A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #91  
Old July 1st 20, 04:38 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/29/2020 4:19 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/06/2020 21.30, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/29/2020 7:08 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Well, the attribute/permission set is different, which affects both
directions. Maybe more issues? Legal?

I'm sure one of the older public-domain filesystems, such as Ext3fs
can be modified to include Microsoft attributes instead? I mean the
source code is completely available for free.


Yes, but then your own code based on it would also have to be
available for free to competitors, and is not in the M$ DNA ;-p


Yeah, but if it's just to add the information like the permissions and
ownership information, then what kind of competitive information is left
in that now? At this point in time, NTFS has been thoroughly
reverse-engineered already, and most external OS's can handle NTFS as a
side-gig these days, so they already know most of the attributes inside
it. Besides that was the old Microsoft, this is the new Linux-friendly
Microsoft. :-)

Maybe they would need a team to extract the full detailed specs, and
another team that never ever had a look at the code, create another
code set from scratch.


It seems like a total waste of time, when the source code is already
available for them for free. All they'd have to do is reveal the
hierarchy for their permission and ownership attributes. I don't see
where there is any competitive advantage left for hiding that
information anymore.


Have you looked at NTFS lately ?

The version string on all versions (Win7, Win8, Win10) is NTFS 3.1.
And the claim is made "they're all compatible". Because they were
careful to not increment the release number (blowback...).

But Windows 10 has corrupted the $MFTMIRR, altered how the
Volume Bitmap works (untrustworthy at runtime). This sort of
stuff caused Macrium to have to issue some patched versions
in the 6.x.x stream so that users could work with volumes
that Windows 10 had touched.

In addition, there are Reparse Points. These are metadata extensions
to the filesystem. An example would be "New style compression". I don't
know what the situation is on say, Windows 7, with items like this.
Linux does not have Reparse points reverse engineered. Linux is
not actively playing catchup. The only evidence I saw of
catchup, was Fedora issuing a patch to have their Linux ignore
the value in $MFTMIRR. Nobody else does that, and "dmesg" is littered
with references to "can't mount your NTFS volume, **** off" message.
And that's what happens when traditional $MFTMIRR value checking is done.

I noticed recently, the error messages in Linux, when running into one of
these New Compression items in NTFS has improved. Instead of saying
"I/O error", it mentions "this OS cannot parse this information"
or similar. So at least the root cause is better described. The "I/O error"
thing was causing users to run WDC or Seagate disk diagnostics :-)
Because of course everyone panics when they see "Abort, Retry, Fail"
kinds of indicators :-) It's not really an "I/O error", because
the sectors with the data that cannot be parsed, read just fine.
But the software doesn't know what to do with them.

To remedy a small percentage of the affected files, you can do
this in an administrator command prompt window

compact /compactOS:never

This expands the compressed files, making more of them
accessible in Linux. New compression files outside the Windows
folder, you're **** outta luck.

You make it sound like NTFS is "a solved problem", when Microsoft
is going out of their way to make trouble. "FOSS lovers", my ass.
They didn't fire all the old timers at Microsoft... Evil *******s
still live in those cubicles.

Now, arguments could be made, that this "improves SSD wear life",
but sorry, I'm not buying it. The compression is likely part of the
stretch target of installing Windows 10 on 16GB eMMC, which is
a ludicrous objective. The result would be "an unusable device"
or "landfill material". Perfect products for Walmart.

Paul
Ads
  #92  
Old July 1st 20, 04:59 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 01/07/2020 01.10, Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| The point being that in the vast majority of things
| that people do, an SSD offers no advantage. You're not
| going to is a difference if MS Word is saving your DOC
| to disk once every 5 minutes, spending 1 ms to do it
| instead of 2 ms.
|
| You do if you handle a 20 page document with photos or figures on every
| page. Or with active links to calc sheet portions. I can hear the disk
| working as I go around.
|

But you're not waiting for disk writes, right?


Of course we are.


No, you're not.

Both Windows 7 and Windows 10 have a system write cache.

When that cache is full, *then* you're waiting on disk writes.
The cache is not full when you're saving that 3-page MSWD doc.
The cache is full, when you back up a fast disk to a slow disk.

*******

The other observation, is more minor.

In my testing, Windows 10 has (in a recent version)
implemented a small write cache per file handle. At one
time, you would catch the OS writing single 4K clusters.
Whereas now, it's more likely to work in units of 64K (16 clusters).
It's not a change in cluster size. It's a change in behavior
where a file handle doesn't have to do anything until 64K of
data is ready to write.

