Windows 2000 2 GB file limit

[Bill Vermillion]

It was Wed, Nov 10 10:05 when GCC Consulting said "Mia
kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj. And continued:


> > It can definitely read >2GB files using win95b as the 
> > desktop, reading a 3.1GB file on a win2k NTFS share.  I've 
> > done it.  You can't copy it to the local vfat32, but you can 
> > read it streaming over the network in Media Player.  Not a 
> > problem.  (It was an MPG, Jay, not an AVI.)

> > Actually, that's partially misleading--you -can- copy it to 
> > the vfat32--or at least start it copying--if you start it as 
> > a push TO the win9x system, rather than a pull from that 
> > system.  If you hop on the win2k system and push it over, it 
> > starts copying.  I figured it would corrupt the FAT and I 
> > didn't want to risk the system, so I aborted within a few 
> > seconds--but it would start it.

> > Someone with a system they don't mind potentially killing can 
> > test that model the rest of they way, if they like.  :)

> If I have a chance this weekend I ma try this for you. One of
> my clients just Junked a P133 and I pulled the hard drive. I
> was going to reformat the drive. It is fairly new and would
> will make a good spare or maybe I'll install it into one of
> those USB kits. Any way, I won't mind seeing what will happen.

> As an aside, the NY Time had an article on the front page
> about something I have been railing about for a long time.
> How to archive all of this digital information people have
> been accumulating. It seems that the Library of Congress has
> a couple of committees trying to come up with some sort of
> standard so that in 10 years, 20 years, etc, there will be
> devices that will be able to read this stored information.

> As the pointed out, a faded picture or ink document can
> be read; a degraded writable CD or a scratched cd can be
> unreadable and useless.

And when it comes to computer data file storage the real problem as
has been seen in the past - is to have something that can read
things in the future.  

About 50 miles that way ---> over at the cape - there are tons
of data tapes with transmissions from the early satellites that
are of no use as there is no equipment left to read them.

Even in the analog world that is a problem. Old video shows
stored on quad 2" tape - while still readable - have almost
no machines left that can play them.  The problem is that
head for the quad-wheels just aren't being made.

One company that was addressing the archival storage problem
had a product they called The Rosetta Stone [I haven't been able to
find them in the last couple of years].

Their storage was on small disks.  And as opposed to magnetic
media, film, etc., which has a problem when you bona/laminated two
dis-similar materials together these have the data on the surface
of the disk so what is stored will be readable as long as the disc
is physically intact.

For short term storage - 10-20 years - platic can be used. But
they did accelerated aging tests in extremely severe environment
and projected 500+ year readability for the disks made of stainless
steel.  The stainless disks also survived temperatures found
in a typical building fire, with only discoloration of the disk.

What they did was to abandon digital storage and store micro-images
on these disks.   And if for some reason disks would be found 500
years from now and nothing of this era survived, they were readable
under extremely high-powered microscopes.

Archival storage is so different that what we think of in terms of
storage. You think in terms of decades and centuries and not months
and years.

Bill
-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com