Computing desk
< October 28	<< Sep \| Oct \| Nov >>	October 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 29[edit]

Windows 8 upgrade[edit]

About how long does it take to upgrade to Windows 8 from the internet download, with a cable modem with about 6Mb/sec d/l? Is it worth it to spend the extra $30 and get it on disc (both for speed and in case something goes wrong)? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you downloading an ISO or something else? Assuming a Windows 8 ISO is around 3GB (figures seem to range from 2.5GB to 3.5GB depending on the version) that would probably take just over one hour at 6Mb/s, assuming the connection was not used for anything else during that time, that the connection performed at maximum speed throughout, and the server you're downloading from served the data at your maximum speed. 92.233.64.26 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I don't know if I'd be downloading an ISO or something else, because I haven't started a d/l of it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a consistent speed of 6Mb/sec then things are unlikely to go wrong with the download, and the time taken will be mainly the upgrade process which takes the same time (almost) whatever the source of the upgrade. Personally, I wouldn't waste $30 on a disc, though I agree that the probability of something going wrong is marginally lower from disc (and marginally easier to put right if there is a problem). If you prefer to wear both belt and braces, and $30 is chickenfeed to you, then perhaps you will prefer the extra 1% security. Dbfirs 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Well, $30 isn't chickenfeed, but thank you. I'm also thinking down the line about problems. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there's no hurry in doing the upgrade, you can try the download first, and, if that doesn't work, you can then still buy the disk. Although, personally, unless I had Vista, I don't think I'd bother with the upgrade at all. Win 8 doesn't seem much better, and, as usual, they change lots of things for no apparent reason (actually it's for support for mobile devices, but I don't see why I should change my PC to accommodate those). StuRat (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least some of it is for mobile devices. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I bought a license for Win8 from MS on Saturday, and they let me download it twice. So, if something did go wrong with the installation, it seems you can download it again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got the disc and things did go wrong. And I have it in case something goes wrong again. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SATA connector cycle rating[edit]

I notice the line of GoFlex external drives from Seagate feature a removable interface module. It allow a user to swap out different connectors (USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt) depending on which module is connected. But the actual backplane connector they all have in common is a standard SATA data/power ports found on the back of internal hard drives [1]. Just curious how many plug/unplug cycles the SATA port is rated for. I couldn't find any info at the Serial ATA entry. --209.133.95.32 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WD, the SATA cable/connector is normally only rated for 50 cycles [2]. However these vendors [3] [4] have cables and SATA device plugs rated for 500 cycles so it's possible or even likely that the plug on the SATA device itself is 500 cycles and the connector on the interface module may also be rated for 500 cycles. Nil Einne (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by Nil, there is not a universal cycle rating but they are not designed for high cycles. For continuous (~daily) use as a hotswap system it's encouraged you use a specially designed hotswap caddy with its own SATA connector separate from the actual drive. --173.57.185.22 (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partitioning External HDD Pros/Cons[edit]

I have a new 3 Tera-byte(Tb) external, USB 3, NTFS File System Hard Disc drive(HDD) that I want to use to clear space on my laptops' nearly full 500 Giga-byte(Gb) internal hdd (I also have another 500 Gb USB 2 ext. hdd that is also nearly full!). I will use it largely for storage of recorded digital TV shows/movies (for personal use/time shifting only of course!), and backups of data. I like the idea of keeping data (text documents/ pictures) and program files (applications/games) separate.

I have had a look at forums such as:
• backing-up-external-hard-drive-do-i-need-partition and
• large-external-hdd-backup-partition-image-synctoy

I was thinking of a large (1.5 Tb) partition for TV/video as it is very space hungry (up to ≈5+ GB an hour of digital TV!), 1 Tb for games, 500 Gb for (multiple?) system backups/images.

Specifically:

Should I partition it or not?
What are the: A) advantages (easier backup/error checking/defrag?); and B) dis-advantages to doing so?
Would it be more advisable to just make separate folders rather than partitions (Don't have to pre-decide a fixed size and space is just used as required?)

I am interested in the ideas/suggestions of my fellow ref deskers on this subject, with a rationale and links to sources on the subject, if possible. 220 of ^Borg 18:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two disks are better than one (three are even better!), and nullify the partition question. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one clear advantage—having more than one partition makes your data safer. So, if one partition is irreparably damaged, other partitions may survive. Beyond this reliability issue, the number of partitions is just a personal preference. Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say partition it. One advantage is that some runaway process which fills the partition won't fill the whole disk (for example, if you leave the recorder running). Another advantage is that you can more easily change a partitioned disk, say if you decide one of those partitions is no longer needed in that format, and you want to instead format it for, say, Linux. Also, a separate backup partition makes sense, as some backup software is actually stupid enough to backup the backup files, otherwise. A disadvantage of partitioning is if one partition fills before the others, and now you are out of space, when you wouldn't be, otherwise. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider that when moving files within a partition, it's instant, but to another partition you have to copy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is only my personal opinion, but it seems that's what you want. It depends what OS you use. I have found using multiple partitions on Linux to be a beneficial and pleasurable experience, and on Windows to be a pain in the bottom. When I was using Ubuntu I had a partition for my documents, one for my system files and one for backup. Now I'm back on Windoze I can't get it to play nicely with having user files in one place and program files in another, so I just have them all on one super-partition. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

langauge translation[edit]

i have a web site and want to translate to other langauges and i figured wiki has the best sofware to do this. please forward information on what software program wiki is using so i can inplement it to my web site, thank you in advive for your information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.109.77 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles, in all languages, are written by people - they're not translated by computers. Machine translation is not very good, and the translated text it produces varies in quality between obviously mechanical and thoroughly insane. There is currently no worthwhile substitute for actual bilingual people doing the translation. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if what the IP means is they want to set up a wiki to make it easier for other people to translate their website. Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, you can read about localization and internationalization - the set of commonly-used best-practices for setting up the technical parts of your website so that your translators can work most efficiently. For example, it is widely known that separating content and styling makes maintenance easier; when you're localizing or translating content, there are numerous practices to make this task as seamless as possible. Nimur (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we have such a program let me know. I just labored through some text that had been translated from Russian by machine and the English sentences often had almost no relation to the Russian meaning except using somewhat similar nouns. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider posting a request for translation. Russian, being a very commonly spoken language, has a number of active translators who will volunteer time to fix up poor translations. Nimur (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to do it myself with the help of google translate for the technical vocab. It was just seriously funny how the machine translate had reversed the subjects and objects and made reflexive verbs into transitives and so on, paid absolutely no attention to case and always chosen the worst possible of five synonyms, etc. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]