I only noticed this, when using the Passmark fragmenter.

https://www.passmark.com/products/fragger/

I noticed that when run in Windows 10, it could no
longer make "fine grained" fragments. The "lumps"
got bigger. And I also noticed this when testing my
own little C program for making fragmented test files,
that its runtime characteristic had changed. I use stuff
like this, for obscure performance tests. (Such as,
an SSD slows down perceptibly, if the files on it
are fragmented enough, so the 20 to 100usec seek
time does matter.) For most reasonable levels of
fragmentation (not pathological ones), you'd never
notice. I'm talking about 100% fragmented disks,
where the disk is just "salt n' pepper" pattern.

Paul
  #93  
Old July 1st 20, 11:10 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

"Paul" wrote

| | You do if you handle a 20 page document with photos or figures on
every
| | page. Or with active links to calc sheet portions. I can hear the
disk
| | working as I go around.
| |
|
| But you're not waiting for disk writes, right?
|
| Of course we are.
|
| No, you're not.
|
| Both Windows 7 and Windows 10 have a system write cache.
|

Even if the cache is being flushed, what kind of
situation would actully make people wait for disk
writes? Pretty much the only time I ever wait is
complex operations on giant images. But writing
those changes back to disk is in terms of ms.

Maybe Carlos didn't understand. My point was that
people don't actually pause their work to wait for a
file update to be written to disk. If they do there's
something wrong. Even in the days of 300 MHz Celeron
I don't remember ever having to actually pause to wait
for a file to write to disk. It writes as fast as I can click
the Save menu.



  #94  
Old July 1st 20, 11:32 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


Even if the cache is being flushed, what kind of
situation would actully make people wait for disk
writes? Pretty much the only time I ever wait is
complex operations on giant images. But writing
those changes back to disk is in terms of ms.


anything that takes milleseconds to write (or read) is not what anyone
would call giant.

Maybe Carlos didn't understand. My point was that
people don't actually pause their work to wait for a
file update to be written to disk. If they do there's
something wrong. Even in the days of 300 MHz Celeron
I don't remember ever having to actually pause to wait
for a file to write to disk. It writes as fast as I can click
the Save menu.


either your files are unusually small or you aren't accurately
detecting start and stop of the entire write.
  #95  
Old July 2nd 20, 10:42 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

On 02/07/2020 00.32, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:


Even if the cache is being flushed, what kind of
situation would actully make people wait for disk
writes? Pretty much the only time I ever wait is
complex operations on giant images. But writing
those changes back to disk is in terms of ms.


anything that takes milleseconds to write (or read) is not what anyone
would call giant.


And there can be hundreds of little files to write. A file write means
writing the data, then updating the metadata (timestamp, size,
location), which means several seek operations per file. Yes, of course
there is a cache, but it has a limit. Specially if memory is limited.


Maybe Carlos didn't understand. My point was that
people don't actually pause their work to wait for a
file update to be written to disk. If they do there's
something wrong. Even in the days of 300 MHz Celeron
I don't remember ever having to actually pause to wait
for a file to write to disk. It writes as fast as I can click
the Save menu.


either your files are unusually small or you aren't accurately
detecting start and stop of the entire write.


Quite so.

On some situations, I can clearly hear the disk going clac-clac-clac,
with the head repositioning fast, for seconds, sometimes minutes.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #96  
Old July 2nd 20, 01:50 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

"Carlos E.R." wrote

| either your files are unusually small or you aren't accurately
| detecting start and stop of the entire write.
|
| Quite so.
|
| On some situations, I can clearly hear the disk going clac-clac-clac,
| with the head repositioning fast, for seconds, sometimes minutes.
|

And how do you know that's all the one file write?
Especially on 7/10. It's not easy to stop all the
ludicrous background operations on those systems.
and the software you're using may be accessing the
disk for various things. Many progrrams now write
regular backups so that they can get a file back if you
crash. so it might actually be writing a second copy
on a regluar basis, along with the file you intend to
write.

If you have to stop using the mouse and keyboard
while you wait for a file to write, then you need to
update from your Commodore 64. Or maybe you'll
need to reconsider whether it's wise to write 1/2 GB
files on a regular basis. Otherwise, you're not waiting
on disk writes.

Of course, there will always be cases, as you pointed
out. Someone doing massve writes to a massive
database, all day, every day, because that's what they
do for work, will see a difference. The vast majority
of people will not. I can't remember ever waiting for
a file to write myself.

I just tried a quick test, writing bytes to disk with no
special optimizing, from a VB6 executable. (Using
GetTickCount. Not the most accurate timer but good
enough for this purpose.)

