SOLVED: How to download an ISO image for Office 2007 Pro in the year 2018

In message , ultred ragnusen
writes:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:

I concur Paul, I'm running about a 10 inch airgap and it works like a charm.
Aint no way a ransomware dude can throw his signals that far. :-)

I agree with both of you that in air is safety.

But how?

Googling, it seems that an air-gap, in the simplest form, is just a
computer disconnected from the net, which is unrealistic, in my situation.

Yes, a whole computer; it's quite practical for most of us for just a
drive though.
[]
Although this exists ... but only for high value targets...
Disk drive trick allows hackers to transmit data covertly from an air-gap
computer
[]
Oh dear, another case of a term being hijacked - or in this case, a term
of rather indeterminate meaning in itself being ascribed a specific
meaning. Or perhaps a term being "invented" and then given a meaning.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The people here are more educated and intelligent. Even stupid people in
Britain are smarter than Americans." Madonna, in RT 30 June-6July 2001 (page
32)

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
Modern UPS come with tiny LCD displays or the like,
or they communicate via USB (have a more full interface),
and for those the "self-test status" may be more evident.
My UPS doesn't seem to have a processor. I looked
over the PCB and couldn't see anything high-tech
enough to pass for a processor. The PCB was covered
in jelly-bean logic. The feature set of the UPS is
quite impressive for such a crude set of chips.
Today, a small (and cheap) processor could replace
at least half the logic on that board. Some of the
processors hobbyists use, have multiple ADC channels,
so the chip can measure things. And those are ideal
for a UPS (detect a brownout, adjust the boost, etc).

Paul
Yes, it would be fairly simple to do that. But I suspect there are
plenty of UPSs still being made to old designs (including ones without
LCDs), because the production line is set up, and people are still
buying them, and the return on investment (the design of the new board,
including the acquisition of staff with the programming skills) is too
long.

(But I _may_ be wrong: I haven't actually looked into UPSs lately.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The people here are more educated and intelligent. Even stupid people in
Britain are smarter than Americans." Madonna, in RT 30 June-6July 2001 (page
32)

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
Metal USB connectors are good for 5000 insertions.

Metal ESATA connectors are good for 5000 insertions.

SATA plastic cables (the internal ones) are good for 50 insertions.
Although I have some with a couple hundred insertions at least,
and they're just getting a bit loose. The spec estimates a life of
50 cycles. The only purpose of these life estimates, is to
assign "classes" to the connector types, in the "good, better, best"
sense.

Thanks for these figures. (Do you know any similar figures for the
mating half of the SATA, i. e. the connectors to which the cables
connect, on the drives and motherboards? I'm thinking about my dock ...)

There are two (that I can think of!) aspects that contribute to the
limited life of a connector in terms of numbers of mating cycles:
physical alignment, and conductor plating. By alignment, I mean that
they can get worn, such that after a while things don't line up and make
proper contact; plating is how thick the gold is, which on connector
types I've worked with was either "flash", 0.5 micron, or 5 micron: the
gold is there to protect the surfaces from corrosion when _not_ mated,
rather than to improve connection when they _are_ (though it helps with
that as well). It rubs off with each insertion: "flash" is really
intended just for protection in transit and is for things that will be
left in place once fitted (say 2-3 insertions), 0.5 micron for about 50
insertions, and 5 for several hundred (for cards etc. that are
constantly being replaced/reconfigured).

Do you know if the 50 for SATA is due to mechanical or plating? (I would
imagine mechanical can be prolonged by being careful not to put
mechanical strain when connecting/disconnecting.)

I use Safely Remove on my USB items, and don't have problems.

Me neither, at least with HDs. I have had flash drives - memory sticks,
or whatever - die, but whether that's due to (dis)connection problems,
or just the nature of the beasts, I don't know - I suspect the latter.

There are some USB3 sticks with plastic barrels on them.
Do not buy those, as they don't control capture well enough.
I broke a pin off the plastic USB3 stick on the very first day.
That never happens with my collection of metal barrel USB3
sticks.

Paul
(See my comment elsewhere about the tiny type.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The people here are more educated and intelligent. Even stupid people in
Britain are smarter than Americans." Madonna, in RT 30 June-6July 2001 (page
32)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
[]
Metal USB connectors are good for 5000 insertions.

Metal ESATA connectors are good for 5000 insertions.

