Computers and Daylight Saving Time

931386, if installed, should appear in Add/Remove Programs on XP as
"Update for Windows XP (KB931386)" but is only displayed if you have "Show
Updates" checked at the head of the Add/Remove Programs list.
--
Mike M


Heirloom wrote:

Hey BRWF,
I installed the KB931836, however, there is no reference to it
in the Add/Remove Programs. I already had the update that this one
supersedes. I guess I'm okay.....will check out more when I have time.
Heirloom, old and everyday is Saturday

Well, duh. Thanks Mike! Yup, had to put the checkmark in.
Heirloom, old and have I mentioned I love this NG?

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
931386, if installed, should appear in Add/Remove Programs on XP as
"Update for Windows XP (KB931386)" but is only displayed if you have "Show
Updates" checked at the head of the Add/Remove Programs list.
--
Mike M


Heirloom wrote:

Hey BRWF,
I installed the KB931836, however, there is no reference to it
in the Add/Remove Programs. I already had the update that this one
supersedes. I guess I'm okay.....will check out more when I have time.
Heirloom, old and everyday is Saturday

Heirloom wrote:

Well, duh. Thanks Mike! Yup, had to put the checkmark in.
Heirloom, old and have I mentioned I love this
NG?

I suspected that might have been the problem. g Given the multitude of
patches that have been released from XP since SP2 I can well understand
users having that box unchecked. I've got some 123 $*$ uninstall folders
totalling 606MB plus the ie7 uninstall folder (23MB) in my Windows folder
on this box that was a clean XP SP2 install. No wonder my C: drive is
getting so full! I'm tempted to blow away the lot and get the space back!
--
Mike M

On Feb 18, 6:04 am, "Mike M" wrote:
Ken,

Read what I said again vbg, I said nothing about the number of changes
but rather "If you do it manually look out for a second, unwanted change,
on the old date." In other words if you change the time manually on the
"new" date beware of the system changing it again on the "old" date.

Can you direct me to the registry location(s) that perform this DST
recognition?

Yes, but you really really don't want to go there. g Time Zone
information is stored in keys under:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Time Zones\

Instead you should try and find a copy of tzedit which was part of the
Win98 Resource Kit. [KB247024 "Tools Included with the Microsoft Windows
98 Resource Kit" (http://support.microsoft.com?kbid=247024)] and may also
be on some Win98 and Win95 OSR2 CDs.

Ah, I see it is available as a download fromhttp://www.softshape.com/download/tzedit.zip. Extract the three files
from the zip to a folder on your desktop. then run tzedit and select your
time zone from the drop down box. Hit edit and it will show the offset
from GMT and the current start and stop dates for DST. Edit to match the
new ones for your location and click OK to save.

I hope this helps.

--
Mike Maltby



H Mike,

I think after you have edited the TIme Zone info with tzedit, you have
to either reboot, or change time zone to some where else, and then
change back again to make the system actually read the time zone info.
Of course, those of us who turn their machine off every night to go to
beddie bye will do a "natural reboot" anyway.
Cheers, and take care of yourself.

BarryG

Mike,
Yep, my thoughts exactly. I was thinking more along the lines of
doing my Acronis backup, and then deleting them. This would give me the
ability to restore the given files, if needed, and free up the space on my
J:\ . Of course, there is so much space on this box, it is really of little
consequence.
Heirloom, old and don't need much room

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Heirloom wrote:

Well, duh. Thanks Mike! Yup, had to put the checkmark in.
Heirloom, old and have I mentioned I love this
NG?

I suspected that might have been the problem. g Given the multitude of
patches that have been released from XP since SP2 I can well understand
users having that box unchecked. I've got some 123 $*$ uninstall folders
totalling 606MB plus the ie7 uninstall folder (23MB) in my Windows folder
on this box that was a clean XP SP2 install. No wonder my C: drive is
getting so full! I'm tempted to blow away the lot and get the space back!
--
Mike M

I've got plenty of space and plenty of backups of my system partitions (I
use BING rather than Acronis) but have always tried to keep my system
partitions small and compact but had to increase my XP partitions from 6GB
to 8GB about a year ago due to the increasing space required by the system
as a result of all the patches. This box (the older of my two main boxes)
has about 500GB of disk space (three disks) whilst my newer box has about
1.2TB including 160GB RAID0 which includes the system partitions, an 80GB
pata drive and a four disk RAID5 giving around 900GB of usable space.
Then there's my Buffalo Terastation (NAS) which is also RAID5 with 750GB
usable. Did I mention that I do a load of media work? vbg Then there
are a number of external drives ....
--
Mike


