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
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input
On 12/02/2017 10:12 AM, philo wrote:
On 11/28/2017 09:27 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: On 11/28/2017 9:08 AM, philo wrote: On 11/27/2017 01:06 PM, Mathedman wrote: Â*Â*Dell computer with no input capability! My wife just bought a New Dell "all in one" computer. But the thing is bizarre. It has no DVD drive, nor place to install one. It has one USB port --- but the computer does not recognize anything plugged into the USB slot ! Â*Â* Further more, it has Windows 10 installed which doesn't have "Control Panel (at least none I could find) Â*Â* So how do we do anything? We can access internet sites It doesn't even have Internet Explorer! Â*Â*So what to do with the thing? I looked at the specs for the lowest end Dell I could find and it has four USB ports. I suspect you are doing something wrong I suspect Mayayna is right, And she bought a tablet with keyboard. Rene Perhaps so. I never saw the point of a tablet. I bought one more out of curiosity than anything and to take photos for my Wife who couldn't get around much, Also Staples had this 10.1 inch Digital2 with Windows 8.1 on it for $129.00 cdn. I have barely used it since my Dear wife passed away and it sits on the shelf with the keyboard and mouse which I needed, I have large hands and that touch screen just does not cut it. I pull it out about once a month to charge the battery and let it update Windows. Too many cons and not enough pros for me, Someday I will give it away to some needy person. Rene |
Ads |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input
Mayayana wrote:
After that I went back to only Memorex, to be on the safe side. I'd heard rumors that all of them were made by the same 2 companies. You don't need rumors. Using Imgburn, it gives the media tag and the "claimed" manufacturer. For example, the Verbatims I used to get here were "Ritek". There is "Ritek" and "Taiyo Yuden", as two examples of decent actual manufacturers. Each actual manufacturer has a track record on quality and retention. The brands you see, they buy product in bulk, and put their name on the box. But what's inside is marked by the media tag, giving the true source. As far as that media tag goes, there has also been fraud. A company making media, where their own brand is tarnished because of bad product, can put "Taiyo Yuden" on the media tag, and when they don't burn right, Taiyo Yuden gets the blame. The media tag should indicate the speed range. Like say "4X to 12X speed". At 12X, the laser power will need to be higher to burn a bit, because the dwell time is lower. The drives run in CAV and CLV (constant angular velocity and constant linear velocity). And this might play a part in the shape of the error curve later. When you scan freshly burned media for "raw" errors, there are characteristic shapes to the error curve. Reed Solomon error correction can safely read back data when the graph shows "1000 errors" on the left axis. Once you get to the 10,000 error level, things become iffy. Maybe good media is around 10 errors on the left axis of the graph. No media makes zero raw errors. And the three dimensional Reed Solomon interleave method does an excellent job of fixing the flaky nature of the media. The scheme works quite well, except if you try to archive something, and the error scan is up around 2,000, and when you scan in a few months, it's hitting 10,000. You don't really know how stable the media is, until you check the error scan over time. You want good initial burns, in the hope that in actual fact the media is stable. Maybe a CDRW you burned at 10 today, is only hitting 1000 in 20 years time. You really have no idea on what the stability is like, for the defective stuff. There are medias defined (by their supplier) as "archival quality", and for those, they pretend there is something special about the starting materials. For example, some media used to use a "gold colored" layer, and people would rave about how good those would be. M-Disc is an example of polycarbonate discs with an entirely different active material inside, where the manufacturer raves about the chemical used. (Drives today may be "listed" to burn M-Discs, so its a term you can look for in the specs, like looking for LightScribe support.) Lightscribe was a chemical layer that turns color when blasted by the laser, and the user can place a monochrome label on the disc after the data burn is complete. Lightscribe gets darker, the more times you burn the pattern into the disc. (It means applying a label can take just as long as the data burn itself, doubling your production time.) Paul |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input (now CD writing)
In message , Paul
writes: [] rave about how good those would be. M-Disc is an example of polycarbonate discs with an entirely different active material inside, where the manufacturer raves about the chemical used. (Drives today may be "listed" to burn M-Discs, so its a term you can look for in the specs, like looking for LightScribe support.) Lightscribe was a chemical layer that turns color when blasted by the laser, and the user can place a monochrome label on the disc after the data burn is complete. Lightscribe gets darker, the more times you burn the pattern into the disc. (It means applying a label can take just as long as the data burn itself, doubling your production time.) [] Isn't Lightscribe on the other side of the disc? I've not seen lightscribe discs for sale for years - are they still made? And, although I made sure to get a lightscribe-capable drive last time I bought one (the external one for this machine), I've never loaded any special softwa presumably you need to do so to design (and burn?) the labels. (You say they get darker the more times you burn them: does that mean that that side of the discs have an absolute start point the burner can detect, so you _can_ burn them a second and subsequent time, and they line up? And if that's true - and sounds as if it should be - then presumably _that_ part of the burn _would_ be more effective if done at a slower speed.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The best way to achieve immortality is by not dying. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 10:12:16 -0600, philo wrote:
