#QBTools Dlx
21 messages in this thread
So whats the consensus here on the upgrade of QBTools Dlx?
Do you users think that this is a solid program?
Thanks
James via AutoPilot
With Motorola Inside and Intel Outside
I got it and I think it is GREAT! It is ALOT faster than the older version
and easy to use.
The only thing I see that is missing from the older version is the FORMAT
drive command.
<<< Tony D. Tracer >>>
Thanks for the reply.
James via AutoPilot
With Motorola Inside and Intel Outside
I now have QBT Deluxe AND Ami-Back Tools, and while I like the interface
of QBT-D better, ABT does things that QBT-D doesn't.
Since I DO like the interface on CCS products (QB & QBT), I would REALLY
like them to write and marked a GOOD, user-friendly tool for writing,
reading, saving to a file, analyzing, etc. Rigid Disk Blocks.
. . . . JimDoc, on AutoPilot
Jim,
>>ABT does things that Quarterback Tools Deluxe does not
About the only thing they do that we don't is get to the Rigid Disk Block
level. We did look into this, but in our investigations it seemed to be of
dubious value.
Conversly, there are many things we do that they do not, such as the disk
editor and all the nifty tools that comes with the full package. And based
upon our testing with intentionally damaged disks, our error check and correct
code catches and fixes a lot more problems than ABT does. But of course, most
users won't find this out until they have a disk with an error that ABT won't
fix.
Just my 2 cents worth. 🙂
James Bayless
Central Coast Software
A division of New Horizons Software, Inc.
James,
Thanks for the info about QBTools. I also own both programs (Ami-Back
Tools). I like your interface much better, but I always wondered why
QBTools takes so much longer to perform its tasks than Ami-Back Tools. Is
it because it does more thorough error-checking?
I performed a test on a damaged partition on my HD. First, I had
Ami-Back Tools Analyze it. I didn't fix the errors, but I saved a list of
them and I timed how long it took. Then I performed the same test with
QBTools. It found the same errors, but it took about 2 extra minutes to do
so.
Is this because QBTools performed some checks that Ami-Back Tools
didn't, but in this instance the extra checks didn't reveal anything? All
the errors that were found were checksum errors.
Thanks.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
Dominick,
As you surmised, the most likely reason for the longer scanning time in
Quarterback Tools is because it does more checks than AB-Tools does. There are
some options in Quarterback Tools that you can use to speed things up a bit
(for example, turning off the option to check data blocks on FFS volumes helps,
and turning off the bad block scan helps a lot), but we leave it set for the
maximum number of checks as the default. Our feeling is that it is better to
take a little longer and do a more thorough check than try to cut corners.
James Bayless
Central Coast Software
A division of New Horizons Software, Inc.
James,
Thanks for the info. I like your products' interfaces very much. I have
one feature suggestion for Quarterback. Could you please add the ability
to do multiple device backups in one pass? I have four partitions on my
HD. I would rather backup all 4 partitions with one backup, rather than
have to do 4 separate backups to backup the entire drive. Any chance of
this feature being added soon? For the record, Ami-Back allows this.
Thanks.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
While we are looking into having that feature built into the next
version, we do provide an AREXX script with Quarterback 5.0 that does
this already. Admittedy you must run it from the Macro menu (and I
assume you have Kickstart 2.0 or later, so you automatically have
AREXX), but it is much more flexible (and user-modifiable) as a macro
than it would probably be as a built-in command.
James,
Yes, I have 2.1 and I know about the ARexx Macro. I thought it would
also be good as a built-in command, though.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
James I have owned Quarterback Tools for ages and have faithfully
upgraded whenever a new version was announced. Is there an upgrade
policy for QBTools owners who wish to get QBTools Deluxe?
Rick,
Unfortunately not all of our Canadian users have received their
upgrade notices as yet. We hope to have all of the mailings done in
the next week or so. In the meantime the upgrade from Quarterback
Tools to Quarterback Tools Deluxe would be a total of $50.00
including Air Mail shipping. This upgrade may be ordered by phone by
Calling 512 328 6650 or may be ordered by mail by sending the serial
number off of your current version of Quarterback Tools together with
your payment in US funds to:
Central Coast Software
A division of New Horizons Software, Inc.
Attn: Quarterback Tools Deluxe
PO Box 164287
Austin, TX 78716
Randy Brooks
Central Coast Software
A division of New Horizons Software, Inc.
Jim,
I also have both QBTools and Ami-Back Tools and I also like QBTools'
interface better. Don't you also find that ABTools is much faster than
QBTools, too?
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
> Don't you also find that ABTools is much faster
Haven't timed 'em, Dom, but I wouldn't be surprised: I don't think it's as
thorough.
. . . . JimDoc, on AutoPilot
Jim,
I don't think you have to time it to tell the difference. For me,
there's a noticeable difference between the speed of the two programs.
