Can I update to a 1.5 TB internal HDD on a 6 year old Dell xps9000

[Lady Fitzgerald]

and you are not supposed to be storing data on C anyway.

Sure you can. The truth is, the vast majority of the 1.5 Billion Windows computers out there only have one drive with one partition and it works just fine.

A second drive is something extra most don't have, or need for that matter. You still need to keep backups. In reality, if you have two drives, you have twice the chance for a drive failure!

I didn`t say you can`t, I said you shouldn`t, why am I repeating myself ?

Your data should at least be stored on another partition if you only have 1 drive, but yes, most people don`t know any better.

You can have your data on the C: drive but it makes it harder to backup since you would be limited to cloning or, even better, imaging. However, if the data is on a separate drive or partition, one can use a far more efficient folder/file syncing program to back up the data, which is why I recommend putting data on a separate drive or partition, and use imaging for the system files on the C: partition.

 

[Digerati]

I didn`t say you can`t, I said you shouldn`t, why am I repeating myself ?

Your data should at least be stored on another partition if you only have 1 drive, but yes, most people don`t know any better.

Having your data on a separate partition offers no better security than in the same partition. If anything, the more partitions you have, the greater the chances of partition table corruption. And multiple partitions can increase drive "thrashing" too as the R/W head bounces all over the place. Multiple partitions increases convenience, not data security or integrity.

And it is not a matter of users not knowing better. If what you claim was necessary, Microsoft would have Windows automatically create another partition during installation and put My Documents and other user folders on that other partition. This would be a simple feat. But it is not necessary.

You can have your data on the C: drive but it makes it harder to backup since you would be limited to cloning or, even better, imaging.

Not at all! It is extremely simple to simply drag and drop a backup copy of the Documents and Program Files folders to a backup location. This can easily be a secondary drive in the same computer, or to DVD, external drive, or as in my case, my old repurposed XP system I turned into a NAS down in the basement. This XP NAS is full of drives just for this purpose. But because it is XP, I blocked its internet access in my router. But all my computers can access it just fine.

And virtually every backup program, including Windows own lets you select which folders you want to backup too. In Windows 10, "File History" does an excellent job of this automatically (every hour by default for changed files, as a matter of fact). And it is a simple step to set the backup location to a secondary drive, as I have done.

Lessee... I have a set four backup drives for every data drive in my desktop computer. Two of each set are kept at home and the other two are in my safe-deposit box in the vault at my credit union.

This (my main computer) has an 850 Pro SSD as my primary drive and an 850 EVO as the secondary. W10, all my programs and all my data files are on C. D drive houses backups of C drive, "File History" files, my Downloads folder, and 3,727 of my favorite tunes I copied from my 600+ CD collection. I also regularly backup folders and full images to that XP NAS, then once a month I swap out the backup at the bank. So I don't have as many layers of backups as you, but I do have a safe amount, IMO. Oh, and I regularly backup my encrypted password safe database to my notebook too.

And BTW, I'm a senior citizen too - soon to have my first great-grandchild.

 

[Layback Bear]

Well, it's obvious to me we all agree on doing backups in one fashion or another.
That is good.
We do have different methods but we do it.

Because it's always possible for a hard drive or SSD can die, I'm fully believe separate drives is the proper way to do backups.
I think we all also know that many don't do that and millions don't even know they should or can.
The price of hard drives and SSD's makes a separate drive very possible.
The problem is that the masses for what ever foolish reason don't read this forum.

Lady Fitzgerald has always promoted backups done often. She seems to have a passion for it.

I'm a luck person. I have very little to backup. My main reason is if Windows 7 takes a dump by some goofy Microsoft Updated destroys things. I can just pop in a Clone and be on my way to happy computing. In todays computing world the possibility of Ransom ware is very realistic.
Another good reason for backups and Clones.

I can think of NO good reason not to back up to a external drive in some fashion.

What keeps me puzzled; people will pay a small fortune for games and not spend $100.00 or so to protect those games with backups. They will pay $1000.00 for a video card to play those games and yet, no backups.
My 3 brain cells are just not understand this.

Hopefully some forum passer by will read this thread and start backup.

Jack

 

[Digerati]

What keeps me puzzled; people will pay a small fortune for games and not spend $100.00 or so to protect those games with backups.

Not even a $100. For less than $10 you can get a cheap adapter and $43 will get you a brand new 1TB drive (with 64MB cache no less!). Heck, for less than $100, you can get that adapter and 2 of those drives!

Frankly, all my personal data is worth to me more than my hardware, Windows and my programs too.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I didn`t say you can`t, I said you shouldn`t, why am I repeating myself ?

Your data should at least be stored on another partition if you only have 1 drive, but yes, most people don`t know any better.

