I didn't realize I was in the alt.comp.freeware group. As far as I'm
concerned, system backup is a number one, spare-no-expense priority, and
it's a no-brainer to obtain the best tools available, freeware or no. BTW,
I believe most of the time the progression is from freeware to shareware to
payware with few exceptions in the reverse order.

Even tho you seem set in your ways with traditional backup schemes, your
philosophy may change if you bit the bullet and paid for good imaging
software. It just might open your eyes to the advantages it offers with
many of your current backup tasks precluded by imaging functions. My images
may take 5-10 minutes per partition and provide a reliable partial or
complete system restore even if the PC is unbootable. How could you ask for
more? Even though "hot" imaging is somewhat controversial, it has proven
itself time and time again. ...and there is no need to use the hungry
System Restore either.

My partitioning scheme is based on one I developed based on this :
http://aumha.org/a/parts.php back in Win98 days. Some of my drive names do
not accurately describe their contents and are not necessarily in
alphabetical order, but my system is very fast, efficient, and stable.
....and I have NEVER lost a single file (-- except in one case where I was
transferring data and missed the option to insert another DVD -- but that's
a whole different story!).

Suffice it to say that with my current setup, I am completely free to
perform whatever unnatural acts I choose with my system knowing that it can
be restored to a previous "perfect" state in 10 minutes without losing a
step. It just doesn't get better than that.

That's the news, and I am outta here. Happy new year, and best regards to
Ron Badour -- if you're out there. 10-4
--
Hoppy
~~
cquirke wrote on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:52:54 +0200:

??>> Your dissertation is well-written, and I agree with most of it.
??>> However, I take exception to your discussion of images. If I
??>> understand you correctly, I believe your backup philosophy may change
??>> somewhat in light of the flexibility of recent imaging software.

cMW> This is something I hope will filter down to freeware; the ability to
cMW> browse image backups as if they were live file systems, and perhaps to
cMW> create these from within Windows as an overnight task.

cMW> On "full system backups within Windows", shadow copying will allow
cMW> files "in use" to be backed up, but these files may in fact be
cMW> incomplete, pending material still buffered in memory. Restoring a
cMW> full system backup made under such circumstances will be akin to
cMW> suffering a bad exit at that point in the Windows session - plus the
cMW> full system backup takes so long that new files may be created and
cMW> others changed or deleted during the time it is done.

cMW> The results will still be better than nothing, but may be not so good
cMW> that you could treat the live installation as disposable. There's a
cMW> tendency for backup believers to dismiss all other forms of
cMW> maintenance (malware cleanup, data recovery) as redundant, because
cMW> they can "just" restore the last full system backup.

cMW> Aside from the above concerns, there's the problem of lost wanted
cMW> changes made since the backup, and restored unwanted changes.

??>> Please bear in mind that my imaging references use Norton Ghost 9 as a
??>> benchmark. I much prefer PowerQuest's Drive Image, but it just doesn't
??>> like my 250 GB SATA drive. But, since Symantec bought PowerQuest,
??>> Ghost 9 is essentially the same as DI6 -- except it's bloated, takes
??>> longer and produces larger images. I have not yet seen Ghost 10. I
??>> don't like True Image, and I'm totally unfamiliar with BING.

cMW> These are all feeware, right?

??>> The image can indeed be browsed as if it were a live system. It is
??>> totally untrue that the entire drive's image need be restored.

cMW> Are there any freeware tools that provide the above functionality?

cMW> Y'see, if it's free, it's a no-brainer. If it's feeware, then someone
cMW> has to take the decision to buy it, and until that time, nothing
cMW> happens. The decision depends on how well the solution works, which
cMW> may not be testable unless you warez it first (which I won't).

cMW> It also comes down to whether the solution will be used - it may not
cMW> be, if the process of making the image backup is tedious, or requires
cMW> excessive storage resources.

cMW> Then finally, it depends on whether the scenarios where it will help,
cMW> actually happen often enough to be worth hedging.

cMW> Using BING as a volume imager requires attended initiation of the
cMW> process from a non-HD boot, and I generally do this only before doing
cMW> things known to pose risks, such as resizing partitions.

cMW> Using a tool that can create such images as an unattended Task in
cMW> Windows would be easier to live with, especially if C: were small,
cMW> each browsable image were complete, and multiple images could be
cMW> stored without having to interactively change media.

cMW> That would be easy enough to actually do; then it's a matter of
cMW> whether the results will solve problems that occur commonly enough to
cMW> be worth the cost (a no-brainer, if it's free).

cMW> I'd still prefer file-level data backup, though - both to exclude
cMW> version/hardware/malware code risks, and because the restoration
cMW> flexibility of a .ZIP (DOS, any Win9x, Mac, Linux etc.) is far better
cMW> than a propriatary image file format that can be read only by one
cMW> particular feeware tool. Unless there is a volume image standard?

