Losing data --- it's normal!



  • So there I was, cleaning up my desktop.

    I had a bunch of .csv files (1.5 GB worth) that I compressed to a .rar using WinRAR.  The files were large, and ASCII compresses amazingly well, so I just chuck the old files once they're compressed.

    I continue to add new files to the archive as I come across them.  On one addition, I get the magical error: Cannot create file:  access denied.  So I lose the entire file.

    Grrrrr.

    I'm administrator on the machine, but Windows occasionally denies access to FF when trying to save a file.  No problem, just re-download the file and hope Windows doesn't get overprotective again.  This is the first time I've actually lost something because Windows got schitzophrenic and decided not to let me save something to my own desktop.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    occasionally

    That word usually implies something else is going on...



  •  Everyone knows your mental state is such that you can't be held responsible for yourself. Windows sometimes forgets that and lets you do thing, while it should dissallow every action.

    So actually your problem is not a bug, it's a feature.



  •  Stop using Windows.



  • @shakin said:

    Stop using Windows.
    You say that like there are other things out there that do what Windows does.  I know for a fact that these other OSes (Linux is one) cannot run unless Windows is running under it.  They simply cannot perform the low level disk and CPU tasks themselves.  Only Windows can.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I continue to add new files to the archive as I come across them.  On one addition, I get the magical error: Cannot create file:  access denied.  So I lose the entire file.

    Get rid of your antivirus. Some of them are known for holding to a file after it's deleted, and don't allow then to create a new file with the same name immediately after the first one was supposed to be gone. This is well known problem which was causing grief to users of VB6 and other programs that are saving files by "save temporary one, delete the old one, rename the new one" sequence.

    You don't need an antivirus, if your normal account is "Limited User" type.

     



  • @alegr said:

    You don't need an antivirus, if your normal account is "Limited User" type.

    Bullshit. A virus can still fuck up (delete, encrypt) all of your user data. Guess you're willing to transfer $1000 to some russian bank account after all of your documents, photo's, email and most importantly porn require a key.

    Also, programs can do a lot of bad things inside userspace with limited rights. Causing a BSOD, sabotage other programs and make you go crazy are some of them.



  • @shakin said:

     Stop using Windows.

     

    OK. If you'll stop using the Internet. 



  • @dtech said:

    @alegr said:

    You don't need an antivirus, if your normal account is "Limited User" type.

    Bullshit. A virus can still fuck up (delete, encrypt) all of your user data. Guess you're willing to transfer $1000 to some russian bank account after all of your documents, photo's, email and most importantly porn require a key.

    Yeah, but that's no reason NOT to run as a more limited user. It's damage limitation, your files versus the entire pc.

    @dtech said:

    Also, programs can do a lot of bad things inside userspace with limited rights. Causing a BSOD, sabotage other programs and make you go crazy are some of them.

     

    Under a limited account the first two shouldn't be possible. A BSOD can only be caused by driver flaws (and can admittedly be invoked by a user-space program if they're there), and the only changes you should be able to make to a program from a limited user account would be that user's settings, which could be fixed without a re-install. The last one, on the other hand...

    If the account is limited enough then you couldn't execute anything without someone else's permission, limiting viruses to the "true" kind that self-spread through security holes. Those have been all but wiped out these days.



  • @dtech said:

    @alegr said:

    You don't need an antivirus, if your normal account is "Limited User" type.

    Bullshit. A virus can still fuck up (delete, encrypt) all of your user data. Guess you're willing to transfer $1000 to some russian bank account after all of your documents, photo's, email and most importantly porn require a key.

    Also, programs can do a lot of bad things inside userspace with limited rights. Causing a BSOD, sabotage other programs and make you go crazy are some of them.

    For what it's worth, it worked for me well since Windows 2000, with my wife and two teenager kids sharing the same computer...

    And funnily, at work I've had local admin rights on my laptop, and the (mandatory) antivirus found a virus one day... After that, I created a separate local admin account, and changed myself to a User.

     



  • @Thief^ said:

    Under a limited account the first two shouldn't be possible. A BSOD can only be caused by driver flaws (and can admittedly be invoked by a user-space program if they're there), and the only changes you should be able to make to a program from a limited user account would be that user's settings, which could be fixed without a re-install. The last one, on the other hand...
     