Having your data on a separate partition offers no better security than in the same partition. If anything, the more partitions you have, the greater the chances of partition table corruption. And multiple partitions can increase drive "thrashing" too as the R/W head bounces all over the place. Multiple partitions increases convenience, not data security or integrity.

And it is not a matter of users not knowing better. If what you claim was necessary, Microsoft would have Windows automatically create another partition during installation and put My Documents and other user folders on that other partition. This would be a simple feat. But it is not necessary...

I agree having too many partitions is a bad thing. Partitions should not be used for data organization. However, having data on a different partition than C: allows one to use two different methods of backing up for increased efficiency. Just because something isn't the way MS originally set something up doesn't necessarily mean that something isn't better.

...

You can have your data on the C: drive but it makes it harder to backup since you would be limited to cloning or, even better, imaging.

Not at all! It is extremely simple to simply drag and drop a backup copy of the Documents and Program Files folders to a backup location. This can easily be a secondary drive in the same computer, or to DVD, external drive, or as in my case, my old repurposed XP system I turned into a NAS down in the basement. This XP NAS is full of drives just for this purpose. But because it is XP, I blocked its internet access in my router. But all my computers can access it just fine.

And virtually every backup program, including Windows own lets you select which folders you want to backup too. In Windows 10, "File History" does an excellent job of this automatically (every hour by default for changed files, as a matter of fact). And it is a simple step to set the backup location to a secondary drive, as I have done...

While dragging and dropping the Documents folder to the backup drive is a simple way to update a backup, it's inefficient. Unless you specify to ignore duplicates, you will be writing the entire folder to the backup drive every time you update a backup. And even if you do specify to ignore duplicates, you will not be able to get any versioning (keeping earlier versions of a file and deleted files) and the process will take longer. I've found using a folder/file syncing program, such as FreeFileSync (there are other equally good ones) simplifies the process and sends deleted earlier versions of a file to either a drive or a folder (drives are treated as though they are a folder). I'm using Win 7 (that and Office 2010 are the last MS products I'm going to use) so the folder/file syncing program is necessary for what I do. Once set up, using it is very simple, though.

Also, it is a very bad idea to use a drive inside the computer for a backup. If the computer gets stolen, infected, fried from a surge or spike that blows through any surge protection you have (it happens; a nearby lightning strike on the mains will do it), the house burns down or floods, etc. (don't forget user error; it happens to the best) your backup will go with it. For a backup to be secure, it has to be kept disconnected and separate from the computer.

...This (my main computer) has an 850 Pro SSD as my primary drive and an 850 EVO as the secondary. W10, all my programs and all my data files are on C. D drive houses backups of C drive, "File History" files, my Downloads folder, and 3,727 of my favorite tunes I copied from my 600+ CD collection. I also regularly backup folders and full images to that XP NAS, then once a month I swap out the backup at the bank. So I don't have as many layers of backups as you, but I do have a safe amount, IMO. Oh, and I regularly backup my encrypted password safe database to my notebook too.

And BTW, I'm a senior citizen too - soon to have my first great-grandchild.

No fair! I don't have the right plumbing for that kind of contest! Congrats on the soon to be new great-grandchild!

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...Lady Fitzgerald has always promoted backups done often. She seems to have a passion for it...

LOL! Jack, the reason for my passion is I do have a lot data that would be time consuming, expensive, and/or impossible to replace. The reason I have duplicate backup drives in each location is even a backup drive can fail. Also, a backup drive is vulnerable to corruption, infection, human error, etc. while it is being updated or even while just connected to the computer. The second backup is a backup to the backup.

I had a drive become corrupted in my computer once. How? Who knows? What I do know is I didn't find out until I tried to update a backup and the backup failed, lunching the backup drive. This happened on a Saturday morning. If I didn't have that second backup handy, I would have been stuck with a corrupted drive I couldn't trust (even though I could still access the data on it) and no onsite backup until I could get to my credit union the following Monday, retrieve the offsite backup drive, and restore both the onsite backup and the drive in the computer.

But, then I would have still been missing the files that had been added or changed since I put the offsite backup in my credit union safe deposit box. That is why I also have a cloud backup (Carbonite.com). It serves as another offsite backup. However, retrieving all the data would take weeks (and make my ISP very unhappy). To avoid that, I can use the offsite drive to recover most of my data, then retrieve the rest from Carbonite.

In this particular instance, if I hadn't had the second onsite backup, I would have had to wait until Monday to retrieve it, pray fervently that that drive didn't fail before I finished recovery, then wait on Carbonite to downloads the remaining files to my computer (at least it would have been only day or two instead of weeks).

However, I did have that second onsite backup so I was able to recover in only three hours instead of almost a week plus, if something went wrong again (stuff happens; I believe in Murphy's Law, especially since I'm part Irish), I still would have the offsite backups and Carbonite to fall back on.

