On 19 Oct 2005 at 18:00, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > >That can't happen with a program that works in the background. > > In my personal experience, the biggest problems (that is, the ones > with the largest adverse consequences) I have had were a direct > consequence of having programs running in the background. I know that > in these days of computing, there are lots of processes and programs > which do run in the background, that I do not know about, but I am > still conditioned to mistrust them.
This has never been an issue with NT-based versions of Windows. I was always very wary of background processes in Win9x and before, but NT is so much more solidly designed that background processes don't cause problems. NT-based versions of Windows (NT 4, Win2K, WinXP) have far more background processes running at boot as part of the OS than any Win9x version of Windows ever had, but theses OS's are more responsive and more stable by a long shot. In any event, the undelete program is a low-profile program that intercepts file I/O operations and manages how the free space on your hard drive is allocated. This is happen at a very low level of the OS, and is completely unobtrusive -- there is no performance penalty that I have ever seen. > Further, while it may not have complete functionality, WIN has had > rudimetnary "undelete" functionality (which I admit I have made use > of more than once) with the "trash" folder.since WIN 98, though I > realize that Autosave and Backup files deleted automatically by Finale > do not get to the trash folder. This is not even similar to what programs like Executive Undelete do. The Recycle Bin only keeps the one version of a deleted file, not multiple versions, and a Save As that overwrites a file of the same name does not create a deleted file entry in the recycle bin. I personally find the default Windows recycle bin completely useless (and always have), and have always used Shift-Delete to completely bypass it. > >I prefer having my computer do things *for* me when it can do so > >reliably, rather than depending on a poor error-prone human being > >like myself. > > > Yes, well, while it's nice to have systems in place to recover from > one's errors, I feel that if I spend a little time anticipating where > the errors are likely to occur, and design my work habits to reduce my > chances of errors, then I save the time and effort I would have to > spend in trying to recover from them. If an undelete program that works like the one I have were free and worked as well (no performance penalty and complete stability), would you use it? -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
