D'oh! Backup issue solved

From: ajp166 <ajp166_at_bellatlantic.net>
Date: Sun Sep 3 12:31:05 2000

From: Richard Erlacher <richard_at_idcomm.com>


>There's one gotcha with the SAMBA (SMB) approach to this problem and
that's
>in connection with the DOS backups I also have to do. My serious work,
PCB
>layout, schematic capture, digital simulation, etc, is done largely in a
>10-year-old DOS-based package. Reasons aside, what this means is that I
>still have to consider memory requirements for those applications. The
SMB
>driver package(s) I've looked at have too large a memory requirement to
fit,
>together with rather voluminous SCSI driver requirements imposed by my
need
>for interchangeable media used together with the software I need. This
>means that I either use SAMBA or I get the work done, and not both.


Ok then the dos/networking is a problem on the dos side not the server
side
where SAMBA runs. RIght? Yes running dos is painful as it lives in the
640k world wher things have to fit.

>Of course, I could compromise, in that I could run the software under
WIN9x,
>but that limits the display resolution I can use, since Win9x forces me
to
>use an 800x600 resolution. I really prefer to be able to see the nearly
1:1
>representation of a B-size (11x17") drawing on the CRT and still be able
to
>read the lettering.


Well getting win9x to run at 640x480 or any other resolution is not a big
deal if the video card and tube can, W9x really doesnt care.

>Moreover, the Windows drivers for my HP 9585B plotter don't work
properly,
>while the ones internal to the drafting package have always worked just
>fine. I have several packages under DOS that work properly, and not one
>under Windows, since the authors of the drivers apparently thought the
>$13,000 "E" size plotters work just like the $175 "A" size ones, which
is
>not the case.


Get a new or different driver, we use one at work and it's larger D sized
brother
and it's not an issue under win9x.

>Part of the backup problem is because of the long file names, since the
>DOS-based package that backs up and restores with complete reliability
>doesn't like long file names, and the software that understands the long
>file names doesn't understand backup.


Well using dos to do back up is not a best config. In the world of long
file
names dos is severly crippled. Rather than dos I'd use *nix or NT4
workstation
as either is more robust than dos. Dos while fairly bug free has no
protections
and relies on sane debugged apps to be robust. FYI: NT4 workstation runs
better
than w95 on my stuff even the 486dx/66 box.

>Yes, the LINUX is an option, but I'll not use it until there's
>synchronization between the documentation and the software in current
usage.
>That seems millenia away, however.


How about FreeBSD?

Allison
Received on Sun Sep 03 2000 - 12:31:05 BST