Re: Backup software--like GHOST
Re: Backup software--like GHOST
Feel free to do some snipping! If you don't I will next time!
Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>> PCR wrote:
|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>> PCR wrote:
|>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>>>> PCR wrote:
|>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:
|>>>>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
|>>>>>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and
|>>>>>>>>>> that's the one I'm talking about. (I also have some
|>>>>>>>>>> FAT32 partitions on the drive for other stuff, however).
|>>>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same
|>>>>>>>>> as in Win98 with that Mod date?
|>>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for
|>>>>>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift
|>>>>>>>>> your NTFS into a FAT32..
|>>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).
|>>>>>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it.
|>>>>>>>
|>>>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints
|>>>>>>> about XP-- very instructive.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I
|>>>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.
|>>>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet
|>>>>> peeves-- except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't
|>>>>> finding all files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved
|>>>>> too with a shortcut.
|>>>>
|>>>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or
|>>>> File Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to
|>>>> Agent Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the
|>>>> Win98SE machine).
|>>>
|>>> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with
|>>> Windows Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As
|>>> far as anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't
|>>> hurt me yet, I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING
|>>> that copies on a track level-- nothing can escape that!
|>>
|>> The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to
|>> make a backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy
|>> (or a CD)
|>> to run it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit
|>> friendlier, since you're in a windows environment for most of it.
|>> (the older versions of TI can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)
|>
|> Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to
|> click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of
|> multiple partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING to
|> its own little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am content
|> to use the floppy.
|
| Well, and actually True Image is fully running in Windows too (with
| lots of options and selections being able to be clearly shown as a
| result). It makes the BING screen look primitive.
Alright. But I hope you don't mean True Image will resize & move
partitions on the fly just before doing its backup. With BING you have
to do those things separately-- which I think is far more safe! And all
of it can be done from a little floppy!
| Of course, if you ever decide to restore an image backup of the
| system back to the source drive, TI only runs in windows to a point,
| and then it reboots and does the rest outside of windows (which it
| has to), just like BING.
Yea. BING can run from a floppy, from its own little partition (an
EMBRM), or from the partition that has the OS (if it is a FAT32).
However, I think in any case you are right that even BING must do its
big stuff out of Windows.
|>>>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness*
|>>>>>> (much more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND
|>>>>>> its capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on
|>>>>>> 98SE.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and
|>>>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me
|>>>>>> some, in 98SE
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to
|>>>>> crash it!
|>>>>
|>>>> Apparently not!
|>>>
|>>> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.
|>>
|>> I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a
|>> bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some
|>> registry mods, etc.
|>
|> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could.
.
|
| LOL. That's ok, you don't have to worry about that.
Alright. But I'm still thinking hard for a compliment for you! I won't
give up, Colorado!
|>>>>> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned
|>>>>> against XP SP3!
|>>>>
|>>>> That's never going in over here.
|>>>>
|>>>>> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you
|>>>>> hardly ever did in Win98.)
|>>>>
|>>>> Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times
|>>>> on that one).
|>>>
|>>> I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but
|>>> ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended"
|>>> ones too into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick
|>>> replacements to some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't
|>>> regret it now.
|>>>
|>>> It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical
|>>> updates too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully
|>>> debugged!?
|>>
|>> Nope. True security ONLY "comes from within" - meaning, the
|>> operator usage.
|>> You can't always protect people from themselves and their own
|>> screwups, no matter how hard you try.
|>
|> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has
|> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!
|
| I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But
| then again, I never really missed them.
I know. There aren't any new ones, but you know the old ones are still
there. But you have to go look with the Win98 machine to see the ones
for Win98, you know.
|> It's pretty sloppy in that file too with duplicates, failures
|> (although later
|> attempts completed) & mis-sorted entries!
|>
|>>>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full
|>>>>> system backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already,
|>>>>> but nothing any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I
|>>>>> didn't how to fix anything otherwise.)
|>>>>>
|>>>>>>
|>>>>
|>>>> Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD
|>>>> enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the
|>>>> existing 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data.
|>>>> (I have a 40 GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think
|>>>> that's an ideal size for XP).
|>>>
|>>> That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with
|>>> Compaq's QuickRestore & now with BING.
|>>>
|>>>>>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery
|>>>>>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while
|>>>>>> writing some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover
|>>>>>> from that).
