On 2025/10/4 23:16:43, Chris wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-10-04 15:19, Chris wrote:
Although, thinking about it, I've split my main win10 across two disks with
OS on C: and apps/data on D: via hardlinks. your solution will likely cause
me pain.
Your mistake was to put apps on D: - given the monolithic character of >>> the registry, and the fact that most Windows programs store data in it, >>> in Windows versions later than about 3 there has never been any point in >>> separating OS & programs. IME, and I used to create the standard builds >>> to go on thousands of machines in a financial services partnership, you >>> should put the OS & programs together on C: and put your data on D:,
[]
Yes I know that is the ideal professional way, but for home setups the data >> is tiny compared to software so makes little sense to have its own disk.
Really? Apart from "toy" machines (like those with only 64G - there were
even some 32 - of "storage" soldered to the motherboard) where the OS occupies most of what's available, I'd have thought most people's data
soon occupies far more space than their OS-plus-software. Videos,
especially, soon eat up the space - even if you don't store entire
movies (even SD, let alone anything higher). My data occupies about 230G
on D:, my C: is about 56G full (including _some_ data). (I only have 30
"full films", and many of those are shorts.)
Of course, I suppose some of today's users - maybe most? - may store
their data on someone else's computer (I avoid the phrase "in the cloud"
as that's what it actually means).
On Sat, 10/4/2025 10:19 AM, Chris wrote:
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 10/3/2025 3:58 PM, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 10/3/2025 11:00 AM, Chris wrote:
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
But as another poster said: Microsoft should at least be able to
migrate Windows itself and any Microsoft software, but it can't even do >>>>>> that.
Yup.
Details matter.
I've shown Carlos some examples of things that worked recently.
I moved a W10 from the Test Machine (4930K Intel) to the Big Machine (AMD). >>> First, it boots as W10. Then I use my w11 USB install stick and
install W11 over top of W10. And now the W11 has all the same
desktop icons as were on the 4930K OS. My files and programs
are all there. No migrating to do. No Laplink. That's a migration
and upgrade, between two machines about eight years different in age.
Nice. So why can't MS create a supported solution to help non-techy ppl?
Even techy ppl. The above doesn't daunt me but it's just extra faff I'd
rather not have to deal with.
Although, thinking about it, I've split my main win10 across two disks with >> OS on C: and apps/data on D: via hardlinks. your solution will likely cause >> me pain.
OK, I found another piece of the puzzle. Or rather, Microsoft shoved it
into my face.
I was running Win10 on the Test Machine (I'm setting up to "perfect"
the MBR2GPT transition thing). When all of a sudden, a Win10 "End-of-life" advert appeared, complete with placing an animation in place of the background
on my desktop.
So let's roll back a bit and review. We had the Windows Easy Transfer, and it only seemed to handle data files.
But for Migration, we have two issues to solve (for real users, like the people
in this group).
1) Metro.Apps
2) Legacy Win32 applications (Thunderbird and I guess Firefox).
OK, so we thought we had "nothing" for Migration. Well, the "marketing"
here (not entirely technical and not technical enough for a lawyer to
argue in court) tells us of the Evil Plan.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/back-up-and-restore-with-windows-backup-87a81f8a-78fa-456e-b521-ac0560e32338#id0ebh=windows_10
You will notice in the last little while, the hyper-marketing of the
"Windows Backup" and maybe the 5GB "free storage".
It turns out, the "Windows Backup" *is* the Migration plan.
Of course, the average user could easily blow through the 5GB if
something like their Downloads folder was included, but as Frank
points out, part of the backup focuses on "Libraries" and I don't
think Downloads is part of that. This means there is slightly
less material to back up. If (heaven forbid), the user were to
blow through their 5GB freebie, then dingdingding, a credit card
number and a monthly plan will soundly whip that limitation.
OK, so we're backing up some amount of data. Let's make a list
of the important stuff the marketing people tell us we'll get:
1) Libraries backed up. Could be restored. Maybe your screenshots
from the old machine, show up on a restore.
2) Metro.Apps -- the manifest or package identifier code is recorded.
It was always associated somehow, locally, with the machine, with any
License details recorded ("can use the program on up to ten machines").
