Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

Microsoft Backup and file permissions

- - - - -

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#1
GaryMX

GaryMX

    Ex-programmer

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
I have been having problems with Microsoft Backup on Windows 2000 since running the UURollup update installation:

Here is the sequence of events (I have two distinct hard drives on my W2K computer; drive C main boot, drive D alternate boot:) First, I image copied Drive C to my USB hard drive (original W2K install SP4 with all M$ updates) using Drive Image (had to boot into XP using a Boot CD to do it) then, I "restored" the C drive image on top of D drive, which did not have a fully functional W2K install. I made drive D bootable, switched the boot selection to use D as default. I installed UURollupv10d on drive D. I then tested the install extensively for a month (Feb 7 - March 7.) All of my regular functions necessary for my business worked, all CAD/CAM software, and especially, my Internet browser was now up to date!! By March 7th, I felt confident to go back to Drive C and install UURollup there (I had the original image saved, so I wasn't worried.)

I changed the boot order back to C drive, by default, then installed all of the updates in the order that they were to be installed, with UURollupv10d being the last one. Everything worked smoothly. But, just as it was on D drive -- I could no longer run Microsoft Backup automatically (Task Scheduler.) If I ran it manually, I got the following error in the log: "You do not have permission to access portions of [folder name.] Please see the owner or administrator to get permission." This error was generated for every folder that I specified to be backed up. The .BKF file that it created was unusable (couldn't restore from it.) It's puzzling how, as Administrator, I cannot backup my system properly using MS Backup. I have tried various changes, trying to run as a "backup user," granting permissions to "all" from the root of C: drive, checked file inheritance permissions, etc.

My only (weak) theory for the source of the problem would be that I "restored" C drive onto D drive while running in "XP mode" using the Boot CD (Drive Image won't run under Windows 2000.) Could the file permissions have been changed for the files on the hard drive then? Any ideas, anyone?

Edited by GaryMX, 29 March 2013 - 09:11 PM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Well, you could sue Hiren for providing some WAREZ :ph34r: that didn't work (or maybe - besides the use of a Warez release :realmad: - you additionally used an improper procedure/method :whistle: ).

Drive Image? :unsure:
You maybe mean DriveImage XML?
Or R-Drive Image?

However you must have somehow omitted to report at lest one step (changing the Disk Signature) otherwise you might have been (and maybe possibly still) using a "mixed-mode" setup, where your "system drive" (partition on second disk) gets D:\ drive letter BUT you are using *anything* that is "hardcoded" in Registry and all over the machine to C:\ from the C:\ drive, i.e. the partition on first disk.

jaclaz

#3
Browncoat

Browncoat

    Rebel

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag
The simplest way I found to back up a drive is with XXCLONE version 2.0.0.4 works for 2000 and backward.
http://www.pixelab.com/
:thumbup
I used to get it from my visits to majorgeeks.com

http://www.majorgeek...LONE_d5534.html

Though now it says it is shareware, that is for 2.0.1.2 and later, 2.0.0.4 is still available as freeware,
I used it for years to backup during builds and most recently when I called it up (ver 2.0.0.4) and it
updated itself to 2.0.1.2 , still acts like the freeware version, hasn't asked to pay or for an activation
code. Most likely because I moved to XP SP3 and in near future W7.

Yup, previously stated that I gave up on 2000 when Adobe and Mozilla did :blushing:

Edit: though it doesn't say in the company F.A.Q. I recently moved 2000 pro from its' previous boot drive
[a 30GiB Kingston SSD,and yes boot times were improved,even in IDE mode] to a Maxtor of the same size,
for storage/backup/archive purposes using 2.0.0.4, so if you get that from the freeware page you should be alright.

On the other hand, if your UURollup or USP5.2 is good for you, give the latest a try and let the rest of us know.
If necessary, I can send the 2007 install package to anyone who needs it in an attachment.
PM me, though I'm not as frequent a visitor here as I used to be and only come back when the auto-notify sends me an
email. :hello:

Edited by Browncoat, 23 March 2013 - 05:16 PM.