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?
|>>
|>> No, WinXP also has SFC to check the system files, so this in
|>> addition to that.
|>>
|>> And XP also has some WFP (windows file protection) running in the
|>> background to constantly monitor any attempts to change any system
|>> files (without permission).
|>
|> That's interesting. But I guess you still need a virus detector.
|> Even if you are asked, you still might not know who is doing the
|> asking!
|
| I have an older version of AVG Free, namely AVG 7.0. And I stopped
| updating it some time ago.
That's risky, isn't it!? XP/Vista has drawn all the fire of the
virus-writers away from Win98!
|>>>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I
|>>>> understand it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if
|>>>> anything goes wrong or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP
|>>>> (using NTFS) can recover from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32.
|>>>> For example, if something isn't successfully and completely
|>>>> written out to the hard disk, a flag is set indicating such, so
|>>>> that it can be, next time (or something to that effect). Which
|>>>> makes it much more robust! (not saying it's 100% foolproof,
|>>>> nothing probably is)
|>>>
|>>> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &
|>>> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't
|>>> sound like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.
|>>
|>> No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the
|>> system files for the proper versions (and can be used to put them
|>> back, as needbe, since the correct ones are stored in a backup
|>> "dllcache" on the disk)
|>
|> Does XP update its dllcache? If a file is updated twice, but you
|> need to revert to the first update-- will XP's SFC offer it or only
|> offer the original file? It's tough to get 98's SFC to do that
|> trick, you know-- normally it goes to the installation .cab's for
|> its files, (but it will take whatever is loose in
|> C:\Windows\Option\Cabs first, instead of going into the .cab's.)
|
| XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in the
| dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these cached
| system files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE update,
| which then updates it (at least as I recall - there may be some other
| exceptions or contingencies).
It sounds like they might have it covered, then, if they keep that cache
updated. It will revert to the previous updated file, instead of the
original, if you run SFC after a second update goes bad. That's tough to
do with Win98's SFC.
It sounds pretty good for preventing a virus infection too, I guess, if
it only let's official updates mess with the cache. But that only
involves system files? I suppose you can install non-system programs
that still could be a virus, whether they go into the cache or not.
|>>> It probably has more
|>>> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the
|>>> need for ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors
|>>> yet? Do you
|>>
|>> I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term
|>> "transaction log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of
|>> what's going on down there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we
|>> can actually see a log detailing all of these file events, I'm not
|>> sure, but we do have an "Event Viewer", which shows a fair amount of
|>> such related stuff (and perhaps that too).
|>
|> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at the
|> bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly meaningful can
|> be seen in it.
|
| Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it).
| It's a bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have to
| use the arrow keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know how I
| can easily do that. It is a bit more complex than just looking at a
| simple SFC log in Win98SE (and THAT part I really MISS).
Yuck! Arrow keys! I hope all the .logs in XP aren't that tough to deal
with! And this one sounds important! Sheesh! They should have made it
possible to copy/paste from it-- so users could could post bits of it
for examination & discussion! Yuck!
| What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur
| (basically the system events going on in time, with their
| "categorizations" and so-called "Event Codes", (like such an such a
| "service" just opened or closed, or started or stopped, or entered
| the running state, or whatever). (For the most part, I haven't
| found it all that useful for me just yet).
Well, it would have been nice for them to make the mouse & copy/paste wo
rk for it nonetheless! What good is a listing that you have to memorize
to talk about!
|> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?
|
| Maybe - don't know.
I was thinking it might be monitoring the integrity of the hard drive,
but now I see it is something else. It's monitoring the doings of the
OS, sounds like. But keep looking for an alarm & report back if you find
one! There's got to be some use for the thing!
|>>> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the
|>>> work of SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?
|>>
|>> Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also
|>> good ole, SFC (System File Checker).
|>
|> How large is your hard drive? How long does it take to Defrag? Does
|> it look the same & show you those cluster boxes moving?
|
| I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest
| size at the time).
Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!
| It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data (except
| for my music and video files, which are each on some other 40 GB, FAT
| 32 partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use now, and the
| rest is still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say
| they should use a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and data).
| 20 GB would be a bit marginal - not leaving much room to install a
| whole bunch of stuff. I mean, you could do it, but I wouldn't.
| I've got quite a bit on here and I'm using about 20 GB now.
You created these partitions? Sounds like good advice. Finally, on this
98, I did a lot of that myself. I does make backups a bit more work to
do, but I don't regret it.
| I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my
| Win98SE machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I
| copied those partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP
| computer).
|
| So I still have tons of disk space left.
