Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Borg Vomit
  • Start date Start date
B

Borg Vomit

Guest
I want to use more ram (8 gig) so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I
do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-
install the OS.

Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?

Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a
couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is
XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?

Will Visual Studio work the same?

What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find
anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I
switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.

Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server
utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out
of my price range.

I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).


Borg Vomit
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

Have you checked the websites for the products you are using to see if they
are supported on XP Pro x64? You certainly do need to check for device
drivers. However, in general you will find wider driver support for Vista
x64 than for XP Pro x64. As for the mobo mfgs you need to check those
websites also. There are a number of anti-virus programs that run fine on
x64. Do your homework before you jump into XP Pro x64.

"Borg Vomit" <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:559d7676-1111-49c5-b596-3e76a27fb8a5@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>I want to use more ram (8 gig) so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I
> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-
> install the OS.
>
> Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?
>
> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a
> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is
> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?
>
> Will Visual Studio work the same?
>
> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find
> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I
> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.
>
> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server
> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out
> of my price range.
>
> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).
>
>
> Borg Vomit
>
>
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

You already posted this in the 64bit.general ng. Stick to one ng. You need
to do your homework before deciding. It is a bit much to ask volunteers in
the newsgroups to do it for you.

"Borg Vomit" <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:559d7676-1111-49c5-b596-3e76a27fb8a5@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>I want to use more ram (8 gig) so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I
> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-
> install the OS.
>
> Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?
>
> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a
> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is
> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?
>
> Will Visual Studio work the same?
>
> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find
> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I
> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.
>
> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server
> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out
> of my price range.
>
> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).
>
>
> Borg Vomit
>
>
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

On Apr 7, 2:01 pm, Borg Vomit <not_phrynic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?

"the same applications" - I do not know every single application you
run. XP64 is highly compatible with 32-bit Windows apps, and does so
with no speed penalty. The only problem apps will be things that
directly access the OS itself (ie. your anti-virus software) and
things that install drivers. Also, shell extensions would need to be
64-bit. Ask your anti-virus software maker about a 64-bit version.

XP64, like Vista64, cannot run 16-bit apps. No DOS or crazy Win3.1
apps allowed!

> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a
> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is
> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?

XP64 is based on the Server 2003 codebase. As such, "servery" stuff,
like RAID, has a high chance of support, and quality support. Check
with your manufacturer! Note that XP64 is a little older than AHCI,
and will require drivers to boot to AHCI SATA drives, which need to
either be slipstreamed or installed from floppy. Hey it's still XP.
Driver support otherwise is fairly strong, though may require some
hunting. I have run XP64 on laptops, and haven't had too much trouble
getting drivers for most devices. The only one I am missing now is a
webcam driver on my Sager, tho it's not a big loss.

> Will Visual Studio work the same?

I'm not aware of any problems with this.

> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find
> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I
> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.

Server 2000 would need to use PAE to access 4GB+ RAM, and PAE is kinda
ewww.. So 64-bit is a better choice, and a more modern one. Give
up? I have all the functionality I had with XP32 (and Vista64) but I
also have access to 64-bit apps and more RAM. I play games, browse
the web, download stuff, watch movies, etc., without any "giving up"
involved. I don't know what YOU do, so I can't say for sure if you
need to adapt in some special way.

> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server
> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out
> of my price range.

If you *need* a server, buy a server OS. XP64 is still a workstation
OS. It's based on server code, but is a workstation. It has
connection limitations and tweaking consistent with a workstation.

I run XP64 on a few machines and it runs smooth and fast.
 
Re: happiness is relative

Re: happiness is relative

based on your questions
maybe you should see if
you can master checkers
first.


--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"Borg Vomit" <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:559d7676-1111-49c5-b596-3e76a27fb8a5@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>I want to use more ram (8 gig) so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I
> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-
> install the OS.
>
> Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?
>
> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a
> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is
> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?
>
> Will Visual Studio work the same?
>
> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find
> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I
> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.
>
> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server
> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out
> of my price range.
>
> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).
>
>
> Borg Vomit
>
>
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit
<not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I want to use more ram (8 gig)


First, be sure there's a benefit for you to do so. Although you often
hear the mantra repeated that more RAM is always better. It's only
true up to a point, and for the great majority of people, 8GB is well
past that point. More RAM is better only if keeps you from using the
page file.