#4
GaryMX

GaryMX

    Ex-programmer

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
@jaclaz and @Browncoat, thank you for your replies. Regarding "changing disk signature," I guess I wasn't clear enough. If I had a "disk signature" problem, I would have "disk collision" issues (see the article here.) The drives are distinct and clearly recognizable when I run my disk management utility. The original computer was built to be bootable with both C and D drives, but was never implemented that way (in the BOOT.INI.) I changed the BOOT.INI in the root of C: drive to recognize both drives as bootable. However, D drive had an old copy of what was on "C" (from 2005, when the person who built the computer cloned C: drive to D:. When I first used the computer in 2007, I noticed some discrepancies between the two drives and deleted files from D. I had never intended to use it except to back up files from C: (using Microsoft Backup.) When I started having problems last year with the lack of support for Win2K (Firefox, flash, etc.) I found the original posting on ryanvm.net about UURollup. I decided to try it, but on another drive that didn't have my current install of W2K. I used DriveImage XML to backup C. I needed to get the computer into Windows XP to back up the files (there is no Volume Shadow Copy service in W2K.) I found the boot CD (which is not warez, by the way) and it created a "mini-XP environment" where I could back up my files to my USB disk drive. I have used DriveImage XML successfully to backup and restore PCs with absolutely no issue. So I felt confident to use it here. I backed up my original W2K installation on Drive C, then restored it to Drive D. I changed the BOOT.INI, as I said, restarted the computer and ran tomasz86's updates to W2K. They ran successfully, and I noticed no problems. I expected some weird things, since the %WINDIR% environment variable was now pointing to D, but perhaps some Registry entries needed drive C. It didn't matter. All of my software ran OK and I was able to update my browser to the latest version (which was important to me.) The only issue I had, as I had said in my first post, was that MSBackup (and another scheduled task, a Registry backup program,) didn't run at their scheduled times. So I manually ran one of them (the Registry backup) with no problem. MSBackup, however, had a problem with my "file permissions." That is the crux of my problem. I am now running W2K on drive C again (with the updates from UURollup,) so there shouldn't be any issues at all with the disk's MBR.

@Browncoat, thanks for the info on XXCLONE. What I really want to do, however, is not clone my disk (I can do that now,) but have MSBackup run daily, like it used to do, and backup any changes to my computer (a differential backup.)

Edited by GaryMX, 29 March 2013 - 09:10 PM.


#5
Browncoat

Browncoat

    Rebel

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

@Browncoat, thanks for the info on XXCLONE. What I really want to do, however, is not clone my disk (I can do that now,) but have MSBackup run daily, like it used to do, and backup any changes to my computer (a differential backup.)



& MSB is free, XXCLONE Pro does the same but with the free , you can still set /hyper switch on the advanced tab which leaves unchanged components alone.

#6
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

@jaclaz and @Browncoat, thank you for your replies. Regarding "changing disk signature," I guess I wasn't clear enough. If I had a "disk signature" problem, I would have "disk collision" issues (see the article here.) The drives are distinct and clearly recognizable when I run my disk management utility.

No :no: (not only "collisions"), which JFYI are normally automatically "solved" at boot time. (on XP/2003 and earlier, the article you cited is for Vista :ph34r: or later which use a slightly different boot approach),
The Disk Signature affects Drive letter assignments. :yes:
There are simple procedures to re-assign (within the OS on second disk) the SAME C:\ drive letter to the copy/clone.
Changing the drive letter of an installed 2K/XP OS is doable, but it requires a number of steps/modifications that are so many and so complex that it simply makes attempting it foolish as you have NO guarantee whatsoever to have fixed "everything".
As suspected :rolleyes: :

I changed the BOOT.INI, as I said, restarted the computer and ran tomasz86's updates to W2K. They ran successfully, and I noticed no problems. I expected some weird things, since the %WINDIR% environment variable was now pointing to D, but perhaps some Registry entries needed drive C. It didn't matter.

you managed to run that system in "mixed mode" with some (most of ) files used actually residing on "D:\" and some residing on "C:\".
This does matter and can cause ANY kind of issues.
Running a system in this "mixed mode" can additionally (and probably this is what happened/is happening) "corrupt" pemissions/links/Registry paths and what not, as the OS will try to "fix itself" some inconsistencies.
Of course you won't notice anything particular for most "basic" programs/operations, but as soon as you use a complex tool (like NTbackup) you will probably (actually it is what you just reported) hit a brick wall.

jaclaz

#7
GaryMX

GaryMX

    Ex-programmer

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
@Browncoat, thanks for the info about the /hyper switch. I may try that if I can't get Macrium Reflect to work as I want ...

