that's what I call fun!

It looks Tablatastic!

-Andrew K.
http://www.andrewk.us/

TC1100 is not my cup of tea.  I use to work on one and the screen glare drove me nuts.

Definitely interesting to see the wide range of devices though.  What's that other tablet in the back behind the UMPCs?

Kandyman676:

It's a Fujitsu T4000.

-Andrew K.
http://www.andrewk.us

man you need a larger office ;) hehe - also get otto a larger one, too! He deserves one!

This is not even funny. The picture below is from Jeremy’s office.

It is time to change jobs...

Nice. Wish i had that many Q1's.

The tablet PC in the back is A Fujitsu-Siemens Computers
P1510 Convertible Tablet with a screen diagonal of 8.9 inch.
<breathe>
sorry, but u were wrong on that one, andrew!
nice blog, btw!

//F2theD

Sorry http://www.pencomputing.com/images/fujitsu_t4000.jpg is a pick of the T4000 I got them mixed up.

"nice blog, btw!" THX

-Andrew K. of http://www.AndrewK.us

so when is there going to be a UMPC that will run Aero glass?

Nice collection of hardware but what’s with the box of biscuits on the wall, is it an experimental skin?

PingBack from http://stage.umpcjunkies.com/?p=13

PingBack from http://stage.umpcjunkies.com/?p=39

According to Data Recovery Labs, External Hard Disk Drives provide great flexible storage option and security by providing a mobile<a href="http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/Tape_pst-Exchange-server.php"> back up</a>option, yet this advantage has dangerous twist to users.

With storage capacity running in hundreds of Gigabites, with high rates of data transfer, in addition to the flexibility to plug the external drive to a <a href="http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/laptop.php"> Laptop </a>, Desktop, <a href="http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/exchange.php"> Server </a>, <a href="http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/multimedia.php"> Memory cards </a>, Camera or iPod and sold at reasonable prices have increased their popularity dramatically.
However, as the popularity of the external drives containing backups and valuable data are increasingly to accomodate the bigger Music & Photo files emerging from <a href="http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/apple-mac.php">  Apple-Mac sysytems & Xserevers</a>. External drives are failing for no apparent reasons. Majority of these failing drives are often of well known commercial brands such as Lacie, Freecom and Omega and with the latest high capacity Maxtor, Seagate or Western Digital hard disk drives models with storage capacity exceeding 320Gb or even 400Gb on a single drive.
According to a study of 100,000 drives conducted by Carnegie Mellon University, it is widely believed Hard Disk Drive vendors manipulate the (MTTF) - mean time to failure. In fact The mean time to failure (MTTF) of drives, according to their manufacturers, vary from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 hours, suggesting a nominal annual failure rate of at most 0.88%.
Whereas the study finds that "up to 13% observed on some systems.". This suggests that field replacement is a fairly different process than one might predict based on <a href="http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/linux-recovery.php"> datasheet </a> MTTF.
It has also been established that failure rate is not constant with age, and that, rather than a significant infant mortality effect, evidently a significant early onset of wear-out degradation. That is, replacement rates in research data grew constantly with age, an effect often assumed not to set in until after a nominal lifetime of 5 years. The study, also carefully point out that the study didn't necessarily track actual drive failures, but cases in which a customer decided a drive had failed and needed replacement. The study also explains that no vendor-specific failure information, and that his goal is not "choosing the best and the worst vendors" but to help them to improve drive design and testing.
Also, little difference in replacement rates between <a href="http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/linux-recovery.php">SCSI, FC and SATA drives</a>, potentially an indication that disk-independent factors, such as operating conditions, affect replacement rates more than component specific factors. On the other hand, we see only one instance of a customer rejecting an entire population of disks as a bad batch, in this case because of media error rates, and this instance involved SATA disks.
Time between replacements, a proxy for time between failure, is not well modelled by an exponential distribution and exhibits significant levels of correlation, including autocorrelation and long-range dependence.
Generally, inside the slick casings, often are poorly ventilated or even not ventilated at all, external hard drives assemblers include the cheapest available drives such as Maxtor & Seagate, combined with badly ventilated enclosure casing, the combination is catastrophic for any given user, especially when the hard disk drive is of high capacity containing crucial back-up data
For any given Lacie with multiple drives, this can be a terrible experience with RAID drives and data in excess of  1 terabite. Often with RAID array external drives, the drive failure are more frequent and the damage is more extensive than single drives. According to Haj Majed Aziz of UniRecovery – <a href="http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/raid.php"> RAID Data Recovery Labs </a>  “many of the 1 terabyte LaCie external drives contain 250Gb Maxtor IDE in RAID array, inside badly ventilated enclosures, when used on regular basis, especially within office environment, they are utter disaster.”
<a href="http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/hdd/Hitachi-ide-hdd.php">Hitachi </a> has unveiled a drive which has reached the new heights of one terabyte (TB). Its drive looks like any other, but uses perpendicular magnetic recording to make space for all that data.
The current technology generation of LRT-Longitudinal Recording Technology, which records the bits laying horizontally, has been superseded by the recording of the bits standing vertically. However the cost is in the region of $18,000  !

