Re: Two "expert" issues I must solve before upgading
From: Vanguardx (see_signature)
Date: 09/09/04
- Next message: Vanguardx: "Re: Cannot remove some Systems Tray icons"
- Previous message: John Rampling: "Re: Deleting incoming fax setting"
- In reply to: Jeff W: "Re: Two "expert" issues I must solve before upgading"
- Next in thread: Jeff W: "Re: Two "expert" issues I must solve before upgading"
- Reply: Jeff W: "Re: Two "expert" issues I must solve before upgading"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 04:40:07 -0500
"Jeff W" <msnews@kwcpa.com>
wrote in news:OU2z0YilEHA.3496@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
> Hi Sharon - thanks for the response -
>
> First - I'm not against imaging programs - I've heard good things
> about Image-for-Windows. However, my concern with them is this - if
> I need an imaging program for my full backups, don't I also need
> imaging for my incrementals? Is there nothing I could I do
> "mid-week" to render my last full image backup out of date?
No. Don't consider disk images as file backup. They are hardware
backup, or for disaster recovery. In your case, consider saving a disk
image when you are planning to perform a major change. If you are
upgrading, er, migrating from Windows 98 to Windows XP, save a disk
image of your current Windows 98 OS partition. Then if things go awry
with the migration, you can restore the disk image and get back quickly
to the Windows 98 that was working for you before and then rethink how
to successfully redo the migration. If you are going to make hardware
changes then save a disk image. Before you install a major application,
like MS Office, then save a disk image. Before you install a Service
Pack, save a disk image.
Keep doing your monthly full, weekly incremental, and daily incremental
(grandfather-father-son) backups. Then when you need to recover from a
disaster, use the disk image followed by only those backups that you did
after you saved the disk image (so date the disk image media or use
folder/filenames that let you know when the disk image got created so
you know after what date to restore from logical backups). You can
still use your backups as before, even restoring an older dated version
of a file rather than restoring a newer one that you know doesn't have
what you want (i.e., the revised version is the bad one). The disk
images provide snapshots which act like walking down a long hallway with
a door at each snapshot. If there aren't any doors, you end up slammed
all the way at the start of the hallway and have to rebuild everything
again to reach the other end. If you keep closing a door along the way
where you make critical or signigicant changes (i.e., make a snapshot
before taking the risk), you only get pushed back to that last closed
door and can rebuild from there.
> Also - your response, though similar to others I've seen many places,
> is a bit frustating to an old 98/DOS hacker like myself. There's
> sort of a religion out there that you can't capture everything by
> copying just files and folders.
Very true. Those that think using XCOPY to clone a drive don't realize
that inuse files don't get copies (which includes the registry files for
the account under which they are currently logged into) and files for
which they don't have read permission (something you still have to note
when doing backups) or were locked out by the system or other processes
won't get copied. XCOPY does not support shadow copying. Disk imaging
(actually partition imaging) doesn't care about account permissions,
security, policies, EFS, or inuse files because you are not running the
OS when creating the image.
> Msoft puts "special stuff" out there
> on the disk, outside of the MBR, that can only be captured by a disk
> image. I'll accept this more easily if someone could tell me what
> that information is. You say "You cannot simply sys an XP drive and
> toss data onto it." I have to use an imaging program. Ok, I'l accept
> this, but must I do so blindly 8-}
Some disk imaging software does not include the MBR along with the
partition's image fileset. That's because it can bite you hard. I use
DriveImage 2002 (haven't upgraded yet) and there is no option to save
the MBR or to restore it; however, you can download Powerquest's freebie
MBR save/restore utility (one version runs in DOS and the other under
Windows). Following exemplifies why backing up and restoring old copies
of the MBR is considered an advanced restore function.
You image a partition. This is the first primary partition on your
drive containing Windows XP and which occupies half of it. With that
image you save the MBR which includes the bootstrap program, disk
signature, bytes, the partition table, and a couple other items I don't
recall right now. There is also another 2nd FAT32 partition using up
the remainder of the drive and which contains Windows 98 (you really
like your old games, or you need to test your product across all
supported platforms). You decide to add Linux or some other OS using
whatever file system is appropriate for it in another primary partition
but all the disk space has been used up in the 2 partitions already
there. You resize the 2nd primary partition since there is lots of
unused space in it. This leaves unallocated space on the hard drive for
your new 3rd partition. However, for reasons you only know, you decide
you want the new 3rd partition to follow after the first partition and
the old 2nd partition to be last, so the physical order will be: old
NTFS primary partition #1, new other-file-system primary partition #3,
and then the old FAT32 primary partition #2. That means you not only
have to resize old partition #2 but you also have to slide it to the end
of the disk. Then you can create the new partition in the middle. Well
guess what happened to the partition table in the MBR? If you later
restore the image for partition 1 and include the MBR that got saved
with it, you will also restore a partition table in that old copy of the
MBR which no longer matches your current partition setup. The old MBR
copy shows 2 primary partitions where the first one is an NTFS type
partition occupying half the disk and the second is a FAT32 type
partition occupying the other half of the disk. That's okay for your
old NTFS primary partition #1 but will screw up your new
other-file-system primary partition #3 and the resized and moved old
FAT32 primary partition #2. You can recover from this blunder by using
a partition table editor (another freebie download from Powerquest's FTP
site) but you are doing more hazardous editing of your system setup than
even when editing the registry.
> PS - another mini rant. - What I want (a way to do good, proactive
> backups that protect me from a disk crash, without spending a fortune
> on 3rd party software), seems like something MICROSOFT would be very
> supportive of - yet they apparently don't offer any easy way to do
> it???? (sigh)
But you are forgeting that the NT Backup program wasn't written by
Microsoft. It is a crippled version of Veritas' Backup Exec Desktop.
Microsoft provided a minimal and crippled solution (which is actually
fluff if all you really wanted was just the OS) which is still palatable
by many low-volume, normal octane users (and YOU chose to reduce the
octane further by going with XP Home instead of XP Pro). The
defragmenter included in Windows XP is a crippled version of Diskeeper.
The Disk Cleanup utility is a crippled version of CleanSweep. Don't
know about you, but I haven't used Wordpad since, well, I can't remember
when I last used it so it's been years. EFS is good for securing the
content of your files but it isn't meant to compete against more robust
security solutions (I haven't tried SafeBoot or DriveCrypt but they
appear to implement better drive encryption security). Windows XP Pro
comes with the Fax Service and it is usable but not for high-volume
business use (alas, Symantec let WinFax die after they bought it from
Delrina). If you FTP a lot, do you use the DOS-mode ftp.exe program or
try FTP'ing through Internet Explorer, or do you get FileZilla or some
other real FTP client? If you care about securely erasing files, are
you going to rely on deleting the file, emptying the Recycle Bin, and
running defrag hoping that the now unused space gets overwritten, or do
you head on over to http://www.heidi.ie/eraser/ to get the decent and
freebie Eraser utility? Do you rely on the Bayesian filtering in
Outlook 2003 to get rid of spam, or do you get a better solution that
includes Bayesian filtering, DNS blacklists of known spam sources, block
by country of origin, HTML filtering and weighting, URL checking, and
other anti-spam methods that are far superior and might even be rolled
into one product, like SpamPal (which is free, by the way)?
There is a lot of fluff in Windows that is NOT part of an operating
system but is good marketing for Microsoft to keep their users happy by
giving them just enough to shut them up. You got something, it's
passable, but it's not a strong solution. Basically they are still just
selling an operating system. Users already complain about the cost of
Windows. Are you going to pay more to have Microsoft include whatever
is the most potent backup program available along with whatever is the
most potent disk imaging software? Why not also demand they include MS
Office Pro in place of WordPad, Spinrite6 in place of CHKDSK, and
PhotoShop in place of Paint? Rather than make Windows even more
expensive, I'd like to get a much cheaper and less fluffy version of
Windows and add software for the critical or wanted functions that *I*
want to include.
- Next message: Vanguardx: "Re: Cannot remove some Systems Tray icons"
- Previous message: John Rampling: "Re: Deleting incoming fax setting"
- In reply to: Jeff W: "Re: Two "expert" issues I must solve before upgading"
- Next in thread: Jeff W: "Re: Two "expert" issues I must solve before upgading"
- Reply: Jeff W: "Re: Two "expert" issues I must solve before upgading"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
