In message <uscc8h$11u6p$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 07:34:21,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>
>| (Again, I presume you keep it open, otherwise it's slightly more than
>| copy, paste, click.)
>
> Ah, you caught me. Yes, I have to double-click first,
>to open the HTA. Then I rest up, then copy and paste. :)

(-:
>
> I haven't actually used it for quite awhile. The latest
>versions don't work on XP and keep hanging on Win7.
>3DYD has neither problem.
>
Now having a look at 3DYD. Did you know it forbids accessing
pornographic content? (-: [https://www.3dyd.com/terms/, which you agree
to during installation!]
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| Now having a look at 3DYD. Did you know it forbids accessing
| pornographic content? (-: [https://www.3dyd.com/terms/, which you agree
| to during installation!]

I don't remember installing it. There is an EULA in the folder,
but no sign of porn warnings in it.

In message <usdiuk$1a8ah$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 18:34:39,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| Now having a look at 3DYD. Did you know it forbids accessing
>| pornographic content? (-: [https://www.3dyd.com/terms/, which you agree
>| to during installation!]
>
> I don't remember installing it. There is an EULA in the folder,
>but no sign of porn warnings in it.
>
>
Not in the EULA itself, but one of the terms of the EULA (term 6 IIRR)
is that you'll comply with the above online EULA, and that _does_ have
that condition.

I've now installed 3dyd, and the first YT URL I tried it on - a quite
innocent one - failed.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

when people say they're perfectly happy without children, we don't have to
presume they're lying! - Paul Dolan, RT 2015/1/3-9

gfretwell@aol.com wrote on 6/3/24 12:22 am:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:57:58 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <us7377$3oq82$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 5 Mar 2024
>> 07:29:24, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes []
>>> The final test: If you lose your computer somehow, do you still
>>> have backup? Do you have an ISO that can go onto a repaired or
>>> replaced computer? If not then it's just a home made RAID array.
>>
>> That's a very important distinction: are you concerned about
>> restoring a working computer, or just data. []
>>> But everyone's different. I have a friend who pays substantially
>>> to a tech support person, who simply set her up with a product
>>> called Aconite -- total backup remotely. I think it's over $100
>>> per year. I had another friend who called me about her computer
>>> failing. I asked her what she'd lost that she needed back.
>>> Nothing. She used it for gmail and to print out plane flight
>>> passes. She could have her daughter re-send the baby pictures.
>>> For her the computer was an access device, not a work or storage
>>> device.
>>
>> So she's using her daughter as the backup device (-:.
>>>
>>> I suppose that's probably increasingly true. I'm surprised at how
>>> many people have replaced a computer with a cellphone. Then they
>>> use gmail and retail "apps".
>>>
>> That's almost entirely data (and emails). Fine, if you really are
>> just using the computer (or 'phone) as an access device, i. e. you
>> wouldn't be that bothered if you had to replace it with a different
>> device. My main reason for imaging is that I have much software set
>> up how I want it, and it takes me weeks, months, or years to get it
>> back to that state - and I can't remember (may never have known!)
>> how I got some of those setups to that condition. [I guess I'm
>> imaging against hard disk failure, or corruption/ransomware; if I
>> had to replace the whole computer with something different, I'd
>> probably have to set up everything again anyway.] I back up the
>> data that represents most effort - genealogical and emails - on a
>> frequent basis, and all my data less frequently, but those are just
>> data backups, basically copying (albeit with FreeFileSync), not
>> images.
>>>
> Exactly. I keep my C: as small as I can by only having the OS and
> installed software on it. That needs to be an image to be useful.
> Data is just data and a simple copy does the trick but installed
> software is more complicated to reproduce ever since the "Registry"
> became a thing. (XP) You could copy a W/98 system with XCOPY and the
> right switches. SHERC as I recall but it has been a while. Even in
> those days I kept C: for software and D: for data.
>
Me .... C:\ for System, D:\ for other Executables and E:\ for
Data/Music/etc.
--
Daniel

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| I've now installed 3dyd, and the first YT URL I tried it on - a quite
| innocent one - failed.