Heirloom wrote:

Mike,
Yep, my thoughts exactly. I was thinking more along the lines of
doing my Acronis backup, and then deleting them. This would give me
the ability to restore the given files, if needed, and free up the
space on my J:\ . Of course, there is so much space on this box, it
is really of little consequence.
Heirloom, old and don't need much room

All together, I have about a half a TB..........which incorporates two 80G
in a Raid0. The other other three are seperate drives.....a 300G
partitioned for backups and a couple more. Pretty obvious that mine pales
in your shadow, g. I'm going to have to look up Raid5.........can't
remember how that one works.
Heirloom, old and good enough for me

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
I've got plenty of space and plenty of backups of my system partitions (I
use BING rather than Acronis) but have always tried to keep my system
partitions small and compact but had to increase my XP partitions from 6GB
to 8GB about a year ago due to the increasing space required by the system
as a result of all the patches. This box (the older of my two main boxes)
has about 500GB of disk space (three disks) whilst my newer box has about
1.2TB including 160GB RAID0 which includes the system partitions, an 80GB
pata drive and a four disk RAID5 giving around 900GB of usable space. Then
there's my Buffalo Terastation (NAS) which is also RAID5 with 750GB
usable. Did I mention that I do a load of media work? vbg Then there
are a number of external drives ....
--
Mike


Heirloom wrote:

Mike,
Yep, my thoughts exactly. I was thinking more along the lines of
doing my Acronis backup, and then deleting them. This would give me
the ability to restore the given files, if needed, and free up the
space on my J:\ . Of course, there is so much space on this box, it
is really of little consequence.
Heirloom, old and don't need much room

RAID5. In my case this is 4x320GB drives which gives me 960GB usable.
RAID5 uses stripes and a parity block which rotates round the disks. The
overall effect being that any one disk can fail and the data is still
usable. So whereas RAID 0 stripes between two or more disks and gives
increased read and write speeds and RAID1 mirrors the contents of one
drive to another to provide resilience against hardware failure RAID 5
provides good read speeds and redundancy at less cost than RAID1 due the
equivalent of one disk in the set being used for parity (although the
parity stripe is across all disks, the earlier RAID4 has all the parity
information on one disk) it does suffer from slightly slower write times
due to the need to generate the parity information but read speeds are
comparable with RAID0. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
--
Mike M


Heirloom wrote:

All together, I have about a half a TB..........which incorporates
two 80G in a Raid0. The other other three are seperate drives.....a
300G partitioned for backups and a couple more. Pretty obvious that
mine pales in your shadow, g. I'm going to have to look up
Raid5.........can't remember how that one works.
Heirloom, old and good enough for me

saved me having to look it up, thanks.
Heirloom, old and I have stripes

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
RAID5. In my case this is 4x320GB drives which gives me 960GB usable.
RAID5 uses stripes and a parity block which rotates round the disks. The
overall effect being that any one disk can fail and the data is still
usable. So whereas RAID 0 stripes between two or more disks and gives
increased read and write speeds and RAID1 mirrors the contents of one
drive to another to provide resilience against hardware failure RAID 5
provides good read speeds and redundancy at less cost than RAID1 due the
equivalent of one disk in the set being used for parity (although the
parity stripe is across all disks, the earlier RAID4 has all the parity
information on one disk) it does suffer from slightly slower write times
due to the need to generate the parity information but read speeds are
comparable with RAID0. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
--
Mike M


Heirloom wrote:

All together, I have about a half a TB..........which incorporates
two 80G in a Raid0. The other other three are seperate drives.....a
300G partitioned for backups and a couple more. Pretty obvious that
mine pales in your shadow, g. I'm going to have to look up
Raid5.........can't remember how that one works.
Heirloom, old and good enough for me

Don't know about stripes but my head is spinning after reading the
exchange between you two, think I'll stick with my humble 1 drive g
Joan

Heirloom wrote:
saved me having to look it up, thanks.
Heirloom, old and I have stripes