• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

How I Got Full Windows XP Installed Under 2GB!

B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
the wharf rat wrote:
> In article <hkeu26$9kg$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>> Well I never said I could speak for 12 billion flash drives.

>
> Sure you did. You said that you'd sampled 12 of them and so you
> could conclude that all 12 billion will never fail because none of yours
> had. Which IS kinda silly, don't you think?


I said no such thing! I also said I have a friend living in France that
burns up his cheesy flash drives in two months. Which I find is odd. As
I have never seen any that bad yet over on this side of the big pond.

>> drives. I did my own study. I did a study on just 20 hard drives over 20
>> years and I came up with just under 7% early failure rate. I didn't know
>> how close I really was until.

>
> Ok, I have to ask: Which 40% of that second drive failed? The
> top half or the bottom half?


What? No, I had 3 out of 20 drives fail within 20 years. That is just
under 7% failure rate. Google tested 100,000 drives and came up with a
very similar failure rate. They had a smaller percentage, but Google's
was only tested for 5 years and not 20 years like my study. So the
slight difference makes since.

>> Manufacturing electronic components has their recipes, ingredients,
>> batches, baking, etc. just like cooking does. As they use many of the
>> same terminology. Thus I don't see them much different like you do. By

>
> Oh, great Ghu, no. Modern mass manufacturing carefully designs
> processes to eliminate as much variability as possible. In fact, you try
> to eliminate the actual *variables*. What you can't eliminate you design
> elaborate process controls for. The end result really *IS* a sort of
> recipe that you can more or less duplicate at will (but not entirely:
> look at the scrap rates at different chip fabs for instance).


Same holds true for cooking as well. I had worked for a time for a
company who manufactured food ingredients for other processed food
companies. And the same thing applies. And they threw out tons of
ingredients from time to time because a given batch didn't come out to
their high standards.

> But cooking CAN'T be reduced to recipes because there's no way
> to eliminate the myriad variables, and because it's a manual process you
> can't really build in good controls. That's why any old person can't just
> follow a recipe and turn out a dish worthy of a four star chef. Take a simple
> thing like baking a loaf of bread: how alive is the yeast? How much
> moisture is in the flour? How warm is the room? It's a much more fluid
> and dynamic process than anything you see in a manufacturing plant.


Same is true in component manufacturing. I worked in both fields. Where
did you get yours again?

>> My Asus notebooks work just like anybody else.

>
> They may WORK like all the other samples but they're NOT identical.
> They don't clone them, you know. They build them out of parts, each of which
> varies just slightly from all the rest. Sometimes you get one that varies
> TOO much. Those are the ones people complain about on Usenet.


Of course. Very few of them though. As the vast majority of them work as
they are suppose to. And if you are one of the unlucky ones, you just
take it back and get one that actually works.

>>> Terabyte SSD drives retail for about $3,800.

>> That isn't a lot.

>
> That's an awful lot for just a terabyte drive. I can build an
> entire SAN array for 4 grand. Fibre channel.


My first laptop which costs $2000 back in '84. And that was a lot of
money for just 128kb of storage too. And I would have gladly paid 4
grand more for an extra terabyte drive. Or even just a gigabyte drive. ;-)

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix
 
T

the wharf rat

Flightless Bird
In article <hkmj5j$5mt$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>What? No, I had 3 out of 20 drives fail within 20 years. That is just
>under 7% failure rate. Google tested 100,000 drives and came up with a
>very similar failure rate. They had a smaller percentage, but Google's
>was only tested for 5 years and not 20 years like my study. So the
>slight difference makes since.
>


Oh, for crying out loud...

So you're telling me that you ran a sample of 20 drives
for 20 years under controlled conditions, and during that time you had
three failures. You're therefore calculating a failure rate of 3 years
out of 400 "drive years" and improperly rounding down to 7%. That's
complete and utter bullshit. You didn't run an array under controlled
conditions for 20 years. And if you did you'd have a 100% failure rate
because NO drives will run for 20 years under ANY conditions. We'll
overlook your mathematical errors since your data is imaginary.

Or maybe you're telling me that during a 20 year period you
owned a total of 20 drives, three of which failed in some way, and that
you don't think the fact that they had 20 different hardware architectures
and 20 different working environments is material. If I could stop laughing
I'd try to explain why asserting that this is a 7% failure rate is
ridiculous but I can't so I'll simply point out that 3/20 =.15 not .07.

Your constant argument by authority would be more convincing if
you sounded like an authority rather than a lame attempt to pass the
Turing test.


>Same holds true for cooking as well. I had worked for a time for a
>company who manufactured food ingredients for other processed food
>companies. And the same thing applies. And they threw out tons of
>ingredients from time to time because a given batch didn't come out to
>their high standards.


That's not cooking. THAT is manufacturing.
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:hkn84k$ol0$1@reader2.panix.com,
the wharf rat typed on Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:34:28 +0000 (UTC):
> In article <hkmj5j$5mt$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>> What? No, I had 3 out of 20 drives fail within 20 years. That is just
>> under 7% failure rate. Google tested 100,000 drives and came up with
>> a very similar failure rate. They had a smaller percentage, but
>> Google's was only tested for 5 years and not 20 years like my study.
>> So the slight difference makes since.
>>

>
> Oh, for crying out loud...
>
> So you're telling me that you ran a sample of 20 drives
> for 20 years under controlled conditions, and during that time you had
> three failures. You're therefore calculating a failure rate of 3
> years
> out of 400 "drive years" and improperly rounding down to 7%. That's
> complete and utter bullshit. You didn't run an array under controlled
> conditions for 20 years. And if you did you'd have a 100% failure
> rate because NO drives will run for 20 years under ANY conditions.
> We'll overlook your mathematical errors since your data is imaginary.
>
> Or maybe you're telling me that during a 20 year period you
> owned a total of 20 drives, three of which failed in some way, and
> that
> you don't think the fact that they had 20 different hardware
> architectures and 20 different working environments is material. If
> I could stop laughing I'd try to explain why asserting that this is a
> 7% failure rate is ridiculous but I can't so I'll simply point out
> that 3/20 =.15 not .07.
>
> Your constant argument by authority would be more convincing if
> you sounded like an authority rather than a lame attempt to pass the
> Turing test.


For starters, you are right. It's 15%. And second of all, when you get
older you have senior moments. Same day you are going to learn this.
Although since you make wild ass claims I said this and that, you must
be worse off than me. As I don't make those mistakes.

Thirdly, nobody did a study of failure rates for hard drives for 20
years. I am the only one who has done one AFAIK. And my figure is 15%.
So do you know a better study to prove this in error?

>> Same holds true for cooking as well. I had worked for a time for a
>> company who manufactured food ingredients for other processed food
>> companies. And the same thing applies. And they threw out tons of
>> ingredients from time to time because a given batch didn't come out
>> to their high standards.

>
> That's not cooking. THAT is manufacturing.


Bull crap! They wear chiefs hats and all. They just use larger pots and
pans than your average chief. And regular chiefs screw up meals from
time to time too. Sometimes too much or not enough of something. Same
dang thing.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2
 
T

the wharf rat

Flightless Bird
In article <hkna89$14a$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>>> Same holds true for cooking as well. I had worked for a time for a
>>> company who manufactured food ingredients for other processed food

>> That's not cooking. THAT is manufacturing.

>Bull crap! They wear chiefs hats and all. They just use larger pots and


No, that's not cooking. The size of the pot's got nothing to do with
it. It's more of a matter of soul.
 
Top