SATA plastic cables (the internal ones) are good for 50 insertions.
Although I have some with a couple hundred insertions at least,
and they're just getting a bit loose. The spec estimates a life of
50 cycles. The only purpose of these life estimates, is to
assign "classes" to the connector types, in the "good, better, best"
sense.

Thanks for these figures. (Do you know any similar figures for the
mating half of the SATA, i. e. the connectors to which the cables
connect, on the drives and motherboards? I'm thinking about my dock ...)

There are two (that I can think of!) aspects that contribute to the
limited life of a connector in terms of numbers of mating cycles:
physical alignment, and conductor plating. By alignment, I mean that
they can get worn, such that after a while things don't line up and make
proper contact; plating is how thick the gold is, which on connector
types I've worked with was either "flash", 0.5 micron, or 5 micron: the
gold is there to protect the surfaces from corrosion when _not_ mated,
rather than to improve connection when they _are_ (though it helps with
that as well). It rubs off with each insertion: "flash" is really
intended just for protection in transit and is for things that will be
left in place once fitted (say 2-3 insertions), 0.5 micron for about 50
insertions, and 5 for several hundred (for cards etc. that are
constantly being replaced/reconfigured).

Do you know if the 50 for SATA is due to mechanical or plating? (I would
imagine mechanical can be prolonged by being careful not to put
mechanical strain when connecting/disconnecting.)
snip

The body of the SATA originally used an interference
fit technique, to prevent the cable from falling off
the drive in a desktop. And that means it scrapes on
every insertion. And as you would expect of such a
technique, some connectors have way too much insertion
force as a result of overdoing it with that feature.
I have at least one SATA cable here, that I dare not use
it for fear of damaging the mate (I tried to fit it
and had to give up so I wouldn't ruin the drive).

My "field experience", beating the **** out of two SATA
cables here on the Test Machine, is after a couple hundred
cycles, the connector becomes "loose". The contact area
still looks intact. I've had one 15 contact SATA power
that no longer reliably makes connections. The direction
things are taking at that low cycle count, does not
inspire confidence. By the time that thing got to
5000 cycles, I doubt there would be much left :-)

In the case of the server version of SATA, the drive
is guided into position by the chassis. The connectors
still need capture for the final 1mm of travel, and
the beveled edges and L-shaped guide features
should be sufficient for that. The server connector
relied on the chassis latch for security, so it
doesn't matter if the connector is loose. There's no
need in that case, for the backplane side to try to
"grab" the drive connector. Not like the desktop
cable design has to. Using a vivid imagination,
it's easy to imagine a setup like that having
a higher cycle rating.

It seems the connectors with the metal bodies, get
a higher rating. Implying they provide guidance
and capture for a longer period of time. ESATA
(external, with metal body) is rated for 5000 cycles.

One exception to that, was the Firewire ones, where
the "can" around the 2x3 connector end, used to
split along the seam, the capture was ruined, the
wrong connector pins would touch, and due to the
choice of +12V to +25V for peripherals, the logic
would get blown out. That's how a number of $1000
camcorders got damaged (Firewire was used to offload
a video from the camcorder to the computer).

Other connectors don't have quite the same issue
with seam failures on the "can".

If you've played with Firewire (I have a couple
enclosures), the cables are gross and it's easy
to see how eventually they would come to a bad end.
They have no finesse. Just like the USB 1.1 generation
of USB connectors and metal components, fit way too
tightly, and you could see scraping patterns in
the cans/barrels (even after only a couple cycles).

Later generations of USB seem to have done a better
job on tolerance analysis and outside dimensions.
For example, it's a struggle to plug in a USB device,
into my P2B-S from the year 2000 or so. The USB key
has to push past a crudely made cutout in the I/O plate
for it. It fits so poorly, I feel no encouragement
whatsoever, to use USB on that setup.

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
The body of the SATA originally used an interference
fit technique, to prevent the cable from falling off
the drive in a desktop. And that means it scrapes on
every insertion. And as you would expect of such a
technique, some connectors have way too much insertion
force as a result of overdoing it with that feature.
I have at least one SATA cable here, that I dare not use
it for fear of damaging the mate (I tried to fit it
and had to give up so I wouldn't ruin the drive).

Yes, I remember thinking the early ones were very stiff - more than they
needed to be to retain the cable.