Does everyone need as much redundancy as I have. Heck no! Everyone has different needs. Many people don't keep any important data on their computers and can just reinstall their OS and programs if things go south so they wouldn't need any backups as long as they had whatever was needed to rebuild the OS and reinstall their programs. Others, such as you, just don't have all that much on their computer and a simpler scheme would be more practical. Also, not everyone can afford to have as many backup drives as I do (I have to eat a lot of mustard sandwiches to afforn mine). For them, even a single onsite backup will still beat the holy hairy heck out of no backup at all!

 

[Digerati]

While dragging and dropping the Documents folder to the backup drive is a simple way to update a backup, it's inefficient. Unless you specify to ignore duplicates, you will be writing the entire folder to the backup drive every time you update a backup.

Not sure how it is inefficient. It is really quick and easy. And if you drag and drop the entire folder to the same place, there will be no duplicates - except what might already be in the source Documents folder.

Just for gee whizzes, I went to my Documents folder on c drive, right click and select copy. Then I went to my d drive/backup folder, right click and paste. It took 8 seconds to copy 1,515 files in 116 folders and 649MB of data. No dups. Now if I had chosen a different folder name, then sure, there would have been a bunch of dups.

Just because something isn't the way MS originally set something up doesn't necessarily mean that something isn't better.

I agree. But it also doesn't mean something else is needed. For example, we don't need a 3rd party defragger because the one is Windows is good enough. We don't need a 3rd party firewall because the one in Windows is good enough. Many of the basic tools in Windows work just fine without 3rd party alternatives or user tweaking - this is more and more true with the latest versions of Windows.

Also, it is a very bad idea to use a drive inside the computer for a backup.

I see no problem with that AS LONG AS it is not your only backup - specifically for the reasons you noted. You must have multiple layers of backups for a robust and failsafe and foolproof backup solution. But there's no reason the first level cannot be a secondary (or tertiary) drive in the same computer.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Responses in bold (yes, I'm lazy; it's also been a long day that started at midnight and included a 400 mile drive).

While dragging and dropping the Documents folder to the backup drive is a simple way to update a backup, it's inefficient. Unless you specify to ignore duplicates, you will be writing the entire folder to the backup drive every time you update a backup.

Not sure how it is inefficient. It is really quick and easy. And if you drag and drop the entire folder to the same place, there will be no duplicates - except what might already be in the source Documents folder.

Just for gee whizzes, I went to my Documents folder on c drive, right click and select copy. Then I went to my d drive/backup folder, right click and paste. It took 8 seconds to copy 1,515 files in 116 folders and 649MB of data. No dups. Now if I had chosen a different folder name, then sure, there would have been a bunch of dups.

I'm missing something here. Are you replacing the previous copy and paste backup?

Just because something isn't the way MS originally set something up doesn't necessarily mean that something isn't better.

I agree. But it also doesn't mean something else is needed. For example, we don't need a 3rd party defragger because the one is Windows is good enough. We don't need a 3rd party firewall because the one in Windows is good enough. Many of the basic tools in Windows work just fine without 3rd party alternatives or user tweaking - this is more and more true with the latest versions of Windows.

I agree Windows defragger (since XP) is good enough. A third party firewall is far easier for me to manage, especially for outgoing, than Windows (at least for Win 7)

Also, it is a very bad idea to use a drive inside the computer for a backup.

I see no problem with that AS LONG AS it is not your only backup - specifically for the reasons you noted. You must have multiple layers of backups for a robust and failsafe and foolproof backup solution. But there's no reason the first level cannot be a secondary (or tertiary) drive in the same computer.

Truth be told, I save my images of my C: drive on my E: data drive for convenience if I ever have to restore to an earlier date. However, the E: drive gets multiple backups so the C: drive also gets multiple backups. What I'm lambasting is the practice of using an internal drive for an only backup or as the only onsite backup and an external offsite backup.

 

[Digerati]

I'm missing something here. Are you replacing the previous copy and paste backup?

Sure! I have no need to keep making more and more copies. If I need to go further back in time, I can pull out an older full backup from the backup NAS sever where I have image files going back many months (years, actually).

I agree Windows defragger (since XP) is good enough. A third party firewall is far easier for me to manage, especially for outgoing, than Windows (at least for Win 7)

What's there to manage? If you are the only user of your computer and you know what programs are installed, there's nothing to manage. For this reason, the integrated Windows Firewall works great. And because it is integrated, it goes up way early in the boot process - especially critical especially when installing Windows anew. And I am even a strong proponent of Windows Defender in W8 and W10 (MSE in W7) as a suitable anti-malware solution. That said, I also use MBAM but I believe regardless your anti-malware solution of choice, you should always have a secondary scanner just to make sure nothing sneaked by the primary.