I never saw the point of a tablet. I always take a small 8" Samsung Galaxy Tab with me when I travel. It's great for watching video while I'm in an airport or flying. I could use my phone for that, but I've gotten into the habit of using a separate device so that my phone still has battery life when I arrive. I also travel with a high capacity battery charger, but that wasn't always the case, and I still like the larger screen and the fact that I'm not using my phone. While at home, the tablet is on the coffee table in the living room. When I'm watching the news and they say something happened in Wiseacre, Wyoming, I pick up the tablet to see where the heck that is. I came from a small town and I've always been interested in other small towns. The tablet also serves as a secondary remote for the TV, the stereo, the Roku, and a source for commercial-free music via Bluetooth. As others have pointed out, you're probably not going to be a content *creator* on a device like that, but it's excellent as a content consumer. -- Char Jackson |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 12/01/2017 05:14 PM, Ken Blake wrote: [snip] I know a man who has used AOL for umpteen years. What's strange about it is that his technical knowledge and skills are generally very good. I had AOL for awhile but left in 1998 (IIRC, that was also the last time I sent a fax). BTW, AOL was supporting "X2" (so-called 56Kbps modems). The local ISP I switched to had not yet, but internet access was still twice as fast. AFAIK, 56K is 56K down and 33K up. (See Wikipedia V90 and V92 articles for more details. We never got V92 here as far as I know. I don't think any providers switched over to V92 support.) One direction is a bit special, in that the signal is only converted to analog form in the last hop, and that preserves signal quality. (I keep getting the blasted directions wrong when drawing diagrams for this, and I hope I got it right this time :-) ) digital trunk analog Pool --------------- Central Office ------- 56K down near my house \ / \ / no degradation download 56K quality issues are in this section If the pool operator used analog trunks, then degradation would start on the left of the diagram, and the rates would start at 33K down and drop according to conditions. The end modems will keep gearing down until the characteristics are good enough to maintain the session. Using the modem Hayes AT strings, you can even program what standards the modem is allowed to select during negotiation (program for "all-or-nothing"). I don't really consider that to be practical though, as the scheme has some plusses and minuses. It's better to let the modem just seek its own water level, and read the connect rate off your screen, and then decide whether to drop the line and retry. The "hunt" behavior at the pool end, is supposed to cause you to get a different modem each time you call, so after only a few tries, you eventually avoid the "duff" modems and get one that is still functional. Some pools don't have good maintenance and a duff modem can sit in the pool for weeks without getting attention. Paul |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input
"Paul" wrote
| After that I went back to only Memorex, to be on the safe side. | I'd heard rumors that all of them were made by the same 2 companies. | | You don't need rumors. | | Using Imgburn, it gives the media tag and the "claimed" | manufacturer. | | For example, the Verbatims I used to get here were "Ritek". | There is "Ritek" and "Taiyo Yuden", as two examples of | decent actual manufacturers. | Is that better than rumors, though? My disks say "CMC MAG". I can't know that until after I buy them. If I look it up online I find posts in chat groups that say various things. I didn't find any definitive reviews. Half-baked "top 10" sites seem to say Verbatim is best. How do they know? They don't say. I found no hint of anyone having done official testing. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input (now CD writing speed)
On 02 Dec 2017, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
in alt.windows7.general: I'm curious, though, especially as you say you have experience to back it up, why faster should be more reliable than slower. I don't know the technical reasons, but it seems to me like a reasonable proposition. The media is manufactured to work optimally at a certain speed, and it works best when the writer respects that. It would probably burn OK at any speed that's mentioned on the package, but there seems to be no disadvantage to burning it at the highest rated speed. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input
Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote | After that I went back to only Memorex, to be on the safe side. | I'd heard rumors that all of them were made by the same 2 companies. | | You don't need rumors. | | Using Imgburn, it gives the media tag and the "claimed" | manufacturer. | | For example, the Verbatims I used to get here were "Ritek". | There is "Ritek" and "Taiyo Yuden", as two examples of | decent actual manufacturers. | Is that better than rumors, though? My disks say "CMC MAG". I can't know that until after I buy them. If I look it up online I find posts in chat groups that say various things. I didn't find any definitive reviews. Half-baked "top 10" sites seem to say Verbatim is best. How do they know? They don't say. I found no hint of anyone having done official testing. They review drives. https://www.myce.com/review/LG-GH22L...00/features-2/ The second plot from the bottom, shows "trouble". So now I know that MCC or Mitsubishi might be an issue. Or, it could be the drive doesn't recognize the MCC tag and didn't handle the writes well. https://www.myce.com/review/LG-GH22L...performance-4/ In those articles, the DUT (LG product) does the writes, while a Liteon does the quality (read-verify) scans. This is because KProbe software runs on Liteon drives, and gives access to a certain raw error indicator. Other brands of drive, you couldn't use KProbe on it, and there are other error indicators that are less preferred ones. As a consequence, people who do these reviews, have to acquire a Liteon known to still be in good condition, to use for scans. If you browse the myce forums, you'll see what tags they're looking for, and where they've found desirable product recently. With the decline in optical media usage, you cannot expect a large signal to noise ratio now. I didn't see anything at my computer store recently that I "recognize", which is why I ended up coming home with some CMC in a bag. There was no Verbatim on the shelf. And at Staples, they were innundated with "Staples brand" media - they used to stock Verbatim on their shelves too. I thought it was so cool, when about three years ago, actual Ritek discs with Ritek packaging showed up on my good computer store shelves. But all of those have disappeared, so I guess Ritek didn't get the level of sales they expected. Paul |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input (now CD writing speed)