> so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I
> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-
> install the OS.


Right.


> Can I use the same applications,


In the great majority of cases yes, but you should check each one with
its vendor to be sure. Be aware that unless the applications is a
64-bit application (and the ones you already have obviously are not),
or it can make effective use of so much memory (very few can), there
will be *no* performance difference


> the same anti-virus?


There it is more likely *not* to be usable. Check with the vendor.


> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista?


It has nothing to do with Vista. You need device drivers for your
hardware, and those drivers may or may not be available. Again, check
with the vendor to be sure. Especially if you have a laptop or an
older printer or scanner, there is a potential for issues.


> I noticed a
> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box.



Need? Why? Which version of RAID? Except for large companies, very few
individuals need any form of RAID, and in fact it isn't even a good
idea for the great majority of them.



> Is
> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?


As far as I know, if it takes a 64-bit CPU, yes, but again, the place
to check is with the vendor.



> Will Visual Studio work the same?


Sorry, I can't help there. I have no idea.


> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find
> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I
> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.
>
> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server
> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out
> of my price range.
>
> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).
>
>
> Borg Vomit
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

I would take a chance and guess that you will 'very much' like it. I am not
aware of any issues about the software you name - drivers will have to be
investigated. BIOS RAID is well supported - but then, you are bound to find
something that isn't. For anti-virus, I use Avast. The Home version is free
and very, very good - the Pro version has extended capabilities and did cost
40 bucks (not ducks) the last time I checked.

You know what you have - go visit the sites that will be involved and check
them out. I am still running Win2K on one machine out of sentimentality, XP
x64 is easily the nicest and the best running OS I have ever come across -
and I very much like Linux's too!


Tony. . .



"Borg Vomit" <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:559d7676-1111-49c5-b596-3e76a27fb8a5@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I want to use more ram (8 gig) so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I
> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-
> install the OS.
>
> Can I use the same applications, the same anti-virus?
>
> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista? I noticed a
> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box. Is
> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?
>
> Will Visual Studio work the same?
>
> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find
> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I
> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.
>
> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server
> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out
> of my price range.
>
> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).
>
>
> Borg Vomit
>
>
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

I haven't paid much attention to paging in XP64, so this may be slightly
off-topic, but... I've noticed in Vista HP that the page file gets used no
matter how much ram is free. You can have 2gb of free main and still see
relatively high usage of the page file. Clearly Window 6.x's memory
management practices are not quite as--shall we say "intuitive"?--as, say,
the Linuces.

\s

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:bn5lv3dhq846k5t1kcgqm54dsdbcgetspi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:01:51 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit
> <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I want to use more ram (8 gig)
>
>
> First, be sure there's a benefit for you to do so. Although you often
> hear the mantra repeated that more RAM is always better. It's only
> true up to a point, and for the great majority of people, 8GB is well
> past that point. More RAM is better only if keeps you from using the
> page file.
>
>
>> so I plan to switch to XP 64 bit, if I
>> do, what will I break? I know I can't "upgrade" and that I have to re-
>> install the OS.
>
>
> Right.
>
>
>> Can I use the same applications,
>
>
> In the great majority of cases yes, but you should check each one with
> its vendor to be sure. Be aware that unless the applications is a
> 64-bit application (and the ones you already have obviously are not),
> or it can make effective use of so much memory (very few can), there
> will be *no* performance difference
>
>
>> the same anti-virus?
>
>
> There it is more likely *not* to be usable. Check with the vendor.
>
>
>> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista?
>
>
> It has nothing to do with Vista. You need device drivers for your
> hardware, and those drivers may or may not be available. Again, check
> with the vendor to be sure. Especially if you have a laptop or an
> older printer or scanner, there is a potential for issues.
>
>
>> I noticed a
>> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box.
>
>
>
> Need? Why? Which version of RAID? Except for large companies, very few
> individuals need any form of RAID, and in fact it isn't even a good
> idea for the great majority of them.
>
>
>
>> Is
>> XP64 still supported by most Mobo mfrs?
>
>
> As far as I know, if it takes a 64-bit CPU, yes, but again, the place
> to check is with the vendor.
>
>
>
>> Will Visual Studio work the same?
>
>
> Sorry, I can't help there. I have no idea.
>
>
>> What will I give up? I loved Windows 2000 server but I couldn't find
>> anti-virus and other server level software at a reasonable cost. So I
>> switched to XP, but XP can't handle the big ram mobo's.
>>
>> Windows 2008 sounds great for Virtual PC's but I think the server
>> utility app pricing (firewalls and anti-virus etc) will still be out
>> of my price range.
>>
>> I need to learn VSTO programming so Linux is not an option (is it?).
>>
>>
>> Borg Vomit
>>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