You don't need an Abrams Tank to be safe while driving about. You just need a properly maintained basic car that is kept current, and you must drive defensively - same as must do in the tank.

I switched to MSE in 2009 when W7 came out, then Windows Defender with W8 and now W10 on all my systems. And except for a few PUPs, MBAM has never found anything WD (or me) ever let past. That said, I am not "click happy" on unsolicited downloads, attachments, links and popups either. But then that does not matter which security program you use either. And for the records, the PUPs MBAM found were wanted anyway.

What I'm lambasting is the practice of using an internal drive for an only backup or as the only onsite backup and an external offsite backup.

I agree 100%. But that applies to external drives kept next to your computer too. A fire, flood, or thief it likely to grab that as well.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Again. replies in bold (my tired hurts).

I'm missing something here. Are you replacing the previous copy and paste backup?

Sure! I have no need to keep making more and more copies. If I need to go further back in time, I can pull out an older full backup from the backup NAS sever where I have image files going back many months (years, actually).

While that works, it does take up more room, especially if you have large amounts of data and/or want more versioning than that is likely to provide.

I only have images of my C: drive. I have Macrium Reflect set to automagically keep only the previous eight weeks. I also keep the first image of every month (I manually copy those over to another folder).

A folder/file syncing program, when set to Mirror (not the same as RAID 1) will give you essentially a clone of your data drive or partition. It compares the source and destination drives, partitions, and/or folders (depending how you set it up), then copies to or deletes from the destination as needed to make it the same as the source. You can also set it to send deleted files to a versioning drive or folder. The process is simpler, takes less time, and takes up far less space.

I agree Windows defragger (since XP) is good enough. A third party firewall is far easier for me to manage, especially for outgoing, than Windows (at least for Win 7)

What's there to manage? If you are the only user of your computer and you know what programs are installed, there's nothing to manage. For this reason, the integrated Windows Firewall works great. And because it is integrated, it goes up way early in the boot process - especially critical especially when installing Windows anew. And I am even a strong proponent of Windows Defender in W8 and W10 (MSE in W7) as a suitable anti-malware solution. That said, I also use MBAM but I believe regardless your anti-malware solution of choice, you should always have a secondary scanner just to make sure nothing sneaked by the primary.

You don't need an Abrams Tank to be safe while driving about. You just need a properly maintained basic car that is kept current, and you must drive defensively - same as must do in the tank.

Actually, it's more like comparing an F150 to a Ford Focus rather than a tank. We all have lapses in our judgment so it's nice to have an "extra pair of eyes" watching out.

I'm more concerned about monitoring and regulating outbound transmissions, such as programs unnecessarily calling home. I use ZoneAlarm's free firewall. It is much easier to mange than win 7's firewall. Once Zone Alarm has been "trained" (it takes a month or two), I see very few popups.

I switched to MSE in 2009 when W7 came out, then Windows Defender with W8 and now W10 on all my systems. And except for a few PUPs, MBAM has never found anything WD (or me) ever let past. That said, I am not "click happy" on unsolicited downloads, attachments, links and popups either. But then that does not matter which security program you use either. And for the records, the PUPs MBAM found were wanted anyway.

I've had problems with MSE so I have been using AVAST free (although it's becoming a bit bloated; I'm considering trying Panda Cloud). I also use Super AntiSpyware free and MBAM Premium (I have four lifetime licenses)

What I'm lambasting is the practice of using an internal drive for an only backup or as the only onsite backup and an external offsite backup.

I agree 100%. But that applies to external drives kept next to your computer too. A fire, flood, or thief it likely to grab that as well.

And that is why you keep them out of sight of the computer—they are less likely to be seen or even recognized as being part of the computer system. Also, it's one reason why you should have offsite backups.

 

[Digerati]

While that works, it does take up more room...

Ummm, no it doesn't. Copying a backup of the Documents folder over the old copy of the Documents folder does not take up more room if nothing in the folder changed. If you created a bunch of new documents, it could take up more space, but that is to be expected. If you deleted a bunch of documents no longer wanted, the new copy could be smaller. And certainly a copy of ONLY the Documents folder would be considerably smaller than an image of the whole drive (which would also include the Documents folder).

It is the same difference with images. If you "overwrite" the old backup image file with the new backup image file, you are essentially using the same amount of space. If you keep multiple image files, then add a new image file to your backup location the next week, you are taking up more space.

Are you constantly creating large quantities of new documents? Are you constantly modifying large numbers of files? Since I am basically retired, I don't need to keep 8 image copies of my disks.