     Granted, causing a BSOD certainly isn't easy as a limited user, but possible. Also a limited app can cause a lot of programs to crash. I don't know the exact method anymore, but I read about it in a computer magazine 3 years ago. Windows has a system for the communication between processes. A lot of applications can't handle certain messages and crash.

     @Thief^ said:

    Yeah, but that's no reason NOT to run as a more limited user. It's damage limitation, your files versus the entire pc.

    Indeed, 100% true, but I never said you shouldn't use a limited user. I only said you still need a virus scanner even if you're using a limited account.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I know for a fact that these other OSes (Linux is one) cannot run unless Windows is running under it.  They simply cannot perform the low level disk and CPU tasks themselves.  Only Windows can.

     

    Ssshhhh, you were not supposed to tell anyone. You'll spoil our "2009 - the year of the Linux desktop" party this way.



  • @alegr said:

    For what it's worth, it worked for me well since Windows 2000, with my wife and two teenager kids sharing the same computer...

    And funnily, at work I've had local admin rights on my laptop, and the (mandatory) antivirus found a virus one day... After that, I created a separate local admin account, and changed myself to a User.

     

    I had a bacterial infection once and then I took accupuncture and then I was healed!

    Furthermore, I took antibiotics for a year after that and still got an infection. So now I'm taking weekly accupuncture.

    [i]Note: Not that I don't believe you, but 1 example can't proof something. I can't say my program never crashes because when I press 'a' it doesn't crash. Maybe it crashes when I press 'b'. Or when I press 'c'. Or when I press "$admin=true"[/i]



  • @ammoQ said:

    You'll spoil our "2009 - the year of the Linux desktop" party this way.
     

    I thought 2003 was the year of the linux desktop?



  • @dtech said:

    @ammoQ said:

    You'll spoil our "2009 - the year of the Linux desktop" party this way.
     

    I thought 2003 was the year of the linux desktop?

    That was the year of the Linux laptop.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @shakin said:

    Stop using Windows.
    You say that like there are other things out there that do what Windows does.  I know for a fact that these other OSes (Linux is one) cannot run unless Windows is running under it.  They simply cannot perform the low level disk and CPU tasks themselves.  Only Windows can.

     

    Obviously. That's why we Linux users have hacked Windows to let Linux DOS run on top of the Windows user interface. Solaris has been doing this since Windows 3.1 in 1992 and it is in fact still running on top of Windows 3.1 to this day.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @shakin said:

    Stop using Windows.
    You say that like there are other things out there that do what Windows does.  I know for a fact that these other OSes (Linux is one) cannot run unless Windows is running under it.  They simply cannot perform the low level disk and CPU tasks themselves.  Only Windows can.

    Not MINIX.  MINIX can do anything.



  •  Not MINIX. OS-9.  OS-9  MINIX can do anything.



  • @squeem said:

     Not MINIX. OS-9.  OS-9  MINIX can do anything.

    Is that OS-9 or Plan9?



  •  OS-9.  Well, NITROS-9 these days.

     

     



  • To OP: Have you noticed chkdsk running after you restart?  Access denied is frequently returned when you try to delete or rename a file from a corrupted directory, as would happen when the archiver tries to replace the original archive.  You might have a creeping problem with your disk.  One way to get a little more life out of it is to turn off atime updates like this: http://www.theeldergeek.com/suppress_ntfs_volume_last_access_timestamp.htm



  •  @belgariontheking said:

    @shakin said:

    Stop using Windows.
    You say that like there are other things out there that do what Windows does.  I know for a fact that these other OSes (Linux is one) cannot run unless Windows is running under it.  They simply cannot perform the low level disk and CPU tasks themselves.  Only Windows can.

    Linux is not an OS, it is a kernel, upon which Linux-based systems such as Ubuntu, Fedora, and Debian GNU/Linux are based A kernel performs the low level disk and CPU operations. Windows 95/98 is a DOS shell and not an OS so it can't perform low level disk and CPU tasks -- only DOS can. Windows XP and Windows Vista are complete OS's. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system_kernel



  • @samanddeanus said:

     @belgariontheking said:

    @shakin said:

    Stop using Windows.
    You say that like there are other things out there that do what Windows does.  I know for a fact that these other OSes (Linux is one) cannot run unless Windows is running under it.  They simply cannot perform the low level disk and CPU tasks themselves.  Only Windows can.