Interesting. It works fine for me, while yt-dlp keeps
hanging. Though of course it's not unusual to find that
something has been removed due to copyright complaint,
or perhaps just housecleaning. I've never seen anything
that always works.

In message <usemn8$1k73a$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:45:14,
Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> writes
[]
>Me .... C:\ for System, D:\ for other Executables and E:\ for
>Data/Music/etc.

I often see that, or similar - people keeping software other than the OS
on a separate partition. I've never seen the point: I image C: so I can
restore my system _and_ other software to the setting(s) I'm used to,
and also think I would find it very hard to keep them separate anyway.
For example, virtually all software these days puts stuff in the
registry when you install it, and isn't that on C:?

I'm not telling anyone else how to do their images/backups, though!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A clean, neat and orderly desk is a sign of a sick mind. (G6JPG's mind is
clearly extremely healthy ...)

In message <usetj2$1lqbe$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 06:42:21,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| I've now installed 3dyd, and the first YT URL I tried it on - a quite
>| innocent one - failed.
>
> Interesting. It works fine for me, while yt-dlp keeps
>hanging. Though of course it's not unusual to find that
>something has been removed due to copyright complaint,
>or perhaps just housecleaning. I've never seen anything
>that always works.
>
>
I tried it again today. Still failed (but yt-dlp worked fine)!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A clean, neat and orderly desk is a sign of a sick mind. (G6JPG's mind is
clearly extremely healthy ...)

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 00:13:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <usdiuk$1a8ah$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 18:34:39,
>Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>>
>>| Now having a look at 3DYD. Did you know it forbids accessing
>>| pornographic content? (-: [https://www.3dyd.com/terms/, which you agree
>>| to during installation!]
>>
>> I don't remember installing it. There is an EULA in the folder,
>>but no sign of porn warnings in it.
>>
>>
>Not in the EULA itself, but one of the terms of the EULA (term 6 IIRR)
>is that you'll comply with the above online EULA, and that _does_ have
>that condition.
>
>I've now installed 3dyd, and the first YT URL I tried it on - a quite
>innocent one - failed.

I use Wonderfox HD Converter and it will let you download anything it
can read.

In message <i0rnuihk0slbmrjarvl4drn62rfjcvbl52@4ax.com> at Fri, 8 Mar
2024 23:58:34, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 00:13:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
[]
>>I've now installed 3dyd, and the first YT URL I tried it on - a quite
>>innocent one - failed.
>
>I use Wonderfox HD Converter and it will let you download anything it
>can read.

I can't remember the last time yt-dlp didn't work for me (I think it
might have been a vimeo page).

"Converter" suggests that's its primary purpose - can Wonderfox download
_without_ doing any conversion?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as he fell off the bridge with his stick.

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <usemn8$1k73a$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:45:14,
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> writes
> []
> >Me .... C:\ for System, D:\ for other Executables and E:\ for
> >Data/Music/etc.

> I often see that, or similar - people keeping software other than the OS
> on a separate partition. I've never seen the point: I image C: so I can
> restore my system _and_ other software to the setting(s) I'm used to,
> and also think I would find it very hard to keep them separate anyway.
> For example, virtually all software these days puts stuff in the
> registry when you install it, and isn't that on C:?

> I'm not telling anyone else how to do their images/backups, though!

Ditto. The other drive (HDD, not SSD) are for medias, archives, etc.
that do not need to be imaged.
--
"What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one ...'" --Romans 3:9-10. LAX or bust?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 3/9/2024 1:24 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <i0rnuihk0slbmrjarvl4drn62rfjcvbl52@4ax.com> at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:58:34, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 00:13:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>> wrote:
> []
>>> I've now installed 3dyd, and the first YT URL I tried it on - a quite
>>> innocent one - failed.
>>
>> I use Wonderfox HD Converter and it will let you download anything it
>> can read.
>
> I can't remember the last time yt-dlp didn't work for me (I think it might have been a vimeo page).
>
> "Converter" suggests that's its primary purpose - can Wonderfox download _without_ doing any conversion?