My "field experience", beating the **** out of two SATA
cables here on the Test Machine, is after a couple hundred
cycles, the connector becomes "loose". The contact area
still looks intact. I've had one 15 contact SATA power
that no longer reliably makes connections. The direction
things are taking at that low cycle count, does not
inspire confidence. By the time that thing got to
5000 cycles, I doubt there would be much left :-)

In the case of the server version of SATA, the drive
is guided into position by the chassis. The connectors
still need capture for the final 1mm of travel, and
the beveled edges and L-shaped guide features
should be sufficient for that. The server connector
relied on the chassis latch for security, so it
doesn't matter if the connector is loose. There's no
need in that case, for the backplane side to try to
"grab" the drive connector. Not like the desktop
cable design has to. Using a vivid imagination,
it's easy to imagine a setup like that having
a higher cycle rating.

Hmm. My "dock" has the connectors at the bottom - you plug the drive in
vertically, and gravity helps. It seems to locate reliably - the drive
against the walls of the dock, with the L shapes doing the final align -
though doesn't "click" into place, which has always made me feel uneasy,
though it hasn't given me any trouble.

It seems the connectors with the metal bodies, get
a higher rating. Implying they provide guidance
and capture for a longer period of time. ESATA
(external, with metal body) is rated for 5000 cycles.

One exception to that, was the Firewire ones, where
the "can" around the 2x3 connector end, used to
split along the seam, the capture was ruined, the
wrong connector pins would touch, and due to the
choice of +12V to +25V for peripherals, the logic
would get blown out. That's how a number of $1000
camcorders got damaged (Firewire was used to offload
a video from the camcorder to the computer).

Ouch!
[]
Later generations of USB seem to have done a better
job on tolerance analysis and outside dimensions.

Yes; given the cheapness of the items that plug into it (or some of
them), it works amazingly well.

For example, it's a struggle to plug in a USB device,
into my P2B-S from the year 2000 or so. The USB key
has to push past a crudely made cutout in the I/O plate
for it. It fits so poorly, I feel no encouragement
whatsoever, to use USB on that setup.

Paul

I don't _think_ I've got any 1.1 computers. I have a '9x laptop that
works at 1.1 _speed_, but I think that's because the only device I have
that it has drivers for (an old mp3 player with 128M that I use as a
memory stick to take files out of it) is 1.1, rather than the computer
being. (Though it could be: I think it predates '9x, as its keyboard
doesn't have Windows keys, though the four unassigned little round keys
have been assigned to the Windows keys. Its [single] USB connector seems
OK, anyway.) Oh, hang on, I think I have a 1.1 powered hub (four-pointed
thing, looks like a little spaceship - think I got it at a poundshop
years ago); I just use that to power things like Christmas lights, so it
doesn't matter. (Though the connectors on that seem OK too.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is the civilising influence in this country ... I think it is the most
important institution in this country. - John Humphrys, Radio Times
7-13/06/2003

Frank Slootweg wrote:

corrupted the frail USB drive.

An improper disconnect will not cause the amount of data loss you
mention. At most you will lose (part of) or two files.

I would /love/ for that statement to be true, but I have too much
experience with an entire disk corruption for me to believe in such
romantic ideas.

It's probably, of course, just a corruption of some file-system marker, but
that shows up as a corruption of the entire disk.

So "just after backing up large amounts of data", you must have done
much more than just a single impoper disconnect, otherwise you would not
have to use Recuva, but just a simplae chkdsk.

I wish. I really do. I enjoy your romantic sentiments.

They remind me of the fairy tales I read when I was a kid.

They're just not my experience in real life.

At that point, which wasn't my first rodeo with the inherent corruptability
of those frail USB drives, I swore them off forever.

As others have pointed out as well, your problems have nothing to do
with USB per se, but just with improper disconnects. Any other (than
USB) interface would give similar - if not worse - problems.

Yes. The issue I have with USB is that it's prone to corrupt the data when
you don't follow the exact ABC rules of proper disconnects.

Anyway, you *did* disable write-caching on "those frail USB drives",
didn't you!?

I don't even know what you're talking about, so, um, no, I did not.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 03:32:10 -0500, Paul wrote:

I use Safely Remove on my USB items, and don't have problems.

I just right-click the drive and select Eject.

I'm always working in Explorer anyway, so for me that's quicker and
easier than digging around for Safely Remove.

ultred ragnusen wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:

corrupted the frail USB drive.

An improper disconnect will not cause the amount of data loss you
mention. At most you will lose (part of) or two files.

I would /love/ for that statement to be true, but I have too much
experience with an entire disk corruption for me to believe in such
romantic ideas.