20million B - 125 ms
200million B - 1.2 seconds

So, about 150 MB per second. That will be slightly
slower with a hard disk. Maybe someone can try that.
But what if it takes twice as long? That's still only
1/4 second to save 20 MB. Maybe you can blink
that fast, but it's going to be perceived as instant.
You won't need to stop typing to wait for the update.
If you don't wait then it's instant.

Nearly everything I did before getting an SSD was
instant. It's all stil instant. But boot is faster, while
Firefox is still a pig.


  #97  
Old July 3rd 20, 04:05 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
kelown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...


On my desktop I've both an SSD on C: and an HDD on D:. The difference in
application performance if it's installed on C or D is like night and day.

The only downside to SSDs is the per GB cost.


The $65.86 I paid for my new 2.5" 500GB SATA III SSD is the lowest I've
paid for ANY main storage drive.


  #98  
Old July 4th 20, 03:43 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 22:05:40 -0500, kelown
wrote:


On my desktop I've both an SSD on C: and an HDD on D:. The difference in
application performance if it's installed on C or D is like night and day.

The only downside to SSDs is the per GB cost.


The $65.86 I paid for my new 2.5" 500GB SATA III SSD is the lowest I've
paid for ANY main storage drive.

I used to pay that for 5-1/4" floppies!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #99  
Old July 4th 20, 04:06 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

On 2020-07-03 9:43 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 22:05:40 -0500, kelown
wrote:


On my desktop I've both an SSD on C: and an HDD on D:. The difference in
application performance if it's installed on C or D is like night and day.

The only downside to SSDs is the per GB cost.


The $65.86 I paid for my new 2.5" 500GB SATA III SSD is the lowest I've
paid for ANY main storage drive.

I used to pay that for 5-1/4" floppies!


When I bought my first 5-1/4 inch floppy drive for my Apple II+ for
$750.00 I bought a box of 10 Dyson floppies for $75.00., and my first 48
Megabyte Conner SCSI hard drive was $900.00.

Rene

  #100  
Old July 5th 20, 05:38 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 22:06:04 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 2020-07-03 9:43 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 22:05:40 -0500, kelown
wrote:


On my desktop I've both an SSD on C: and an HDD on D:. The difference in
application performance if it's installed on C or D is like night and day.

The only downside to SSDs is the per GB cost.

The $65.86 I paid for my new 2.5" 500GB SATA III SSD is the lowest I've
paid for ANY main storage drive.

I used to pay that for 5-1/4" floppies!


When I bought my first 5-1/4 inch floppy drive for my Apple II+ for
$750.00 I bought a box of 10 Dyson floppies for $75.00., and my first 48
Megabyte Conner SCSI hard drive was $900.00.

My first AMI 8" 5Mb hard drive was US$3,500 or thereabouts.


--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #101  
Old July 5th 20, 04:43 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

On 2020-07-04 11:38 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 22:06:04 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 2020-07-03 9:43 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 22:05:40 -0500, kelown
wrote:


On my desktop I've both an SSD on C: and an HDD on D:. The difference in
application performance if it's installed on C or D is like night and day.

The only downside to SSDs is the per GB cost.

The $65.86 I paid for my new 2.5" 500GB SATA III SSD is the lowest I've
paid for ANY main storage drive.

I used to pay that for 5-1/4" floppies!


When I bought my first 5-1/4 inch floppy drive for my Apple II+ for
$750.00 I bought a box of 10 Dyson floppies for $75.00., and my first 48
Megabyte Conner SCSI hard drive was $900.00.

My first AMI 8" 5Mb hard drive was US$3,500 or thereabouts.



Now I buy 512GB NVMe drives which are the size of a stick of gum and
many orders of speed faster for $119.00.

Rene

  #102  
Old September 3rd 20, 06:33 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.windows7.general
tom[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?

On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 18:19:01 -0400
Yousuf Khan wrote:

On 6/28/2020 2:05 PM, Paul wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/28/2020 8:34 AM, nospam wrote:
how wide is ultrawide?

3440 X 1440


HDMI 2 or 2.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI


HDMI 2.0 is adequate for displaying 4K at 30 Hz, but you will need
HDMI 2.1 for 4K at 60 Hz or higher.

Perhaps DP 1.2 ?

Tables here are less useful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

The problem is, the entry level video cards
now are pretty expensive. And even if you
could find an FX5200, it wouldn't have the
output :-)


Nvidia's website lists the maximum resolution of its cards easily.
AMD is less useful.

Yousuf Khan


just don't buy from china.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.