During the Restore, the restore software reads the identifier code,
goes to the MicrosoftStore server and downloads the *most recent*
version of the code. If you were running version 23 on the old machine,
and a day or two passed, version 24 would now download. If Photos.App was
a 200MB kit, then a 200MB download would happen, but it isn't really
coming from the disk space of the 5GB storage area. It's coming off
the release server. Note that recently, we got a little toot, that
*you cannot stop Metro.Apps from updating*. The reason this just
happened to be mentioned, is for the people who will take exception
to the Restoral process for Windows Backup.
3) Each Metro.App has settings. We don't know exactly where those are
stored. Say Notepad.App, if there was such a thing (Win10 is Notepad.exe),
then the settings seem to be recorded in Windows Backup. If you had set
Notepad to "not remember" your previous session, then the Win11 machine
should also have Notepad set to "not remember". But as users, we also know
of a number of settings, that are beaten senseless by the Microsoft idea
of a "default that Microsoft likes" (that text on the lock screen image). When you
get the Windows 11 machine going, the Widgets will be turned on again,
when you had turned them off.
This then, is the Migration Plan. The competition for the Apple Corporation. It's Windows Backup :-/ Put a bag over your head, inhale the smoke, and
you too can pretend to be Migrating.
OK, full disclosure, where would this work "Seamlessly". Why, on two Windows-S computers (win32 not allowed). If the old Win10 machine was a Win10-S
and you did not flip it out of -S, and if the new machine was a Win11-S
and you did not flip that one either, and if both used MSAs so the
Windows Backup would work... then that would be a Perfect Migration
(minus your Downloads folder maybe, perhaps some email folder,
your bookmarks, assorted random projects stored in the wrong places). Microsoft could hold that up for the fan club and claim they were
... just as good as Apple (while smirking a bit into their sleeve).
So having described that, we'll have to wait until someone tests
this. It will be a slow process, determining what is not getting
migrated properly (in the "real" world, not the "marketing cartoon" world).
Who knows, maybe "T" will write the recipe for us.
On Sun, 10/5/2025 11:45 AM, ...winston wrote:
Paul wrote:
OK, full disclosure, where would this work "Seamlessly". Why, on two
Windows-S computers (win32 not allowed).
Windows-S devices are a very narrow and limited subset and primarily in use in the Enterprise and Edu arena, where admins and admin managment tools control 'migration'.
ÿi.e. not a significant value in the consumer (and primarily only for those consumers(even smaller subset) with Windows Home 'S' devices.
My purpose was not to "sell" this plan to the audience,
as being practical in any way. I'm not bragging about it.
The marketing people have a plan of sorts, and the plan isn't
really any better than Windows Easy Transfer, in terms
of the thoroughness and "guaranteed-carefree" results.
While I can kinda/sorta do these things for myself, I would
not feel right offering my services as a "migration expert"
with a "money-back guarantee". That would be pushing my luck.
Customers would be bringing in Explorer Patcher, WindHawk,
and OpenShell, just to annoy me (in other words the customer
lards up the machine with crap, just to test me). Maybe I
would find a copy of Norton GoBack running on a machine.
[]
Of course, I suppose some of today's users - maybe most? - may store
their data on someone else's computer (I avoid the phrase "in the cloud"
as that's what it actually means).
On 7/10/2025 7:11 am, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 10:04:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>Pick Me! Someone MUST own every computer out there in the big wide
wrote:
[]
Of course, I suppose some of today's users - maybe most? - may store
their data on someone else's computer (I avoid the phrase "in the cloud" >>> as that's what it actually means).
My only problem with that statement is that some people might actually
believe that 'the cloud' means "someone else's computer". "Someone else"
can certainly offer to host someone's data, but I don't think anyone
would confuse that with 'the cloud'.
world. 'They' might allow other people to store other peoples data on 'Their' computers and 'They' may or may not make use of said Data ....
but I don't trust 'Them' all!!
Daniel70 wrote:oud"
On 7/10/2025 7:11 am, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 10:04:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk
wrote:
[]
Of course, I suppose some of today's users - maybe most? - may store
their data on someone else's computer (I avoid the phrase "in the cl
yas that's what it actually means).
My only problem with that statement is that some people might actuall
se"believe that 'the cloud' means "someone else's computer". "Someone el
can certainly offer to host someone's data, but I don't think anyonePick Me! Someone MUST own every computer out there in the big wide
would confuse that with 'the cloud'.
world. 'They' might allow other people to store other peoples data on
'Their' computers and 'They' may or may not make use of said Data ....
but I don't trust 'Them' all!!
Char explained(it) accurately.
Someone is singular
- unless a sole person is hosting a cloud for others storage it would
then be true.
