OT nasty computer noise

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by The Reid, Feb 22, 2006.

  1. The Reid wrote:

    > M is a big USB


    How big?

    > that I couldnt scandisk till I
    > got more memory.


    My external 300 was originally formatted as FAT32, but I think it came with
    a warning not to run Scandisk on it from XP. I reformatted it to NTFS
    anyway.

    > Where have you got all that stuff backed up?


    Half of it is for backup, that's why I need more. I need one 300 just for
    photos, and another to back it up. As well as archiving onto DVD as well of
    course. Can't be too careful.

    Am wondering whether to use removable hard trays for each drive, or put them
    all in external USB cases (bit more pricey that option). Any views?

    > PS the box has stopped vibrating and making noise, thats either
    > good or very bad!


    Like I said, fan noise tends to be periodic, intermittent. Maybe the
    "blockage" has cleared itself?

    Paul
     


  2. Dave McLaughlin wrote:

    > Have you given any thought as to how on earth you back up 1TB of data
    > with what's available for the average PC?


    Yep, a second 1TB drive! Been doing this for years now, I buy drives in
    pairs and use the second to back up the first.

    > 1TB will take about 218 x 4.7GB DVD's,


    Not so bad when you do it gradually, as the data comes in (i.e. take a few
    hundred photos, burn a DVD).

    > 1500 x 700MB CD-R's, or about
    > 728,000 x 1.44MB floppy disks :)


    Hmm... I never bothered with those high capacity floppies, I used 720s.

    > Scary stuff! It's not that long ago (well, about 20 yrs!) when I was
    > lucky enough to get one of the first new hard drives for my pc at
    > work, size of a house brick, with a *massive* 10MB of storage,


    I could never afford one of those. My first hard drive was 270 meg, which I
    chopped up into 10 partitions!

    > You'll never, ever fill 10MB as long as you work here,


    I filled up my 300s faster than I thought I would.

    Paul
     
  3. The Reid

    The Reid Guest

    Following up to Paul Saunders

    >> M is a big USB

    >
    >How big?


    200 Gigs

    >> that I couldnt scandisk till I
    >> got more memory.

    >
    >My external 300 was originally formatted as FAT32, but I think it came with
    >a warning not to run Scandisk on it from XP. I reformatted it to NTFS
    >anyway.
    >
    >> Where have you got all that stuff backed up?

    >
    >Half of it is for backup, that's why I need more. I need one 300 just for
    >photos, and another to back it up. As well as archiving onto DVD as well of
    >course. Can't be too careful.


    Indeed, backup is the biggest headache of digital. Slides I had
    no easy way of copying so I just kept them safe as possible.
    Digital you can back up and need to as storage fails.
    Are DVDs better than CD other than for size?

    The other thing I'm finding hard is assessing the images, its
    much easier to play around with a box of slides on a light box
    than view large files on a PC.

    >Am wondering whether to use removable hard trays for each drive, or put them
    >all in external USB cases (bit more pricey that option). Any views?


    only that the more independent the better
    --
    Mike Reid
    Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email [email protected] this site
    Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- [email protected] all, it's a spamtrap
     
  4. The Reid

    The Reid Guest

    Following up to The Reid

    >Indeed, backup is the biggest headache of digital.


    what would be neat would be a way of making a non electronic back
    up. I reckon you could design a device that could store all the
    information in a TIFF file by converting it to another form that
    was stable and could be viewed optically or re captured by
    whatever was around at the time. I reckon you could project the
    images onto a light sensitive material and store the results,
    mounted in frames in trays? This could be the future!
    --
    Mike Reid
    Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email [email protected] this site
    Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- [email protected] all, it's a spamtrap
     
  5. The Reid wrote:

    > what would be neat would be a way of making a non electronic back
    > up.


    CD, DVD?

    > I reckon you could design a device that could store all the
    > information in a TIFF file by converting it to another form that
    > was stable and could be viewed optically or re captured by
    > whatever was around at the time. I reckon you could project the
    > images onto a light sensitive material and store the results,
    > mounted in frames in trays? This could be the future!


    Probably not very efficient. RAW files are compressed for a start.

    Paul
     
  6. The Reid wrote:

    > Are DVDs better than CD other than for size?


    Shouldn't think so, but I suspect CD will become redundant before DVD. But
    DVD is bound to give way to something else with better capacity, already
    they're starting to appear small compared to the latest hard drives and the
    latest high megapixel cameras.

