Computer for storing video files

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

I have a Pent 2 300mgz machine that has been made available to me
cheap. Will this be acceptable for spooling files from the replay unit
to the computer?

If I put a DVD burner in this PC would it work or would I need to move
the files to another more powerful PC to burn the DVD?

I plan on getting a bigger hard drive for this computer. Is there a
size limit to hard drives that is dependent on the computer type or is
that a software issue ( ie Windows 95, 98, or XP)?

Final quesition can this speed machine handle XP or should I stay with
Windows 98?

Thanks in advance

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 08:13:43 -0800, "bep" <bep17@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I have a Pent 2 300mgz machine that has been made available to me
>cheap. Will this be acceptable for spooling files from the replay unit
>to the computer?
>

It will be fast enough for spooling, although slow for DVD authoring.

However, for some unknown reason DVA causes slowdowns when run on a
computer that slow. This can be annoying when you're trying to use it
for something else too. The slowdowns are probably tolerable on a
machine dedicated to DVA.

>If I put a DVD burner in this PC would it work or would I need to move
>the files to another more powerful PC to burn the DVD?
>

A faster one would be desirable. Remember that both MPEG encoding and
DVD authoring are CPU intensive processes and CPU speed will make a
big difference (like between a couple of days and less than an hour).
Pay attention to FSB (RAM) speed as well as CPU speed. Also, SATA
(Serial ATA) drives are faster, and a new system could support them.

>I plan on getting a bigger hard drive for this computer. Is there a
>size limit to hard drives that is dependent on the computer type or is
>that a software issue ( ie Windows 95, 98, or XP)?
>

Older computers are usually limited to 128GB (often called 137GB using
different math but it's the same limit). You will be able to add an
additional PCI IDE card to get around this limit. The limit is because
of disk hardware, and is not related to the OS used (athouugh I would
avoid XP for other reasons, Win 2000 is better)..

>Final quesition can this speed machine handle XP or should I stay with
>Windows 98?
>

It should be fast enough (although you still may prefer a faster
computer).

>Thanks in advance

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:59:42 +0000 (UTC), General Kireiko
<douglas@panix.com> wrote:

>Mark Lloyd <mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>: On 30 Mar 2005 08:13:43 -0800, "bep" <bep17@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>:>I have a Pent 2 300mgz machine that has been made available to me
>:>cheap. Will this be acceptable for spooling files from the replay unit
>:>to the computer?
>

Which is usually enough. People who insist on Medium or High may not
have checked.

Note that Standard recordings may have the wrong aspect ratio on the
screen (depending on the player, VLC works fine). The DVD will still
play correctly.

>I had DVA (still do, I just don't use that installation anymore) on a
>P2-300 w/ 192 MB RAM, Win 98SE. It streamed back to the RTV fine (used
>Standard Quality).
>
>:>If I put a DVD burner in this PC would it work or would I need to move
>:>the files to another more powerful PC to burn the DVD?
>
>: A faster one would be desirable. Remember that both MPEG encoding and
>: DVD authoring are CPU intensive processes and CPU speed will make a
>: big difference (like between a couple of days and less than an hour).
>: Pay attention to FSB (RAM) speed as well as CPU speed. Also, SATA
>: (Serial ATA) drives are faster, and a new system could support them.
>
>Agreed. I didn't have a DVD burner installed in the system, but I used
>to make VCDs. It would take over 2 hours to encode a 22 minute RTV Standard
>MPEG-2 into VCD compliant MPEG-1. It's an overnight procedure.
>
>Java is slow on a P2-300. (Java is needed for DVA)
>

That probably explains the unexpected delays on the slow computer.