The correct term for more than one, as Char noted(in reference to
others' belief) and also to more than one person - 'some people'
- 'someone' doesn't own every computer out there.
- 'someone else' isn't the cloud
In fact, 'some people' would be a poor choice of the term for companies
hosting storage in the cloud.
OK, I should have said something like "I suppose some of today's users - maybe most? - may store their data on computers controlled by others".
But it's more clumsy (-:
On Tue, 10/7/2025 1:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:-
OK, I should have said something like "I suppose some of today's users
maybe most? - may store their data on computers controlled by others".
But it's more clumsy (-:
The track record of other people handling your data, isn't
all that good. Look at some of the recent track records,
for public facilities that got knocked over. It's only
a matter of time, before they get into your particular
"data barn" and burn it down.
Paul (who is running a backup in the other monitor)
On 2025/10/7 18:52:2, Paul wrote:
On Tue, 10/7/2025 1:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
OK, I should have said something like "I suppose some of today's users - >>> maybe most? - may store their data on computers controlled by others".
But it's more clumsy (-:
The track record of other people handling your data, isn't
all that good. Look at some of the recent track records,
for public facilities that got knocked over. It's only
a matter of time, before they get into your particular
"data barn" and burn it down.
Paul (who is running a backup in the other monitor)
You are preaching to the converted here!
I just acknowledged Char's point that my (flippant) use of "storing it
on someone else's computer" _could_ be misinterpreted as meaning a
_single_ "someone else", such as a friend, rather than a company.
Daniel70 wrote:
On 7/10/2025 7:11 am, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 10:04:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>Pick Me! Someone MUST own every computer out there in the big wide
wrote:
[]
Of course, I suppose some of today's users - maybe most? - may store
their data on someone else's computer (I avoid the phrase "in the cloud" >>>> as that's what it actually means).
My only problem with that statement is that some people might actually
believe that 'the cloud' means "someone else's computer". "Someone else" >>> can certainly offer to host someone's data, but I don't think anyone
would confuse that with 'the cloud'.
world. 'They' might allow other people to store other peoples data on
'Their' computers and 'They' may or may not make use of said Data ....
but I don't trust 'Them' all!!
Char explained(it) accurately.
Someone is singular
- unless a sole person is hosting a cloud for others storage it would
then be true.
The correct term for more than one, as Char noted(in reference to
others' belief) and also to more than one person - 'some people'
- 'someone' doesn't own every computer out there.
- 'someone else' isn't the cloud
In fact, 'some people' would be a poor choice of the term for companies >hosting storage in the cloud.
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/10/7 18:52:2, Paul wrote::)
On Tue, 10/7/2025 1:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
OK, I should have said something like "I suppose some of today's users - >>>> maybe most? - may store their data on computers controlled by others". >>>> But it's more clumsy (-:
The track record of other people handling your data, isn't
all that good. Look at some of the recent track records,
for public facilities that got knocked over. It's only
a matter of time, before they get into your particular
"data barn" and burn it down.
Paul (who is running a backup in the other monitor)
You are preaching to the converted here!
I just acknowledged Char's point that my (flippant) use of "storing it
on someone else's computer" _could_ be misinterpreted as meaning a
_single_ "someone else", such as a friend, rather than a company.
My reply was to Daniel70(which continued the 'someone else' term)
The 'trust' issue comment/concern(Daniel and someone or anyone else)
though is valid - the possibilities of not having access, security
breach, subscription expiration, death, etc. do exist.
- Note: Does not mean that 'cloud storage' can't be utilized, but as
the sole source of storage(no local or offline backup) concern should be considered before taking that type of leap(of faith).
Thanks for cleaning that up. :)
If people could walk into a cloud provider's data center, they might be
amazed at how different it is from simply "someone else's computer".
..winston <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/10/7 18:52:2, Paul wrote::)
On Tue, 10/7/2025 1:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
OK, I should have said something like "I suppose some of today's users - >>>>> maybe most? - may store their data on computers controlled by others". >>>>> But it's more clumsy (-:
The track record of other people handling your data, isn't
all that good. Look at some of the recent track records,
for public facilities that got knocked over. It's only
a matter of time, before they get into your particular
"data barn" and burn it down.
Paul (who is running a backup in the other monitor)
You are preaching to the converted here!
I just acknowledged Char's point that my (flippant) use of "storing it
on someone else's computer" _could_ be misinterpreted as meaning a
_single_ "someone else", such as a friend, rather than a company.
