how to upgrade hard disk without loosing installed software?

[Crossposted to uk.tech.broadcast - followuppers maybe should remove the
w7 'group (-:!]

In message , John Williamson
writes:
James Silverton wrote:
The only way you can be fairly certain that your digital data will
still be *available* in years to come is to copy it (with checking)
to *new* physical media every few years.

You'll also need to ensure that you keep a computer with the right
program on to read the data in working order, too. I've got quite a few
word processor documents and spreadsheets that are not corrupt, but
can't be read easily, as the program that genersted them won't run
under Windows XP, never mind 7 or 8.

(I have somewhere a prog. that converts between the many different WP
formats of the early years [anyone remember Manuscript - named before
camel case, so _not_ ManuScript! - for example?]; sadly that prog.
itself probably isn't compatible with modern OSs.)

The audio guys are having trouble with losing digital recordings made
on videotapes in the early days of digital audio, as even if the tapes
are readable, the data can't be decoded without a tape deck in good
order and a computer with the right program on it. The master tapes
from some classic sessions are now lost for ever, although the mixes
survive on CD and other formats.

Yes, I remember an excellent series on the compact disc format from
"Wireless World": I think it ran for two or three years, possibly longer
(not in every issue). It covered every aspect of the process, at just
the right technical level for me: i. e. not dumbed down painfully, but
not going into higher mathematics or chemistry. (IIRR it covered
non-audio uses too.) IIRR it was the use of a pseudo-video format for
the data - i. e. the bits were parcelled into a valid video stream, so
that they could be recorded on inexpensive video recorders (even
domestic ones) for easy transport - that resulted in the unusual figure
of 44100 hertz for the audio sampling rate. (Something to do with making
a format that could be made into both an NTSC and a 625-line video
signal.)

I have the full series, but it would take me a week or more to find it
in my junk room )-:. I just tried (not very hard) to see if it might be
available from the magazine's website, but I fear it has turned into the
sort of magazine that relies on articles from crystal and connector
manufacturers (http://www.electronicsworld.co.uk/) - the sort of thing I
used to see (I work in electronics) as a freebie. A sad fate (if I've
got the right end of the stick) for a venerable organ, though I suppose
it's good that it has survived at all. (The Wikipedia article on it
gives a better account of its history, including of course mention of
the Clarke article predicting geostationary satellites.)

[It'd be nice to have the Compact Disc series in electronic form though
- anyone got it?]

As for the early audio recorded as video, I guess it could be stored on
modern video formats (_without_ lossy encoding of course!) as a
temporary measure to preserve the material - though perhaps anyone
considering doing that would be likely to have the software and hardware
to recover the audio digital information anyway.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Rugby is a game played by gentlemen with odd-shaped balls.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:51:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

(I have somewhere a prog. that converts between the many different WP
formats of the early years [anyone remember Manuscript - named before
camel case, so _not_ ManuScript! - for example?]; sadly that prog.
itself probably isn't compatible with modern OSs.)

Do you mean Lotus Manuscript? Used to run under Windows 3.n? My memory
is a bit fuzzy but I think I used to use it for writing technical
documents; did it not lean more towards DTP than plain WP?

Chris S

Seem to recall it was the British Library or similar which had issues with
betamax tapes with digital audio on, not only sourcing a machine,but the
tapes had been stored in a poorly temperature regulated area (a loft) and
were sticky.
I do sometimes despair at the problems of storage. I mean, I have CDs from
the early days which are as good as they were then, yet more recent examples
seem to be warping of all things. The write once ones I was using in 98
though seem to be fine, whether the modern ones will last as long who knows.
i do notice though that CD writing decks generally have poor life
expectancy.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
[Crossposted to uk.tech.broadcast - followuppers maybe should remove the
w7 'group (-:!]

In message , John Williamson
writes:
James Silverton wrote:
The only way you can be fairly certain that your digital data will still
be *available* in years to come is to copy it (with checking) to *new*
physical media every few years.

You'll also need to ensure that you keep a computer with the right program
on to read the data in working order, too. I've got quite a few word
processor documents and spreadsheets that are not corrupt, but can't be
read easily, as the program that genersted them won't run under Windows
XP, never mind 7 or 8.

