how to upgrade hard disk without loosing installed software?

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

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


Sorry, but that's completely wrong.

On 9/27/2013 2:54 PM, Paladin wrote:
On 2013-09-27, 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!


Digital storage ... can last forever.
Digital medium ... does not last forever.
Digital data ... can last forever.

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.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 2013-09-27, James Silverton wrote:
On 9/27/2013 2:54 PM, Paladin wrote:
On 2013-09-27, Jax wrote:
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote in
:

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!


Digital storage ... can last forever.
Digital medium ... does not last forever.
Digital data ... can last forever.

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.
The storage and data can be made to last forever, not the medium it is
stored on.


--
Many people are desperately looking for some wise advice which will
recommend that they do what they want to do.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:53:51 +0000 (UTC), "FromTheRafters"
wrote in article
...

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?

Apparently not.

--
Zaphod

Voted "Worst Dressed Sentient Being in the Known Universe" for seven
years in a row.

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.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
X AGAINST HTML EMAIL
/ \ AND POSTINGS

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.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

In message , James Silverton
writes:
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.

You can't use digital data without using it. Whenever you read a file
from disc, say, or receive digital TV off-air, or send a file over the
internet, error correction happens.

In the very early days of digital communication and storage, there
wasn't always error correction as such - other than that there was some
thresholding of (e. g.) voltage levels which provided some sort of
immunity. But nowadays, error correction - the calculation of multiple
checksums from redundant extra data stored with your wanted data -
happens all the time: if it didn't, your operating system (and the
subsystems in your disc drives and so on) wouldn't be able to _tell_ you
that, for example, a file is unreadable, a copy or write failed, or
whatever.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All humanity is divided into three classes: those who are immovable, those who
are movable, and those who move! - Benjamin Franklin

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!

--
Jax

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

FromTheRafters wrote in
d.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.

Jax, is he an antipodean con man? Are you a closet Goonie?

But what has this got to do with the permanence
of digital data? Just asking!

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, and shill.

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

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!

Do you know what 'in this context' means?

On 2013-09-27, FromTheRafters wrote:
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!

Do you know what 'in this context' means?

Usenet.
Anything goes.


--
Many people are desperately looking for some wise advice which will
recommend that they do what they want to do.

Wolf K wrote:
On 2013-09-27 2:33 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Char Jackson
writes:
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 *greatly* depends on the paper, the ink, and the storage
conditions,
among other things. I'll put my money on digital storage.

There's also the matter of restoration: I don't think you are ever going
to be able to scan a print to retrieve the original image to the same
resolution (and probably colour space distortions too, and depth
distortions/losses [the ability to adjust the brightness/contrast to see
details in shadows, highlights, and areas of strong colour]).

The longevity of digital storage is a good subject for discussion, but
I'd never put a print - of an image, anyway - above it for the above
reasons.

Look for information on the physical durability of magnetic media and
optical disks. Horrifying. Solid state memory is even worse, because it
loses life every time you overwrite data in it.

When inkjet printing first became available to ordinary folk like you
and me, several independent labs ran tests. They discovered that inkjet
prints can be much more durable than photographs. There's a reason the
printer mfrs specify their own paper and inks for best results. Also, a
side effect of inkjet printing has been the production of pH neutral
papers. Most are made so by buffering, which will change the dyes over
time, sometimes in days (as I have discovered). But on archival papers,
which are truly neutral, inkjet images will outlast photo-prints. BTW,
the most durable photographic medium is Kodachrome. Too bad it's no
longer made.

Only if you want colour prints. Otherwise, a good quality black and
white print on good quality paper is provably capable of lasting over a
Century. Use silver bromide or chloride in real gelatine on a glass
base, developed and printed right and the negative can provably last
from the late 1850s to the present day. In the UK, Fox Talbot's first
negative (dating from 1835) still exists. For a positive image made from
it go to:-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...abbey_1835.jpg


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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.

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.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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

As long as the error correction can recover the bit stream that was
recorded, then it's a good thing. Without error correction, audio CDs
would be unplayable, recordable optical media would be completely
unusable, and even the hard drive in your computer would be *very*
untrustworthy. You *might* get away with using something like a 160Kb,
8" floppy disc, and an internet connection via a 1200 baud modem, but
that's pushing the limits.

Without error correction, not even the RAM in your PC is 100%
trustworthy, which is why places like banks specify ECC RAM in their
servers.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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 E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)