You would check to see if any formats offered by the server,
already have both a video and audio stream in a file. That
could be consumed without further work.

When piecing together a video stream, a separate file for audio stream, those must
be re-muxed to make a fully-capable movie file (that's a conversion, but a lossless
one). If the video stream or audio stream don't fit in the container type the tool
somehow proposes, then a conversion would be called for.

For example, say the tool is stupid and keeps trying to make .avi files.
If that were the case, both a video conversion, and audio conversion,
and a re-mux might be required.

My news site already has .mp4 files, which are ready to go, so an FFMPEG call
would not be needed. Whatever it serves when streaming, is not compatible
with my browser, and they're using Widevine DRM on the streaming option.
They play about four seconds of content, and then play one minute of advertising,
then switch back to the remainder of the content (dogs playing cards).

Paul

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote

|
| I use Wonderfox HD Converter and it will let you download anything it
| can read.

Sounds good, but $35-60. That's a bit steep when there
are so many free tools.

In message <ushj6n$2ab99$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 07:03:34,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
>On 3/9/2024 1:24 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <i0rnuihk0slbmrjarvl4drn62rfjcvbl52@4ax.com> at Fri, 8 Mar
>>2024 23:58:34, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>>> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 00:13:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>> wrote:
>> []
>>>> I've now installed 3dyd, and the first YT URL I tried it on - a quite
>>>> innocent one - failed.
>>>
>>> I use Wonderfox HD Converter and it will let you download anything it
>>> can read.
>>
>> I can't remember the last time yt-dlp didn't work for me (I think it
>>might have been a vimeo page).
>>
>> "Converter" suggests that's its primary purpose - can Wonderfox
>>download _without_ doing any conversion?
>
>You would check to see if any formats offered by the server,
>already have both a video and audio stream in a file. That
>could be consumed without further work.

Nearly all of my downloads are from YouTube, which seems to have a lot
of formats, including lots that contain both. I let yt-dlp make up its
own mind, and I usually get something with 720 vertical resolution if
it's a recent clip, or 3xx if it isn't.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Chopsticks are one of the reasons the Chinese never invented custard
(Spike Milligan)

On 3/9/2024 4:18 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <ushj6n$2ab99$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 07:03:34, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
>> On 3/9/2024 1:24 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <i0rnuihk0slbmrjarvl4drn62rfjcvbl52@4ax.com> at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:58:34, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>>>> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 00:13:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>> []
>>>>> I've now installed 3dyd, and the first YT URL I tried it on - a quite
>>>>> innocent one - failed.
>>>>
>>>> I use Wonderfox HD Converter and it will let you download anything it
>>>> can read.
>>>
>>> I can't remember the last time yt-dlp didn't work for me (I think it might have been a vimeo page).
>>>
>>> "Converter" suggests that's its primary purpose - can Wonderfox download _without_ doing any conversion?
>>
>> You would check to see if any formats offered by the server,
>> already have both a video and audio stream in a file. That
>> could be consumed without further work.
>
> Nearly all of my downloads are from YouTube, which seems to have a lot of formats, including lots that contain both. I let yt-dlp make up its own mind, and I usually get something with 720 vertical resolution if it's a recent clip, or 3xx if it isn't.
> []

That seems a rather modest choice for a "best" :-)

Maybe only the paying customers see the full list ?