(I have somewhere a prog. that converts between the many different WP
formats of the early years [anyone remember Manuscript - named before
camel case, so _not_ ManuScript! - for example?]; sadly that prog. itself
probably isn't compatible with modern OSs.)

The audio guys are having trouble with losing digital recordings made on
videotapes in the early days of digital audio, as even if the tapes are
readable, the data can't be decoded without a tape deck in good order and
a computer with the right program on it. The master tapes from some
classic sessions are now lost for ever, although the mixes survive on CD
and other formats.

Yes, I remember an excellent series on the compact disc format from
"Wireless World": I think it ran for two or three years, possibly longer
(not in every issue). It covered every aspect of the process, at just the
right technical level for me: i. e. not dumbed down painfully, but not
going into higher mathematics or chemistry. (IIRR it covered non-audio
uses too.) IIRR it was the use of a pseudo-video format for the data - i.
e. the bits were parcelled into a valid video stream, so that they could
be recorded on inexpensive video recorders (even domestic ones) for easy
transport - that resulted in the unusual figure of 44100 hertz for the
audio sampling rate. (Something to do with making a format that could be
made into both an NTSC and a 625-line video signal.)

I have the full series, but it would take me a week or more to find it in
my junk room )-:. I just tried (not very hard) to see if it might be
available from the magazine's website, but I fear it has turned into the
sort of magazine that relies on articles from crystal and connector
manufacturers (http://www.electronicsworld.co.uk/) - the sort of thing I
used to see (I work in electronics) as a freebie. A sad fate (if I've got
the right end of the stick) for a venerable organ, though I suppose it's
good that it has survived at all. (The Wikipedia article on it gives a
better account of its history, including of course mention of the Clarke
article predicting geostationary satellites.)

[It'd be nice to have the Compact Disc series in electronic form though -
anyone got it?]

As for the early audio recorded as video, I guess it could be stored on
modern video formats (_without_ lossy encoding of course!) as a temporary
measure to preserve the material - though perhaps anyone considering doing
that would be likely to have the software and hardware to recover the
audio digital information anyway.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Rugby is a game played by gentlemen with odd-shaped balls.

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:34:37 +0100, Jax wrote:

FromTheRafters wrote in
.org:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:28:31 +0100
Jax wrote:

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:20:58 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"
wrote in article
...

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:14:34 +0200, Poutnik
wrote:

Prints, especially if protected against light and air, are more
durable than digital storage.

That's simply not true. Digital storage offers the possibility of
lasting indefinitely without loss,

I'd be interested in hearing which digital medium you are referring
to that lasts indefinitely without degradation of the media or data
stored thereon.

Zaphod.... digital data last for ever. You can't destroy the notion
of a 1 or 0. Think about it!

Do you know what a medium is in this context?

Rafters a medium is someone who can communicate with dead spirits. I
visit one a couple of time a year. But what has this got to do with the
permanence of digital data? Just asking!

Perhaps he's thinking of a medium who can communicate with a dead
medium.

Gene there's no evidence that Rafters has given it sufficient thought.

--
Jax

Brian Gaff wrote:
Seem to recall it was the British Library or similar which had issues with
betamax tapes with digital audio on, not only sourcing a machine,but the
tapes had been stored in a poorly temperature regulated area (a loft) and
were sticky.
I do sometimes despair at the problems of storage. I mean, I have CDs from
the early days which are as good as they were then, yet more recent examples
seem to be warping of all things. The write once ones I was using in 98
though seem to be fine, whether the modern ones will last as long who knows.
i do notice though that CD writing decks generally have poor life
expectancy.
Brian


I think things like polycarbonate are the weak link.

There was a recent discussion in rec.video.desktop about
"stone" discs, but they still use polycarbonate for the
body of the optical disc. And polycarbonate, being an
organic, is bound to be the part that breaks down,
rather than the information holding layer.

http://www.mdisc.com/millenniata-cel...-optical-disc/

So if the information holding layer is "foolproof", then all
that is needed is safe storage for polycarbonate. It would be
nice to understand what caused the warping, since that could
be an important issue for storage. If they all eventually
warp, that would be a disaster.