Don't be an idiot! Yours is not 'experience' but the results of bad
practice. 'romantic ideas' is even sillier. The vast majority of people
do not have your problems, because they *do* 'Safely Remove' or 'Eject'.

It's probably, of course, just a corruption of some file-system marker, but
that shows up as a corruption of the entire disk.

Can't happen, not even with a less solid filesystem such as FAT. You
aren't using FAT on your hard-disks, aren't you?

So "just after backing up large amounts of data", you must have done
much more than just a single impoper disconnect, otherwise you would not
have to use Recuva, but just a simplae chkdsk.

I wish. I really do. I enjoy your romantic sentiments.

They remind me of the fairy tales I read when I was a kid.

They're just not my experience in real life.

Your obnoxious patronizing just reinforces your ignorance/cluelessness/
stupidity. You are not impressing anybody, especially not those who have
way more experience/knowledge than you have.

At that point, which wasn't my first rodeo with the inherent corruptability
of those frail USB drives, I swore them off forever.

As others have pointed out as well, your problems have nothing to do
with USB per se, but just with improper disconnects. Any other (than
USB) interface would give similar - if not worse - problems.

Yes. The issue I have with USB is that it's prone to corrupt the data when
you don't follow the exact ABC rules of proper disconnects.

"the exact ABC rules of proper disconnects" is one or two clicks. Not
really rocket science.

Anyway, you *did* disable write-caching on "those frail USB drives",
didn't you!?

I don't even know what you're talking about, so, um, no, I did not.

So you're clearly out of your league and should tone down instead of
behaving as a obnoxious patronizing ****.

As to write-chaching: Google and Wikipedia are your friends/enemies.

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Don't be an idiot! Yours is not 'experience' but the results of bad
practice. 'romantic ideas' is even sillier. The vast majority of people
do not have your problems, because they *do* 'Safely Remove' or 'Eject'.

You can call me an idiot for having been burned by disconnecting a USB
drive and then losing all my data, but I call that an experience that you
will never forget if it happens to you.

It's probably, of course, just a corruption of some file-system marker, but
that shows up as a corruption of the entire disk.

Can't happen, not even with a less solid filesystem such as FAT. You
aren't using FAT on your hard-disks, aren't you?

I have no idea what the USB drive format was at the time this happened, as
it was a few years ago. It was whatever format Costco USB drives were in
those days of about 500GB being their maximum size, or maybe even in the
250GB days. I don't remember.

What format are those things normally in from the factory?
Whatever format that was, is the format it was in.

Your obnoxious patronizing just reinforces your ignorance/cluelessness/
stupidity. You are not impressing anybody, especially not those who have
way more experience/knowledge than you have.

I'm not trying to impress anyone. I'm trying to help people learn how to
download an ISO image for Office 2007 after Microsoft has ended support for
the product.

Yes. The issue I have with USB is that it's prone to corrupt the data when
you don't follow the exact ABC rules of proper disconnects.

"the exact ABC rules of proper disconnects" is one or two clicks. Not
really rocket science.

It's funny how everyone wants to minimize the number of clicks, where it's
not one or two, but two or three, as we've already determined.

It's not important that you tried to minimize the number of clicks just to
help prove your point - but it's interesting nonetheless as it's a tendency
of people to add "octane" to their gasoline (even though it would be
meaningless to do so).

I don't even know what you're talking about, so, um, no, I did not.

So you're clearly out of your league and should tone down instead of
behaving as a obnoxious patronizing ****.

I think you're projecting your own emotions on my motives, where my motives
are purer than you outline in that I'm not trying to impress anyone here,
as my stated goal in writing this thread was to HELP people find support
for a product whose support officially died last October 2017.

As to write-chaching: Google and Wikipedia are your friends/enemies.

As I said, I use the USB drives stock. If they have any settings on them,
as supplied by Costco, then those are the settings I use.

If those settings make them frail (which is what you're implying), then so
bit it. They be frail.

Char Jackson wrote:

I use Safely Remove on my USB items, and don't have problems.

I just right-click the drive and select Eject.

I'm always working in Explorer anyway, so for me that's quicker and
easier than digging around for Safely Remove.

I realize you couched your count in the fact that you /already/ were
halfway there, and, the actual number of steps is not all that important
because it's non zero ... but ... on one level it's amazing how everyone
trying to prove a point about how /easy/ it is to eject a drive sub
consciously skips a step or two - in order to make that point.

Think about that.