>:>I plan on getting a bigger hard drive for this computer. Is there a
>:>size limit to hard drives that is dependent on the computer type or is
>:>that a software issue ( ie Windows 95, 98, or XP)?
>
>: Older computers are usually limited to 128GB (often called 137GB using
>: different math but it's the same limit). You will be able to add an
>: additional PCI IDE card to get around this limit. The limit is because
>: of disk hardware, and is not related to the OS used (athouugh I would
>: avoid XP for other reasons, Win 2000 is better)..
>
>You may want to upgrade to Win2k for the NTFS file system.
> Win 9x FAT-32
>paritions will not support large files (> 4GB) so large movies (at more
>than standard quality) and ISO images this large cannot be put onto
>a hard disk with a FAT-32 partition.
>

That's why I upgraded. Also, I could restate than Win 2000 is
preferable to Win XP (it's still available new).

>
>Bottom line:
>1. The machine is free - use it for DVA. It will do fine.
>

Preferably, with no other programs (such as IE) running on it.

>2. If you are going to do DVD authoring, get a faster machine. Your
>P2 will be painfully slow beyonf the point of frustrating.
>

I started with one that slow, and agree. With my newest computer (P4
3GHz with 1GB RAM, 800MHz FSB) it takes less than an hour to author a
whole DVD (with over 5 hours of Replay shows, usually 6-7 "hours" with
commercials removed).

>-Doug

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

bep wrote:
> I have a Pent 2 300mgz machine that has been made available to me
> cheap. Will this be acceptable for spooling files from the replay unit
> to the computer?
>
> If I put a DVD burner in this PC would it work or would I need to move
> the files to another more powerful PC to burn the DVD?
>
> I plan on getting a bigger hard drive for this computer. Is there a
> size limit to hard drives that is dependent on the computer type or is
> that a software issue ( ie Windows 95, 98, or XP)?
>
> Final quesition can this speed machine handle XP or should I stay with
> Windows 98?
>
> Thanks in advance
>

I use a pent-2 366 (IBM Thinkpad 600E) and based on it's performance
here are my comments

1: For downloading and storing,,, Should work, but as someone else noted
it will slow down when it's downloading, Though I am able to do a single
transfer and still access the web for stuff like newsgroups and such

2: For streaming back to the Replay TV... Sorry, no, it won't go, seems
to be a bit slow.

3: For controlling the Replay using DVarchive's remote control while
downloading from two replays at once... Very Very Slow

4: For playing videos... A number of issues, some are performance
related, though today I was watching a show stored on C: while playing
Freecell,,, and it worked... Only a couple of times did I have to do my
looping/stuttering audio fix (which is a 3 key sequence on the player I
am currently using)

4: For watching shows stored on another Replay (Streaming video) Again,
a bit anemic

5: For watching stuff like ABC NEWS ONLINE (300K stream) works fine, no
problems at all.


Question 2: XP or 98... I'm using 98, I don't think this box could do
eXtra Painful (XP) Just too bloated.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:31:01 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>bep wrote:
>> I have a Pent 2 300mgz machine that has been made available to me
>> cheap. Will this be acceptable for spooling files from the replay unit
>> to the computer?
>>
>> If I put a DVD burner in this PC would it work or would I need to move
>> the files to another more powerful PC to burn the DVD?
>>
>> I plan on getting a bigger hard drive for this computer. Is there a
>> size limit to hard drives that is dependent on the computer type or is
>> that a software issue ( ie Windows 95, 98, or XP)?
>>
>> Final quesition can this speed machine handle XP or should I stay with
>> Windows 98?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>
>I use a pent-2 366 (IBM Thinkpad 600E) and based on it's performance
>here are my comments
>
>1: For downloading and storing,,, Should work, but as someone else noted
>it will slow down when it's downloading, Though I am able to do a single
>transfer and still access the web for stuff like newsgroups and such
>
>2: For streaming back to the Replay TV... Sorry, no, it won't go, seems
>to be a bit slow.
>

Are you using wireless networking? That's usually too slow (and, of
course, a cable is much simpler and more reliable as well as faster).

>3: For controlling the Replay using DVarchive's remote control while
>downloading from two replays at once... Very Very Slow
>

Too many delays, leading to painful control errors.

