In article <20070714210154.32d76b83@workstation>, ed <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> > > Vista keeps something called a shad°©ow copy that backs up your work
> > > in the unused space on the hard drive. It°Øs designed to prevent
....
>
> If you alter a file, I imagine it has to copy the whole lot.
Why would you imagine that?
> This is such a stupid move. The harddisk is the bottle neck on most
> computers. In many cases 1gib network cards can push data faster than
> the disks, why would anyone want to make things slower? It really
> shouldn't be part of the install.
>
> Imagine, something like a BDB file having to be replaced hundreds of
> times when records are updated, supposing with something like a
> timestamp column. When a transaction is closed then the file has to be
> copied.
>
> What about the registry also? Wouldn't this have to be copied time and
> time again as it's being updated? Jesus, it's so stupid to do this by
> default. I don't mind the idea of shadow copies, in some cases it might
> be useful, on something like /var/www or /var/log, /etc and /home, but
> for a registry, and /usr that's just stupid.
It's not slow on other systems that do similar things (Linux with LVM2,
OS X Leopard with Time Machine), so why do you assume that it must be
slow on Windows?
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
