jcarle

Well, the bean counter is me, since this is going to run out of my home. I have no idea what too expensive is at the moment. I'm trying to factor what the different possibilities are with a time/cost/media quantity ratio. It would seem at the moment that the highest capacity backup solutions would likely be tape as no optical media seems to come close to approaching it.

I use nothing. I'm like a virgin on a hot ride with the internet.

If you removed Windows Image Aquisition (WIA) or support for digital cameras somehow, I'm affraid there's not much you can do. Most camera manufacturers don't write custom software to retrieve pictures because of the built in support with XP, and if they do package the camera with software to do so, it's usually BASED on WIA or other XP technologies that are built-in. Perhaps your camera isn't even registering properly as a mass storage device if you removed support for that, flash drives or external usb drives.

Yes, remove unlisted files does indeed remove files found in the download folder that are not found on the UL. The purpose of this is to remove old updates when you update your UL.

Guys, please keep the discussion in english so that other member can read your responses as well. Otherwise, I suggest you use PMs. Thanks.

This is partially correct. With PAE enabled you will have access to the entire 4Gb of RAM, the 512Mb of VRAM doesn't affect anything as it's probably going to be mapped somewhere in the now-64Gb physical address space. I wasn't quite clear, but that was what I meant, I was refering to 3.5GB available without the use of PAE. I would imagine that performance would be better using a true 64 bit memory map vs using PAE?

I have no time restrictions. Another problem with an external enclosure is that the 2TB will grow to 4TB. I can't hardly see myself packing and unpacking boxes of external enclosures to bring a data backup off site.

XPreview uses standard windows controls... have you ever experienced that with any other program?

Rubbermaid multi-compartment toolbox. Inexpensive, sturdy and effective.

Yea, external NAS/RAID arrays isn't really what I'm looking for. Tape could maybe work... depends on the capacity of the tapes and the time it would take to back up 2TB to tape...

cluberti, this one's kind of aimed at you but anyone else who has ideas, I'd love to hear them... I'm looking for a way to back up 2TB of data. Wondering what kind of solutions exists out there that would allow me to make offline backups. At 4.7GB, that's over 400 DVDs, so DVDs aren't feasible. And I know a 5 x 500GB in RAID 5 will give me the space to do it online, but I want a way to bring the data off-site.

Functionality is built into XP to retrieve a digital camera's pictures...

If anything I'd wait and see what the next generation of Core 2 (1333MHz FSB) is going to be like...

Okay, I can see how the latency can be introduced and I understand how the system bus is slower, but the part I don't get is why the two sets of cores would need to talk to each other? Doesn't windows just talk to each set of cores independently?

OMG... you know, at first I had only glanced over this post. I actually took the time to look at the reviews and the pictures this time. WOW. What a mess... you know, I'm sorry, but that's a really ridiculous attempt by AMD. It even seems a mess just by looking at it.

Whether it's a true quad core or a pair of dual cores isn't the system bus bandwidth usage the same? I mean aside from the fact that the two pairs of cores don't share their L2 Cache, where's the difference? They'd be part of the same physical package either way that interfaces with the same socket interface either way, so I'm a bit confused?

I have no idea how microsoft feels about WUD in general. No news good news I suppose. I compared your MD5 hashes by downloading the same UL and installing total commander in my VMware test-bed. All the hashes match with no errors. It was a bit time consuming to do, but heck, curiosity got the better of me. As for including a MD5 hash in the ULs, that would be up to Rj66 really, since he officially maintains the ULs.

AMD better come out with something amazing in 2007 because right now Intel's making them look like fools, same as AMD did back last year.

There's a bit of a problem with the way that the download thread is implemented in .net 2.0, I'm waiting for the next version of Visual Studio to be released shortly to see if they fixed it. The download when stopped remotely leaves me no indication (which i could see so far) that it has in fact done so. So the thread ends thinking the download was complete. I've had a few dial-up users request feature changes to help them with the limitations of dial-up connections. There's a few things that need to be changed, such as auto-resume and things like that.

The biggest difference is in each motherboard maker's implementation of the features. ASUS does a really good job with their version of the implementation. Foxconn, as much as I love the stability and quality of their motherboards, their implementation for example, well, sucks.

All correct.

All good features... Visual Studio Orca should be out very soon and i think it will be a good time to have some small fun with the GUI for compression bin.

Well, now that life's gotten settled, I'm here a lot more and I've been able to get back to my programming. Hence how WUD was created. But now that WUD's stable I was looking at revisiting my older apps and revamping them. What were you missing XPero?

Sorry, but it DOES occur with PCI-Express video cards as well.

Simplest way is to add them to your $OEM$ folder so that they're automatically copied to the right directory.