>4: For playing videos... A number of issues, some are performance
>related, though today I was watching a show stored on C: while playing
>Freecell,,, and it worked... Only a couple of times did I have to do my
>looping/stuttering audio fix (which is a 3 key sequence on the player I
>am currently using)
>
>4: For watching shows stored on another Replay (Streaming video) Again,
>a bit anemic
>
>5: For watching stuff like ABC NEWS ONLINE (300K stream) works fine, no
>problems at all.
>
>
>Question 2: XP or 98... I'm using 98, I don't think this box could do
>eXtra Painful (XP) Just too bloated.

Try 2000. It's less bloated, among other advantages. The important
parts of it are nearly identical to XP.

Yes to the "eXtra Painful" part. I have one XP installation (used to
try to provide help to a friend who believes the dealers too easily).
It can take nearly forever to find some simple thing that you already
know how to find in other Windows versions.

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

I use wired networking... But since the Thinkpad is not always
"networked" sometimes it connects wireless to "public" servers and/or
via dial up direct to my ISP it has Zone Alarm and an good Anti Virus
program (Along with some other software) running background.

This slows it down just enough it has trouble streaming back to the Replay

Also... I store video on F: which is an external USB drive, not on C: or
E: which are the same internal HD. This too slows it down

Mark Lloyd wrote:

I wrote >> parts

>>2: For streaming back to the Replay TV... Sorry, no, it won't go, seems
>>to be a bit slow.
>>
>
>
> Are you using wireless networking? That's usually too slow (and, of
> course, a cable is much simpler and more reliable as well as faster).
>
>
>>3: For controlling the Replay using DVarchive's remote control while
>>downloading from two replays at once... Very Very Slow
>>
>
>
> Too many delays, leading to painful control errors.

I agree, however these delays only happen when I'm exercising the bytes
out of the network,,, If I'm just watching oh, Smallville, as I type
replies to oh, you, like I'm doing now, response is as fast as I can
switch applications and push the button

> Try 2000. It's less bloated, among other advantages. The important
> parts of it are nearly identical to XP.
>
> Yes to the "eXtra Painful" part. I have one XP installation (used to
> try to provide help to a friend who believes the dealers too easily).
> It can take nearly forever to find some simple thing that you already
> know how to find in other Windows versions.

I use 2000 at work,, Thank you, no thank you, I'll stick with 98 for the
laptop

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:24:39 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I use wired networking... But since the Thinkpad is not always
>"networked" sometimes it connects wireless to "public" servers and/or
>via dial up direct to my ISP it has Zone Alarm and an good Anti Virus
>program (Along with some other software) running background.
>

Resident anti-virus software can cause a lot of problems. I haven't
used one in several years. My solution is a combination of personal
intelligence and am online scanner (currently
http/housecall.trendmicro.com/housecall/start_corp.asp). You need to
use Internet Explorer.

>This slows it down just enough it has trouble streaming back to the Replay
>

That's one of the problems with resident AV. It's also incompatible
with stuff.

>Also... I store video on F: which is an external USB drive, not on C: or
> E: which are the same internal HD. This too slows it down
>
>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>I wrote >> parts
>
>>>2: For streaming back to the Replay TV... Sorry, no, it won't go, seems
>>>to be a bit slow.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Are you using wireless networking? That's usually too slow (and, of
>> course, a cable is much simpler and more reliable as well as faster).
>>
>>
>>>3: For controlling the Replay using DVarchive's remote control while
>>>downloading from two replays at once... Very Very Slow
>>>
>>
>>
>> Too many delays, leading to painful control errors.
>
>I agree, however these delays only happen when I'm exercising the bytes
>out of the network,,, If I'm just watching oh, Smallville, as I type
>replies to oh, you, like I'm doing now, response is as fast as I can
>switch applications and push the button
>
>> Try 2000. It's less bloated, among other advantages. The important
>> parts of it are nearly identical to XP.
>>
>> Yes to the "eXtra Painful" part. I have one XP installation (used to
>> try to provide help to a friend who believes the dealers too easily).
>> It can take nearly forever to find some simple thing that you already
>> know how to find in other Windows versions.
>
>I use 2000 at work,, Thank you, no thank you, I'll stick with 98 for the
>laptop

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Well, With both of the resident AV programs I use (one on each computer)
I've never, not once, NEVER had a compatibility issue. The only issue
is the slight slow down that occurs.