Paul

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:05:43 +0100
Jax wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:34:37 +0100, Jax wrote:

FromTheRafters wrote in
.org:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:28:31 +0100
Jax wrote:

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:20:58 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"
wrote in article
...

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:14:34 +0200, Poutnik
wrote:

Prints, especially if protected against light and air, are more
durable than digital storage.

That's simply not true. Digital storage offers the possibility of
lasting indefinitely without loss,

I'd be interested in hearing which digital medium you are referring
to that lasts indefinitely without degradation of the media or data
stored thereon.

Zaphod.... digital data last for ever. You can't destroy the notion
of a 1 or 0. Think about it!

Do you know what a medium is in this context?

Rafters a medium is someone who can communicate with dead spirits. I
visit one a couple of time a year. But what has this got to do with the
permanence of digital data? Just asking!

Perhaps he's thinking of a medium who can communicate with a dead
medium.

Gene there's no evidence that Rafters has given it sufficient thought.

There was never any claim that the data itself would fade away.

FromTheRafters posted Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:26:57 +0000 (UTC)


On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:05:43 +0100


Rafters a medium is someone who can communicate with dead spirits. I
visit one a couple of time a year. But what has this got to do with the
permanence of digital data? Just asking!

Perhaps he's thinking of a medium who can communicate with a dead
medium.

Gene there's no evidence that Rafters has given it sufficient thought.

There was never any claim that the data itself would fade away.

Data stand and fall with their physical representation.
And that representation falls.

--
Poutnik

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:31:26 +0200
Poutnik wrote:


FromTheRafters posted Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:26:57 +0000 (UTC)


On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:05:43 +0100


Rafters a medium is someone who can communicate with dead spirits. I
visit one a couple of time a year. But what has this got to do with the
permanence of digital data? Just asking!

Perhaps he's thinking of a medium who can communicate with a dead
medium.

Gene there's no evidence that Rafters has given it sufficient thought.

There was never any claim that the data itself would fade away.

Data stand and fall with their physical representation.
And that representation falls.

Exactly. The conversation was about data storage on 'storage media' not
the ones and zeroes of data themselves being degradated. That's why I
asked Jax about context.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:05:43 +0100, Jax wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:34:37 +0100, Jax wrote:

FromTheRafters wrote in
.org:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:28:31 +0100
Jax wrote:

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:20:58 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"
wrote in article
...

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:14:34 +0200, Poutnik
wrote:

Prints, especially if protected against light and air, are more
durable than digital storage.

That's simply not true. Digital storage offers the possibility of
lasting indefinitely without loss,

I'd be interested in hearing which digital medium you are referring
to that lasts indefinitely without degradation of the media or data
stored thereon.

Zaphod.... digital data last for ever. You can't destroy the notion
of a 1 or 0. Think about it!

Do you know what a medium is in this context?

Rafters a medium is someone who can communicate with dead spirits. I
visit one a couple of time a year. But what has this got to do with the
permanence of digital data? Just asking!

Perhaps he's thinking of a medium who can communicate with a dead
medium.

Gene there's no evidence that Rafters has given it sufficient thought.

Shall I explain my pun?

I'd prefer not to.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Hmm, well I am not sure about the warping but I suspect its some kind of
built in issue, as they have not been stored differently to the ones that
did not warp. There are not that many, but enough to be worrying. I hve
binned them and got new remasterd versions in any case.
Those early Phillips ones that were completely silver with no ridges seem to
be very stable except that I had one that will only play in old players.
seems to be due to burrs around the hole.


I guess the formulation of the polycarbonate matters and nobody really
knows exactly what will happen to certain batches over time.

I'd imagine DVDs would be even worse then? I don't have many. A friend
collects Laserdiscs the and there it seems its air getting in and making the
silver layer oxidise which is the issue.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Paul" wrote in message
...
Brian Gaff wrote:
Seem to recall it was the British Library or similar which had issues
with betamax tapes with digital audio on, not only sourcing a machine,but
the tapes had been stored in a poorly temperature regulated area (a loft)
and were sticky.
I do sometimes despair at the problems of storage. I mean, I have CDs
from the early days which are as good as they were then, yet more recent
examples seem to be warping of all things. The write once ones I was
using in 98 though seem to be fine, whether the modern ones will last as
long who knows. i do notice though that CD writing decks generally have
poor life expectancy.
Brian


I think things like polycarbonate are the weak link.