    Linux is not an OS, it is a kernel, upon which Linux-based systems such as Ubuntu, Fedora, and Debian GNU/Linux are based A kernel performs the low level disk and CPU operations. Windows 95/98 is a DOS shell and not an OS so it can't perform low level disk and CPU tasks -- only DOS can. Windows XP and Windows Vista are complete OS's. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system_kernel

    You just failed Voight-Kampf test. Stay where you are to get retired.


  • @alegr said:

    You just failed Voight-Kampf test. Stay where you are to get retired.

    Ooh. Time for some xkcd references.

    http://xkcd.com/362/

     These ones are also related:

    http://xkcd.com/149/



  • @Thief^ said:

    Yeah, but that's no reason NOT to run as a more limited user. It's damage limitation, your files versus the entire pc.

     

    If it wasn't for my files, I'd have no need for or interest in a PC.

    If the account is limited enough then you couldn't execute anything
    without someone else's permission, limiting viruses to the "true" kind
    that self-spread through security holes. Those have been all but wiped
    out these days.

    The sky is light blue on my planet. What color is it on yours?



  •  This looks to me like antivirus-related access problems (use unlocker) or a bad case of 'I've been using this version of winrar for years, why change?' And no, you don't lose the files, they're still in a temporary folder somewhere until the file is actually created. At least if you use any decent software like 7zip...

     Bitch about "Micro$oft" all you want, but most IT problems still stem from somewhere between the chair and the keyboard. 



  • @Ren said:

    but most IT problems still stem from somewhere between the chair and the keyboard. 
     

    Hey! I told you not to blame air for computer problems!



  • @shakin said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    @shakin said:

    Stop using Windows.
    You say that like there are other things out there that do what Windows does.  I know for a fact that these other OSes (Linux is one) cannot run unless Windows is running under it.  They simply cannot perform the low level disk and CPU tasks themselves.  Only Windows can.

     

    Obviously. That's why we Linux users have hacked Windows to let Linux DOS run on top of the Windows user interface. Solaris has been doing this since Windows 3.1 in 1992 and it is in fact still running on top of Windows 3.1 to this day.

    That's a myth. Actually, Windows doesn't mediate access to the hardware, BIOS does. BIOS is a part of MS-DOS, which still forms the foundation of all Windows-based OSes. Linux uses an old bug and identifies itself as USER.EXE, essentially telling BIOS that it's Windows 95. It then loads its own hacked version of COMMAND.COM (called "bash") and uses WSH to load one of various hacked runtimes ("KDE", "GNOME", "coreutils" etc.) to run EXPLORER.EXE, the Windows GUI layer and file manager. This gives it access to either the GUI, the filyestem or both. So Linux eally runs between MS-DOS and EXPLORER.EXE.

    OS X is not Windows-based and in fact doesn't use BIOS at all because Apple didn't want to pay Microsoft for a BIOS licence. Instead they use EFI, which is based on Amiga Workbench. That makes Macs boot a little bit faster because unlike MS-DOS Workbench is loaded from ROM. Workbench is also where they get their pretty user interface.

    Solaris does run on top of Windows 3.11, however.



  • @shakin said:

    Solaris has been doing this since Windows 3.1 in 1992 and it is in fact still running on top of Windows 3.1 to this day.
     

    That would explain a lot...



  • @shakin said:

    Stop using Windows.

    Stop using windows.. and start fingersnap-point thinking windows.

    I have no idea what that actually means. Probably something about emailing the files to yourself and storing them in the deleted items folder. Remember, Windows isn't actually all that hard to use; you just have to change how you work, and you'll find the new way is more efficient.



  • @ComputerForumUser said:

    you just have to change how you work, and you'll find the new way is more
    efficient.

    Don't you happen to have a beard, by any chance?



  • @ComputerForumUser said:

    you just have to change how you work, and you'll find the new way is more
    efficient.

    Don't you happen to have a beard, by any chance?



  • @dtech said:

    @alegr said:

    You don't need an antivirus, if your normal account is "Limited User" type.