Ami-Back Tools is about 2 to 3 times faster than QBTools, so I can tell
the difference without timing. As you said, QBTools is more thorough,
though.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
Your statement that AB-Tools is 2 to 3 times faster than Quarterback
Tools 2.0 had me a bit puzzled, since I don't recall it being nearly
that much faster. So I did some checking…
When all options to check data blocks are off, their speeds are very
similar (Quarterback Tools is still slightly slower, but as I
mentioned before, it is doing more integrity checks). When the
option to read data blocks is turned on, Quarterback is indeed
slower. However, because of the times turned in by AB-Tools I am
very suspicious of their data block checking. On a six-megabyte
partition of mostly small files (my SYS: partition), it took AB-Tools
10 seconds to scan without checking data blocks, and 16 seconds to
scan with checking. This means that it read approximately six
megabytes of data in six seconds!
While this speed is possible if you are simply doing a disk scan (like
when you turn on the "check for bad blocks" option in Quarterback
Tools–that also takes about six seconds), when Quarterback Tools is
checking data blocks in files it does a file-by-file analysis of the
data blocks as it reads them. This is the correct thing to do, but
it means that the hard drive head seeks all over the drive as it
analyzes the data blocks (just as if you were opening and reading
every file one-by-one from AmigaDOS).
Note that I had the bad block check in Quarterback Tools turned off
for this comparison, since AB-Tools doesn't seem to have a
corresponding feature (this feature finds and maps out bad blocks on
a drive). However, their "check" for data blocks seems to be nothing
more than a drive scan, with no real checking involved. As such it
is more like our bad block check, only without mapping out the bad
blocks it finds.
In fact, turning off Quarterback Tools' data block check, but turning
_on_ its bad-block check gives scan times very similar to AB-Tools'
times (16 seconds for AB-Tools vs. 21 seconds for Quarterback Tools).
Note that generally we recommend you have _either_ data block checking
or bad block checking turned on, but not necessarily both, since
there is quite a bit of overlap in what they do (they both read all
the data on a disk, the differ in the order they read it and what
they do if they find a bad block).
I have QBTools set to check bad blocks on reads only and to check
files and drawers, but not to check the data blocks. On Ami-Back
Tools, I have it set to Check Data Blocks. It was with those
settings, that QBTools seems to take much longer than Ami-Back Tools
on the same partition.
I'll try timing it again. However, even if the figures are as you
suggested, the times really are not that similar for large partitions.
For instance, you said for 6-Megs that AB-Tools takes 16 seconds and
QB-Tools take 21 seconds. To get an approximation, let's do the math
for a 240-Meg partition. 240-Megs is equal to forty 6-Meg partitions,
so to speak. Now let's plug in the numbers. 40 X 16 = 640 seconds or
10 minutes and 40 seconds for AB-Tools. 40 X 21 = 840 seconds or 14
minutes for QB-Tools. So that's 3 minutes and 20 seconds longer for
QB-Tools if we extrapolate the time taken for a 6-Meg partition to a
240-Meg partition. So with those numbers, you're right. AB-Tools
wouldn't be two to three times faster than QB-Tools. Is it possible
that if you actually checked a 240-Meg partition, that the numbers
could be substantially different? That is, maybe the 6-Meg timing
figures don't correlate to what the timing would actually be with a
240-Meg partition. QB-Tools certainly seems much slower when you sit
there watching the progress indicator and compare it with AB-Tools.
Even if QB-Tools were only 1-1/2 times slower, it would make a
difference. 10 minutes vs. 15 minutes for a check is a big
difference.
I'm not complaining. I actually like QB-Tools better then AB-Tools. And
if it checks more than AB-Tools, then it's justified in taking longer.
Maybe you could put in a Quick-Check option for QB-Tools that just does
the same checks as AB-Tools. I like the security of the full checking that
QB-Tools offers, but I think that in the majority of instances, AB-Tools'
checking is sufficient and it is faster. If you give the user the option,
they could do quick checks, a la AB-Tools, which would probably be
sufficient most of the time; and if it wasn't sufficient they could then
do the full check. This way your users would have the best of both
worlds.
Just an idea. Keep up the good work.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
Jim,
>> Don't you also find that ABTools is much faster
> Haven't timed 'em, Dom, but I wouldn't be surprised: I don't think
it's as thorough.
The funny thing is the other day I had some checksum errors and I
repaired it with QBTools. I then ran the partition through Ami-Back Tools,
and it found and corrected 5 additional checksum errors that QBTools had
missed. There's no question that QBTools is slower, but if it's supposed
to be more thorough, then how come it missed 5 errors that Ami-Back Tools
caught?
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
Dominick,
Did you run the scan one more time? I believe that QBTools would have found the
same errors as AB Tools on the second scan.
Randy Brooks
Central Coast Software
A division of New Horizons Software, Inc.
James,
No, I didn't run the scan a second time. I had Ami-Back Tools set to
repair, so the errors were already fixed.
Are you saying that sometimes I should perform a scan twice with
QBTools? Also, do you think if I performed the scan the first time with AB
Tools and the second time with QB Tools, that QB Tools would have found
some errors that AB Tools didn't?
Thanks.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
Dominick,
I can't say about the specific instance you mention, but (due to the
design of AmigaDOS) often when one problem is fixed, it will cause
another problem to surface. If this new problem is with a file that
Quarterback Tools has already processed, you won't know about it
until you run it again. We mention this in the manual 🙂
We recommend that if any problems are reported (and repaired) by Quarterback
Tools, you run the program again to make sure that no additional problems were
uncovered.
James Bayless
Central Coast Software
A division of New Horizons Software, Inc.