Paul

In message <usiqj9$2ilmo$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 18:15:52,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
>On 3/9/2024 4:18 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> Nearly all of my downloads are from YouTube, which seems to have a
>>lot of formats, including lots that contain both. I let yt-dlp make up
>>its own mind, and I usually get something with 720 vertical resolution
>>if it's a recent clip, or 3xx if it isn't.
>> []
>
>That seems a rather modest choice for a "best" :-)

Agreed; however, since this screen (laptop) is 1366 × 768, I'm happy
with that. (In fact the processor/graphics card combination struggles to
display two sizes up from that.)
>
>Maybe only the paying customers see the full list ?
>
> Paul

No, when I've used the -F option to see what are available, higher
resolutions _are_ available. So my believe that it defaults to the best
available is obviously wrong - but as I say, 720 (or so) suits this
screen anyway.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... the pleasure of the mind is an amazing thing. My life has been driven by
the satisfaction of curiosity. - Jeremy Paxman (being interviewed by Anne
Widdecombe), Radio Times, 2-8 July 2011.

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 06:24:30 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <i0rnuihk0slbmrjarvl4drn62rfjcvbl52@4ax.com> at Fri, 8 Mar
>2024 23:58:34, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>>On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 00:13:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>wrote:
>[]
>>>I've now installed 3dyd, and the first YT URL I tried it on - a quite
>>>innocent one - failed.
>>
>>I use Wonderfox HD Converter and it will let you download anything it
>>can read.
>
>I can't remember the last time yt-dlp didn't work for me (I think it
>might have been a vimeo page).
>
>"Converter" suggests that's its primary purpose - can Wonderfox download
>_without_ doing any conversion?

I am not sure how it works to be honest but you can select the output
format you like. The default is probably what it sees tho.
This program does way more than I ever do, make GIFs and such and you
can convert anything to anything. GIGO does apply tho and I know every
conversion loses a little something. I think you can run it in screen
capture mode and copy anything you can see for those hard to get along
with sites. I never tried it tho.

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 10:48:06 -0500, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote
>
>|
>| I use Wonderfox HD Converter and it will let you download anything it
>| can read.
>
> Sounds good, but $35-60. That's a bit steep when there
>are so many free tools.
>

I think I was on the $35 end of that scale, many years ago when I
bought it and they still keep supporting it with the latest version. I
have no problem with the support and they are good on the phone.

In message <77kqui5lp3tlmvn86evftqtsgb1chbfj94@4ax.com> at Sun, 10 Mar
2024 01:25:41, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 06:24:30 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <i0rnuihk0slbmrjarvl4drn62rfjcvbl52@4ax.com> at Fri, 8 Mar
>>2024 23:58:34, gfretwell@aol.com writes
[]
>>>I use Wonderfox HD Converter and it will let you download anything it
>>>can read.
[]
>>"Converter" suggests that's its primary purpose - can Wonderfox download
>>_without_ doing any conversion?
>
>I am not sure how it works to be honest but you can select the output
>format you like. The default is probably what it sees tho.
>This program does way more than I ever do, make GIFs and such and you
>can convert anything to anything. GIGO does apply tho and I know every
>conversion loses a little something. I think you can run it in screen
>capture mode and copy anything you can see for those hard to get along
>with sites. I never tried it tho.

Another poster has said it's $35-60, which I'm afraid I wouldn't pay
when there are free things that'd do most of the above. Not that I'm
dissing it: if you want to do what it does a lot, and it does it well or
easily or whatever, that's fine.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who can refute a sneer? - Archdeacon Paley, in his book Moral Philosophy

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| >That seems a rather modest choice for a "best" :-)
| | Agreed; however, since this screen (laptop) is 1366 � 768, I'm happy
| with that. (In fact the processor/graphics card combination struggles to
| display two sizes up from that.)
| >
| >Maybe only the paying customers see the full list ?
| >

I think that 3dyd offers options for resolution and format.
I don't pay any attention unless a download is not viewable.
Then I send 3dyd back to convert to something I can view.

