Restoring XP From A Backup

[pjp]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:i50gia$8kv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In news:Xns9DDE5255298ECVeebleFetzer@216.250.188.141,
> Bert Hyman typed on 24 Aug 2010 13:057 GMT:
>> In news:i50fns$5bt$1@news.eternal-september.org "BillW50"
>> <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> I have no idea why anybody would recommend such a terrible program
>>> for?
>>>
>>
>> Probably because it works well for most people.
>>
>> Judging solely by the comments in this newsgroup, I can't see why
>> anybody would ever use Windows.
>
> If it worked well for most people, most people would be using Acronis True
> Image. But that isn't true, now is it? And the ones that are using it
> happily, I bet most never tested it to see if it actually restores
> correctly or not.

I have used it a number of times for a restore. Last time specifically I was
unsure of some hardware add-on drivers during a clean install and did a
restore to basic first boot image twice. Each worked as expected.

I've also used it a number of times when a hard disk was going bad. It took
a failing 250 gig and cloned it onto a 120 gig (disk was using < 60 gig)
then after that took a 500 gig and cloned it onto a 250 gig (disk was using
< 100 gigs), went as expected. Then cloned a 40 gig onto the 500 went as
expected.

Note - a lot of the swapping was using an external enclosure and swapping a
drive into it rather than the master/slave ide method.

So, for me, the two essentials went just fine.

Regarding memory, footprint usage etc. I uninstalled the program after I
made the special boot disk as it does seem to want to intrude too much. The
boot disk seems to allow you to do everything so it's not a hassle.
>
> And about Windows, most computer users actually uses Windows. So it isn't
> the same thing at all.
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
>

 

[Daave]

BillW50 wrote:
> And what's a HoopleHead? A person who is pissed that Acronis True
> Image has failed them dozens of times? And support says to backup to
> an internal drive instead to avoid this not restoring from an USB
> drive? Well that is just a stupid idea since most laptops only has
> one internal drive and if that drive fails, so does your backup.

Huh??!!??

How many dozens of times have you experienced failure? What kind of
failures? Was there a pattern? That just doesn't sound right...

It's hard for me to believe that "support" says this. Acronis is
intended to do such things as create images directly to and restore them
directly from USB hard drives. I've done that many times. Never had any
failures at all.

 

[BillW50]

In news:naednUSk3dnUuenRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthlink.com,
Bill in Co typed on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:58:00 -0600:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news8CdnQa9c9d8gunRnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@earthlink.com "Bill in Co"
>> <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) Eats up 185MB of RAM when it isn't even running
>>>
>>> Now THAT sounds really excessive, but I'm using an older version
>>> (Home, ver 11), and doubt if it is anywhere close to that. At least
>>> under Task Manager it shows it isn't; in fact, that largest memory
>>> item shown there is explorer.exe, at 50 MB. True Image is logging
>>> in there at about 10 MB total).
>>
>> The only piece of True Image Home 2009 that I can find running now is
>> "TrueImageMonitor", clocking in at a staggering 7,708K (VM Size
>> 5,292K) on the process monitor.
>
> "staggering" being said with tongue in cheek. 8 MB ain't nothin!
>

Acronis True Image v12 uses:

Acronis Scheduler 2 (scedul2.exe) 30MB
Acronis True Image Monitor (TrueImageMonitor.exe) 70MB
Monitor for Acronis True Image Backup Archive Explorer
(TimounterMonitor.exe) 50MB
Acronis Scheduler Helper (schedhlp.exe) 34MB

Total 184MB

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[BillW50]

In news:esaiLvARLHA.456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
Daave typed on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:12:47 -0400:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> And what's a HoopleHead? A person who is pissed that Acronis True
>> Image has failed them dozens of times? And support says to backup to
>> an internal drive instead to avoid this not restoring from an USB
>> drive? Well that is just a stupid idea since most laptops only has
>> one internal drive and if that drive fails, so does your backup.
>
> Huh??!!??
>
> How many dozens of times have you experienced failure? What kind of
> failures? Was there a pattern? That just doesn't sound right...
>
> It's hard for me to believe that "support" says this. Acronis is
> intended to do such things as create images directly to and restore
> them directly from USB hard drives. I've done that many times. Never
> had any failures at all.