@jaclaz -- I am back to running W2K on drive C:. So this should not cause a problem. (Everything works OK except MS Backup.) When I run Disk Management (diskmgmt.msc,) I have "Disk 0 -- Healthy (System)" and "Disk 1" -- Healthy (Page File)", identified as "Drive C" (NTFS) and "Drive D" (NTFS). C and D are independent of each other; I never did a "System Restore" to Drive C:. I only applied the UURollup. I wouldn't want to have two "Drive Cs" anyway, even if I could. The BOOT.INI allows me to change which drive boots first; that is all I need. Drive D was just an experiment; I will probably reformat it and just use it as a backup drive and to store the image backup of Drive C, plus the page file for the OS.

Running in "mixed mode," as you say, on Drive D perhaps would cause the issues that you noted; however, that would only affect the Registry that is in the system folder of Drive D, not the one on Drive C. That would certainly not be behavior that I would expect.

#8
Browncoat

Browncoat

    Rebel

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I was tired last night or I would have added an edit.
Once tomaz,wild bill and BWC get it perfected and as easy to add as USP5.1
I still plan to use 2000, its paid for, stable, does everything i want [except for that blasted
VC/VS 2010++ getting in the way] and doesn't require activation. Though i do like the XP
start menu over the plain classic. 'nuff said.

#9
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

@jaclaz -- I am back to running W2K on drive C:. So this should not cause a problem. (Everything works OK except MS Backup.)

Yes, I got that, but we don't know if anything like this:

Running a system in this "mixed mode" can additionally (and probably this is what happened/is happening) "corrupt" pemissions/links/Registry paths and what not, as the OS will try to "fix itself" some inconsistencies.

actually happened (and remained "sticky") :ph34r: .

Maybe there is a way to re-install the NTbackup :unsure: and/or to reset correctly the permissions.
Which specific permission error are you getting?

jaclaz

#10
GaryMX

GaryMX

    Ex-programmer

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
@jaclaz -- This is the error, as I said at the beginning of this post: I get the following error in the MS Backup log file: "You do not have permission to access portions of [folder name.] Please see the owner or administrator to get permission." This error is generated for every folder that I specify to be backed up. And I am signed on as Administrator, with full file permissions!

#11
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

@jaclaz -- This is the error, as I said at the beginning of this post: I get the following error in the MS Backup log file: "You do not have permission to access portions of [folder name.] Please see the owner or administrator to get permission." This error is generated for every folder that I specify to be backed up. And I am signed on as Administrator, with full file permissions!

Yes, but can you check which are the contents of one of the folders that you have issues with permissions AND list the folder permissions AND ownership?
(few things are as tricky as permissions/ownership on NTFS :ph34r: )

Other approaches/tests:
  • If you create a new folder and put in it a single file and you try to backup just that folder, what happens?
  • Try creating a new user, with Administrator privileges and try again the same test above when logged in as the "new Admin".
  • If your "D:\" drive is now (temporarily) ready for "sacrifice", try re-partitioning it with a smallish FAT16 pr FAT32 partition and do the same test (FAT has no permission/ownership attributes).
    .
If there is NOT *somehow* a general issue with NTbackup you should have no error, if you have the same error, that should mean that the error is a "false" one


jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz, 27 March 2013 - 01:38 PM.


#12
GaryMX

GaryMX

    Ex-programmer

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
@jaclaz -- I'm giving up on MSBackup. I'll find another product to do differential backups. Besides, I've got DriveImage XML to just image the whole drive and save it. I'm not going to switch an NTFS drive to FAT32.

PS: Creating the new file folder / file and backing it up with MSB generated the same "you don't have permission" error. Strange, since I created it! :lol:

Edited by GaryMX, 29 March 2013 - 02:27 PM.


#13
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Besides, I've got DriveImage XML to just image the whole drive and save it. I'm not going to switch an NTFS drive to FAT32.

