|
O/S compression is only activated if you set it. The default is no compression.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
File explorer reports on actual disk capacity when looking at the full disk. When looking at a folder you're given actual size as reported by the file system and the space consumed on the disk. Compressed and Sparse files can thus report far more size than there is actual disk space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the links.
Seems that each one of those will take at least a day to provide useful results.
These thieves have concocted a very shrewd scam indeed.
And, from what I can infer, they are going to get away with it, and continue doing this, for the foreseeable future.
But thanks anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
They are quite talented with their hands and musical instruments.
Are these actual humans ? Or robots and synthesizers ?
If they are humans, and they could sing, they could be the "Yes" of this decade if they could make up neat lyrics out of annoying routine activities (e.g., driving to work in the morning and navigating a traffic circle)
|
|
|
|
|
Their Facebook page only says "I am a 486DX-33MHz-64MB processing avant-garde chiptune, synthesized heavy metal & classical music."
Can't really find anything else about it.
I think it's mostly synths though since it seems to be one person.
|
|
|
|
|
|||| CONFIRMED FAKE ||||
I just did my own not-so-hi-tech Validation and Verification
Copied a 760+ GigaByte File to the Fake Drive.
Copied it back to a real drive
Windows 10 Command Line..
FC /B REALFILE FAKEFILE
...silent for the first some odd minutes (i.e., the comparison was going fine)
BUT THEN !!!
After a little while, LOOK at these totally surprising and unpredictable results...
00000009743490F8: 7F FF
00000009743490F9: D1 FF
00000009743490FA: 58 FF
00000009743490FB: 87 FF
00000009743490FC: C0 FF
00000009743490FD: 04 FF
00000009743490FE: AE FF
00000009743490FF: 35 FF
0000000974349100: D6 FF
0000000974349101: 21 FF
0000000974349102: 30 FF
0000000974349103: 13 FF
0000000974349104: D7 FF
0000000974349105: EA FF
0000000974349106: E7 FF
0000000974349107: 9B FF
0000000974349108: C1 FF
0000000974349109: 2C FF
000000097434910A: 5E FF
000000097434910B: AB FF
Okay, you guys are right. This fool and his money have gone different ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm working for a customer who uses Visual Basic.
VB was my first language so I don't mind too much, although after years of C# it feels a bit bloated and archaic at times.
I still have another VB project as well, so at least I knew what to expect.
It's an old web forms project though, so all in all it's pretty meh 
So anyway, I had to start a new project (not something they do often, they basically have the one monolith) and thought I'd pick a VB project template since that's what the client is using.
I have VB templates for WPF, WCF, Console, Library, WinForms and Test projects
But as soon as I filter on the more modern project types, like Web, Web API, Cloud, Games or Blazor, I get zero templates.
Ended up picking C# instead, as those are readily available.
I remember reading Microsoft isn't actively developing VB anymore and I'm pretty sure the earlier version of .NET Core did not support VB.
When googling the subject I find a mix of "VB dead" and "VB coming to .NET (Core)", but evidence would suggest it never actually came to .NET (Core).
All in all it seems to me like Microsoft pulled the plug or is this wishful thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't mourn.
It was in the eighties when I wrote:
10 PRINT "Herman is the best !!1!!1!11!";;;;;
20 GOTO 10
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, the pinnacle of every VB app ever written right there.
|
|
|
|
|
When I was in high school, some wizard wrote a Fortran program nicknamed The Black Death. It entered an infinite loop that printed solid lines of asterisks.
It was soon outdone by The White Death, which entered an infinite loop that "printed" form feeds.
|
|
|
|
|
I worked in IBM for a few years, and once, dispatch got a call to hurry up and come fix their printer, because it was having a carriage runaway, and it was already on its second box!
|
|
|
|
|
My favorite was a program that recursively created a bunch of folders with names borrowing characters from the extended ASCII set in the user's home folder. That was back in the Novell Netware days, working on DOS, so you couldn't easily batch-delete folders.
I just left the program in my share (everybody's folders were public to everyone). I wanted to prove that idiots will run unknown EXEs from unknown folders...and they did not disappoint. Eventually the admin got tired of calling out people asking why they had a bunch of non-sense folders eating up his disk space.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and we still light candles when the lights go out.
|
|
|
|
|
VB.NET, C#.NET, and C++.NET all generate the same MSIL assembly. So it is just down to the language preference at this point as the net result is 100% identical in speed and in most cases in program structure. C++.NET is quiet interesting though as it also allows STL containers to be used.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, C# allows a few things which VB doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
And VB has On Error Resume Next which is a damn good reason for killing it! 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I never had a problem with that as long as you did strict error checking until you turned it off with:
On Error Goto 0
|
|
|
|
|
When you have a series of
try { dosomething() } catch {}
statements in a row then on error resume next is a wonderful syntactic sugar to clean up your code. And yes, there are places where this syntax is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
That syntax is never appropriate, because you are swallowing exceptions and have no way to find out they occurred, much less what might have caused them.
At the very least, log the error detail before you swallow it - but then it wouldn't be On Error Resume Next, would it ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: is never appropriate
Uh, no. But there should be a comment to state that it is appropriate for that code.
Some of what I'm doing now is ignoring Exceptions because that's what works best.
Just yesterday I wrote:
try
{
this.buffer.Append ( Char ) ;
}
catch ( System.ArgumentOutOfRangeException )
{
}
Which allows the caller to provide a limit to how many characters are allowed in the StringBuilder as appropriate.
Yes, this is not a catch-all, but I have those as well as appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
And what you are doing is not On Error Resume Next either: you are ignoring a specific error, and marking why in the code. I do the same under some circumstances.
That's not the same as a blanket "Ignore all errors from now on", or putting try...catch() around each line of code!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: have no way to find out they occurred
not true, in code with "on error resume next" you can check err.number to see if it is non zero after every statement if you want and also access the error description
you can then clear the error (err.clear) and carry on
it is a useful tool if used properly
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
