Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:04:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Ghost O/T
--- Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Are the compressed images as stable as > non-compressed > >images? Or might there be any other issues with > >compression? I never looked into it, and tend not > to > >compress as I've never been sure. > > AFAIK the only reason to select one type of > compression over the other is > the time-space tradeoff (high compression is small > but takes longer to > compress and decompress for instance). I find that > if you corrupt an image > file, you're generally in trouble anyway ... Okay... cool. For a Win9x fresh install image of 200-300MB, Ghost goes pretty quick. So compressing the heck out of it isn't any more risky in the end than not compressing it, eh? That'd save some room on backup CDs. > P.S. yes I AM still here, just somewhat snowed under > ... hehe Snow! Snow as in percipitation snow, or work snow? You're down under in Oz, so it's winter down there. Good to see you still popping in from time to time Raymond. Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
