Now think of a situation when due to a user's error some file(s) get overwritten or deleted. What do you do then?

Just have a bug in the file-manager, file-system driver, the disk controller driver, a hardware failure in the disk controller or a common user error: Total data-loss, no new doorstop.

True for both. Thing is, even I can think of ways to lose data no matter what is done to prevent it. Even if I have RAID where it is mirrored over 4 drives, 5 sets of backups and such, something can go wrong that all of that is lost. His house can burn down to the ground and he would lose ALL data including the computer itself. It comes down to what is affordable based on the value of the data. That's my point. The data may not even be worth him having a RAID set up which only costs one set of drives.

All this will be decided by him, not me. If he wants RAID, I'll explain how it works and all and he can decide if he wants that. He may just want to back them up to DVD from time to time and hope for the best. Right now, I have two copies here. His old copy which has some extras added and my copies where we copied some to my rig a while back. Some pics would be missing from the old copy tho.

:D :D

This makes me think that you still don't get that the purpose of a RAID is not data-protection, so I give up on you, it seems that you don't want to understand.

I don't think you understand what I have said many times. I had a hard drive fail. Not a controller failure, not a user error or any of the other things that people have mentioned. It was a hard drive failure. Everyone wants to come up with some complicated setup when he doesn't want or need it. It's a computer that is used at home not a space ship going to Mars. Heck, I think RAID is even overkill. It's not that big of a deal. As I mentioned many times, he had copies of most all the stuff on DVDs. I just didn't know that.

You think I don't understand this situation but I do. It's everyone else that doesn't get it.

:D :D

I copy my pictures and audio files to DVD periodically.....everything else is replaceable or I can do without it. That's enough for me.

It's not about your brother's situation. It's about you clearly confusing backup with RAID and spreading potentially dangerous misconceptions.

I don't recall saying RAID was a replacement for a backup. I just said that it would mirror the data on two drives. I know what I am talking about and what my thoughts are. It's everyone else that is confused about my thinking and intentions.

:D :D

Boy this thread is quiet. I guess people got tired or bored debating windows versus linux. Or there's nothing new to say that has already been said on both sides.

Since this thread is ostensibly about Windows v. Linux, Dalek's suspicion about a hard drive failure under Windows is the salient point, not backup v. RAID. And i will add my two cents to say this: that on my 10-year-old tower which i can boot either to Windows or Linux, i can audibly tell the difference. When i boot to Windows, i can hear the heads rattle back and forth on the HPFS system, even if i have just defragmented that partition. On the Linux ext3 partition, i hear nothing because the data is placed near the inodes to reduce head movement. This has got to have an effect upon hard drive longevity. Ergo, to keep my old 'puter running as long as possible (and for my own sanity), i almost never boot to Windows any more.

Unfortunately, i have to use cyber cafes to go online down here in Nicaragua, and all they run is Windows. To solve this, I have brought my Linux CD downtown with me at times, and hope to get a Linux bootable flash drive soon, so i can always have my Linux with me.

I recently picked up a discarded windoze box and fired it up ... Boy I don't miss the aggravation of using this POS OS at all I'll stick with my #! or Mint operating system gladly. I've since relegated the HDD to my trusty Acronis disk clean so no more annoying BSOD ;)

I had to use this sig because I feel it is appropriate...

Reminds me of Ubuntu, except for the "pay for".

1. Linux is a great group of OS's. The more you know about them, the more useful they can be. The less you know about them, the more you will hate computers until you start to learn. You can do almost everything on just Linux.

1. Windows is a great group of OS's. The more you know about them, the more useful they can be. The less you know about them, the more you will hate computers until you start to learn. You can do almost everything on just Windows.

Windows has a few downsides, foremost is security. Drivers. Registry.

Linux cant compete with direct X. Well, it can compete, it just looses. I've been able to get some games running stable in Linux, but they don't look as good as Windows. Theres a few compatibility issues, although recently they have been few and far between (for me at least).

What I find rather humorous is the amount of features Windows "borrows" from Linux since XP. Swap specifically, and then many desktop features.

I've had Task Manager "not responding" under Windows 7 but never had anything of that sort under Linux -- stability issues of that kind still seem to be a Windows problem.
Windows annoys me because I can't set up the desktop as I want -- as an end user there's no flexibility.
Every time Microsoft bring out a new version of something you have to put up with stupid changes that only seem to be there to confuse you -- though I admit that's creeping into Linux a little (Amarok springs to mind).
The Microsoft insistence of making evrything a binary file is immensely annoying as it means you have to use their specifit application to edit them and you can't do things like greping -- though they do seem to have learned a bit and made PowerShell do these things.
In summary I just find Linux more stable, flexible and free and Windows frustrating and constantly changing for no good reason.

I also beleive that Windows is responsible for making computers too easy to use by people who have no interest in them and that it makes things appear easier than they are. Up until very recently I don't think computers actually were ready for the mainstream and I think all the virus problems are due to Windows making people think they can use a computer without any knowledge of how it works beneath the surface. I don't actually think that many people who have been using computers for the past few years ought to have been using them as the state of the art just was not good enough and I blame Windows for this. I think Linux actually represents the true state of the art in that it is only just becoming something that anyone can use without risk of it going boom. To me Linux has always had the stability and security models pretty much correct and has been built the right way -- aproaching useability from a point of strenth not, like Windows, being useable first then aproaching strength.
Now, I think Windows may be truelly ready for the mainstream use it has been pretending to be since Windows 95. The funny thing is though that through Android Linux is proving it, too, is ready and I hope one day people will realise it's now viable on the desktop too.
By the above I do not mean that anyone ought to decide who can or cannot use a computer, but that had Windows not existed people would have had to have a lot more training to use general purpose computing devices and they would have been treated with far more respect.

Windows taught the world; 'All you do is point and click ... Look at that computers are fun and easy!' ... Which does have a plus side, Computers are now available to everyone ... Which has lead to a huge tech boom (which with out basic understanding such as windows provided would not have been so accepted imo), Ranging from touchscreen computers and phones, to robotic vaccum cleaners that anyone can feel comfortable using. But it has taken a lot away from US ... The user.

Lack of customization, whether it be visuals,configs, or system files (If anyone is gonna **** up my OS it will be ME ... Not my OS itself!)

The inability to save ones self without GUI. How many people actually know that command prompt is there for a reason?

it's dumbed down to a ridiculous level, So that ANYONE can use it ... Which is how conversations end up like this:
'Open your browser and type the address.' -You mean my documents?- 'No, the browser ... The internet.' -oh, and then I type my address?- 'No the site address' -What site?-

I have to admit that I can see the benefits of MS, I just wish it had a little bit smaller piece of the pie (Or at least offered a more advanced and open version of it's product for users who want more) ... But after switching to Linux, I think that the MS benefits are moot to me ... I found my system.

I actually think the tech boom was too soon, which is why we're only just getting devices that everyone and their gran can use without ending up with a hundred different strains of malware on them.
I also think that completely general purpose computing devices should only be used by people who have an interest in them. There really is no need for a lawyer (as an example of an intelligent professional who now uses computers) to have even half of what a Windows PC offers. They need a locked-down word processing and case-management solution (in short, I know it's more than this) and should never have been given something with all the functionality of a Windows PC. In case anyone thinks I'm being snobby here I know that, according to the CIO of a large firm I worked for, most lawyers would agree -- they don't want to learn computers they want to earn money.
Windows was a con pretending that general purpose computers were ready for and needed by normal people. This sold computers but only Microsoft benefited.