Remember that DriveIMageXML images drives and NOT whole disks. (just to disambiguate between "whole drive" and "whole disk drive"), there is a lot of confusion on the terms DriveIMageXML deals with the *whatever* that gets a drive letter.
See:
http://www.911cd.net...showtopic=22563

jaclaz

#14
GaryMX

GaryMX

    Ex-programmer

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
I guess you must really think that I'm a "newbie." :lol: I realize that it only backs up a partition on that hard disk drive. My business PC has two hard disk drives (C & D,) and on each of them there is a primary partition used for my data and a smaller one (a few MB) that must be used either for a "Dell system recovery disk" or other reasons. I certainly wouldn't want to back up that. In DriveImage, it shows you what drive/partition you have selected for backup or recovery, with its size. My home PC has one main drive (C:) and a Dell recovery partition. "multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS" is what is in my BOOT.INI, so it is running on partition 2 of my drive. My old Win Me PC has three drives with several partitions in each.

OK -- I am not commenting any more on this topic; as far as I'm concerned, MSBackup is not worth using!

Edited by GaryMX, 29 March 2013 - 09:24 PM.


#15
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I guess you must really think that I'm a "newbie." :lol:

Let's say you didn't do much to convey the idea that you are instead a very expert PC user. :unsure:

For the record, if you were such an expert, you would have known that XXCLONE (notwithstanding it's name) is actually a tool capable of doing incremental backups. :whistle:
On the other hand if you were a real "newbie", maybe you might have listened to Browncoat's suggestion and at least have checked what XXCLONE can do.

I presume you must be "catalogued" as "expert, but not enough" or as "less expert than what you think" :ph34r: .

OK -- I am not commenting any more on this topic; as far as I'm concerned, MSBackup is not worth using!

Sure :), but it sounds a lot like :ph34r: :
http://en.wikipedia...._and_the_Grapes

jaclaz

#16
GaryMX

GaryMX

    Ex-programmer

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
jaclaz -- too bad you don't do your research. I am sure that I am not a "newbie." I have been using computers since 1983. Were you even born then? And, XXClone "clones" drives -- I don't want to clone a drive, I wanted to back it up! There is a substantial difference; when you "clone" a drive, everything on the target source is erased. I have a 600 GB Seagate drive with all kinds of goodies on it and I certainly don't want to erase all of that data! I think that you are (to use one of your emoticons) "whistling out of the top of your head." :whistle:

By the way -- XXClone works only on XP and up -- that wouldn't do me much good anyway, would it? :lol:
XXClone isn't even in the top 10 of CNET's downloads for backup solutions. The latest CNET review of XXClone: "It destroyed my C: drive. None of the installed programs are working anymore. All executables (.exe files) have been removed by the cloning procedure. It looks like I have to re-install all the programs I have accumulated over the years. Thank goodness the data files are still there. What good is a cloning/backup software if it trashes the original drive? Use at your own peril."

The "incremental" feature that you mentioned? Only available in the paid version for $40.

So, that's all, folks! No more comments here! See you in another forum.

#17
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

jaclaz -- too bad you don't do your research. I am sure that I am not a "newbie." I have been using computers since 1983. Were you even born then?

Unfortunately yes, in the sense that I was not only born, but was already using (very simple) computers, since a few years in 1983.

And, XXClone "clones" drives -- I don't want to clone a drive, I wanted to back it up! There is a substantial difference; when you "clone" a drive, everything on the target source is erased. I have a 600 GB Seagate drive with all kinds of goodies on it and I certainly don't want to erase all of that data! I think that you are (to use one of your emoticons) "whistling out of the top of your head." :whistle:

Ah well, that means that you may need the Commercial US $ 60 version.
BTW we never limited the discussion to freeware solutions, didn't we? :unsure:

By the way -- XXClone works only on XP and up -- that wouldn't do me much good anyway, would it? :lol:

Well, you already used a WAREZ to make use of DriveImageXML, which also is "XP and up" only, though last time I checked it, it did work on 2K alright:
http://www.xxclone.com/ixcman56.htm

XXClone isn't even in the top 10 of CNET's downloads for backup solutions. The latest CNET review of XXClone: "It destroyed my C: drive. None of the installed programs are working anymore. All executables (.exe files) have been removed by the cloning procedure. It looks like I have to re-install all the programs I have accumulated over the years. Thank goodness the data files are still there. What good is a cloning/backup software if it trashes the original drive? Use at your own peril."

Ah, well if it's not in the top 10 in CNET and has a bad review, that settles it..