We have two TVs. Both are 720p. My monitor is 900h.
Like you, I don't see an issue. If I'm downloading a lecture
or a comedy clip, I don't need porn-quality resolution.
And I wouldn't notice, anyway.

The obsession with paying thousands of dollars for 4K TVs
reminds me of high school, when the parents of rich kinds could
be convinced that $3000 worth of quadraphonic speakers
were necessary to listen to Black Sabbath.

In message <uskb6q$2vkkn$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 09:05:25,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| >That seems a rather modest choice for a "best" :-)
>|
>| Agreed; however, since this screen (laptop) is 1366 × 768, I'm happy
>| with that. (In fact the processor/graphics card combination struggles to
>| display two sizes up from that.)
>| >
>| >Maybe only the paying customers see the full list ?
>| >
>
> I think that 3dyd offers options for resolution and format.

So, of course, does yt-dlp - you run it with the -F option to see what's
on offer (usually 10-20 formats from YouTube!, though that includes
audio-only and video-only options), then with the -f option to select
the one you want if other than the default.

>I don't pay any attention unless a download is not viewable.

More or less same here.

>Then I send 3dyd back to convert to something I can view.

Convert, or fetch? (I have at least two - free - utilities that'll
convert; I don't _think_ yt-dlp will do conversion [though I could be
wrong there, it's very versatile], but I can tell it to _fetch_ one of
the other formats on offer.)

(3dyd hasn't worked for me yet, but I admit I've given it very little
chance; basically, when it doesn't work, I go back to y, for which I
have muscle memory.)
>
> We have two TVs. Both are 720p. My monitor is 900h.
>Like you, I don't see an issue. If I'm downloading a lecture
>or a comedy clip, I don't need porn-quality resolution.
>And I wouldn't notice, anyway.

And they eat up disc space like anything. I know plenty of people will
say that doesn't matter nowadays, and I am not really aware of running
short, but the big files do take longer to move around or - really - do
anything with.
>
> The obsession with paying thousands of dollars for 4K TVs
>reminds me of high school, when the parents of rich kinds could
>be convinced that $3000 worth of quadraphonic speakers
>were necessary to listen to Black Sabbath.
>
>
Each to his own. Viewing _angle_ also needs considering: whether the
resolution of the eyes in use (which is measured in angle, not pixels)
can actually _see_ the difference. At my normal viewing _angle_, I don't
_think_ I'd see even HD on my main set (which isn't HD); I have a
smaller set which is 720, but I view it closer, so the angle is about
the same. The biggest _angle_ by far is this laptop - 1366 × 768 - which
I view from I think about one to two feet (I think it's a "fifteen inch"
screen, though it makes me laugh that we still measure the diagonal,
which dates from when they were round-bottomed flasks!). There, I
definitely _do_ see the difference between 7xx and 3xx. (And
_sometimes_, I feel material at 1xxx _looks_ better, though I'm not sure
why as I can't display those pixels!)

I don't think I've ever yet displayed downloaded material on either of
my TVs; I watch it on the laptop.

Those who pay lots for big TVs _do_ derive pleasure from them - some
just psychological, some not. Quite how much source material is
available in 4K (or above), I don't know; I don't think a lot is
_broadcast_ (terrestrial or satellite), but then I _know_ I'm
old-fashioned in considering broadcast anyway: online is I fear the way
things are going. Does Blu-Ray give you 4K, or just HD? I presume _some_
streaming material is available in 4K, though I presume you need a good
link for that!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 12:43:23 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <77kqui5lp3tlmvn86evftqtsgb1chbfj94@4ax.com> at Sun, 10 Mar
>2024 01:25:41, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>>On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 06:24:30 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <i0rnuihk0slbmrjarvl4drn62rfjcvbl52@4ax.com> at Fri, 8 Mar
>>>2024 23:58:34, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>[]
>>>>I use Wonderfox HD Converter and it will let you download anything it
>>>>can read.
>[]
>>>"Converter" suggests that's its primary purpose - can Wonderfox download
>>>_without_ doing any conversion?
>>
>>I am not sure how it works to be honest but you can select the output
>>format you like. The default is probably what it sees tho.
>>This program does way more than I ever do, make GIFs and such and you
>>can convert anything to anything. GIGO does apply tho and I know every
>>conversion loses a little something. I think you can run it in screen
>>capture mode and copy anything you can see for those hard to get along
>>with sites. I never tried it tho.
>
>Another poster has said it's $35-60, which I'm afraid I wouldn't pay
>when there are free things that'd do most of the above. Not that I'm
>dissing it: if you want to do what it does a lot, and it does it well or
>easily or whatever, that's fine.