I also use Trend-Micro's online as a back up. Turns out that neither
it, nor either of the resident AV's I use, are 100% but if you put any 2
of them together, or better yet all 3 together, the odds of a virus
getting past them all approaches zero (think calculus levels of
"Approaches")

I also keep a current copy of F-Prot "in residence" on the hard drive
(not in the computer's memory) and run it "off line" mode, (I actually
boot into DOS to use F-Prot, I do not use it's resident module)

Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:24:39 GMT, John in Detroit
> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I use wired networking... But since the Thinkpad is not always
>>"networked" sometimes it connects wireless to "public" servers and/or
>>via dial up direct to my ISP it has Zone Alarm and an good Anti Virus
>>program (Along with some other software) running background.
>>
>
>
> Resident anti-virus software can cause a lot of problems. I haven't
> used one in several years. My solution is a combination of personal
> intelligence and am online scanner (currently
> http/housecall.trendmicro.com/housecall/start_corp.asp). You need to
> use Internet Explorer.
>
>
>>This slows it down just enough it has trouble streaming back to the Replay
>>
>
>
> That's one of the problems with resident AV. It's also incompatible
> with stuff.
>
>
>>Also... I store video on F: which is an external USB drive, not on C: or
>> E: which are the same internal HD. This too slows it down
>>
>>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>I wrote >> parts
>>
>>
>>>>2: For streaming back to the Replay TV... Sorry, no, it won't go, seems
>>>>to be a bit slow.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you using wireless networking? That's usually too slow (and, of
>>>course, a cable is much simpler and more reliable as well as faster).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>3: For controlling the Replay using DVarchive's remote control while
>>>>downloading from two replays at once... Very Very Slow
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Too many delays, leading to painful control errors.
>>
>>I agree, however these delays only happen when I'm exercising the bytes
>>out of the network,,, If I'm just watching oh, Smallville, as I type
>>replies to oh, you, like I'm doing now, response is as fast as I can
>>switch applications and push the button
>>
>>
>>>Try 2000. It's less bloated, among other advantages. The important
>>>parts of it are nearly identical to XP.
>>>
>>>Yes to the "eXtra Painful" part. I have one XP installation (used to
>>>try to provide help to a friend who believes the dealers too easily).
>>>It can take nearly forever to find some simple thing that you already
>>>know how to find in other Windows versions.
>>
>>I use 2000 at work,, Thank you, no thank you, I'll stick with 98 for the
>>laptop
>
>

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http/community.compuserve.com/diabetes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:16:59 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Well, With both of the resident AV programs I use (one on each computer)
>I've never, not once, NEVER had a compatibility issue. The only issue
>is the slight slow down that occurs.
>

I'm sure it makes a lot of difference what software you install.
Still, there's a good chance of that happening sometime.

BTW, I have a friend who's recently had a lot of problems related to
Norton Security.

>I also use Trend-Micro's online as a back up. Turns out that neither
>it, nor either of the resident AV's I use, are 100% but if you put any 2
>of them together, or better yet all 3 together, the odds of a virus
>getting past them all approaches zero (think calculus levels of
>"Approaches")
>

I'm sure it would be better that one. I don't really object to using a
local (rather than online) program, it's just having it resident and
active all the time.