Multiple layers of backups does not necessarily mean each layer must be of multiple image files. If I accidently delete an important document, then empty my recycle bin, for example, it a very simple matter of navigating to the backup copy of my Documents folder and pulling the backup copy of file back. It takes literally just a few seconds. Maybe 60 seconds if I have to wake up my backup NAS in basement if I have to go back a little further in time. That is much easier than restoring an entire image.

Note that File History in Windows 10 does exactly what you are describing with your "folder/file syncing program" comment. It takes up no time and certainly much less space than a whole image as it only copies files that have been modified or newly created. And since it backs up modified/new files every 60 minutes by default, it is very robust and simple to recover an accidently deleted or corrupt file from there too.

Again, FOR ME, I don't need to make a image of my disks every week, or even every month. The only image I "need" is the most recent when the computer was last working fine!

If I lose my boot drive, I can restore an image from 3 months ago, apply the latest Windows Updates, copy back over my Documents folder, import the backup of my Outlook pst file and be right back to where I was before I lost the drive.

Other users who are constantly creating or modifying user files may need a much more inclusive and frequent backup plan. A busy file server, for example, may need daily images and several "incremental" backups throughout each day. I used to maintain mission critical systems that used real-time off-site mirrored systems that would instantly take over for a failed computer/server without the user even being aware of any hiccough!

DO NOT CRITICISE MY F150!!!! My point there was many assume they MUST have the best scoring antimalware solution in order to remain safe from malware. That is just not true - unless maybe you partake in risky behavior like illegal file sharing via torrents or P2P sites, you visit illegal gambling or pornography sites, or you (or another user of your computer) goes "click happy" on unsolicited downloads, attachments, links and popups - that is, if you are not a disciplined, defensive driver, even a well maintained F150 will not protect you.

I'm more concerned about monitoring and regulating outbound transmissions, such as programs unnecessarily calling home. I use ZoneAlarm's free firewall. It is much easier to mange than win 7's firewall. Once Zone Alarm has been "trained" (it takes a month or two), I see very few popups.

It is a matter of what you are used to, not which is better. You can easily "set" Windows Firewall to do what you need - no training time required.

I find it ironic you express concern over disk space, yet you have downloaded and installed (and make frequent backup copies of) a 3rd party firewall you don't need.

And that is why you keep them out of sight of the computer—they are less likely to be seen or even recognized as being part of the computer system. Also, it's one reason why you should have offsite backups.

Exactly!

Frankly, I am not worried about programs "calling home". That is relatively easy to control regardless your firewall of choice. It is important to note there is a HUGE difference between security and privacy. Microsoft and Windows 10, for example, is NOT trying to steal our passwords, access our bank accounts, or infect our computers, or even gather our real names, home addresses, phone numbers or social security or insurance numbers. People should be more worried about their ISPs and cell phone carriers. Those people are not only tracking everything you do, but they already know your name and address and billing information. And the cell carriers know who you've talked to and texted, where your are standing right now (including the store and aisle you are standing in), where you've been, the direction you are heading, and how fast you are heading there!

My concern is malicious code coming in. If we are successful blocking malicious code from getting past our defenses on the way in, there is no need to worry about the way out. But regardless, WF controls incoming and outgoing traffic too - just as effectively as 3rd party FWs - without taking up extra disk space or system resources.

 

[Layback Bear]

I don't like it but I'm sure my ISP know everything when I'm online.
I know of no way of stopping that because everything goes through them when I'm on line.
I don't care what browser or programs I use to access the internet.

My main concern is the wrong things getting into my systems.
Last night LeadZU.com was sincerely trying to enter my system. Malwarebytes stopped it. I had to reboot to stop it from trying. Ran all my scans and found it did not get into my system.

We have all read what information W-10 is retrieving. Even key logging is not out of the question for Microsoft. Why would Microsoft gather and save all this information if they were not going to use this information. If one wants to believe that Microsoft gathers an saves this information for the only purpose of improving our computing experience one is being very foolish in my opinion.
I can't go online and stop all snooping but I sure as hell don't buy a operating system to do such a thing.
Google knows more about me than I know about me, but I didn't buy the right to use Google.

One can't stop all the weeds from growing. But to me that is not a reason to let all weeds grow in your yard.
I stop what I can and cuss the ones I can't.

Jack

 

[Eric3742]

fyi. afaik.

I don't like it but I'm sure my ISP know everything when I'm online.

ISP do not keep track on which website you had gone to.
ISP do logged the date/time when an IP Address is allocated to you.
When the connection is disconnected, ISP then logged as logout.

It is website's cookie that keep track on anyone who enter the website.
It also logged your IP Address, and send their cookie to your computer.
This is where cookies can help you or destroy you, by laying it's egg, namely, malware/virus.

Not long ago, one website sue 1,000+ users here for violation for free downloading and streaming of copyright 1 movie for $$.
They are able to identify the user by means of seeking court order to ISP to reveal the customers by using the IP Address.
This may also apply to VPN services.