Variety of RAID servers served for you:

Though Raid used to stand for "redundant array of inexpensive disks", now the term has been updated to "redundant array of independent disks". Apparently, RAID is a way of grouping individual physical drives jointly to form one larger drive known as a "RAID set". The advantages associated with RAID are many. A RAID controller can help you recover lost data from parity information. The controller recovers the data that was lost when the drive went bad, by utilizing the parity information stored on the surviving disks in the RAID set.

In a variety of ways, drives can be grouped to form RAID sets. The different methods used to group drives are called "RAID types". These different types of RAID servers are numbered from 0 to 5. The numbers indicate towards the level of RAID being used. Of these levels, RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 are the most common ones.

RAID types can be used together in a variety of combinations. For instance, 2 RAID -0 sets can be created and combined together to form one RAID -1 set. Along with the performance benefits involved with RAID-0, you also get the benefits associated with RAID -1. see http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/raid.php">http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/raid.php

The RAID type used by you generally depends on the type of applications run by you on your server. While RAID-0 is the fastest, RAID -1 is the most reliable one. And if you want advantage s and benefits of both, you can go for RAID -5 which is a brilliant combination of both.

The various types of RAID servers are usually used in SAN storage arrays. Not all SAN storage arrays can support all RAID types. It is to be checked by your vendor which is the type of RAID that is available for storage. Some of the important types of RAID servers are described below so as to give you an idea about the uses of each of them.

1) RAID-0: RAID-0 is often called disk "striping". All the data is spread out in parts across all the disks in the RAID set. RAID-0 is associated with great performance, because you are in this process spreading out the chunk of data onto more physical drives. For RAID-0, no parity is generated. Hence, to write data for RAID-0 disks, there is no overhead. Want better performance? Then RAID-0 is the thing you are looking for. However, if it is high availability that you desire, then RAID-0 is not exactly appropriate. This is because parity is not generated for RAID-0 disks. The prerequisite for RAID-0 is tat it requires two physical disks. see http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/emergency.php">http://www.unirecovery.co.uk/emergency.php

2) RAID-1: RAID-1 is called disk mirroring. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that data is written in at least two separate physical disks. And the disks are identical to one another. So, if one disk fails, the other one can be used for the purpose of data recovery. Disk mirroring is functional for the purpose of fast read operations. However, it is slower when it comes to writing disks. This is because data needs to be written twice. RAID-1 too requires at least two physical disks.

3) RAID-5: what is special about RAID-5 is that it uses disk striping with parity. In this case the data is striped across all the disks in the RAID set, along with the parity information which is needed to restore the data in case the disk fails. The most common method used is RAID-5. The main reason behind this is that it strikes a great balance between performance and availability. How RAID-5 from the other two is that it requires at least three physical disks.
http://www.unirecovery.co.uk