Messages - tslim [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 43next
a measure which is based on internet connection speed can not be used to judge how good an achieve[sic] program is.

This is false. You seem to believe that there is a single best program for everyone, that they can be judged in absolute terms.
No! My statement is not FALSE. It has nothing to do with "single best program for everyone"
I just want to point out that, if there is a formula which measure the power of archive program, then "internet connection speed" can never be a factor of that formula.

In a layman concept, you can of course relate anything as a mean to measure the usefulness of archive program, but any conclusion you made will become subjective and (no offense, please) is a crap. Just like I could say, because my keyboard is crack and therefore very difficult for me to type/input into MS Excel, I therefore find MS Excel is not good.
Would you agree with me that "keyboard" is a solid factor to measure how good MS Excel is?

However you do not seem to grok that the bottleneck in my complete work-flow is the internet connection...
I understand internet connection speed is the bottleneck and I also understand in your case, the best archiver will be the one which compresses the most.

However, no archive utility relies on internet connection to do its job, so a measure which is based on internet connection speed can not be used to judge how good an archive program is.

Your point is very true...with a high capacity connection.

However, I have to pull those files through a 512KBit connection which is costing about 120 USD/month. You can get cheaper, higher rated connections over here, but those lines here are really 'overbooked' and unreliable.  In my situation I simply lose too much time downloading. Besides that, my download is immediately ready to be stored on the least amount of DVD's.

I find your way of measuring efficiency odd...
1. It takes you longer to produce the smallest size zip but requires less download time.
2. It takes you longer to download a moderate size zip but saves you some compression time.

Either way, you are simply swithcing the "wait" between the 2 processes.

If the zip is prepared by someone else, then he/she always produces a bigger zip to save his/her time, that is a matter of his/her choice and should not be taken as a factor in determining WinRar's efficiency.

The problem is that a workaround is just that .. a way around the actual problem, not solving it. And my fear is that sometimes having these user forums where power users propagate the workarounds they found and use to new users will stop the software developers from realizing maybe there is something that should be changed here.

They may monitor the forums and read the posts, but they may also get a "problem solved" kind of feeling when they see a power user posting a workaround.

What do you think?

I think I cen agree 50% with you.
When someone suggest a workaround to a software problem, particularly, if that someone is a representative of the developer company or the software author himself... then chances is there won't be a fix/change/rectification soon.

However, the above is not limited to 'user forum', the workaround suggetion could happen in a form of support email (to you) as a response of feedback system. So the real hinder is not cause by 'user forum', it is the attitude of the developer.

My believe is:
Only software with good future (never stop in the progress of growing better and better) and serious developer(s) can afford a use forum. Otherwise, the software company will either find a thousand reasons to not providing user forum or stop an existing one .

General Software Discussion / Re: What to use to back up 1:1 ?
« on: June 01, 2010, 03:21 AM »
I started Windows and everything was fine (it takes a little longer to boot while the SATA adpater does something).  I formatted the drive with NTFS using Windows default administration tools.  I set up DirSync to transfer the information over and after double-checking several times, I started the process.  It took a while (a few hours?) but when it was done, it was all very good.  I checked to see if the data was properly backed up and everything.  I was happy, and took a couple of hours off for good behavior.  I came back to the computer to do some other stuff, was browsing the internet, and, BAM, everything freezes on the screen.  I couldn't do anything, I couldn't even reboot or type, move the mouse...nothing.  I thought, "No big deal, the computer just crashed."  When I restarted, the BIOS would not recognize my old Seagate 300 GB storage drive.  It was gone.  That was a disaster.  I was so freaked out and devastated that I had to go on my bed and just lie down for a minute.  You see, I had forgotten that I had just backed up all the data only hours before!  It took me a few minutes to remember that fact, but when I did, I was relieved a little.  However, now, I was on pins and needles because my data was still only in one location on the new Seagate.  Just to be safe, I pulled the drive out and was not intending to use it again until I receive the replacement drive from Seagate.  THAT'S WHY YOU WANT THE 5-YEAR WARRANTY; THAT OLD DRIVE WAS COVERED UNTIL 2010!
You shouldn't use Seagate (I myself have had several HDD failure with Seagate HDD). try Western Digital HDD. They have different series of HDD, if I recall correctly, their YS series is very durable. I have 3 units of 500G WD HDD being used for years on daily basic and never give me a single problem.

Seagate = Poison :down:

Pages: prev1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 43next
Go to full version