>I also keep a current copy of F-Prot "in residence" on the hard drive
>(not in the computer's memory) and run it "off line" mode, (I actually
>boot into DOS to use F-Prot, I do not use it's resident module)
>

Sounds like a good idea. Does it handle NTFS that way?

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:24:39 GMT, John in Detroit
>> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I use wired networking... But since the Thinkpad is not always
>>>"networked" sometimes it connects wireless to "public" servers and/or
>>>via dial up direct to my ISP it has Zone Alarm and an good Anti Virus
>>>program (Along with some other software) running background.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Resident anti-virus software can cause a lot of problems. I haven't
>> used one in several years. My solution is a combination of personal
>> intelligence and am online scanner (currently
>> http/housecall.trendmicro.com/housecall/start_corp.asp). You need to
>> use Internet Explorer.
>>
>>
>>>This slows it down just enough it has trouble streaming back to the Replay
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's one of the problems with resident AV. It's also incompatible
>> with stuff.
>>
>>
>>>Also... I store video on F: which is an external USB drive, not on C: or
>>> E: which are the same internal HD. This too slows it down
>>>
>>>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>>
>>>I wrote >> parts
>>>
>>>
>>>>>2: For streaming back to the Replay TV... Sorry, no, it won't go, seems
>>>>>to be a bit slow.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you using wireless networking? That's usually too slow (and, of
>>>>course, a cable is much simpler and more reliable as well as faster).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>3: For controlling the Replay using DVarchive's remote control while
>>>>>downloading from two replays at once... Very Very Slow
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Too many delays, leading to painful control errors.
>>>
>>>I agree, however these delays only happen when I'm exercising the bytes
>>>out of the network,,, If I'm just watching oh, Smallville, as I type
>>>replies to oh, you, like I'm doing now, response is as fast as I can
>>>switch applications and push the button
>>>
>>>
>>>>Try 2000. It's less bloated, among other advantages. The important
>>>>parts of it are nearly identical to XP.
>>>>
>>>>Yes to the "eXtra Painful" part. I have one XP installation (used to
>>>>try to provide help to a friend who believes the dealers too easily).
>>>>It can take nearly forever to find some simple thing that you already
>>>>know how to find in other Windows versions.
>>>
>>>I use 2000 at work,, Thank you, no thank you, I'll stick with 98 for the
>>>laptop
>>
>>

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

F-Prot is a DOS program, I do not know about NTFS so much as XP, does
not work in XP even if the disk is FAT

Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:16:59 GMT, John in Detroit
> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, With both of the resident AV programs I use (one on each computer)
>>I've never, not once, NEVER had a compatibility issue. The only issue
>>is the slight slow down that occurs.
>>
>
>
> I'm sure it makes a lot of difference what software you install.
> Still, there's a good chance of that happening sometime.
>
> BTW, I have a friend who's recently had a lot of problems related to
> Norton Security.
>
>
>>I also use Trend-Micro's online as a back up. Turns out that neither
>>it, nor either of the resident AV's I use, are 100% but if you put any 2
>>of them together, or better yet all 3 together, the odds of a virus
>>getting past them all approaches zero (think calculus levels of
>>"Approaches")
>>
>
>
> I'm sure it would be better that one. I don't really object to using a
> local (rather than online) program, it's just having it resident and
> active all the time.
>
>
>>I also keep a current copy of F-Prot "in residence" on the hard drive
>>(not in the computer's memory) and run it "off line" mode, (I actually
>>boot into DOS to use F-Prot, I do not use it's resident module)
>>
>
>
> Sounds like a good idea. Does it handle NTFS that way?
>
>
>>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:24:39 GMT, John in Detroit
>>><Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I use wired networking... But since the Thinkpad is not always
>>>>"networked" sometimes it connects wireless to "public" servers and/or
>>>>via dial up direct to my ISP it has Zone Alarm and an good Anti Virus
>>>>program (Along with some other software) running background.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Resident anti-virus software can cause a lot of problems. I haven't
>>>used one in several years. My solution is a combination of personal
>>>intelligence and am online scanner (currently
>>>http/housecall.trendmicro.com/housecall/start_corp.asp). You need to
>>>use Internet Explorer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>This slows it down just enough it has trouble streaming back to the Replay
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That's one of the problems with resident AV. It's also incompatible
>>>with stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Also... I store video on F: which is an external USB drive, not on C: or
>>>>E: which are the same internal HD. This too slows it down
>>>>
>>>>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I wrote >> parts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>2: For streaming back to the Replay TV... Sorry, no, it won't go, seems
>>>>>>to be a bit slow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you using wireless networking? That's usually too slow (and, of
>>>>>course, a cable is much simpler and more reliable as well as faster).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>3: For controlling the Replay using DVarchive's remote control while
>>>>>>downloading from two replays at once... Very Very Slow
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Too many delays, leading to painful control errors.
>>>>
>>>>I agree, however these delays only happen when I'm exercising the bytes
>>>>out of the network,,, If I'm just watching oh, Smallville, as I type
>>>>replies to oh, you, like I'm doing now, response is as fast as I can
>>>>switch applications and push the button
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Try 2000. It's less bloated, among other advantages. The important
>>>>>parts of it are nearly identical to XP.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes to the "eXtra Painful" part. I have one XP installation (used to
>>>>>try to provide help to a friend who believes the dealers too easily).
>>>>>It can take nearly forever to find some simple thing that you already
>>>>>know how to find in other Windows versions.
>>>>
>>>>I use 2000 at work,, Thank you, no thank you, I'll stick with 98 for the
>>>>laptop
>>>
>>>
>

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http/community.compuserve.com/diabetes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:14:32 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>F-Prot is a DOS program, I do not know about NTFS so much as XP, does
>not work in XP even if the disk is FAT
>

XP's not worth using in any case.

Anyway, I was not referring to an OS (considering that these things
are better run from DOS), but a disk format.

Windows 2000 and XP support both FAT and NTFS disk formats. DOS and
Windows 9x are limited to FAT, unless special software is installed.

Consider that when you run a program from DOS, it doesn't CARE what
OS(es) you have installed, they're not running. The disk format it the
file structure on the disk, which will be there ALL the time.

Note that at least 1 program (GHOST) runs in DOS and still has NTFS
support.

>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 02:16:59 GMT, John in Detroit
>> <Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, With both of the resident AV programs I use (one on each computer)
>>>I've never, not once, NEVER had a compatibility issue. The only issue
>>>is the slight slow down that occurs.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure it makes a lot of difference what software you install.
>> Still, there's a good chance of that happening sometime.
>>
>> BTW, I have a friend who's recently had a lot of problems related to
>> Norton Security.
>>
>>
>>>I also use Trend-Micro's online as a back up. Turns out that neither
>>>it, nor either of the resident AV's I use, are 100% but if you put any 2
>>>of them together, or better yet all 3 together, the odds of a virus
>>>getting past them all approaches zero (think calculus levels of
>>>"Approaches")
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure it would be better that one. I don't really object to using a
>> local (rather than online) program, it's just having it resident and
>> active all the time.
>>
>>
>>>I also keep a current copy of F-Prot "in residence" on the hard drive
>>>(not in the computer's memory) and run it "off line" mode, (I actually
>>>boot into DOS to use F-Prot, I do not use it's resident module)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds like a good idea. Does it handle NTFS that way?
>>
>>
>>>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:24:39 GMT, John in Detroit
>>>><Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I use wired networking... But since the Thinkpad is not always
>>>>>"networked" sometimes it connects wireless to "public" servers and/or
>>>>>via dial up direct to my ISP it has Zone Alarm and an good Anti Virus
>>>>>program (Along with some other software) running background.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Resident anti-virus software can cause a lot of problems. I haven't
>>>>used one in several years. My solution is a combination of personal
>>>>intelligence and am online scanner (currently
>>>>http/housecall.trendmicro.com/housecall/start_corp.asp). You need to
>>>>use Internet Explorer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This slows it down just enough it has trouble streaming back to the Replay
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's one of the problems with resident AV. It's also incompatible
>>>>with stuff.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Also... I store video on F: which is an external USB drive, not on C: or
>>>>>E: which are the same internal HD. This too slows it down
>>>>>
>>>>>Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I wrote >> parts
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>2: For streaming back to the Replay TV... Sorry, no, it won't go, seems
>>>>>>>to be a bit slow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you using wireless networking? That's usually too slow (and, of
>>>>>>course, a cable is much simpler and more reliable as well as faster).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>3: For controlling the Replay using DVarchive's remote control while
>>>>>>>downloading from two replays at once... Very Very Slow
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Too many delays, leading to painful control errors.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree, however these delays only happen when I'm exercising the bytes
>>>>>out of the network,,, If I'm just watching oh, Smallville, as I type
>>>>>replies to oh, you, like I'm doing now, response is as fast as I can
>>>>>switch applications and push the button
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Try 2000. It's less bloated, among other advantages. The important
>>>>>>parts of it are nearly identical to XP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes to the "eXtra Painful" part. I have one XP installation (used to
>>>>>>try to provide help to a friend who believes the dealers too easily).
>>>>>>It can take nearly forever to find some simple thing that you already
>>>>>>know how to find in other Windows versions.
>>>>>
>>>>>I use 2000 at work,, Thank you, no thank you, I'll stick with 98 for the
>>>>>laptop
>>>>
>>>>
>>