The "incremental" feature that you mentioned? Only available in the paid version for $40.

As a matter of fact the one that might be of use could be the even higher priced version, that can also use a folder as target, though one could well use a virtual disk as target....

So, that's all, folks! No more comments here! See you in another forum.


See you, have fun :)

jaclaz

#18
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 3,888 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Interesting read! :w00t:

http://www.techsuppo...ill-they-help-m

Now for the "backup" - should have google'd harder
differential file backup freeware
Not that I care about using any, but there ya go. That is, if you stray back this way. BTW, you flubbed up when you "created" that second OS - there's a Topic on creating a GOOD "clone" that would have save you the initial problems you had. ;)

Jeez, I love it when someone verbally spars with you, jaclaz! Reminds me of back when we sparred! :thumbup

#19
GaryMX

GaryMX

    Ex-programmer

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
OK -- here we go again ... jaclaz -- I used the version of DriveImage XML that I downloaded and installed from the runtime.org web site. Not "warez." It does work with Win 2K, but it won't back anything up that is "locked" by the system. Hence, running XP virtual; there is nothing locked by the system.

@submix8c -- I know the difference between a "differential" and "incremental" backup. Differential backs up all files with the archive bit set (that have changed since the last full backup, which turns the archive bit off). Incremental is trickier and mostly used in server situations; to restore a "trashed" server drive you would restore the full backup, then restore the incremental backups, from the oldest to the newest. If you have been reading this thread, you would know that I decided to reinstall the W2K system, from scratch, on my second drive. It was an interesting exercise, as the 10-year-old PC didn't have all the driver files available. I grabbed what I could from Dell, but the hardest was the NetMOS 9835 multi-I/O controller. I finally found the setup files for it from Syba USA, not a useless link to the MOSChip web site.

I would install Macrium Reflect, which really is the top backup solution currently, but it doesn't run on Win 2K.

I don't know what topic you are talking about (creating a "good" clone,) but it doesn't matter. A clone is a clone -- it copies everything from one drive to another. I have never heard of cloning a system and changing the Registry, which has many "hard coded" references to files on C: drive. Unfortunately, all references to files in the registry weren't %WINDIR% or %HOMEDRIVE% or other symbolics. So, how would this "clone" modify the registry to change these hard coded references in the Registry? For installed software with references to C: it would have to change them to D:.

That's it for this topic -- can we just quit this ping pong of comments? I came to this forum for useful help, not disparaging comments. Thanks.

Edited by GaryMX, 04 April 2013 - 08:37 PM.


#20
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Super Moderator
  • 5,560 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Just to add my 2¢, since backups, cloning and images are mentioned in this thread.

Well, I've already said most of what I think about this matter in various posts scattered around MSFN. So I took the liberty to collect those I think more relevant to answer your question and collect them here. While each unity is coherent in itself, and the subjact remains the same, I do not claim the particular order in which I now present them is the best one possible, nor did I try to edit them (except minimally) to better concatenate them nor to remove repeated ideas. Bear in mind this became long-winded, but that is the inevitable result of such a joining of quotations. HTH

[...] there are as many solutions for this as the proverbial stars on the night sky, so any attempt at being exhaustive is futile. So I'll tell you something about those I use (but even of those there are many variants and I'll be focusing in the ones I use, too).

An Image may be thought of as an exact, sector by sector copy of a whole disk or of a single partition, regardless of any higher-level organization, and of these we have:

