|
|
Post by patrickp on Feb 22, 2007 19:26:38 GMT -5
I don't think GM really wants to stab his browser cache, Ultima - not if it's on his wonky hard drive!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gamesoul Master on Feb 23, 2007 12:59:24 GMT -5
Phew, yeah... I probably just missed it when I looked or something, cuz I actually have all my browsers set to store very little, and to clean its cache out every time the browser is closed (which is at least a few times a day). My hard drive... just got done with a 16 hour full scan of the files and surface area (and whatever else the XP version of ScanDisc does... my memory is stuck on Win98 ScanDisc...). It found and repaired a ton of indexing and file problems. It certainly didn't hurt anything, but I'm not sure yet if running the scan helped anything related to the problem itself. My hope was that the bad areas of the disc would be declared "bad clusters/sectors" and thus be restricted from use. But even if it did that, I'm going to have to hope that no new ones come up, else I'll have to run that damn program weekly or something...  Hmm... on a related topic to this thread, has anybody actually tried comparing .cdz to .daa (PowerISO compression)? I haven't bothered to test it yet, but if .daa provides better compression, it might be worthwhile to compress images that way (since they can be mounted that way). |
|
|
|
Post by Ultima on Feb 23, 2007 14:08:31 GMT -5
I've never used PowerISO, so the answer's "no" from me. Really, though, I wouldn't bother using .daa. Even if it saved some space, it adds a whole layer of incompatibility that can only be solved by requiring that PowerISO be present, as it's the only application that can read .daa files, IINM. IMHO  |
|
|
|
Post by patrickp on Feb 23, 2007 14:57:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Gamesoul Master on Feb 23, 2007 22:42:57 GMT -5
"After the first scan error, drives are 39 times more likely to fail within 60 days than drives without scan errors." Do you know why that part amuses me? A drive with no errors probably has about a .01% chance of failing within 60 days, because as we all know, hard drives aren't prone to working perfectly fine and then suddenly failing... the probability of that happening just *can't* be higher than something like .01%. So being 39 times more likely... would still mean .39%. And even if we bumped the probability up to .1%, that'd still mean only a 3.9% chance of failing within 60 days. So by what they're saying, I pretty much have nothing to worry about for quite a while. And of course, my hard drive is constantly under higher temperatures, considering my CPU likes to often overheat (causing the whole computer to suddenly shut off to protect itself from burning up). And the hard drive isn't even 2 years old yet. So I guess I have nothing to worry about if I go by this report...  Ultima: Well, I know *I* don't bother with compression of any sort, so it doesn't really matter to me at all. I only bring it up for people who are highly concerned with disc space. I'll run some tests later tonight, just in case it provides better compression... that way if somebody is looking for the best option, they can go with that. And besides... pSX (via cdztool) is the only program that can read .cdz compressed images, so it's the same thing. But I know what you mean... .daa would basically add a level of mystery for troubleshooting problems when those types of images are involved, since we have no programmers of the format around here to offer advice as to what problems could be caused by the compression. I only really have the program installed because of some time ago, when I found out about the compression, and I was curious as to how it worked. I really wouldn't have any use for it though... |
|
|
|
Post by patrickp on Feb 24, 2007 0:08:56 GMT -5
Well, if your PC is often shutting itself off because your CPU is overheating, maybe that's got something to do with why your drive is showing so many errors, GM. You should invest in a better cooler. And I always swear by Panaflo fans...
|
|
|
|
Post by Heihachi_73 on Mar 22, 2007 0:10:54 GMT -5
Reading a compressed file involves decompressing the entire file, which either takes up a lot of RAM, or simply wastes hard disk space (possible 400MB zip + 700MB original file).
The CDZ format might be massively eclipsed by a 7-ZIPped BIN file (really, who uses ZIP files this side of 1995) but it loads without the need of total decompression (doesn't it?).
Edit: Didn't realise there was more than one page, LOL!
|
|