    Bullshit. A virus can still fuck up (delete, encrypt) all of your user data. Guess you're willing to transfer $1000 to some russian bank account after all of your documents, photo's, email and most importantly porn require a key.

    I'll be quite impressed when a virus manages to encrypt my backup DVDs that are sitting on the shelf.



  • @lolwtf said:

    I'll be quite impressed when a virus manages to encrypt my backup DVDs that are sitting on the shelf.
     

    Oh you don't know? Kaspery discovered some new ones that use time-dilation software through alternate universes to encrypt the data before it was ever burned, thus effectively doing exactly that!

    </bullshit>

    But you're right, that isn't gonna happen. It could happen however with me, as I backup to a always-attached NAS. Less likely to happen however and it's mainly to recover from accidental deletes (well, it's mostly my family that does that) and Hard-disk crashes etc.

    Still, why repair if you can prevent?



  • @belgariontheking said:

    So there I was, cleaning up my desktop.

    I had a bunch of .csv files (1.5 GB worth)...

    Okay, I'll bite. Why on earth do/did you have 1.5 GB of csv data just lying around on your desktop?



  • @db2 said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    So there I was, cleaning up my desktop.

    I had a bunch of .csv files (1.5 GB worth)...

    Okay, I'll bite. Why on earth do/did you have 1.5 GB of csv data just lying around on your desktop?

    WTF?  I replied to this.  Maybe I didn't click post.  Maybe communism really is a good idea.  Maybe I'll paraphrase what I wrote.

    Anyways, I was doing huge data exports for a pair of third party companies that were going to mine the data.  .xls was right out because it has a 32767 row limit.  I had been organizing the .csv files in a folder on my desktop before zipping, burning to CD, and shipping (yes, you read that right) them off to the third party companies.

    I just looked in my temp files and didn't find the missing .rar.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I just looked in my temp files and didn't find the missing .rar.
    Search instead for __rar_nn.nnn (where n are numbers). That's what WinRAR 2.80 leaves behind if I lock the archive it's updating (though IIRC, the file had a different name in previous versions, and also had hidden attribute set).



  • @dtech said:

    I thought 2003 was the year of the linux desktop?


    Sure it was. Just like 1999 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2000 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2001 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2002 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2004 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2005 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2006 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2007 - the year of the Linux desktop and 2008 - the year of the Linux desktop.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @dtech said:

    I thought 2003 was the year of the linux desktop?


    Sure it was. Just like 1999 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2000 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2001 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2002 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2004 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2005 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2006 - the year of the Linux desktop, 2007 - the year of the Linux desktop and 2008 - the year of the Linux desktop.
     

    I thought 2008 was the year of the rat.



  • @bstorer said:

    I thought 2008 was the year of the rat.
     

    Both, it's the year of Rat Hat linux.



  • @bstorer said:

    I thought 2008 was the year of the rat.
     

    No, Vista was released in 2007. 



  • @dtech said:

    @bstorer said:

    I thought 2008 was the year of the rat.
     

    Both, it's the year of Rat Hat linux.

     

    ... and Ubuntu Rascally Rat.



  • @alegr said:

    You don't need an antivirus, if your normal account is "Limited User" type.

    Limited user + Anti-malware

    is more secure than

    Limited user + No anti-malware (still vulnerable to phishing and application-viruses, e.g. VBA)

    is more secure than

    Administrative user + Anti-malware

    is more secure than

    Administrative user + No anti-malware (otherwise known as "bending-over-pants-around-ankles")

    Additionally, anti-malware with current signatures is more secure than with old signatures.

    B



  • @j6cubic said:

    That's a myth. Actually, Windows doesn't mediate access to the hardware, BIOS does. BIOS is a part of MS-DOS, which still forms the foundation of all Windows-based OSes.

    Is this a troll? I hestitate to reply since if it is a troll then I will look silly. On the other hand... I have five fingers.

    "All Windows-based OSes" do not have MS-DOS as the foundation. Windows NT does not have, and has never had, any part of MS-DOS as its foundation. It is a 32-bit operating system and network operating system in its own right. Windows NT includes 2000, XP, 2003, Vista and 2008.

    B

     



  • @havokk said:

    @j6cubic said:

    That's a myth. Actually, Windows doesn't mediate access to the hardware, BIOS does. BIOS is a part of MS-DOS, which still forms the foundation of all Windows-based OSes.