If everyone who says it's easy actually skips a step just to prove that
it's easy ... what happens in the real world?

You can't skip that same step in the real world.
That's why these USB drives are so frail.

Anyway, it's not my beef that the USB drives are frail and that others have
this romantic notion of living happily ever after even if you skip a few
steps.

ultred ragnusen wrote:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]
It's probably, of course, just a corruption of some file-system marker, but
that shows up as a corruption of the entire disk.

Can't happen, not even with a less solid filesystem such as FAT. You
aren't using FAT on your hard-disks, aren't you?

I have no idea what the USB drive format was at the time this happened, as
it was a few years ago. It was whatever format Costco USB drives were in
those days of about 500GB being their maximum size, or maybe even in the
250GB days. I don't remember.

What format are those things normally in from the factory?

Why don't you *check* instead of uttering nonsense about "frail USB
drives"?

Whatever format that was, is the format it was in.

More to the point: From what you describe above, we have to conclude
that all that whingeing about "those frail USB drives" is actually only
*one* occurence of any substantial data loss and even for that one
occurence, you're moving the goalposts as your limp along.

[...]

Yes. The issue I have with USB is that it's prone to corrupt the data when
you don't follow the exact ABC rules of proper disconnects.

"the exact ABC rules of proper disconnects" is one or two clicks. Not
really rocket science.

It's funny how everyone wants to minimize the number of clicks, where it's
not one or two, but two or three, as we've already determined.

It's one if you're already in File Explorer, two if not, three if
you're totally unprepared.

It's not important that you tried to minimize the number of clicks just to
help prove your point - but it's interesting nonetheless as it's a tendency
of people to add "octane" to their gasoline (even though it would be
meaningless to do so).

We're not trying to prove a point. We don't have to. We only try to
provide information to a person who is both too pompous and too clueless
to learn from that information.

[...]

As to write-caching: Google and Wikipedia are your friends/enemies.

As I said, I use the USB drives stock. If they have any settings on them,
as supplied by Costco, then those are the settings I use.

It's an OS i.e. Windows setting, not a device setting (Hint: Most USB
drives have no buttons, so any configuration must be done from/in the
OS.)

Given your attitude, I really can't be bothered to spoon feed you any
further.

[...]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:48:19 +0000 (UTC), ultred ragnusen
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

I use Safely Remove on my USB items, and don't have problems.

I just right-click the drive and select Eject.

I'm always working in Explorer anyway, so for me that's quicker and
easier than digging around for Safely Remove.

I realize you couched your count in the fact that you /already/ were
halfway there, and, the actual number of steps is not all that important
because it's non zero ... but ... on one level it's amazing how everyone
trying to prove a point about how /easy/ it is to eject a drive sub
consciously skips a step or two - in order to make that point.

You've tried to make this same point at least twice prior to this, in
prior posts, but it falls flat. Rather than argue over whether it's 2
clicks or 3 clicks, (seriously, have we become so freaking jaded and
lazy that a third click is a deal breaker?), why not weigh the value of
your data and the time it took to create it and back it up against the
time it takes to make some small number of mouse clicks. It's not like
you need to saddle up a horse and ride to town for each click.

Think about that.

Exactly.

If everyone who says it's easy actually skips a step just to prove that
it's easy ... what happens in the real world?

I didn't see anyone skipping any steps, but it's your game. You get to
count how you like.

You can't skip that same step in the real world.
That's why these USB drives are so frail.

No one has established that USB drives are frail. In fact, their wide
use and popularity establishes quite the opposite.

Anyway, it's not my beef that the USB drives are frail and that others have
this romantic notion of living happily ever after even if you skip a few
steps.

To summarize, you can't be bothered to make a few mouse clicks to help
preserve the integrity of your data, presumably because it takes too
long, so you've arrived at a 'solution' that takes several orders of
magnitude longer.

As you suggested above, it might be time to "think about that."

In message , ultred ragnusen
writes:
Frank Slootweg wrote:
[]
Can't happen, not even with a less solid filesystem such as FAT. You
aren't using FAT on your hard-disks, aren't you?

I have no idea what the USB drive format was at the time this happened, as
it was a few years ago. It was whatever format Costco USB drives were in
[]
As I said, I use the USB drives stock. If they have any settings on them,
as supplied by Costco, then those are the settings I use.

Unless you had to format them, they were formatted - you can argue
forever about whether what format used constitutes a "setting".

