No worse. But a clean install is better.

The data (my projects) are pretty much all text. There's very little to get infected there. I certainly don't execute anything from my data/project directories so even if a virus got in one of those directories, it wouldn't matter. By installing the OS from scratch I'm secure in that even if I was infected before the HD crash or catastrophic failure, I'm not not anymore--if there happened to be an infected file in my data/project directory, it will never get executed anyway and is irrelevant. But if it was in my data/project directory it was probably lurking elsewhere in executable programs and/or the OS. And in that case the fresh install solves that problem.



Then you must bill quite well. I certainly can't pay for three computers with one day's billable hours. It doesn't really matter, though. I have other computers. When the computer dies the first thing I do is restore my backup data/project directories to another functioning computer and proceed to work there. Since it's a simple directory backup I can restore anywhere... even to a Linux machine. So I wouldn't lose any significant time at all. Just enough time to copy a few GB of data to another machine and proceed to work. I'd get my original machine up and running on a time available basis.

The only thing that has ever happened to me was not an HD failure or virus compromise. The laptop died. It was a year ago (when I was on a business trip, no less) my laptop decided to die for no good reason. Completely kaput like there was no power to it. It was a hassle since I was on the road, but I just slid the HD out and put it in a USB caddy and I could do everything by accessing my two directories. When I got a new computer upon my return to Denver (because the old laptop did die and it took them several weeks to get the motherboard replaced) I just copied those two directories onto the new laptop and installed the programs. A bit-wise backup wouldn't have helped because I didn't (and don't) have two of the original laptop.

Now if you're using DOS then I guess that doesn't apply. But I don't use DOS anymore. Most people don't. So what might seem like a good approach to you very well may not apply to others.



Strange. It seems you're sacrificing a lot of productivity over the years (by using obsolete technology every day) in order to make sure you don't lose a day or two of productivity in the event of a very infrequent catastrophic failure. I know you've said that you are more productive in DOS than in a graphical environment like Windows. I don't really buy that. It might be true, but only if you intentionally refuse to become proficient in the tools available or if your tools of choice are extremely poorly designed.

It seems kind of like opting for a horse-drawn carriage because you don't want to have to have the car in the shop for a day when the power windows of a new car break down.

Regards,
Craig Steiner