My reply was to Daniel70(which continued the 'someone else' term)
The 'trust' issue comment/concern(Daniel and someone or anyone else)
though is valid - the possibilities of not having access, security
breach, subscription expiration, death, etc. do exist.
- Note: Does not mean that 'cloud storage' can't be utilized, but as
the sole source of storage(no local or offline backup) concern should be
considered before taking that type of leap(of faith).
That can be said for any single form of data storage. Local backup has different failure modes that are arguably more likely.
On Wed, 10/8/2025 2:51 AM, Chris wrote:
..winston <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/10/7 18:52:2, Paul wrote::)
On Tue, 10/7/2025 1:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
OK, I should have said something like "I suppose some of today's users - >>>>>> maybe most? - may store their data on computers controlled by others". >>>>>> But it's more clumsy (-:
The track record of other people handling your data, isn't
all that good. Look at some of the recent track records,
for public facilities that got knocked over. It's only
a matter of time, before they get into your particular
"data barn" and burn it down.
Paul (who is running a backup in the other monitor)
You are preaching to the converted here!
I just acknowledged Char's point that my (flippant) use of "storing it >>>> on someone else's computer" _could_ be misinterpreted as meaning a
_single_ "someone else", such as a friend, rather than a company.
My reply was to Daniel70(which continued the 'someone else' term)
The 'trust' issue comment/concern(Daniel and someone or anyone else)
though is valid - the possibilities of not having access, security
breach, subscription expiration, death, etc. do exist.
- Note: Does not mean that 'cloud storage' can't be utilized, but as
the sole source of storage(no local or offline backup) concern should be >>> considered before taking that type of leap(of faith).
That can be said for any single form of data storage. Local backup has
different failure modes that are arguably more likely.
I like the low monthly fees and the great customer service
I get with my local backups :-) <Paul> "Where is my data ?
[Rotates chair] "You silly git, it's in the other room".
That's the kind of customer service I get.
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 10/8/2025 2:51 AM, Chris wrote:
..winston <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/10/7 18:52:2, Paul wrote::)
On Tue, 10/7/2025 1:44 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
OK, I should have said something like "I suppose some of today's users -
maybe most? - may store their data on computers controlled by others". >>>>>>> But it's more clumsy (-:
The track record of other people handling your data, isn't
all that good. Look at some of the recent track records,
for public facilities that got knocked over. It's only
a matter of time, before they get into your particular
"data barn" and burn it down.
Paul (who is running a backup in the other monitor)
You are preaching to the converted here!
I just acknowledged Char's point that my (flippant) use of "storing it >>>>> on someone else's computer" _could_ be misinterpreted as meaning a
_single_ "someone else", such as a friend, rather than a company.
My reply was to Daniel70(which continued the 'someone else' term)
The 'trust' issue comment/concern(Daniel and someone or anyone else)
though is valid - the possibilities of not having access, security
breach, subscription expiration, death, etc. do exist.
- Note: Does not mean that 'cloud storage' can't be utilized, but as
the sole source of storage(no local or offline backup) concern should be >>>> considered before taking that type of leap(of faith).
That can be said for any single form of data storage. Local backup has
different failure modes that are arguably more likely.
I like the low monthly fees and the great customer service
I get with my local backups :-) <Paul> "Where is my data ?
[Rotates chair] "You silly git, it's in the other room".
That's the kind of customer service I get.
A bit rude, but you get what you pay for ;)
On Wed, 10/8/2025 1:07 PM, Chris wrote:
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
I like the low monthly fees and the great customer service
I get with my local backups :-) <Paul> "Where is my data ?
[Rotates chair] "You silly git, it's in the other room".
That's the kind of customer service I get.
A bit rude, but you get what you pay for ;)
OK, now this is a lesson worth hearing about.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/south-korean-government-learns-the-importance-of-backups-the-hard-way-after-catastrophic-fire-858-terabytes-of-data-goes-up-in-magic-smoke
"While a datacenter fire is an event that can happen anywhere at any time,
it's more than a little puzzling to find that the G-Drive data was lost because,
according to an unnamed source, "[it] couldn't have a backup due to its large capacity." <=== Hahaha, just like some USENETters...
858 terabytes is a big number for a household, but barely registers in the scale of
datacenter storage, where entire petabytes are doled out like candy.
Paul
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 13 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 148:47:49 |
| Calls: | 177 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 79,014 |