I think that sometimes you really only get what you pay for. I have a
lot of freeware but at the time the free down loaders all came with
some deficiencies or were just crippled versions of programs you pay
for.

On 3/10/2024 9:05 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
> | >That seems a rather modest choice for a "best" :-)
> |
> | Agreed; however, since this screen (laptop) is 1366 × 768, I'm happy
> | with that. (In fact the processor/graphics card combination struggles to
> | display two sizes up from that.)
> | >
> | >Maybe only the paying customers see the full list ?
> | >
>
> I think that 3dyd offers options for resolution and format.
> I don't pay any attention unless a download is not viewable.
> Then I send 3dyd back to convert to something I can view.
>
> We have two TVs. Both are 720p. My monitor is 900h.
> Like you, I don't see an issue. If I'm downloading a lecture
> or a comedy clip, I don't need porn-quality resolution.
> And I wouldn't notice, anyway.
>
> The obsession with paying thousands of dollars for 4K TVs
> reminds me of high school, when the parents of rich kinds could
> be convinced that $3000 worth of quadraphonic speakers
> were necessary to listen to Black Sabbath.

Hey, old timer, while you were asleep, the speaker-monkeys
have been busy. You're 20 speakers behind!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22.2_surround_sound

It even has two subs.

Years ago, we used to have technical arguments about one sub
versus two subs, at work. The theory says that humans cannot
directionalize subsonic sound. Well, that system, with
its LFE1 and LFE2, is proof we were wrong. The 2sub people won!

Cool or what.

After the speakers go up the walls, you can put some on the ceiling.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/2017_03_31_Dolby_Atmos_Studio_TVN_Group.jpg

One thing I notice about the Speaker People, is they all have small TV sets :-)
"They spent it all on Speakers"

Paul

In message <uskk53$31g1k$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:38:10,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
[]
>> The obsession with paying thousands of dollars for 4K TVs
>> reminds me of high school, when the parents of rich kinds could
>> be convinced that $3000 worth of quadraphonic speakers
>> were necessary to listen to Black Sabbath.
>
>Hey, old timer, while you were asleep, the speaker-monkeys
>have been busy. You're 20 speakers behind!!!
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22.2_surround_sound
>
>It even has two subs.
>
>Years ago, we used to have technical arguments about one sub
>versus two subs, at work. The theory says that humans cannot
>directionalize subsonic sound. Well, that system, with
>its LFE1 and LFE2, is proof we were wrong. The 2sub people won!

No, it just proves that the people who want to sell speakers (and
amplifiers) were more persuasive.
>
>Cool or what.
>
>After the speakers go up the walls, you can put some on the ceiling.
>
>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/2017_03_31_Dolby_Atm
>os_Studio_TVN_Group.jpg
>
>One thing I notice about the Speaker People, is they all have small TV sets :-)
>"They spent it all on Speakers"
[]
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

My movies rise below vulgarity. - Mel Brooks, quoted by Barry Norman in RT
2016/11/26-12/2

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> I have been using Acronis 2015 for years but they seemed have just
> abandoned it. I am trying to reinstall and it just sits there with the
> activate button grayed out. There is no support and it is just a
> coaster now.
> They don't even sell a product to replace it other than some $50 a
> year subscription with a lot of stuff I don't want. What is everyone
> using these days?