  • A Forensic-quality Disk Image contains all sectors in the disk, and permits the re-creation of a truly identical image, including all the otherwise irrelevant unaccessible sectors created by partitioning (such as the last 62 sectors in the MBR track of a common HDD and all sectors in any leftover unpartitioned space at the end of the disk). Such an image requires , to be deployed on a diferent HDD than the one it was made from, that the second HDD be of the same brand, model and size, but will result in a truly exact copy, that is a true clone.
  • A Common Disk Image may be thought as similar to the Forensic-quality one, but omitting those otherwise irrelevant secftors, and, maybe the free sectors also. When deployed it'll result in something near a true clone, but not identical. Depending on what was considered irrelevant at image acquisition time, it may result in an almost perfect copy of a disk, yet be imperfect enough to render it unbootable, or even completely unusable, in the worst case.
  • An Exact Partition Image (my favorite) would be like the Forensic-quality Disk Image, but restricted to a single partition.
  • A Common Partition Image would be like the Common Disk Image, but restricted to a single partition.
To create such images one may use a "dumb" imaging program or an adaptive imaging program. The "dumb" one will acquire the image as-is and deploy it "as-is". The adaptive one can do much more interesting tricks, such as deploying a partition image to a bigger partitition (thus serving to grow a partition in a safe way), or even deploying a partition image to a smaller partition, provided it's big enough to contain all but the free sectors in the image (thus serving, in a limited way, to shrink a partition safely). The same kind of tricks can also be played with full disk images.
The best imaging programs, besides being adaptive, are also capable of compressing the images they create, so that one has no need of compressing them with another program for storage purposes, and also provide one with an image browser, so that one can extract individual files from the (compressed or not) image without having to deploy it somewhere just to do so.
That much having been said, the bottom-line is: in principle, imaging is based in sectors, and should be independent of the underlying OS.

A Backup may be thought of as an exact, file by file copy of a whole disk or of a single partition, so it involves interpretation of the existing structure by the OS, and of these we have:

  • A Full Backup
  • An Incremental Backup
Taking the partition backup as the example, the full backup would be a file-by-file copy of all the contents of a partition to another empty partition or a directory (a somewhat worse alternative), while the incremental backup would be to add or update just the new and/or modified files to an already existing backup. So one always starts doing a full backup, but then can switch to incremental backups, which are much faster (at least when based solely on date-stamps and file sizes). The de-facto standard program to do backups is the freeware xxcopy, IMHO, and if we're thinking Win 9x/ME, one should use XXCOPY FREEWARE v.2.96.5 - xxfw2965.zip, which is the last version that works in 9x/ME.

I tend to favor using images for the system partitions (on a weekly to fortnightly basis) and incremental backing-up for data partitions, on a daily basis, because data partitions change much faster than system partitions. YMMV, though.

Usually the drive makers provide imaging tools. Seagate, for instance, provides Acronis, which is quite good. Then, there is the free Partition Saving, which can do full disks also, despite its name. I've been discussing imaging on some unrelated threads, the latest which is this (and there are pointers on it for the older posts in other threads). There's also a sticky thread about imaging programs. In any case, the bullet-proof backup is a full-disk, sector-by-sector "dumb" cold image, which must be acquired (= collected) while booted from a bootable CD (or DVD or diskette or other device), since the disk containing the OS must be passive during the imaging (that's what the "cold" part means). The "dumb" part means that the imaging program should make no assumptions and just copy all the disk sectors, without skiping any of them.

Now, you have and use Ghost. Ghost is not for free, but it's the best of its kind. So, with Ghost, and with XXCopy, you should be able to cover all your back-up needs pretty comprehensively.

I just put the the System Commander HDD, cloned with Ghost sector-by-sector with the "-ir"switch from a .gho file, into the original computer: it works fine :thumbup

Great! When in doubt, this is the way to go! This kind of image (-z9 -ir) can be called a compressed "True Image" or "Dumb Image", or "Raw Image" (hence "ir" = image-mode: raw), because it makes no assumptions whasoever and, instead, just copies sector-by-sector. You can get it somewhat smaller, by zeroing-out the unused areas. And ghost can restore it to any HDD bigger or equal to the original one the image was acquired of. It's as near fool-proof as you can get and quite a good backup, but it's time-consuming.

For saving and recovering the state of my system partitions, I usually do single partition images. Once you have the full true image backup optimized, do a partition backup of one of your system partitons, reformat that partition, sdelete -c that partition and restore that single partition image back to its place, and test to see whether everything is working OK. If so, that's the best way to create snapshots of a system being tuned or debugged. Repeat the test for your other system partitions and, all going well, start a library of backups for them. Before doing major experiments, always create a new image of the partition you're gonna mess with, so, no matter what you do, you remain less than 1h away from having it back as it was when you started (compared with full-disk operations, single partition operations are quite fast).