    One disadvantage with DVD is putting more eggs in each basket, but then
    again, you need less baskets, and my digital collection is starting to take
    up a lot of CD baskets.

    > The other thing I'm finding hard is assessing the images, its
    > much easier to play around with a box of slides on a light box
    > than view large files on a PC.


    Disagree. Haven't you got a decent file viewer? ACDSee is my favourite for
    speed, particularly the older versions (ACDSee Classic I think it's called)
    Displays even large jpegs at lightning quick speed (I convert all my RAW
    files to JPEG for convenient quick viewing). Other software is slower.

    Mind you, your processor is probably a bit ancient from the sound of it, get
    yourself a decent computer and you'll be amazed at the difference.

    Other file viewing/cataloguing options are Photoshop Album or Photoshop
    Elements - very easy to use, easy to categorise, thumnails resize on the
    fly, you can display the thumbnails as large as you want (great if you have
    a big monitor). In Photoshop Elements you can stack images too, so that
    only one image is displayed (you can stack similar images together -
    likewise you can choose to display only the images in a stack - useful for
    comparison to help you choose the best).

    iView MediaPro is pretty good, a more professional option, this has a
    lightbox feature where you can display up to four images at the same time,
    zooming into 100% with all of them to compare sharpness for example.

    Breezebrowser is not bad either. With all of these you can catalogue your
    RAW files, but I find that makes for very inconvenient viewing because they
    have to be converted first, that's why I'm cataloguing my jpeg versions
    instead, for quicker viewing.

    Worth trying some of these, demo versions available for download. But it
    may be your processor that's the bottleneck.

    Actually, there's a free version of Photoshop Album, version 3.0 starter
    edition I think. It's a cut down version (doesn't show EXIF info and is
    laden with upgrade ads) but is still very useful for cataloguing and
    categorising.

    >> Am wondering whether to use removable hard trays for each drive, or
    >> put them all in external USB cases (bit more pricey that option).
    >> Any views?

    >
    > only that the more independent the better


    Well they have to be removable or external, because I can't fit too many
    drives in at once, but removable is good because the backups can be stored
    away from the computer, useful in case of fire or theft. In fact, all my
    personal docs and photos are on removable drives.

    Paul
     
  7. The Reid

    The Reid Guest

    Following up to Paul Saunders

    >> The other thing I'm finding hard is assessing the images, its
    >> much easier to play around with a box of slides on a light box
    >> than view large files on a PC.

    >
    >Disagree. Haven't you got a decent file viewer? ACDSee is my favourite for
    >speed, particularly the older versions (ACDSee Classic I think it's called)
    >Displays even large jpegs at lightning quick speed (I convert all my RAW
    >files to JPEG for convenient quick viewing). Other software is slower.


    I looked at the TIFFs. I'll do your idea of a set of JPEGS for
    selection purposes.

    >Mind you, your processor is probably a bit ancient from the sound of it, get
    >yourself a decent computer and you'll be amazed at the difference.


    what! Be up to date! The thought!
    (snowing again here)
    --
    Mike Reid
    Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email [email protected] this site
    Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- [email protected] all, it's a spamtrap
     
  8. The Reid wrote:

    > I looked at the TIFFs.


    Yes, they would load a lot slower, especially if they were compressed tiffs.

    > I'll do your idea of a set of JPEGS for
    > selection purposes.


    Yes, much more useful. I know it consumes a fair bit of extra space, but
    you could always reduce the quality a bit if that's an issue. Not too much
    though, because you need to be able to zoom in to check the sharpness.

    My jpeg collection is currently taking up 72% of the space of my RAW
    collection. I save them at the highest quality that Canon's Zoom Browser
    will convert them to.

    Paul
     
  9. Andy Champ

    Andy Champ Guest

    The Reid wrote:

    > PS the box has stopped vibrating and making noise, thats either
    > good or very bad!


    Could be either. I have a fan that squeaks on starup. But it may have
    stopped altogether!

    Andy
     
  10. Andy Champ

    Andy Champ Guest

    Paul Saunders wrote:

    > The Reid wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Are DVDs better than CD other than for size?