> XP64, like Vista64, cannot run 16-bit apps. No DOS or crazy Win3.1
> apps allowed!

16 bit apps can be easily ran in either a virtual machine, or if it's a DOS
app by using DosBox or a similar product. I was about to trash XP64 and go
back to XP32 when I discovered how easy it is to use a virtual machine for
16 bit stuff.
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

Tks SubZero. Very helpful. I think I'm ready to reload Windows 3.11;
all I need do is get a 5.25" drive from Ebay (hey, I've got lots of
old games I can play).

As far as pain, how would you compare your experience (or hearsay)
with Vista 64 to XP64?

I really want to believe in Vista. None of my PNY card readers work
with Vista (I'm done with PNY products anyway). But more importantly
it doesn't work with our expensive RAID cards, or our expensive
scanners (no Twain on Vista?) or our other expensive peripherals which
aren't that old and not at all obsolete with regard to their
performance. Vista doesn't transfer files quickly, it doesn't
display thumbnails, and the search is too weird to even use (on at
least one of the 3 machines)... I've never seen a retail OS test that
poorly.

So what is your opinion of Vista? If you had a big budget and your
goal was to build game box (just for the sake of argument) or a turn
key media center for your dad (something that you wouldn't have to fix
all the time), what OS would you invest in, here in 2008?

> If you *need* a server, buy a server OS. XP64 is still a workstation
> OS. It's based on server code, but is a workstation. It has
> connection limitations and tweaking consistent with a workstation.

That's just it, we don't need a server for connection limitations, but
we do need the fault tolerance, (RAID), backup and many other features
that (MS) servers offer. Some of the MS products I need to work with,
work 'better' on a server. I will end up having a server box running
enterprise scale apps, there's no doubt. It sounds like I may have to
run 2008 server with no antivirus, but have XP VPC's that have their
own anti-virus. The problem there is the free MS VPC's don't access
USB devices.

I just need to speed up the over all process of getting things done,
and keeping the footprint and the cost as small as possible, although
today, cost is not as much of a problem as finding a 24/7 uptime
configuration (IMHO).


Borg Vomit
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

On Apr 7, 5:57 pm, "Zootal" <msn...@zootal.nospam.com> wrote:
> > XP64, like Vista64, cannot run 16-bit apps.  No DOS or crazy Win3.1
> > apps allowed!
>
> 16 bit apps can be easily ran in either a virtual machine, or if it's a DOS
> app by using DosBox or a similar product. I was about to trash XP64 and go
> back to XP32 when I discovered how easy it is to use a virtual machine for
> 16 bit stuff.


BINGO!

Yeah, VPC's are most definitely going to play a big role in making
this work. I just wish they had USB support.

Borg Vomit
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

On Apr 7, 5:54 pm, "Scrat" <sc...@acorn.biz> wrote:
> I haven't paid much attention to paging in XP64, so this may be slightly
> off-topic, but... I've noticed in Vista HP that the page file gets used no
> matter how much ram is free. You can have 2gb of free main and still see
> relatively high usage of the page file. Clearly Window 6.x's memory
> management practices are not quite as--shall we say "intuitive"?--as, say,
> the Linuces.

I'm not sure where I heard it or which OS it referred to, but it was
something about not having a page file to force the system to use
ram. I gave up trying to understand and optimize my page file the
same time I gave up on hard drive block sizes. But I love the idea of
a ram drive--still a viable option for ephemeral 'scratch' disks and
page files.

Borg Vomit
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

Hi Ken,

> Am I going to have device driver issues like with Vista?

It has nothing to do with Vista. You need device drivers for your
hardware, and those drivers may or may not be available. Again, check
with the vendor to be sure. Especially if you have a laptop or an
older printer or scanner, there is a potential for issues.

The reason I mentioned Vista is that we built 3 PC's (and purchased an
HP with Vista installed). Except for the HP, none of the PC's
functioned correctly with Vista, all had some issues with the drivers.
Asus had (has?) boards that are sold as Vista Mobo's but they still
have issues with Vista. I really wanted to be a fan of Vista (still
do) but we couldn't get them to work right. The HP worked much better
than the custom PC's but there were still some hardware issues, most
of them with USB if I recall.

> I noticed a
> couple of posts about RAID issues; I *will* need RAID on this box.

Need? Why? Which version of RAID? Except for large companies, very
few
individuals need any form of RAID, and in fact it isn't even a good
idea for the great majority of them.

We need RAID because none of our hard drives seem to last more than 2
years and it's very disruptive to what we do to have to replace a hard
drive. We also need to speed things up. The 10k drives cost too
much. We use RAID O for the OS and RAID 5 for the data. Backing
things up doesn't seem to be a skill we've master either.

Next we will move to a NAS for the files and I don't know what for the
SQL database--but that's a whole new headache.


Borg Vomit
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:42:35 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit
<not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:


> We need RAID because none of our hard drives seem to last more than 2
> years


That's an incredible number. I have never had a hard drive last such a
short time.

I think you should find out why that's the case and address the issue,
not try to patch it with RAID.


> and it's very disruptive to what we do to have to replace a hard
> drive. We also need to speed things up. The 10k drives cost too
> much. We use RAID O for the OS and RAID 5 for the data.

If "it's very disruptive to what [you] do to have to replace a hard
drive," and, as you say below "Backing things up doesn't seem to be a
skill we've master either," RAID 0 is the last thing you should be
considering. It greatly increases the risk to whatever is on the
drive.


> and RAID 5 for the data. Backing
> things up doesn't seem to be a skill we've master either.


In that case, my view is that you badly need to acquire that skill.

Also note that in most people's experience, including mine, the
speedup provided by RAID 0 is so small as to be unnoticeable.

>
> Next we will move to a NAS for the files and I don't know what for the
> SQL database--but that's a whole new headache.
>
>
> Borg Vomit

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit
<not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure where I heard it or which OS it referred to, but it was
> something about not having a page file to force the system to use
> ram.


Not having a page file does *not* force the system to use RAM. In fact
it's a very bad idea, since it forces the system to waste RAM.

You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory
you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you
have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in
anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that
pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases
if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and
never actually gets used.

But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in
real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that
pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not
available for any other use.

There is never a benefit in not having a page file. If it isn't
needed, it won't be used. Don't confuse allocated memory with used
memory.

Read here for more information: http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm



> I gave up trying to understand and optimize my page file the
> same time I gave up on hard drive block sizes. But I love the idea of
> a ram drive--still a viable option for ephemeral 'scratch' disks and
> page files.


It makes no sense to use a RAM drive for the page file.

It would hurt performance. It's like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.
You'd be taking memory away from Windows use, then giving it back in
the form of a page file in a RAM drive. Since you would create extra
need for paging in exactly the same amount as the size of the RAM
drive page file, you would accomplish nothing except the extra
overhead associated with the RAM drive.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

Hi Tony,

> For anti-virus, I use Avast. The Home version is free
> and very, very good - the Pro version has extended capabilities and did cost
> 40 bucks (not ducks) the last time I checked.

You use Avast for 64bit? What do you use for a (64bit) firewall?

I've got one last PC that still has Vista on it, I was saving it to
test the first Vista service pack, but I think I've heard enough good
things to go ahead with an XP64 test! It doesn't sound as if it'll be
as bogus as trying to get Vista 64 to work.

Tks guys


Borg Vomit
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

On Apr 7, 6:42 pm, Borg Vomit <not_phrynic...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> Hi Ken,


Hmmm, I'm not sure what happened to the >> in my reply to Ken....
odd.

Borg Vomit
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

> > We need RAID because none of our hard drives seem to last more than 2
> > years

My guess is, we're getting reconditioned drives being sold as new.
Most if not all of them are Western Digital drives. We're having
much better luck with Maxtor.

> I think you should find out why that's the case and address the issue,
> not try to patch it with RAID.

I just don't have the time to sit on the phone with a HD tech unless
I'm trying to recover important data. And I this is the first time
I've heard an argument against raid. I guess I've given up on trying
to make the manufacturers backup their claims--the quality's just not
there anymore.

> Ø RAID 0 is the last thing you should be
> considering. It greatly increases the risk to whatever is on the
> drive.

Oh, sorry Ken, I meant RAID 1 (whichever one is the mirror)--yeah, I
remember using NT 4 to "blend" 2 drives together... that was a very big
mistake.

"Backing things up doesn't seem to be a skill we've master either,"

> In that case, my view is that you badly need to acquire that skill.

Backing up large amounts of our data would be very complex, well, I
should say restoring it is very complex. The best we can do is to
mirror it.

I don't mean to turn this into a hardware thread, but if you look at
posts about external hard-drives you will find a fair amount of
complaints about their reliability. As far as odds are concerned, I
don't know what the failure rates are, but I have a feeling that
having 2 or 3 out of 5 RAID members fail is much less likely than
having an external backup drive fail.

Borg Vomit
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

> Read here for more information:http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

> > I gave up trying to understand and optimize my page file the
> > same time I gave up on hard drive block sizes.  But I love the idea of
> > a ram drive--still a viable option for ephemeral 'scratch' disks and
> > page files.
>
> It makes no sense to use a RAM drive for the page file.

What about for things like the Photoshop scratch file?

Borg Vomit
 
Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:26:42 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit
<not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > We need RAID because none of our hard drives seem to last more than 2
> > > years
>
> My guess is, we're getting reconditioned drives being sold as new.
> Most if not all of them are Western Digital drives. We're having
> much better luck with Maxtor.
>
> > I think you should find out why that's the case and address the issue,
> > not try to patch it with RAID.
>
> I just don't have the time to sit on the phone with a HD tech unless
> I'm trying to recover important data.



Then don't buy reconditioned drives.


> And I this is the first time
> I've heard an argument against raid. I guess I've given up on trying
> to make the manufacturers backup their claims--the quality's just not
> there anymore.
>
> > Ø RAID 0 is the last thing you should be
> > considering. It greatly increases the risk to whatever is on the
> > drive.
>
> Oh, sorry Ken, I meant RAID 1 (whichever one is the mirror)--yeah, I
> remember using NT 4 to "blend" 2 drives together... that was a very big
> mistake.
>
> "Backing things up doesn't seem to be a skill we've master either,"
>
> > In that case, my view is that you badly need to acquire that skill.
>
> Backing up large amounts of our data would be very complex, well, I
> should say restoring it is very complex.



Then you need to look at some of the better backup programs out there,
like Acronis True Image. It's very easy.


> The best we can do is to
> mirror it.



Mirroring is not a substitute for backup. It provides redundancy,
not backup. It's used in situations (almost always within
corporations, not in homes) where any downtown can't be tolerated,
because the way it works is that if one drive fails the other takes
over seamlessly.

Most companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan
in place. If you just rely on RAID1, you remain vulnerable to losing
both drives simultaneously to things like severe power glitches,
nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the
computer). If your data is important to you, you *need* to perform
regularly scheduled backup to external media.





> I don't mean to turn this into a hardware thread, but if you look at
> posts about external hard-drives you will find a fair amount of
> complaints about their reliability.


No hard drive is perfect, and they all fail sooner or later.


> As far as odds are concerned, I
> don't know what the failure rates are, but I have a feeling that
> having 2 or 3 out of 5 RAID members fail is much less likely than
> having an external backup drive fail.



Drive failure is only one of many possible dangers to your data.

In my view, you're playing with fire, and are very likely to get
burnt.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Back
Top