??>> I believe (-- but I'm not sure since I don't use it --) there is also
??>> an incremental backup option available; that is, only files that have
??>> changed since your last image will be imaged.

cMW> I don't like the fragility of incrimental or disk-spanning backups.

??>> FYI, my partition scheme is as follows (sizes are rounded, all NTFS
??>> format): HDD0 - 80GB PATA - C: WinXP Pro - 9 GB - D: Programs - 9.5GB
??>> - E: Storage - 15 GB - F: Temp - 11.5 GB - G: Documents - 5 GB - H:
??>> Games - 28 GB

cMW> If those are naturally enumerated, I'd move Temp from F: to E: (or D
cMW> for faster access, and Storage to the very end. Else you'd have the
cMW> heads stepping over 15G of inert storage to reach Temp; ungood.

??>> HDD1 - 250GB SATA
??>> - O: Cache - 4GB
??>> - I : Backup -24GB
??>> - J : Images -36GB
??>> - K: Download -11.5GB
??>> - L: Archives -12.5GB
??>> - M: Graphix -50GB
??>> - N: Spare -102GB

cMW> Again, I'd prolly move Backup from I: to the end of the HD; it's also
cMW> more likely to survive if you get a wear-pattern media failure, as the
cMW> heads would rarely overfly the volume.

??>> I also maintain a hand-written log of software & hardware changes (--
??>> I am a chronic tweaker --) so that, if a restore of my C: & D: drives
??>> is necessary, I can pickup exactly where I left off, excluding any
??>> self-imposed injury, of course.

cMW> I tend to export .REG of things I change, etc. as well as create
cMW> explicit SR points before doing hairy things :-)

??>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
cMW> Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
??>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Hoppy wrote:
> I didn't realize I was in the alt.comp.freeware group. As far as I'm
> concerned, system backup is a number one, spare-no-expense priority, and
> it's a no-brainer to obtain the best tools available, freeware or no. BTW,
> I believe most of the time the progression is from freeware to shareware to
> payware with few exceptions in the reverse order.
>
> Even tho you seem set in your ways with traditional backup schemes, your
> philosophy may change if you bit the bullet and paid for good imaging
> software. It just might open your eyes to the advantages it offers with
> many of your current backup tasks precluded by imaging functions. My images
> may take 5-10 minutes per partition and provide a reliable partial or
> complete system restore even if the PC is unbootable. How could you ask for
> more? Even though "hot" imaging is somewhat controversial, it has proven
> itself time and time again. ...and there is no need to use the hungry
> System Restore either.
>
> My partitioning scheme is based on one I developed based on this :
> http://aumha.org/a/parts.php back in Win98 days. Some of my drive names do
> not accurately describe their contents and are not necessarily in
> alphabetical order, but my system is very fast, efficient, and stable.
> ...and I have NEVER lost a single file (-- except in one case where I was
> transferring data and missed the option to insert another DVD -- but that's
> a whole different story!).
>
> Suffice it to say that with my current setup, I am completely free to
> perform whatever unnatural acts I choose with my system knowing that it can
> be restored to a previous "perfect" state in 10 minutes without losing a
> step. It just doesn't get better than that.
>
> That's the news, and I am outta here. Happy new year, and best regards to
> Ron Badour -- if you're out there. 10-4
> --
> Hoppy
> ~~
> cquirke wrote on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:52:54 +0200:
>
> ??>> Your dissertation is well-written, and I agree with most of it.
> ??>> However, I take exception to your discussion of images. If I
> ??>> understand you correctly, I believe your backup philosophy may change
> ??>> somewhat in light of the flexibility of recent imaging software.
>
> cMW> This is something I hope will filter down to freeware; the ability to
> cMW> browse image backups as if they were live file systems, and perhaps to
> cMW> create these from within Windows as an overnight task.
>
> cMW> On "full system backups within Windows", shadow copying will allow
> cMW> files "in use" to be backed up, but these files may in fact be
> cMW> incomplete, pending material still buffered in memory. Restoring a
> cMW> full system backup made under such circumstances will be akin to
> cMW> suffering a bad exit at that point in the Windows session - plus the
> cMW> full system backup takes so long that new files may be created and
> cMW> others changed or deleted during the time it is done.
>
> cMW> The results will still be better than nothing, but may be not so good
> cMW> that you could treat the live installation as disposable. There's a
> cMW> tendency for backup believers to dismiss all other forms of
> cMW> maintenance (malware cleanup, data recovery) as redundant, because
> cMW> they can "just" restore the last full system backup.
>
> cMW> Aside from the above concerns, there's the problem of lost wanted
> cMW> changes made since the backup, and restored unwanted changes.
>
> ??>> Please bear in mind that my imaging references use Norton Ghost 9 as a
> ??>> benchmark. I much prefer PowerQuest's Drive Image, but it just doesn't
> ??>> like my 250 GB SATA drive. But, since Symantec bought PowerQuest,
> ??>> Ghost 9 is essentially the same as DI6 -- except it's bloated, takes
> ??>> longer and produces larger images. I have not yet seen Ghost 10. I
> ??>> don't like True Image, and I'm totally unfamiliar with BING.
>
> cMW> These are all feeware, right?
>
> ??>> The image can indeed be browsed as if it were a live system. It is
> ??>> totally untrue that the entire drive's image need be restored.
>
> cMW> Are there any freeware tools that provide the above functionality?
>
> cMW> Y'see, if it's free, it's a no-brainer. If it's feeware, then someone
> cMW> has to take the decision to buy it, and until that time, nothing
> cMW> happens. The decision depends on how well the solution works, which
> cMW> may not be testable unless you warez it first (which I won't).
>
> cMW> It also comes down to whether the solution will be used - it may not
> cMW> be, if the process of making the image backup is tedious, or requires
> cMW> excessive storage resources.
>
> cMW> Then finally, it depends on whether the scenarios where it will help,
> cMW> actually happen often enough to be worth hedging.
>
> cMW> Using BING as a volume imager requires attended initiation of the
> cMW> process from a non-HD boot, and I generally do this only before doing
> cMW> things known to pose risks, such as resizing partitions.
>
> cMW> Using a tool that can create such images as an unattended Task in
> cMW> Windows would be easier to live with, especially if C: were small,
> cMW> each browsable image were complete, and multiple images could be
> cMW> stored without having to interactively change media.
>
> cMW> That would be easy enough to actually do; then it's a matter of
> cMW> whether the results will solve problems that occur commonly enough to
> cMW> be worth the cost (a no-brainer, if it's free).
>
> cMW> I'd still prefer file-level data backup, though - both to exclude
> cMW> version/hardware/malware code risks, and because the restoration
> cMW> flexibility of a .ZIP (DOS, any Win9x, Mac, Linux etc.) is far better
> cMW> than a propriatary image file format that can be read only by one
> cMW> particular feeware tool. Unless there is a volume image standard?
>
> ??>> I believe (-- but I'm not sure since I don't use it --) there is also
> ??>> an incremental backup option available; that is, only files that have
> ??>> changed since your last image will be imaged.
>
> cMW> I don't like the fragility of incrimental or disk-spanning backups.
>
> ??>> FYI, my partition scheme is as follows (sizes are rounded, all NTFS
> ??>> format): HDD0 - 80GB PATA - C: WinXP Pro - 9 GB - D: Programs - 9.5GB
> ??>> - E: Storage - 15 GB - F: Temp - 11.5 GB - G: Documents - 5 GB - H:
> ??>> Games - 28 GB
>
> cMW> If those are naturally enumerated, I'd move Temp from F: to E: (or D
> cMW> for faster access, and Storage to the very end. Else you'd have the
> cMW> heads stepping over 15G of inert storage to reach Temp; ungood.
>
> ??>> HDD1 - 250GB SATA
> ??>> - O: Cache - 4GB
> ??>> - I : Backup -24GB
> ??>> - J : Images -36GB
> ??>> - K: Download -11.5GB
> ??>> - L: Archives -12.5GB
> ??>> - M: Graphix -50GB
> ??>> - N: Spare -102GB
>
> cMW> Again, I'd prolly move Backup from I: to the end of the HD; it's also
> cMW> more likely to survive if you get a wear-pattern media failure, as the
> cMW> heads would rarely overfly the volume.
>
> ??>> I also maintain a hand-written log of software & hardware changes (--
> ??>> I am a chronic tweaker --) so that, if a restore of my C: & D: drives
> ??>> is necessary, I can pickup exactly where I left off, excluding any
> ??>> self-imposed injury, of course.
>
> cMW> I tend to export .REG of things I change, etc. as well as create
> cMW> explicit SR points before doing hairy things :-)
>
> ??>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> cMW> Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
> ??>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>
>
I Use PM 8.01 with no problem. And I currently use a
Sony DVD-RW DRU810A DVD drive. Again No problems. Please
send details to me on your method of hot imaging. Ghost and
several other imagers cannot satisfactorily image whilst
windows runs.