In message , Nil
writes: On 02 Dec 2017, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in alt.windows7.general: I'm curious, though, especially as you say you have experience to back it up, why faster should be more reliable than slower. I don't know the technical reasons, but it seems to me like a reasonable proposition. The media is manufactured to work optimally at a certain speed, and it works best when the writer respects that. It would probably burn OK at any speed that's mentioned on the package, but there seems to be no disadvantage to burning it at the highest rated speed. I would disagree: the media is designed such that, up to a certain speed, it will work with an acceptable number of errors - i. e. if you try to use it above that speed, you're on your own. But I don't think that means it is _best_ at that speed, only that it will probably _work_ at that speed (because people want high speeds). I still think slower will make a better burn - sharper edges between burn and no burn, deeper blacks (or whatever) in the burns. Like the frequency response of an audio system (say tape) - the highest frequency is the highest it _can_ reproduce at all (above say -3dB), not the frequency it reproduces best. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf It is complete loose-stool-water, it is arse-gravy of the worst kind - Stephen Fry on "The Da Vinci Code" |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input (now CD writing speed)
On 12/02/2017 1:04 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Nil writes: On 02 Dec 2017, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in alt.windows7.general: I'm curious, though, especially as you say you have experience to back it up, why faster should be more reliable than slower. I don't know the technical reasons, but it seems to me like a reasonable proposition. The media is manufactured to work optimally at a certain speed, and it works best when the writer respects that. It would probably burn OK at any speed that's mentioned on the package, but there seems to be no disadvantage to burning it at the highest rated speed. I would disagree: the media is designed such that, up to a certain speed, it will work with an acceptable number of errors - i. e. if you try to use it above that speed, you're on your own. But I don't think that means it is _best_ at that speed, only that it will probably _work_ at that speed (because people want high speeds). I still think slower will make a better burn - sharper edges between burn and no burn, deeper blacks (or whatever) in the burns. Like the frequency response of an audio system (say tape) - the highest frequency is the highest it _can_ reproduce at all (above say -3dB), not the frequency it reproduces best. I have had many cases when burning at rated speed gave me bad burns, Cutting back to one half or one quarter speed gave me a good burn, A couple minutes more was well worth it. For me slower is always better. Rene |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 10:12:16 -0600, philo wrote:
I never saw the point of a tablet. Small and light, so easy to travel with. But a smart phone is even smaller and lighter, and I now use mine instead of my tablet. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input
On Fri, 01 Dec 2017 23:13:10 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote: I don't personally consider internal drives to be at significant risk. I'm going to need some really bad experiences before I change my mind. I think external drives are at a much higher risk. I know most folks here won't agree with that, but that's what my experience has shown me. If you mean external drive are at a higher *physical* risk, I agree with you. Besides having all the same risks as internal drives, they are also at risk of being dropped and broken. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input (now CD writing)
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Dell computer with no input
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 05:55:47 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: some attributions removed where-as with flashdrives and hard disks it tends to be an all or nothing affair with limited number of attempts. [] I have a large-ish Ziploc bag of them, some going back to about 2002 that were handed out by people (vendors) who wanted my help to get their Those (1G or 2G - or possibly even smaller) are probably quite reliable. (See Paul's past posts [Ppp!] for why - bits per cell.) stuff into the corporate network. Someday I should use or write a program that just writes data in a loop until they die. Why destroy them deliberately? Because the past 15 years tells me that I have no use for them, (they're way too small for anything practical by today's standards), and I think it would be interesting to see the failure modes. Until then, they just stay in the bag, serving no purpose. I do have 3 64GB flash drives and a 128GB that I use on a regular basis, but the others are too small to be practical. There are a smattering of 128MB and 256MB, then it goes up (slightly!) from there to 1GB and 2GB. I didn't buy any of the small ones; they were all freebies from potential vendors. The only ones I bought were the 4 bigger ones. [] My server here has 40TB of internal storage, about 38TB usable after formatting, and I have it configured as a single volume. It would be nice to bump that to at least 80TB so that I'd have some breathing room. I have a stack of 10 2TB drives that I've pulled out of a second PC, but what can a person do with such small drives these days? Not much, so they stay stacked in a drawer for now. You're either winding me up, or you have _very_ different requirements than I! I've never had a drive as big as 2T. What _do_ you handle that takes all that space (-:? The biggest offender is video, as you'd imagine, but there's a lot of work product, as well. There's only a few TB's still available, so unless I grow the farm I'll have to let some stuff go. -- Char Jackson |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|