of the original translation as well. As an English-only speaking American, I greatly admire people who are fluent in multiple languages. I took Spanish in college; made A's; couldn't speak Spanish at the end of the course and still can't, 60 years later. :( Picked up a smattering of other languages, but can't read or speak more than the simplest sentence in any of them. I'm actually picking up more Spanish now from just reading product labels in both languages. ;} Which program(s) are you using to edit and translate the text? Perhaps the program: 1. Saves both the original and the translation, or at least some of it. 2. Saves notes you might make about ambiguities or other items. 3. Saves notes about the history and progress of the translation. These features could cause each successive Save to be a little bigger - or smaller. Perhaps others here have experience with such software and can add more insight than I can. RC -- R. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010) Windows Live Mail 2012 (Build 16.4.3508.0205) in Win8 Pro I've heard about such programs but that's about it. I believe MS Word has some tricks up its sleeve too. But to be frank with you, I am merely using very simple methods. *Keep it simple is my principle*. I use different color texts for corrections and for expressing my opinions which makes it simple as just by deleting one particular color of text, one is left with the edited copy. A simple Select All and change text color to default black, leaves one with a clean edited text. To be honest there is nothing so extraordinary about what I am doing. It is a question of interest and of putting your mind to it. I've helped an old childhood friend of mine who after his retirement decided to write his lifestory. He is English but he took on board a lot of my advice about rewording a lot of passages in his lifestory. My secret, if there is one, is that I have got a musical ear and a bit of musical training which I believe helps with learning languages. It is a question of the flow of words, not all that much different from the flow of notes in music. And also I spent nearly a decade in a job that involved languages, keying out the equivalent of at least a paperback every month. That experience of course has been of great help. And even though I wasted a quarter century of my life in retailing, ideas flow, hopefully rationally, from my mind. I'll let you in on another secret. I happen to be a very good touch typist. How does this help with the flow of ideas, I can hear some people asking. Well, the truth is that it does not, with the emphasis on not. But being a good touch typist enables one to concentrate on the flow of ideas and not get distracted by other physical distractions. This is the way musicians play. They don't even think about technique. That becomes a sub-conscious thing. I remember once reading *Zen in the Art of Archery*. I'd recommend that book to anyone and everyone. It takes going over the book slowly and carefully to fully grasp the message. Another book I'd recommend is Jonathan Livingstone Seagull. You can probably read it in one 30-minute sitting. But it takes several reads to let the message sink in. Well worth the effort. And the illustrations depicting seagulls are very simple but very apt and effective. It is one of the books I think very highly of which I feel everybody should read several times until the message sinks in. The secret to anything is focusing one's attention and concentrating on the matter at hand to the exclusion of everything else. One trick I have found out by chance is to take a coffee break after a bout of concentrated effort. But have your coffee break elsewhere, say in the kitchen, where you won't be distracted by other things, and you will soon find yourself solving particular problems that have been exercising your mind. I find this both relaxing and extremely productive. But also bear in mind that people are not all that different from one another. The human mind is capable of only so much. And if one delves too deep into a particular field at the expense of other aspects of life, one eventually pays the price. But this is something we have to decide for ourselves. One can't have everything in life. So be happy with what you have got and with what you are doing. Life's aim, after all, should be to find happiness. And do have just a few few, not many, real and sincere friends. That's one of the most important things in life. -- choro ***** "choro" wrote in message ... On 17/09/2013 21:50, R. C. White wrote: Hi, Ken. Yes, I've read a little about that, but I don't understand it fully, so I didn't try to explain it. And I'm not sure if it applies to the final cluster of a long file, or only to a single-cluster file. Thanks for reminding me. Look guys, I don't claim to be a computer or computing expert. What I learned, I learned on my own, by observing and experimenting and occasional reading. Files DO take up less space if they are saved in one go as opposed to being re-edited and saved time and time again. And here is the proof... One particular file I am working on is the English translation of a historic novel. The translators have done a good job but the author has still trusted me to edit the translation. Naturally this is a long, laborious process. Not only one has to edit the English text but one has got to compare the translation with the text in the original language the novel was written it. Hence I have been editing the translation and resaving it again and again as I go along. Of course I keep a pristine copy of the original translation as well. But here is the proof of the pudding... The version of the file I am working on takes up X+3,520 Bytes of HD space which. The the version of the file that I have been working on and which I have just re-saved under a slightly different name takes up less than X Bytes. In fact the version of the file saved over and over again and again takes up around 4% MORE space on the HD. Of course this is an insignificant saving of HD space when re-saving the file in ONE GO under a different name which names it into a completely different file. The same happens when xcopying or xxcopying. You DO gain some if insignificant HD space when you xcopy or xxcopy. I need no further proof than this little experiment I have just done to convince me that what I have been saying all along is true. Now, contiguity is another matter altogether.
|
|
#118
September 18th 13, 07:47 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
Steve Hayes on Wed, 18 Sep 2013 06:26:32 +0200
typed in alt.windows7.general the following: These features could cause each successive Save to be a little bigger - or smaller. Perhaps others here have experience with such software and can add more insight than I can. In my experience MS Word files can grow much bigger than the actual size of the material added to them. I have the impression that that is the result of the structure of the file, rather than the way the file is stored on disk. And the metadata that MS stores with the file. -- pyotr Filipivich "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump. Piglet, meet me in transporter room three. Christopher Robin, you have the bridge."
|
|
#119
September 18th 13, 10:17 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:47:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote: Steve Hayes on Wed, 18 Sep 2013 06:26:32 +0200 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: These features could cause each successive Save to be a little bigger - or smaller. Perhaps others here have experience with such software and can add more insight than I can. In my experience MS Word files can grow much bigger than the actual size of the material added to them. I have the impression that that is the result of the structure of the file, rather than the way the file is stored on disk. And the metadata that MS stores with the file. Yes, and I've sometimes wondered if there was a way of performing the equivalent of a defrag on the files to reduce them to a reasonable size again. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
|
|
#120
September 18th 13, 11:23 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Disk Partitioning
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:47:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote: Steve Hayes on Wed, 18 Sep 2013 06:26:32 +0200 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: These features could cause each successive Save to be a little bigger - or smaller. Perhaps others here have experience with such software and can add more insight than I can. In my experience MS Word files can grow much bigger than the actual size of the material added to them. I have the impression that that is the result of the structure of the file, rather than the way the file is stored on disk. And the metadata that MS stores with the file. Yes, and I've sometimes wondered if there was a way of performing the equivalent of a defrag on the files to reduce them to a reasonable size again. Word and other MS Office programs keep the entire history of all changes made in the file, so when you make an edit, they add the edit to the file, but keep all previous versions as well, just making a note of where the edit has been made. This makes the files grow with each edit. It also makes`it possible to roll back changes and track who changed what. To do the equivalent of a defrag, use Save As with a different name. This saves the file as you see it on screen, and removes all the previous version information. -- Tciao for Now! John.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