There was a recent discussion in rec.video.desktop about
"stone" discs, but they still use polycarbonate for the
body of the optical disc. And polycarbonate, being an
organic, is bound to be the part that breaks down,
rather than the information holding layer.

http://www.mdisc.com/millenniata-cel...-optical-disc/

So if the information holding layer is "foolproof", then all
that is needed is safe storage for polycarbonate. It would be
nice to understand what caused the warping, since that could
be an important issue for storage. If they all eventually
warp, that would be a disaster.

Paul

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:55:47 -0700
"Gene E. Bloch" wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:05:43 +0100, Jax wrote:

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:34:37 +0100, Jax wrote:

FromTheRafters wrote in
.org:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:28:31 +0100
Jax wrote:

Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:20:58 +0100, "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"
wrote in article
...

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:14:34 +0200, Poutnik
wrote:

Prints, especially if protected against light and air, are more
durable than digital storage.

That's simply not true. Digital storage offers the possibility of
lasting indefinitely without loss,

I'd be interested in hearing which digital medium you are referring
to that lasts indefinitely without degradation of the media or data
stored thereon.

Zaphod.... digital data last for ever. You can't destroy the notion
of a 1 or 0. Think about it!

Do you know what a medium is in this context?

Rafters a medium is someone who can communicate with dead spirits. I
visit one a couple of time a year. But what has this got to do with the
permanence of digital data? Just asking!

Perhaps he's thinking of a medium who can communicate with a dead
medium.

Gene there's no evidence that Rafters has given it sufficient thought.

Shall I explain my pun?

I'd prefer not to.

There's no need, unless you want Jax to understand. Are mediums rare
around your neck of the woods?

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:23:39 +0100
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

If you have ever watched the laser on cd players you begin to wonder at the
ability of it to track some discs. some are clearly out of true both warp
wise and hole centre wise.
Some players cope better than others do with these. Strangely a very old
CD100 manages better than an expensive recent marantz, eiwhich cannot find
the start of some tracks and displays error when you try to skip around,
where as the old machine keeps trying and eventually gets it.

Could be a matter of adjustment.

Brian Gaff wrote:

Maybe the future is solid state of some kind?

It is, but the price will have to come down a *lot* by comparison with
optical and magnetic storage first.

Then we'll have a whole new generation of new, unexpected, problems with
digital storage.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:52:54 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 21:25:09 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:


I agree that important data should be backed up, but I don't necessarily
share the recommendation to use an external drive. They can be pretty
inconvenient.


Inconvenient? Perhaps.

But far safer than an internal one. I don't recommend backup to a
second non-removable hard drive because it leaves you susceptible to
simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most
common dangers: severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus
attacks, even theft of the computer.

I could be wrong, but I think you're describing a scenario where the person
is backing up to a second internal drive *on the same system*. I agree, that
doesn't offer a whole lot of protection and isn't something I generally
advocate. Personally, I make backups to internal drives on other (networked)
systems, both within my home and sometimes located in someone else's home.
No external drives for me, thank you very much.

--

Char Jackson

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:01:20 -0400, James Silverton
wrote:

On 9/27/2013 4:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , James Silverton
writes:
[]
The only way you can be fairly certain that your digital data will
still be *available* in years to come is to copy it (with checking) to
*new* physical media every few years.

Agreed. But most digital storage systems include error-correction, so as
long as you do the periodic copying before it degrades to the point
beyond which the error-correcting can compensate for, the copies will be
_better_ than the originals. (Probably worth making two or more though.)

There is no way a paper print backup - or an analogue recording of any
sort - can match this property: analogue (sound or image) storage can
never make a copy that has fewer errors than the original, since
error-correction is not (AFAIK!) possible with analogue signals.

Note I'm not talking about any lossy compression, of course - only
direct copying of digital data.

I still worry about "error correction" and I feel it might be better to
avoid it.

That's a very strange thing to say. Without error correction, and of course
the error detection that goes with it, digital file formats and storage
wouldn't be nearly as useful as they are. As others have pointed out, error
detection and correction are already in wide use, and to good effect.

--

Char Jackson