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:21:06 -0600, Mark Lloyd
<mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:

>Consider that when you run a program from DOS, it doesn't CARE what
>OS(es) you have installed, they're not running. The disk format it the
>file structure on the disk, which will be there ALL the time.

I have not taken the XP plunge but I always heard DOS stuff would not
run. When my Niece was here with her XP laptop I loaded up a bunch of
DOS stuff on a diskette and it all ran fine. I also tried a little DOS
batch file with DIR, COPY, TYPE and some other commands. They all
worked fine. I think XCOPY even worked

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Windows XP has limited DOS support, SOME programs will not run, others
will, some will run but you have to make sure the PIF file (Program
Information File) is properly set up (program properties option) I also
do not like the default interface preferring Windows classic if I have
to doze, to the Windows XP one.

DOS, Does care what os you have... You have to have DOS (The OS in DOS
stands for "operating system" the "D" is Disk-based, this is as opposed
to real DOS which is DISK Operating System and is used for intelligent
disk drives like the Commodore 1541 (Which is a computer in and of
itself and can run programs just like a Commodore 64, in fact both of
them use the same cpu, 6502)

But DbOS is normally shortened to DOS and it's what ran PC's other than
Windows NT machines, and then it ran the older NT's

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>
> I have not taken the XP plunge but I always heard DOS stuff would not
> run. When my Niece was here with her XP laptop I loaded up a bunch of
> DOS stuff on a diskette and it all ran fine. I also tried a little DOS
> batch file with DIR, COPY, TYPE and some other commands. They all
> worked fine. I think XCOPY even worked

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http/community.compuserve.com/diabetes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:21:05 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Windows XP has limited DOS support, SOME programs will not run, others
>will, some will run but you have to make sure the PIF file (Program
>Information File) is properly set up (program properties option) I also
>do not like the default interface preferring Windows classic if I have
>to doze, to the Windows XP one.
>
>DOS, Does care what os you have... You have to have DOS (The OS in DOS
>stands for "operating system" the "D" is Disk-based, this is as opposed
>to real DOS which is DISK Operating System and is used for intelligent
>disk drives like the Commodore 1541 (Which is a computer in and of
>itself and can run programs just like a Commodore 64, in fact both of
>them use the same cpu, 6502)
>

And the disks were recorded in an unusual GCR format, completely
incompatible with the PC. However, Commodore did make some drives (at
least the 1571) that could also handle MFM, as is used for PC
floppies.