    >
    >
    > Shouldn't think so, but I suspect CD will become redundant before DVD. But
    > DVD is bound to give way to something else with better capacity, already
    > they're starting to appear small compared to the latest hard drives and the
    > latest high megapixel cameras.
    >

    <snip>
    Not convinced of that. CDs are "good enough" for most people. But we'd
    all like HDTV pictures with full surround sound - and DVD isn't good
    enough for that.

    Andy
     
  11. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    Andy Champ wrote:

    >Paul Saunders wrote:
    >
    >> The Reid wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Are DVDs better than CD other than for size?

    >>
    >>
    >> Shouldn't think so, but I suspect CD will become redundant before DVD. But
    >> DVD is bound to give way to something else with better capacity, already
    >> they're starting to appear small compared to the latest hard drives and the
    >> latest high megapixel cameras.
    >>

    ><snip>
    >Not convinced of that. CDs are "good enough" for most people. But we'd
    >all like HDTV pictures with full surround sound - and DVD isn't good
    >enough for that.


    The use of CD and DVD here is as storage media for files rather than
    the music and video files on commercial discs. You can decide how good
    the files you put on them are.

    However it is important to realise that recordable discs use different
    technology to the discs you buy with music and movies on them. The
    recordable discs use dye technology and are susceptible to degradation
    with time in a way that the bought discs are not. It's no good keeping
    an archive copy of a file if the material it is kept on isn't up to
    the task.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  12. Mike Painter

    Mike Painter Guest

    The Reid wrote:
    > Following up to Paul Saunders
    >
    >>> M is a big USB

    >>
    >> How big?

    >
    > 200 Gigs
    >


    I just bought a 200 Gb for $40.00 American after rebates.
    Good thing I waited for the prices to come down a bit.
    The first hard drive I bought was 5Mb and $2500.00 American.

    Haad I bought back then it would have been $100,000,000.00
     
  13. Mike K Smith

    Mike K Smith Guest

    Paul Saunders wrote:
    > Dave McLaughlin wrote:
    >
    >> Have you given any thought as to how on earth you back up 1TB of data
    >> with what's available for the average PC?

    >
    > Yep, a second 1TB drive! Been doing this for years now, I buy drives in
    > pairs and use the second to back up the first.

    I had to address this a couple of years ago when I bought my first
    digital camera and realised after a short time that most of my pictures
    consisted of a single copy on a laptop hard-drive.

    Since then I bought a pair of Linksys NSLU2 file servers/NAS devices.
    The first has 2x160GB drives, and does an overnight copy from the first
    drive to the second. It then runs a backup job to the second file server
    which has a 200GB drive. The fileservers themselves are pretty
    reliable, and they use external USB disks. At some point I'd like to do
    backups over Broadband to another fileserver at a relative's house.

    To view the pictures I use Photoshop Album which Paul mentioned as one
    of the options earlier. At the moment I have just over 5000 images
    catalogued. The images and catalogues are stored on the fileserver so
    the Album software accesses them over the network. Performance is fine
    over the wired network but is a bit slow over wireless. Still a nice
    flexible solution for me, though.

    Mike
     
  14. The Reid

    The Reid Guest

    Following up to Paul Saunders

    >In 100 years time, it'll be someone else's problem, not yours. Will your
    >photos be held in high enough esteem to keep doing that? Or will they end
    >up in a box in the attic that gets thrown out with the trash one day?


    <weeps>
    --
    Mike Reid
    Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email [email protected] this site
    Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- [email protected] all, it's a spamtrap
     
  15. Andy Champ

    Andy Champ Guest

    Phil Cook wrote:
    >
    >
    > The use of CD and DVD here is as storage media for files rather than
    > the music and video files on commercial discs. You can decide how good
    > the files you put on them are.
    >
    > However it is important to realise that recordable discs use different
    > technology to the discs you buy with music and movies on them. The
    > recordable discs use dye technology and are susceptible to degradation
    > with time in a way that the bought discs are not. It's no good keeping
    > an archive copy of a file if the material it is kept on isn't up to
    > the task.


    Not only is the technology different between commercial "silvers",
    write-once "Golds" (which are often not gold any more) and CD-RW discs,
    there are several different technologies for Golds. Some of the better
    ones are sold "for archiving" but I'd still want to do a check read
    every couple of years, and copy them off if there was any sign of
    hesitation from the drive - implying it was doing error correction of
    some sort.

    Andy
     
Loading...
Loading...