What about System Image that is included in W7?
--
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.' Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith.'" ???Galatians 3:10-11. Can we pls keep PDT 4eva? Still achy. :) Mar10 day!
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 3/10/2024 3:57 PM, Ant wrote:
> gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> I have been using Acronis 2015 for years but they seemed have just
>> abandoned it. I am trying to reinstall and it just sits there with the
>> activate button grayed out. There is no support and it is just a
>> coaster now.
>> They don't even sell a product to replace it other than some $50 a
>> year subscription with a lot of stuff I don't want. What is everyone
>> using these days?
>
> What about System Image that is included in W7?
>

It works.

On Windows 7, it would be similar to "disk2vhd". That's a utility
from Sysinternals.

+-----+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| MBR | C: | Recovery | D: Music | E: Movies| ==> big.vhd (2.2TB max disk size)
+-----+---------+----------+----------+----------+ Disk2vhd.exe

Whereas the Microsoft tool, produces a VHD per partition
and puts this stuff as "loose files" in a folder on the
backup drive.

1.vhd 2.vhd 3.vhd 4.vhd
+-----+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| MBR | C: | Recovery | D: Music | E: Movies| ==> 2.2TB max per partition
+-----+---------+----------+----------+----------+ wbadmin start backup /?

On later OSes, at some point, it switches to .vhdx outputs,
which are not as nice because they are harder to repurpose.
A .vhd can be used in a lot of virtual machines, plus
the 7ZIP program can grab individual files from a .vhd,
but not from a .vhdx . A Pro version of W10 or W11, can
probably mount a .vhdx, but I don't know if non-HyperV
ready OSes can do that or not.

1.vhdx 2.vhdx 3.vhdx 4.vhdx
+-----+---------+----------+----------+----------+
| MBR | C: | Recovery | D: Music | E: Movies| ==> No size limit
+-----+---------+----------+----------+----------+ wbadmin start backup /?

Restoration is likely to run from a Windows installer DVD.
A "bare metal restore", you cannot rely on the C: on the
hard drive being present, which is why the X: drive from
the Windows Installer DVD boot process, is used instead.

*******

# The allCritical is the "minimum" amount the backup tool will do.
# It wants to record everything needed to boot. MBR/C:/Recovery perhaps.
# The output partition would be N: on the backup drive, in this case.
# N:\SomethingOrOther will get the backup materials, noted by machine
# and date.

wbAdmin start backup -backupTarget:N: -allCritical

The Recovery or System Reserved partition, does not have a drive letter.
That's why you use a GUID to indicate you want System Reserved, in the
following example. If a partition is defined twice, it is only
backed up once. Each disk has a custom GUID for System Reserved.

wbAdmin start backup -backupTarget:N: -include:\\?\Volume{C38A95FE-9261-11E1-92E9-806E6F6E6963}\,C:

If you do it this way, it would back up the entire sample drive.
The quiet option, is supposed to suppress questions of the user.
The program will back up to DVDs too, except if you use DVD-RW media
(re-writeable), the IMAPI2 disc burning lacks erasure capability,
so the DVDs have to be erased first with Imgburn, then you can feed
them into the backup sequence. It would take, say, a minimum of
four single sided DVDs for any backup command issues. N: would be
a DVD writer drive, say. In the example, "allCritical" backs up
two partitions, "Include" backs up two more, for a total of four partitions.

wbAdmin start backup -backupTarget:N: -allCritical -include:D:,E: -quiet

So that is basic "Full" backup capability available in Windows.
It does not do incremental

The backup folder structure on the N: drive, has annoying permissions.

*******

There's a backup for, say, the Downloads folder.

*******

There is FIle History, which keeps versions of files
in the profile ("data") for later.

*******

Paul