"It backed up fine to my USB external hard drive (Maxtor 4 Plus). But it
was unable to mount the file it had made, nor to recover with it. Their
tech support said to copy the backup file to an internal drive."
http://donnedwards.openaccess.co.za/2009/03/acronis-true-image-2009-home-and.html

This is the last comment on that web page. I also have the same problem
with my Samsung Story 1.5GB USB HDDs. As you can backup to them all day
long and no problems there. But when it comes to restoring, it can't
even see the drive. That makes Acronis True Image totally useless. I
tried to restore an image just last week with Acronis True Image. Even
copied the backup from the USB to the internal drive. That was a bad
idea. As Acronis True Image put it all into a folder called Drive C on
restore.

Got so sick and tired of Acronis True Image that I switched to something
that actually works, called Paragon Drive Backup. Although PDB CD
doesn't work with my four EeePC netbooks with 7 inch screens. And no an
external monitor won't show anything with this CD either. So there I use
Norton Ghost.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[Bill in Co]

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:naednUSk3dnUuenRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthlink.com,
> Bill in Co typed on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:58:00 -0600:
>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>> In news8CdnQa9c9d8gunRnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@earthlink.com "Bill in Co"
>>> <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Eats up 185MB of RAM when it isn't even running
>>>>
>>>> Now THAT sounds really excessive, but I'm using an older version
>>>> (Home, ver 11), and doubt if it is anywhere close to that. At least
>>>> under Task Manager it shows it isn't; in fact, that largest memory
>>>> item shown there is explorer.exe, at 50 MB. True Image is logging
>>>> in there at about 10 MB total).
>>>
>>> The only piece of True Image Home 2009 that I can find running now is
>>> "TrueImageMonitor", clocking in at a staggering 7,708K (VM Size
>>> 5,292K) on the process monitor.
>>
>> "staggering" being said with tongue in cheek. 8 MB ain't nothin!
>>
>
> Acronis True Image v12 uses:
>
> Acronis Scheduler 2 (scedul2.exe) 30MB
> Acronis True Image Monitor (TrueImageMonitor.exe) 70MB
> Monitor for Acronis True Image Backup Archive Explorer
> (TimounterMonitor.exe) 50MB
> Acronis Scheduler Helper (schedhlp.exe) 34MB
>
> Total 184MB

OK, I just checked mine out (version 11 Home), and evidently missed a few
Acronis-related ones before, and here is what I have:

schedul2.exe 2.3 MB
schedhlp.exe 2.2 MB
TrueImageMonitor.exe 4.5 MB
TimounterMonitor.exe 5.3 MB
TrueImageTryStartService 4.7 MB

Total in this case is 19 MB, not 10 MB as I had reported.
Looks like version 12 went a bit overboard! I'm sure they added some more
"features", and that's what added to that (I tend to stay away from the
newest bloatware in many apps .

Thanks for pointing this out. In retrospect, I think I'm happy with the
older version 11. Some stuff like "Try and Decide" (which I never use)
was even present in version 11, and I'd rather not rely on that option: just
restoring a previously saved image (right before and after a software
installation) is just a safer and cleaner way to go).

 

[Daave]

BillW50 wrote:
> I also have the same
> problem with my Samsung Story 1.5GB USB HDDs. As you can backup to
> them all day long and no problems there. But when it comes to
> restoring, it can't even see the drive.

*What* can't even see the drive?

FWIW, I have an older version of Acronis (9) and in order for me to get
the option to boot off a bootable CD to work without issues, I do
remember now that I needed to download the latest Bart PE Acronis Plugin
and create my own Bart PE rescue CD. Yes, I do recall that I had issues
with the factory-issued Acronis rescue CD. It was so long ago, so
unfortunately I can't remember details. But ever since I created the
Bart PE CD, I have never had an issue restoring image archives.

> That makes Acronis True Image
> totally useless. I tried to restore an image just last week with
> Acronis True Image. Even copied the backup from the USB to the
> internal drive. That was a bad idea. As Acronis True Image put it all
> into a folder called Drive C on restore.

I don't follow. You don't need Acronis to copy image archive files. My
archive files have the .tib extension. I store them wherever I want. I
can copy them, too, if I want. I can place them in any folder I want. I
do it (with Windows Explorer), not Acronis.

What internal drive? A second internal hard drive in a desktop PC? That
would work. But I thought you were talking about a laptop hard drive.
Storing it in the laptop's only hard drive doesn't make any sense to me.

> Got so sick and tired of Acronis True Image that I switched to
> something that actually works, called Paragon Drive Backup. Although
> PDB CD doesn't work with my four EeePC netbooks with 7 inch screens.
> And no an external monitor won't show anything with this CD either.
> So there I use Norton Ghost.

At least you're covering yourself; that is what's really important.