If those settings make them frail (which is what you're implying), then so
bit it. They be frail.

A _bit_ of a weak argument, unless you always leave everything set the
way it is supplied (lots of Microsoft settings most people change, such
as the "don't display known extensions" one).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The desire to remain private and/or anonymous used to be a core British value,
but in recent times it has been treated with suspicion - an unfortunate by-
product of the widespread desire for fame. - Chris Middleton,
Computing 6 September 2011

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Why don't you *check* instead of uttering nonsense about "frail USB
drives"?

That's like asking a young lady to check the bar for hoodlums before she
walks by with a short skirt so that she won't get raped.

Whatever format that was, is the format it was in.

More to the point: From what you describe above, we have to conclude
that all that whingeing about "those frail USB drives" is actually only
*one* occurence of any substantial data loss and even for that one
occurence, you're moving the goalposts as your limp along.

There were more than one, but you only need one bad rape to remember it
most.

It's one if you're already in File Explorer, two if not, three if
you're totally unprepared.

As I said, it's funny how those who wish to make a point that it's easy,
always subtract clicks. It's not a big deal. It's just interesting.

It's why at Harvard they had to put up hedges to prevent people from
cutting across the lawn way back in the 60s.

People skip steps.

We're not trying to prove a point. We don't have to. We only try to
provide information to a person who is both too pompous and too clueless
to learn from that information.

You keep pushing your emotions on me. You don't even know who I am, and you
never will (God willing).

All I care about is being responsive, asking a question, and getting an
answer, and then summarizing that answer for all to benefit since the
answer is almost always not known to anyone but very few people at the time
I asked the question.

For example, I asked long ago how to open an extension-free file simply by
doubleclicking on it in Windows 10 and nobody here knew, but I figured it
out and wrote it up, and others added to my research and results and we all
benefited from the tribal knowledge.

As an example from today, I asked how to archive Gmail and people had
suggestions but none worked as well as the method I came up with, where
everyone pitched in to make the solution work beautifully.

As an example where nobody knows more than I do, I asked a question about
Pinta last week and a question about cleaning up files and perhaps a score
of technical questions on other newsgroups, where, in general, I know more
than most people - but - and this is the big clincher - half or one quarter
of the time, I lean from everyone else such that my knowledge is increased.

And in almost all cases, I increase the tribal knowledge of the group,
overall. I've been asking such technical questions for decades, and you
know that I have been doing that.

You just seem to have a feather tickling your butt over the frailty of USB
drives, where I simply explained why I don't like them for archival
purposes.

It's OK that you don't think USB drives are as frail as they are, in use.
That's OK. You don't have to constantly apologize for that.
Just let it be. OK?

As I said, I use the USB drives stock. If they have any settings on them,
as supplied by Costco, then those are the settings I use.

It's an OS i.e. Windows setting, not a device setting (Hint: Most USB
drives have no buttons, so any configuration must be done from/in the
OS.)

Given your attitude, I really can't be bothered to spoon feed you any
further.

You have to admit, that sentence is kind of funny, considering it was
everyone else, except you, who helped solve the stated problem set.

In message , ultred ragnusen
writes:
[]
You can't skip that same step in the real world.

Oh, _a_ step is it (-:?

Seriously, to me it's _obvious_ that you have to do something - and
_wait_ for whatever is involved to complete - before physically
disconnecting a USB drive (whether flash or spinning). How many clicks
is involved is fairly immaterial: it should be obvious when it has
completed. (The "safe to remove" is usually a good indication!) [I don't
know if you get that using "eject".]

That's why these USB drives are so frail.

Anyway, it's not my beef that the USB drives are frail and that others have
this romantic notion of living happily ever after even if you skip a few
steps.

I haven't seen _anyone_ in this thread suggesting anyone _skips_ any
steps; lots of arguments about how _many_ steps, but nobody, I think,
has suggested skipping them. (Some saying you don't _get_ some of them -
such as the "reveal" if you've left your tray set to auto-hide - but
that's _not_ the same as saying skip any.)

[FWIW, I find USB flash drives convenient, but wouldn't use them for
anything other than transferring data - certainly not for backup. Not
that I personally have had data _corruption_ on them, though I'm sure it
does happen - but I _have_ had them die totally and without warning.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The desire to remain private and/or anonymous used to be a core British value,
but in recent times it has been treated with suspicion - an unfortunate by-
product of the widespread desire for fame. - Chris Middleton,
Computing 6 September 2011