You had tons to start with. Can you post something like this, from
MSInfo32 & FDISK /Status...?...
Windows-managed swap file on drive C (6659MB free)
Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive D: 6683MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive F: 7492MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive G: 7766MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive H: 7792MB of 7979MB (FAT32)
Available space on drive I: 5967MB of 6174MB (FAT32)
Fixed Disk Drive Status
Disk Drv Mbytes Free Usage
1 19092 100%
C: 7996
E: 7996
2 38169 100%
D: 7996
F: 7996
G: 7996
H: 7996
I: 6187
|>> And - Windows Updates do get recorded (and can even be seen in
|>> Add/Remove programs, IF you select the "show updates" checkbox).
|>
|> Another extra checkbox for you-- ha, ha, ha!
|
| Yeah, I know.
|
|>>>>>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good
|>>>>>> ole, 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>>
|>>>>> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal,
|>>>>> everyday use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy
|>>>>> of tons of files or tons of folders full of folders & files"
|>>>>> thing after installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing
|>>>>> purposes!
|>>>>
|>>>> No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.
|>>>>
|>>>> The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many
|>>>> apps running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its
|>>>> handling of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did,
|>>>> but they were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in
|>>>> later versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped
|>>>> supporting it - that happened on occasion).
|>>>
|>>> Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10
|>>> programs open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy
|>>> problem, I seem always to get a requestor warning I've run out of
|>>> resources & too close some programs. Sometimes the warning is
|>>> hidden behind another window. I do believe the massive copy is
|>>> fairly quickly done -- & done well -- & it is Explorer that is
|>>> struggling to update its display. You could wait forever for that!
|>>>
|>>>> The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in
|>>>> Win98SE (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL
|>>>> files changes (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE
|>>>> 5.5 versions of those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to
|>>>> *work as it should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another
|>>>> "fix" was with another DLL, instead, as an alternative method,
|>>>> but this one always worked for me, so I left it that way.
|>>>
|>>> I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5
|>>> BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them,
|>>> yea. But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big
|>>> stuff I normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test
|>>> like all of Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in
|>>> DOS with no problem whatever.
|>>
|>> But it's often easier in Explorer, plus you see all the long
|>> filenames (which you can't in real DOS mode, but you can in the
|>> windows dos shell, of course).
|>
|> Absolutely you must use the Windows DOS Shell for that or lose the
|> LFNs!
|
| Right.
|
|>>>>>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which
|>>>>>> was "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything
|>>>>> into them.
|>>>>
|>>>> There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!
|>>>> Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer)
|>>>> with a parallel port, anymore!)
|>>>
|>>> Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has
|>>> no ink in its cartridge, is all.
|>>
|>> I only use a black-and-white laser printer, and thus I never have to
|>> replace those blasted cartridges all the time. I can go through
|>> up to 3000 sheets! with nothing ever needing to be replaced or
|>> changed. And I like that! The only thing I don't get is color,
|>> of course (but I don't need it).
(If I need photos
|>> developed (which
|>> is rare), I can take them to a photo developing place)
|>
|> Yea. The printer itself was only $100.00
|
| Same here.
|
|> -- little did I know cartridges
|> would run out quick & cost... is it $50.00 apiece? That or $30.00--
|> but either is horrible!
|
| Yup!
|
|>>>> Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH
|>>>> nicer now, than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the
|>>>> old printer to the parallel port. But if you ever get a new
|>>>> printer (likely USB based), there is a way to use it with
|>>>> Win98SE, IF they supply the right drivers - otherwise you're
|>>>> screwed.
|>>>
|>>> Hmm. OK, got ya. Something to ponder.
|>>>
|>>>>>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe
|>>>>>> time to move to something else, maybe something like Linux.
|>>>>>>
I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be
|>>>>>> my last ride with MS for the operating system
|>>>>>
|>>>>> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.
|>>>>
|>>>> If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the
|>>>> end of this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not
|>>>> allowed on my premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied",
|>>>> for it.
|>>>
|>>> I agree fully!
|>>>
|>>>>>>>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box
|>>>>>>>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the
|>>>>>>>>> problem entirely!
.
|>>>>>>>>>
|>
|> ...snip
|> --
|> Thanks or Good Luck,
|> There may be humor in this post, and,
|> Naturally, you will not sue,
|> Should things get worse after this,
|> PCR
|>
pcrrcp@netzero.net
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net