PC Review


Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread

image copying drive through USB?

 
 
Rod Speed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      25th Dec 2008
bbbl67 wrote
> Rod Speed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote


>>> Ooh, I like this XXClone, it seems to be exactly
>>> something I've been looking for for a long long time.


>> One downside with it is that its a hell of a lot slower to clone a drive than TI.


>> Yeah, but one real downside of that capability is that since
>> its done at the file level, its much slower to clone a drive.


> Interestingly, it's not.


Fraid it is.

> I've just received the new hard drive, and I have
> begun the experiments both with BING and XXClone.


I was talking about TI, not BING.

> As Jack said, BING does see the USB drive. But
> XXClone is blowing away BING, hands down, in speed.


I've never liked BING, for that reason.

> So far I'm cloning the laptop's restore partition, which is pretty small, only
> 4GB or so. It's taking XXClone only about 15-20 minutes to copy that over USB,


Thats a hell of a long time for 4GB.

> but it was barely budging under BING. I'd hate to try to
> clone the main 90GB Windows system partition with BING.


Yeah, thats the reason I dont use it, its a steaming turd in a number of areas.

> I don't know why it's so much slower. Maybe because BING copies
> it at the very low level, sector-by-sector, it may be running into USB
> protocol overhead, whereas XXClone might avoid the low-level overhead?


Maybe, but if it is doing it sector by sector, its a steaming turd by definition.

> Maybe because the restore partition is FAT32 rather than NTFS, BING is slower?


You'd have to test that possibility.

> Maybe because USB boots up at the slower USB 1.1 speeds while
> in BIOS, and only kicks into full USB 2.0 speeds after Windows has
> loaded? It could be any combination of those things, I imagine.


And TI leaves XXCOPY for dead speed wise, which is why I use it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      25th Dec 2008
Ed Light wrote:
> bbbl67 wrote:


>> BING does see the USB drive. But XXClone is blowing away BING


> I think for BING you have to turn on USB 2.0 support in settings.


Like I said, its a steaming turd in a number of areas.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ed Light
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      25th Dec 2008
Jones wrote:
> Ed Light wrote:
>> bbbl67 wrote:

>
>>> BING does see the USB drive. But XXClone is blowing away BING

>
>> I think for BING you have to turn on USB 2.0 support in settings.

>
> Like I said, its a steaming turd in a number of areas.
>


Was the USB 2.0 setting in BING turned on?

Have you got an older motherboard (such as K7?).

It's pretty quick for me.

You might try their newsgroup as it gets fast answers.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at
(E-Mail Removed)
Thanks, robots.
 
Reply With Quote
 
bbbl67
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      25th Dec 2008
On Dec 25, 2:44 am, "Rod Speed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> bbbl67wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> > I've just received the new hard drive, and I have
> > begun the experiments both with BING and XXClone.

>
> I was talking about TI, not BING.


Oh yes, you're right, sorry, I reread the quote: I just had BING in my
head, but you were actually talking TI.

But anyways, XXClone still seems to be blowing BING away.

> > As Jack said, BING does see the USB drive. But
> > XXClone is blowing away BING, hands down, in speed.

>
> I've never liked BING, for that reason.
>
> > So far I'm cloning the laptop's restore partition, which is pretty small, only
> > 4GB or so. It's taking XXClone only about 15-20 minutes to copy that over USB,

>
> Thats a hell of a long time for 4GB.


Could be, but it's a laptop, using 5400RPM drives here.

> > I don't know why it's so much slower. Maybe because BING copies
> > it at the very low level, sector-by-sector, it may be running into USB
> > protocol overhead, whereas XXClone might avoid the low-level overhead?

>
> Maybe, but if it is doing it sector by sector, its a steaming turd by definition.


Well, what else does "low-level" mean other than sector-by-sector? You
said that TI uses low-level procedures too.

Yousuf Khan
 
Reply With Quote
 
bbbl67
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      25th Dec 2008
On Dec 24, 6:21 pm, Ed Light <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> bbbl67wrote:
> > BING does see the USB drive. But XXClone is blowing away BING

>
> I think for BING you have to turn on USB 2.0 support in settings.


The version I have doesn't seem to have a setting for that. I have
version 1.44a.

Yousuf Khan
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Light
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      26th Dec 2008
bbbl67 wrote:
> On Dec 24, 6:21 pm, Ed Light <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> bbbl67wrote:
>>> BING does see the USB drive. But XXClone is blowing away BING

>> I think for BING you have to turn on USB 2.0 support in settings.

>
> The version I have doesn't seem to have a setting for that. I have
> version 1.44a.
>
> Yousuf Khan


1.86 here. Better grab the new one, with the enable usb 2.0 setting.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at
(E-Mail Removed)
Thanks, robots.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there any way to search image of my local drive with Image name or Image Title, Description infiraghu@gmail.com Microsoft Excel Programming 3 3rd Aug 2007 01:44 PM
WinXP will no longer allow me to delete Drive Image 2002 image files on Drive jhaninge@columbus.rr.com Storage Devices 7 21st May 2005 05:01 PM
Restore Drive Image, Image - drive not visible? Mark Windows XP Help 2 21st Dec 2004 03:03 AM
Anyone web based image back up services or Acronis Drive Image 7.0 vs Symantec Drive Image 7.0 FransHals Computer Hardware 5 25th Jun 2004 02:51 AM
Anyone web based image back up services or Acronis Drive Image 7.0 vs Symantec Drive Image 7.0 FransHals Storage Devices 5 25th Jun 2004 02:51 AM


Features
 

Advertising
 

Newsgroups
 


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.