Re: Images versus disk Clones

"Curt Christianson" <curtchristnsn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OLXi6I1uHHA.4412@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thank you all for taking the time to read my question, although after all
the time I've spent in this and other NG's I feel I should know the
answer.

I understand *some* of the basis differences between a disk image, and a
disk clone. Apparantly a clone may be bootable, an ready to run provided
in
it installed in the proper BIOs channel along with it's coresponding
settings.

My understanding of any ISO image,it is not bootable and it is also a
bit-for-bit reproduction,--albeith in only ONE file?? Apparantly raw ISO
image is *not* bootiful. I don't understand this is that I thought an
image
is a bit-by-bit exact copoy of the original.

ISO and other image files are usually compressed but in any they aren't an
exact copy (which is what a clone is.) They need to be "extracted" or
"restored" to be usable.

I realize we don't usually use AUTOEXEC.BAT and more, or even ConFig.sys,
but there still must be bootable files on an ISO image, that left by
themselves just can boot. I know I'm missing something in the boot or
file
structure anywhere, and would be so appreciative if one could explain it
to
me, or know of a good site that, in this case, assumes I know
nothing.(That's getting closer all the time ;-(

Why for example can't i make a duplicate XP install disk as a back-up,
using
the native "copy" command, and get it to boot?? AArrrrrgggggghhhhh!
My
quess this all has to do with different file structures between medium.

Some kind of boot files do not allowed themselves to be copied in this
matter, and I want to know why.

If I take a simple DOS 6.22 disc, do a copy *.* to a destination drive,
(CD)
it works flawlessly. Xp sure doesn't/won't do this As i've said, I'm
open
to all ideas, lectures, or re-directs to other web-sites.

I' asking all this now becuse I've never been with the abiilty to back up,
and had a CD-rom burner before. It's high time **I**finally started
usuing
backups. Yes Rock and others...you finally got through to me)!

Thank you for all you time and effort this rather lenght post, (nobody)
has
every accussed my of not enough detail <VBG>

COPY is a limited function utility. Other utilities do a better job, but
only a "clone" will be immediately bootable, since the MBR itself is
involved and no COPY or similar utility goes near the MBR.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Issues with external hard drives
    ... > EIDE Slave: Disk 2. ... I just cloned the boot partition from Disk1 to Disk3 using Partition ... the clone visible to XP during the first boot after the clone ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Re: Best practices for installing Debian in a new disk?
    ... >>keep your fingers crossed that the sata disk bootable on your other system ... > download, after base install, which is doable in say 3 hs. ... To clone a 3GB partition on the same pc takes about 15 mins and a few mins. ... I started using the Grub boot loader about 4 years ago. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: How workable is Vista?
    ... time I set up a new hard disk for a new client -- but the rest do not, ... not XCOPY) to clone it multiple times, all the cloned disks will boot ... two hard drives to clone one to another. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Kids Gone-Hard drive cleaning time
    ... initial boot. ... install OS. ... Do NOT have the original and new disk connected to the system at boot ... except when making the clone. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: Differences between cloned drive and original
    ... After you make the clone you disconnect it from the ... > Now boot up. ... The theory also applies to Ghost 2003. ... >>> If you do a DISK TO DISK COPY when you boot the second disk IS AN EXACT ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
Loading