>But DbOS is normally shortened to DOS and it's what ran PC's other than
>Windows NT machines, and then it ran the older NT's
>

I didn't know that NT was ever DOS-based.

>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I have not taken the XP plunge but I always heard DOS stuff would not
>> run. When my Niece was here with her XP laptop I loaded up a bunch of
>> DOS stuff on a diskette and it all ran fine. I also tried a little DOS
>> batch file with DIR, COPY, TYPE and some other commands. They all
>> worked fine. I think XCOPY even worked

--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http/notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The idea that there is an invisible being who
created and still runs this old universe is so
childish, so obviously contrived, that it is hard to
believe anyone with even a modicum of education can
still fall for that scam."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

I should have said I think the older (Or oldest) NT's ran in DOS like
windows 9x and 3.x do

Yes Commodore used the superior GCR format instead of the sloppier MFM
format and for good reason, they also did rendundant recording.

IBM did start using GCR later in life

However, Since the 1541 is a computer, All you need is an X-1541 cable
and you can read those old Commodore disks on a PC (And the assoicated
software driver)

Mark Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> And the disks were recorded in an unusual GCR format, completely
> incompatible with the PC. However, Commodore did make some drives (at
> least the 1571) that could also handle MFM, as is used for PC
> floppies.
>
>
>>But DbOS is normally shortened to DOS and it's what ran PC's other than
>>Windows NT machines, and then it ran the older NT's
>>
>
>
> I didn't know that NT was ever DOS-based.
>
>
>>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have not taken the XP plunge but I always heard DOS stuff would not
>>>run. When my Niece was here with her XP laptop I loaded up a bunch of
>>>DOS stuff on a diskette and it all ran fine. I also tried a little DOS
>>>batch file with DIR, COPY, TYPE and some other commands. They all
>>>worked fine. I think XCOPY even worked
>
>

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http/community.compuserve.com/diabetes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 00:21:05 GMT, John in Detroit
<Blanked@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>DOS, Does care what os you have... You have to have DOS (The OS in DOS
>stands for "operating system" the "D" is Disk-based, this is as opposed
>to real DOS which is DISK Operating System and is used for intelligent
>disk drives like the Commodore 1541 (Which is a computer in and of
>itself and can run programs just like a Commodore 64, in fact both of
>them use the same cpu, 6502)
>
>But DbOS is normally shortened to DOS and it's what ran PC's other than
>Windows NT machines, and then it ran the older NT's

Actually "DOS" predates the PC by 16 years. It was the operating
system on 360 model 30s, (circa 1964) morphed to VSE by the 80s to
avoid confusion with PCDOS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (More info?)

Thanks Richard.. We use NT 3.x where I worked, and I thought it was a
DOS boot, but alas, did not remember, They went to a newer version
later. And not one of them was as good as the pure DOS network we had
when we first set up the central dispatch center

Of course that program (which ran in a CLAIRON shell on a LANTASTIC net)
was designed and built by a Michigan State Police LT who, back in his
Sgt. Days, actually sat in the radio room at the post and dispatched
(his civilian dispatcher being nothing to brag about, unlike the
dispatcher who chauffeured him to his classes, where he was the only one
who flunked (The Chauffeur/dispatcher did just a bit better in the tests
he said modestly)

When we went to NT we were given a program written by FIREMEN. No, I've
nothing against firemen, Some of my best friends and all that.

But as a POLICE dispatcher.... Do I really need to know where all the
fire hydrants are located?

Richard Steiner wrote:

>
> No. Windows NT 3.1 (the first release in 1993) was not DOS-based, but
> a 32-bit rewrite which had a fairly weak virtual DOS emulation.

--
John F Davis, in Delightful Detroit. WA8YXM(at)arrl(dot)net
"Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business"
Diabetic? http/community.compuserve.com/diabetes