What we want is a sector-by-sector image from the *full* disk, omitting nothing. Since this process is dumb-as-a-doorbell, almost any imaging software can do it satisfactorily. But not all software will be able to test it afterwards, so testing ability is needed, and since we cannot afford to go wrong, a well reputed software like Acronis is preferable. If the imaging software can compress the image, too, that also helps, although it makes the already long and tedious process of acquiring the image even longer, but helps with storing the image afterwards, and does not cause a very big penalty on redeploying. So, I'd have to read the manual again, looking for how to do these things with Acronis, which is not the software I'm used to (I use Norton Ghost, but it's not for free, nor do you need it). So, to me, it will be a refresh course in Acronis, which I've not used for some time already. And since I own 4 Seagate disks, I'm entitled to it, too. Now, if we can compress the image, we should make the best of it, by zeroing-out all free space in the disk, because long sequences of zeroes compresses best. And Sysinternals (now MS) offers a free program called sdelete, to do just this, among some other possible uses for it. This is necessary because, since it's a blind sector-by-sector image, we're bound to copy the free sectors, too.

1) It's not possible to make a sound full-disk "dumb" sector-by-sector image of one HDD while running the OS from it, at the same time. While the OS is running, it's changing files, so the image is doomed to be unsound. It's a physical impossibility.
2) A sound, known-good image is guaranteed to boot from exactly the same disk as it was acquired from.

It'll also most probably boot OK from a similar or bigger HDD of the same type, used to replace the physical HDD in case of hardware failure. The more similar the replacement HDD is to the one it is replacing, the more probable one gets a good result.



#21
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 3,888 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
First, I've been following/reading this Topic since its inception.

Second, the link I gave about "backups" was simply an FYI, and not an implication you are "stupid" (touchy, aren't you).

Third, the "google" was also an FYI.

Fourth, the topic in question is here. You COULD have "cloned" the Original to the second rather than a complete reinstall. Your choice...

Fifth, there's this nifty tool called Grub4DOS that can "flip" a drive designation, be it on the same HDD or a different one. I can "flip" between Server, XP, and 98 SE with just a reboot. There's also something called "LiveXP" and willing to bet the same method can be used to make a 2K one since they're in the same "family". Voila! No problemo!

Finally, I'd say that you've flung a couple of disparaging remarks yourself - see posts#14 (bragging)->#16(getting "touchy"). AAAAND before you make any remarks about "1983" better stop - been handling computers since WAAAY before that. ;) "Why in MY time we had to use CARDS..."

Summary - Want help? You got it. Want to argue when help is given? No-go. Simple as that. We've had MANY a "leap to conclusions and do the wrong thing and then complain" folks. How could we know otherwise with you?

Does that clear it up?

Addendum - This ain't our first rodeo with your types of scenarios.

HTH...

( Oh, and WTH are you talking about "Archive Bits"? Where? Oh and those "drivers" you had a hard time finding - did you know there are free Driver Finder/Backup softwares? Guess not. :unsure: )

#22
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

OK -- here we go again ... jaclaz -- I used the version of DriveImage XML that I downloaded and installed from the runtime.org web site. Not "warez." It does work with Win 2K, but it won't back anything up that is "locked" by the system. Hence, running XP virtual; there is nothing locked by the system.

And you used it through a boot CD which is a known warez release, whose name you edited from your OP, but that remains well understandable in my first reply.

@submix8c
JFYI ;):
http://www.911cd.net...ic=21702&st=122

WHY, in MY day ....
http://reboot.pro/to...-why-in-my-day/

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz, 05 April 2013 - 01:52 AM.


#23
GaryMX

GaryMX

    Ex-programmer

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
@dencorso -- your post was intelligent and very informative, explaining the different kinds of disk images. Thank you for your deeply detailed information! I have read some of your related posts on that issue. The imaging software that I use does have "raw" as an option, also compression. The recovery process is, however, as you had said in your posts -- that the drive image must be restored to a drive that is bigger or equal in capacity. The software works great as far as restoring; I can also "browse the image" and restore individual files. I have no complaint with it at all. I will have to keep in mind what you said about forum members having problems with Windows 7. I know that W7 has security features that make it a different animal to backup. It's too bad that I'll never have an answer for the "permissions" issue -- maybe there is a M$ MVP genius that could explain it; but I haven't gotten good or clear answers from M$ in the past.