Thanks for reading

Regards
Eric.

 

[Layback Bear]

Do ISP track people? Some surly leave little 3rd party program that do track.
When I was using Windstream I had to remove such programs.
Somebody is tracking somebody. Just Google yourself. Google your user name. Google your address.
All this is normally done for advertisement design.

I delete cookies several times a day.

I have had times when I searched for a product and in two days I get emails selling such a product and at times snail mail.
Their is a entire industry selling the ability of tracking. Getting information and selling it. If one wants to use the internet that is the price we pay.
Tracking induces sales to many companies. That is what pays for the internet.
The monthly fee we all pay is nothing compared to the worth of the data collected.

Jack

 

[Digerati]

My main concern is the wrong things getting into my systems.
Last night LeadZU.com was sincerely trying to enter my system.

If you want to see something scary, check your router logs. Most entries are totally innocent. Many will be misidentified as DoS ACK scans (or something similar - I have a Netgear router) but they are really innocent scans. Most likely from Akamai, Microsoft, and if you use a streaming service like Netflix.

But today I got 2 Smurf attacks - genuine attempts at DoS that came in late last night and early this morning from 27.208.133.255
and 175.173.62.255 registered to China Unicom, a "state" owned telecommunications company in the "P.R.China" - that's People's Republic of China, otherwise known as Communist China.

They never made it past my router so no harm but it sure made me wonder what they were poking me more. :huh:

ISP do not keep track on which website you had gone to.

Of course they do! They keep track of (log) every call made to any IP address/url made from one of their connected clients. You note yourself they are able to identify the user with a court order. How do you supposed they are able to do that, if not for the logs they keep?

Now whether they sell that information is another matter. Surely some ISPs do, others don't.

It is website's cookie that keep track on anyone who enter the website.

No it's not. Any time anyone enters a site, their IP address is logged. This site knows what your IP address is, when you logged in, how long you were attached and probably more. Cookies really have nothing to do with it.

 

[Layback Bear]

Akamai is the program Windstream would install. I would just keep removing it.

Jack

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Again, my replies will be in bold (no excuse).

While that works, it does take up more room...

Ummm, no it doesn't. Copying a backup of the Documents folder over the old copy of the Documents folder does not take up more room if nothing in the folder changed. If you created a bunch of new documents, it could take up more space, but that is to be expected. If you deleted a bunch of documents no longer wanted, the new copy could be smaller. And certainly a copy of ONLY the Documents folder would be considerably smaller than an image of the whole drive (which would also include the Documents folder).

Ok, I was still misunderstanding you. Yes, if you copy the Documents folder over using copy and replace, then yes, the only space increase will be for new files. However, files deleted in the newer version of the folder will not be deleted in the backup copy and will cause an increase in size. If you changed any files, the older versions in the backup file will be deleted unless you choose keeping both copies with the new copy being renamed to show it is a copy. Getting rid of those older versions, once it's apparent you no longer need them, is a royal pain.

If your data is fairly static, that won't be an issue. Event though I've probably been fully retired (six years) longer than you, I still frequently and prolifically add, change, and delete files so using a folder/file syncing program with versioning is easier, faster, and far more efficient for me. Once it becomes apparent I no longer need older versions of a certain age or older, it is easy for me to go to the versioning drive, select the ones to be deleted (usually in a block so the selection process takes a whole second or two), then delete them. For me, using FreeFileSync is simple as plugging a backup drive into the hot swap bay on my computer, clicking on FreeFileSync's icon, click on the appropriate profile (based on drive name, which I labeled with on the drive's label face and on its end), then click on the sync button on FreeFileSync's window, then ignore it until it is finished. The number of drives I can backup at once right now is limited to the number of hot swap bays I have installed—only one —but that will change with the computer I'm building (probably three with the number of SATA ports available being the limiting factor but the new machine is going to be an X99 monster). One thing that FreeFileSync has the capability of doing is verifying that a file was successfully copied over with no errors, something that doesn't happen with simple drag and drop or copy and paste.

It is the same difference with images. If you "overwrite" the old backup image file with the new backup image file, you are essentially using the same amount of space. If you keep multiple image files, then add a new image file to your backup location the next week, you are taking up more space.

With Macrium Reflect, you do not overwrite existing images; you create new ones, be they full, incremental, or differential images. You can set Macrium Reflect to retain only a certain number of images based on quantity or age (I have mine set for age: eight weeks max). Images can be compressed (by default, they are) so, even though

Are you constantly creating large quantities of new documents? Are you constantly modifying large numbers of files? Since I am basically retired, I don't need to keep 8 image copies of my disks.

As I already mentioned, I do create, maintain, and modify large numbers of files. My whole life is digitized, from personal records (I only keep physical copies as needed by law or for backward vendors that require them for warranty purposes but even those get digitized as well), receipts, statements, calendar entries, my music (I have only 540 CD albums and, 75 digital albums—I prefer ripping from CDS for better quality—and a handful of singles but I have 24 recently acquired CDs I haven't ripped and tagged yet), recorded OTA television shows and movies (I usually dump them once I finish watching them: I'm way behind watching them right now), I'm eventually going to rip all my DVDs, all my calendar entries (I have several learning disabilities with ADHD being the elephant in the room so I depend heavily on computers to manage my life), photos (which frequently get added to), etc.

Multiple layers of backups does not necessarily mean each layer must be of multiple image files. If I accidently delete an important document, then empty my recycle bin, for example, it a very simple matter of navigating to the backup copy of my Documents folder and pulling the backup copy of file back. It takes literally just a few seconds. Maybe 60 seconds if I have to wake up my backup NAS in basement if I have to go back a little further in time. That is much easier than restoring an entire image.

Also, my images are not large since they are of my boot drive only. Other than some that winds up in App Data (which takes up very little space and some of which FreeFileSync is set to automatically backup), I have no data on my boot drive, only system files. All data is on the other drives and doesn't get imaged. The new case will make permanent replacement even faster since all but the boot drive will be accessible from outside the case

I'm the only person accessing my data so I don't really need a NAS nor do I have room for one. I also don't really need full time drive redundancy to ensure continuous operation should a drive fail since it would take only a few minutes to pop in one of my duplicate backup drives into the hot swap bay and disconnect the failed drive, then replace and rebuild it at my leisure.

Also, I actually need fewer drives to have adequate drive redundancy by keeping each drive separate and external from the computer except when updating the backup. It also makes maintaining an offsite backup much easier

Note that File History in Windows 10 does exactly what you are describing with your "folder/file syncing program" comment. It takes up no time and certainly much less space than a whole image as it only copies files that have been modified or newly created. And since it backs up modified/new files every 60 minutes by default, it is very robust and simple to recover an accidently deleted or corrupt file from there too.

Win 7 and Office 2010 are the last MS products I plan on using. The only reason I delayed leaving XP until about a year before it reached EOL was because of hardware and software incompatibility (why replace perfectly good and sometimes expensive hardware and software?). I loved win 7 when I first got it. I wasn't too crazy about Win 8.x and I detest Win 10 and, now, MS in general (those are discussions for another thread).

Again, FOR ME, I don't need to make a image of my disks every week, or even every month. The only image I "need" is the most recent when the computer was last working fine!

I only make an image immediately prior to making a change to my system, such as updating the OS or programs. I've found imaging to be infinitely more reliable than System Restore.

If I lose my boot drive, I can restore an image from 3 months ago, apply the latest Windows Updates, copy back over my Documents folder, import the backup of my Outlook pst file and be right back to where I was before I lost the drive.

Except for what little is in App Data, none of my data is on the boot drive so all I have to do is restore the system and copy over any needed App Data.

Other users who are constantly creating or modifying user files may need a much more inclusive and frequent backup plan. A busy file server, for example, may need daily images and several "incremental" backups throughout each day. I used to maintain mission critical systems that used real-time off-site mirrored systems that would instantly take over for a failed computer/server without the user even being aware of any hiccough!

DO NOT CRITICISE MY F150!!!!

What?! Heaven forbid I should criticize your F150! Doing so would be to also criticize my beloved Saoirse (my "little" '08 F150 Screw)!

My point there was many assume they MUST have the best scoring antimalware solution in order to remain safe from malware. That is just not true - unless maybe you partake in risky behavior like illegal file sharing via torrents or P2P sites, you visit illegal gambling or pornography sites, or you (or another user of your computer) goes "click happy" on unsolicited downloads, attachments, links and popups - that is, if you are not a disciplined, defensive driver, even a well maintained F150 will not protect you.

Actually, I'm more likely survive a crash in Saoirse than I would in, say, a Focus. All seriousness aside (hey, that actually fits here), while I agree the "best" isn't often necessary (one reason I use some freeware, the other being I'm cheap on a retiree's budget), extra protection doesn't hurt (the old belt and suspenders approach). Even though I am cautious where I click, I'm still human and can make mistakes so that extra protection is nice to have, same that even if I'm sitting at an intersection, not moving while waiting for the light, I could still get hit by a car. Believe me, I would much rather be in Saoirse than in a Focus, even though both have seat belts and air bags).

I'm more concerned about monitoring and regulating outbound transmissions, such as programs unnecessarily calling home. I use ZoneAlarm's free firewall. It is much easier to mange than win 7's firewall. Once Zone Alarm has been "trained" (it takes a month or two), I see very few popups.

It is a matter of what you are used to, not which is better. You can easily "set" Windows Firewall to do what you need - no training time required.

I find it ironic you express concern over disk space, yet you have downloaded and installed (and make frequent backup copies of) a 3rd party firewall you don't need.

Zone Alarm takes up only 46.7MB of space; big whoop! What backups? What little data it has takes up a tiny amount of space in App Data and I don't worry about it since it takes so little effort to retrain it (which I have yet to need to do).

And that is why you keep them out of sight of the computer—they are less likely to be seen or even recognized as being part of the computer system. Also, it's one reason why you should have offsite backups.

Exactly!

Frankly, I am not worried about programs "calling home". That is relatively easy to control regardless your firewall of choice. It is important to note there is a HUGE difference between security and privacy. Microsoft and Windows 10, for example, is NOT trying to steal our passwords, access our bank accounts, or infect our computers, or even gather our real names, home addresses, phone numbers or social security or insurance numbers. People should be more worried about their ISPs and cell phone carriers. Those people are not only tracking everything you do, but they already know your name and address and billing information. And the cell carriers know who you've talked to and texted, where your are standing right now (including the store and aisle you are standing in), where you've been, the direction you are heading, and how fast you are heading there!

Some programs have been known to collect data and "phone home" with it, some excessively "call home" to check for updates, running up internet usage, some automatically will install updates after they "phone home" for them (stopping them from phoning home easily stops that; I prefer to check myself and decide when and if to download and install them), I'm simply a paranoid micromanager; I want to know and control as many aspects of my computer I can.

My concern is malicious code coming in. If we are successful blocking malicious code from getting past our defenses on the way in, there is no need to worry about the way out. But regardless, WF controls incoming and outgoing traffic too - just as effectively as 3rd party FWs - without taking up extra disk space or system resources.

While an AV and antimalware programs are one's primary defense against malware getting in, a firewall also helps with blocking drive by infections from unknown sources that even the best AVs and Antimalware programs may not be aware of yet. It's just another layer of defense. Win 7's firewall is excellent for that but its user interface is almost nonexistent and doesn't allow easy "fine tuning", especially against uploads nor does it tell you what is going on. That's why I prefer Zone Alarm. I don't recommend it for most people because most people will not know what selection to make when a window pops up or they won't bother to read what it says and just automatically click allow, which causes more harm than good.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I don't like it but I'm sure my ISP know everything when I'm online.
I know of no way of stopping that because everything goes through them when I'm on line.
I don't care what browser or programs I use to access the internet.

My main concern is the wrong things getting into my systems.
Last night LeadZU.com was sincerely trying to enter my system. Malwarebytes stopped it. I had to reboot to stop it from trying. Ran all my scans and found it did not get into my system.

We have all read what information W-10 is retrieving. Even key logging is not out of the question for Microsoft. Why would Microsoft gather and save all this information if they were not going to use this information. If one wants to believe that Microsoft gathers an saves this information for the only purpose of improving our computing experience one is being very foolish in my opinion.
I can't go online and stop all snooping but I sure as hell don't buy a operating system to do such a thing.
Google knows more about me than I know about me, but I didn't buy the right to use Google.

One can't stop all the weeds from growing. But to me that is not a reason to let all weeds grow in your yard.
I stop what I can and cuss the ones I can't.

Jack

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Do ISP track people? Some surly leave little 3rd party program that do track.
When I was using Windstream I had to remove such programs.
Somebody is tracking somebody. Just Google yourself. Google your user name. Google your address.
All this is normally done for advertisement design.

I delete cookies several times a day.

I have had times when I searched for a product and in two days I get emails selling such a product and at times snail mail.
Their is a entire industry selling the ability of tracking. Getting information and selling it. If one wants to use the internet that is the price we pay.
Tracking induces sales to many companies. That is what pays for the internet.
The monthly fee we all pay is nothing compared to the worth of the data collected.

Jack

I don't delete cookies all that often. I find it easier to just make the website ask permission to install a cookie and I usually say the digital equivalent of "no *&^%$#@! way". Some cookies are good and even necessary but not every site I go to and briefly browse needs to put a cookie on my computer other than for their own nefarious purposes. The occasional site that requires me to accept their cookie to merely browse can just go south. I do clear them all out every once in a great while just in case something "slud" by me.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...It is website's cookie that keep track on anyone who enter the website.

No it's not. Any time anyone enters a site, their IP address is logged. This site knows what your IP address is, when you logged in, how long you were attached and probably more. Cookies really have nothing to do with it.

Actually, cookies do have something to do with it, kindasorta. The website does need the IP addy to find you but uses the cookie to store the data on you. When they harvest the data for a compilation, report, whatever, they retrieve some or all the data from the cookie.