    Is this a troll? I hestitate to reply since if it is a troll then I will look silly. On the other hand... I have five fingers.

    "All Windows-based OSes" do not have MS-DOS as the foundation. Windows NT does not have, and has never had, any part of MS-DOS as its foundation. It is a 32-bit operating system and network operating system in its own right. Windows NT includes 2000, XP, 2003, Vista and 2008.

     

    B

    You did actually read the rest of the thread, right? Or just the rest of the post? If nothing I said strikes you as odd beyond "Windows uses DOS" you might want to read up on the terms I used.



  • @havokk said:

    Limited user + No anti-malware (still vulnerable to phishing and application-viruses, e.g. VBA)


    is more secure than

    Administrative user + Anti-malware

     

    I disagree. On a [b]desktop system[/b] the user data is far more valuable than the environment (OS, application, etc.). (this might be somewhat different in a bussiness or scientific system). The essential part of the environment is usually easy to restore if damaged (restore cd/windows cd, if the latter install drivers, install aplications, done). The data isn't however.

    A virus has 100% access to the most valuable part of a system (the user data), thus a virus can do damage even under a limited user. If anti-malware is in place however, be the user administrator or limited, the virus will most likely be stoppedby the anti-malware. Thus an environment with anti-malware is by definition more secure than one without anti-malware.

    Ofcourse there is always the risk that the installed anti-malware doesn't detect the virus. In that case a limited user environment without antivirus would take less damage than a administrator enviroment with antivirus. However, from the user perspective, the extra damage caused (environment + data vs. data) is only marginally more.

    If your data and environment would be completely destroyed, I think you'd first try to restore your data and only try to save the environment if it's easily restorable. Otherwise you just wipe the HD and do a clean install.



  • @dtech said:

    A virus has 100% access to the most valuable part of a system (the user data), thus a virus can do damage even under a limited user. If anti-malware is in place however, be the user administrator or limited, the virus will most likely be stoppedby the anti-malware. Thus an environment with anti-malware is by definition more secure than one without anti-malware.

    Sitting here with Poolmon running and watching Symantec AV paged pool tag allocation steadily going up, I'd rather qualify it as another malware...

     



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I had a bunch of .csv files (1.5 GB worth) that I compressed to a .rar using WinRAR.
     

    Sounds dangerously close to the limit of a signed 32-bit integer.

    @belgariontheking said:

    I continue to add new files to the archive as I come across them.  On one addition

    ...you exceed it?

    Just guessing.



  • @dtech said:

    On a desktop system the user data is far more valuable than the environment

    I'll take that one step farther.

    No user gives a flying leap at a rolling donut about the operating system or the applications.

    Most of them don't give such a leap at your data, either.

    No, what matters to the user is his own data. He doesn't care if his system ends up on a botnet sending spam. That's you getting the spam. That makes it your data. He doesn't give a leap.

    And, indeed, if you're in IT or IS (whichever they call the hardware part these days) - you don't care about the user data because it's not yours.

    So running as a limited user, by definition, does not protect what the user wants protected. And that's the major failure in that approach. You're asking me to trade my convenience for the safety of your data, when I don't care about your data in the first place. You're promising me that if I do it, everybody else will do it too, which will protect my data - but I don't trust you. You think I'm stupid. I can tell, because... there! See how you're looking at me right now? That's how I can tell. You're thinking "how can I explain to this retarded moron that he should do what I want because I am so much smarter than he is?", and I don't like that.



  • @havokk said:

    @j6cubic said:

    That's a myth. Actually, Windows doesn't mediate access to the hardware, BIOS does. BIOS is a part of MS-DOS, which still forms the foundation of all Windows-based OSes.

    Is this a troll? I hestitate to reply since if it is a troll then I will look silly. On the other hand... I have five fingers.

    "All Windows-based OSes" do not have MS-DOS as the foundation. Windows NT does not have, and has never had, any part of MS-DOS as its foundation. It is a 32-bit operating system and network operating system in its own right. Windows NT includes 2000, XP, 2003, Vista and 2008.

     

    B

    Your sarcasm detector needs servicing ;)

    I'm off to install the recently released Microsoft Solaris Linux 2008 on my 80666 box...

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.