@submix8c -- Yes, I did clone to a different drive. It booted with no problem. There were minor issues which is why I started this thread, one being M$ Backup. I don't care about it now, I'll use something else. It was a simple curiosity as to why it wouldn't work on the new drive after the clone. That was the only answer I wanted; not testing my knowledge or questioning it; just an answer about permissions. I already know about Grub4DOS -- I used it to create a bootable flash drive with XP that I use at home. Works great. I wouldn't want a "generic" W2K bootable anyway, because, for one, (as I have discovered with my reinstall to the new drive) there are many drivers that this computer needs to function properly. I have equipment attached to this PC for my business and can't afford to have the whole process die because of an install problem. Hence, I decided to clone the install to the new drive (since the computer is 10 years old.)

I have also handled punch cards. I programmed with them at U of M (and fed them through a card reader, with many a fail.) I punched them at work for a while on an old 1620.

You want to know what an "archive bit" is? Here is the description: "The archive bit is a file attribute used by Microsoft operating systems, by OS/2 and by the Amiga OS. Typically its state indicates whether or not the file has been backed up." Source here.

Free "driver finder softwares? Why would I use that when I can get it direct from the manufacturer (Dell, Intel, MOSChip, HP, etc.)? Many of the web sites that offer them to you for download will only do so if you pay a subscription fee.

@jaclaz --

No, I did not run it from the boot CD -- I had obtained it from Runtime Software. Have you read my previous comments? I installed it on my computer and ran it from the hard drive. Even in a virtual environment, if you have a "standalone" software product that runs from any device (such as USB drive or another hard drive,) the software will run!

Big deal -- you keep mentioning the boot CD. I have also created a USB flash drive install of XP (done legally, I might add.) I can't use it on my W2K PC because the BIOS won't boot from a USB flash drive inserted in the port. NO, the BIOS won't let it. I've tried.

By the way, I don't click on your links.

Adios.

#24
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

No, I did not run it from the boot CD -- I had obtained it from Runtime Software. Have you read my previous comments? I installed it on my computer and ran it from the hard drive. Even in a virtual environment, if you have a "standalone" software product that runs from any device (such as USB drive or another hard drive,) the software will run!

Look, you originally posted that you downloaded a known warez release in order to run "Drive image".
If you want to deny that, it's perfectly OK with me, though :thumbup .

Later it was cleared that "Drive image" meant DriveIMageXML (which of course you can legitimately download from Runtime Software site, as it is a freeware for "Private" or personal use only).

Just for the record, DriveImageXML appears like being NOT a "backup" solution, but rather an "imaging" one, and it is also NOT within the first 10 results on CNET for "backup".
Which right now:
http://download.cnet...wnloadCount asc
are:
  • FullDataBackup
  • DAEMON Tools Pro
  • EaseUS Todo Backup Free
  • Macrium Reflect Free
  • EaseUS Disk Copy Home Edition
  • Paragon Backup & Recovery Free
  • Recuva
  • Acronis True Image Home
  • SyncBackFree
  • Second Copy
which are largely NOT strictly "backup" solutions, some are "cloning", some are "imaging", or however "something in between", and a couple like DAEMON Tools and Recuva are completely unrelated programs.

Big deal -- you keep mentioning the boot CD. I have also created a USB flash drive install of XP (done legally, I might add.) I can't use it on my W2K PC because the BIOS won't boot from a USB flash drive inserted in the port. NO, the BIOS won't let it. I've tried.

Yep, that happens to a lot of people :( .
Many others manage to boot from USB, using one or more tricks.

By the way, I don't click on your links.

That's good :), you have no idea how many people I manage to trick into clicking on them :ph34r: , it is refreshing to find someone who wouldn't .

Adios.

I thought we already had this exchange, see you, have fun :).

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz, 05 April 2013 - 10:59 AM.


#25
GaryMX

GaryMX

    Ex-programmer

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
I did a query on CNET like you and got a slightly different (but similar in order) list of "backup solutions." I noticed Acronis and Macrium Reflect didn't make it on mine, probably because I entered "Windows 2000" in the search box. Either of those would work great for me, if only they would install and run on W2K. EaseUS Todo Backup Free would be a good choice, except that I think it is developed by a Chinese software company (Chengdu Yiwo Tech Development.) Of course, some claim to be a "full backup solution" when they are really just copying files from point A to point B (can do that without software,) some only image copy, etc. The best ones would be those that do it all: image copy (clone drives), full / differential / incremental backups, command-line driven scheduled backups, etc.

:hello:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN