DriveImage - free hard drive backup program

[Clif Notes]

Here's a sneak preview of an article I plan to post in newseletter on
Sunday.

http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com/DriveImage

Let me know what you think ...

Clif
http://clifnotes.net & http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com
Devoted to promoting Freeware and Free Information

 

[Roger Johansson]

Here's a sneak preview of an article I plan to post in newseletter on
Sunday.

http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com/DriveImage

Let me know what you think ...

It is a strange article.

Why is the name identical to an old and well known program
in the same genre? The article should explain this.

Does this program come from the same company that created
Drive Image? Powerquest? Or is the author so un-educated
in this field? It is like inventing a new operating system and
decide to call it Windows.

The information about norton ghost seems to be faulty.
Ghost can copy whatever you want, occupied sectors
or all sectors.

 

[TedK]

Roger Johansson wrote:

Clif Notes wrote:



Here's a sneak preview of an article I plan to post in newseletter on Sunday. http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com/DriveImage Let me know what you think ...



It is a strange article. Why is the name identical to an old and well known program in the same genre? The article should explain this. Does this program come from the same company that created Drive Image? Powerquest? Or is the author so un-educated in this field? It is like inventing a new operating system and decide to call it Windows. The information about norton ghost seems to be faulty. Ghost can copy whatever you want, occupied sectors or all sectors.

Some time ago a former distributor for PowerQuest products made a presentation to our PCGroup and explained that Symantic had acquired PQ's Partition Magic and Disk Image.  He indicated that Symantic's Ghost was going to be replaced with the "superior" Disk Image program, but be marketed under the Ghost name.  Whether or not that is true, I have no idea.

If DriveImage XML v. 1.00 (by runtime.org) is the "old" PQ program (or a derivative thereof), it must be due to the fact that Symantic has licensed the name to Runtime.  I would be dubious about that, but, if not, it sounds like a copyright infringement re the use of the name (I suppose).

 

[Roger Johansson]

If DriveImage XML v. 1.00 (by runtime.org) is the "old" PQ program (or a derivative thereof), it must be due to the fact that Symantic has licensed the name to Runtime. I would be dubious about that, but, if not, it sounds like a copyright infringement re the use of the name (I suppose).

DriveImage XML is hardly the same as any other
partition image software, as it stores its data in xml files,
easy to process with other software, and it runs only in
XP and 2k.

I cannot test drive it but I suspect it to be slow, because
of the xml format.

 

[Dave C.]

DriveImage XML is hardly the same as any other
partition image software, as it stores its data in xml files,
easy to process with other software, and it runs only in
XP and 2k.

I cannot test drive it but I suspect it to be slow, because
of the xml format.
Roger J.

Isn't DrvClonerXP which copies sector by sector suposed to be faster? I
havn't tried it yet, but will soon.

 

[Clif Notes]

Hmmm,

I don't know the answer to either. I'm not familiar with drive imaging
software. I could ask OneStep about the Ghost question if you like.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Clif Notes wrote:

(See, I start every message with "N.N wrote:" so people
know who I am replying to, smart, huh?)

Hmmm,

I don't know the answer to either. I'm not familiar with drive imaging
software.

Write about stuff you know a lot about instead.

I could ask OneStep about the Ghost question if you like.

Don't stimulate bad sources, forget about that source and find
better sources to cite.

 

[Al Klein]

DriveImage XML is hardly the same as any other
partition image software, as it stores its data in xml files

So you're saying that it takes an enormous amount of space to back up
a disk, relative to the original space you're backing up. More than
twice the size, in fact, because a byte has to be represented, in xml,
as 2 bytes, and you have the xml overhead added.

While a program like Ghost can store whatever you want and compress
the resulting file. Especially when you're backing up a lot of empty
sectors - it doesn't really "store" them.

 

[Clif Notes]

LOL, thanks for the advice Roger.

 

[Stephen Harris]

Hmmm,

I don't know the answer to either. I'm not familiar with drive imaging
software. I could ask OneStep about the Ghost question if you like.

Well, the PowerQuest product Drive Image has a space but
I think that is insufficient to prevent a copyright infringement.

The review said the copied partition was not bootable with DriveImage.
Drive Image7 (now owned by Symantec) does make a bootable copy.
I just recently cloned a disk to a second hard drive and used boot.ini
(winxp) to test booting both hard drives. Not making a bootable clone
is a huge failure which is why all those backup programs that require
installing the winxp os again before applying the backup are pains.
IOW, the DriveImage program is a backup program not a drive clone.

There is a Windows version of Ghost. And Ghost will also clone
a bootable copy of the primary drive. The reviewer knows very
little about the field in which he has the temerity to write a review.
A drive image is a clone of all files not selective as in a backup.

So the name is wrong. Apparently neither the reviewer or the
creator of the program know enough about the topic to realize
the copyright infringement of probably the second-best or perhaps
second most popular cloning software. Doesn't even know the
capability of the most widely used (Ghost).

I was left in doubt that the reviewer was technically competent
enough to correctly report/test whether DriveImage (new) had the
potential for making a bootable copy on another drive, or not.

Anyway my criticism is pointed at someone representing themself
as a computer professional and not at talented but inexperienced
young nerds. The background knowledge of the reviewer was
woefully inadequate to write a review. To write a review of software
you gotta know the other products in order to compare it. Compare
this review with a review written for PC Magazine. You can tell that
the reviewers have used the other software (in that area) to which
they are comparing the new software (or hardware). OTOH, it was
pretty good if it was a first attempt and the reviewer writes pretty well.

Sincerely,
Stephen

 

[Stephen Harris]

Clif Notes wrote:

(See, I start every message with "N.N wrote:" so people
know who I am replying to, smart, huh?)


Write about stuff you know a lot about instead.


Don't stimulate bad sources, forget about that source and find
better sources to cite.

I read your post after I made a reply. You gave succinct advice.
A sense of humor and patience goes a long way with computers.

Copy the mbr,
Stephen

 

[burris]

Well, the PowerQuest product Drive Image has a space but
I think that is insufficient to prevent a copyright infringement.

The review said the copied partition was not bootable with DriveImage.
Drive Image7 (now owned by Symantec) does make a bootable copy.
I just recently cloned a disk to a second hard drive and used boot.ini
(winxp) to test booting both hard drives. Not making a bootable clone
is a huge failure which is why all those backup programs that require
installing the winxp os again before applying the backup are pains.
IOW, the DriveImage program is a backup program not a drive clone.

There is a Windows version of Ghost. And Ghost will also clone
a bootable copy of the primary drive. The reviewer knows very
little about the field in which he has the temerity to write a review.
A drive image is a clone of all files not selective as in a backup.

So the name is wrong. Apparently neither the reviewer or the
creator of the program know enough about the topic to realize
the copyright infringement of probably the second-best or perhaps
second most popular cloning software. Doesn't even know the
capability of the most widely used (Ghost).

I was left in doubt that the reviewer was technically competent
enough to correctly report/test whether DriveImage (new) had the
potential for making a bootable copy on another drive, or not.

Anyway my criticism is pointed at someone representing themself
as a computer professional and not at talented but inexperienced
young nerds. The background knowledge of the reviewer was
woefully inadequate to write a review. To write a review of software
you gotta know the other products in order to compare it. Compare
this review with a review written for PC Magazine. You can tell that
the reviewers have used the other software (in that area) to which
they are comparing the new software (or hardware). OTOH, it was
pretty good if it was a first attempt and the reviewer writes pretty well.

Sincerely,
Stephen

It seems to me that for free you can download a program called xxclone
at....

xxclone.com

I have been using it for years and it is probably only one of two that I
know of that will do an exact clone of XP from one HDD to another.

As you know, XP has a dynamic registry, unlike that of its predecessors,
and as a result making a clone that is bootable is impossible. Xxclone
does make that clone and does make it bootable.

Suggest you try it but also suggest that you read the documentation first.

I suppose you might need an image program to back up somewhere else.

 

[Stephen Harris]

It seems to me that for free you can download a program called xxclone
at....

xxclone.com

I have been using it for years and it is probably only one of two that I
know of that will do an exact clone of XP from one HDD to another.

I found a discussion of DriveImage XML at
http://radified.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/YaBB.cgiboard=general;action=display;num=1129177297

As you know, XP has a dynamic registry, unlike that of its predecessors,
and as a result making a clone that is bootable is impossible. Xxclone
does make that clone and does make it bootable.

I am not sure what you mean. Windows XP NTFS can be installed as a
basic volume. This can be cloned and is bootable by either DI7 (Powerquest)
or after Symantec acquired Drive Image from PQ, Ghost 9 or 10? is tested.

I haven't tested cloning+bootable with dynamic volumes or striped volumes.
Nothing about the registry has interfered with the bootable clones I've
made.

This discussion is about cloning a hard drive to another hard drive on the
same computer (or maybe copying the disk with OS to cds/dvds and restoring
to a hard drive on the same originating computer, IOW the motherboard is
the same, not restoring to a hard drive which is installed on a different
computer).

I would like to see a freeware version which does what Acronis True Image
9.0
claims to do, which equals incremental/differential backups and bootable
clones.

Suggest you try it but also suggest that you read the documentation first.

I suppose you might need an image program to back up somewhere else.

I like xx programs like xxcopy, so I will look at your recommendation.
Also I reread Onestep's review and it is a little better on the second
reading.
I'm going to read more about DriveImage XML as well as xxclone.

Regards,
Stephen

 

[Stephen Harris]

As you know, XP has a dynamic registry, unlike that of its predecessors,
and as a result making a clone that is bootable is impossible. Xxclone
does make that clone and does make it bootable.

Suggest you try it but also suggest that you read the documentation first.

http://xxclone.com/itheory.htm

"XXCLONE currently does not support a Dynamic Disk as the target volume.
If your target disk has already been configured as a Dynamic Disk, you must
reinintialize the target disk as a Basic Disk."

Perhaps a Dynamic Disk changes the ability to clone the registry
but I think you meant dynamic volume not registry.

 

[Stephen Harris]

It seems to me that for free you can download a program called xxclone
at....

xxclone.com

I have been using it for years and it is probably only one of two that I
know of that will do an exact clone of XP from one HDD to another.

I suppose you might need an image program to back up somewhere else.

This certainly looks like good software. I see there is freeware and
then a pro version -- depends what the difference in capability is.
http://www.xxclone.com/

 

[Clif Notes]

Hi Roger, I was thinking about the advice you gave me above.

I decided to write a bit about it in my current newsletter.

Here's a quote:
I write this newsletter for fun. I don't get paid for it or ask for
donations and I don't spend all day every day making sure every article
is absolutely correct. So, if you see something wrong, don't get mad. I
publish reviews from myself and other people out there who are just
average PC users like you. Will I change that? I think not.

Again, thanks for the advice. Will I take it?

I think not.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Hi Roger, I was thinking about the advice you gave me above.

I decided to write a bit about it in my current newsletter.

Here's a quote:
I write this newsletter for fun. I don't get paid for it or ask for
donations and I don't spend all day every day making sure every article
is absolutely correct. So, if you see something wrong, don't get mad. I
publish reviews from myself and other people out there who are just
average PC users like you. Will I change that? I think not.

You could inform your readers that you don't know much
about what you write about. That would be the honest way
to do it. You could find a both humoristic and truthful way
to say it.

I have a plastic bag up in the attic with papers, notebooks,
all I wrote before I learned to write.

If I had lived in the internet era all of my life all that crap
would probably clog up internet today.
I am glad that I never got the chance to spread my
learning to write stuff. And learning to think stuff.

 

[Stephen Harris]

You could inform your readers that you don't know much
about what you write about. That would be the honest way
to do it. You could find a both humoristic and truthful way
to say it.

Do you mean like this example?
http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com/XenusLinkSleuth

Clif Notes: ..."I asked Jack to try it out and report back. Here's his
review.
It looks like law teachers have a natural talent for software reviews."

Review by Sam Edwards
I just ran the program once so my report is based on very limited
experience.

.... I did not bother reading any manuals and just tried to run it. It worked
well and reported bad links. It even made a handy report for me.

SH: Documentation informs the reader of the capabilities of a program.
Finding broken links may not be the only function of the program and an
"intuitive" notion of a program's primary function does not give one a clue
about the secondary, supportive functions. There are going to be many
programs that can find broken links. What is going to distinguish them is
the scope of the supportive functions, and whether they work as advertised.
The review needs to teach the user about supportive functions and if need
be, why knowing about other functions is an important evaluative criteria.

But you cannot teach what you do not know. Documentation about using a
product is as important as the program itself. So reviewing the
documentation
is an important part of the review, the process of educating the potential
user.
How can you review documentation for the benefit of others if you don't read
it? Sam's comments are an exercise in lazy self-indulgence, not a review.

I have a plastic bag up in the attic with papers, notebooks,
all I wrote before I learned to write.

If I had lived in the internet era all of my life all that crap
would probably clog up internet today.
I am glad that I never got the chance to spread my
learning to write stuff. And learning to think stuff.

The most important thing that a college education can teach is how to think
criticically. That is hard to realize, since many of us grew up in
dysfunctional
homes with an addictive parent which creates kids who have poor self-esteem
and are overly sensitive to criticism.

There are a lot of intelligent people who can write pretty well. But good
writing
takes more than a high I.Q. and youthful arrogance which splatters
superficial
thinking in a masturbatory fashion across the internet. Writing
documentation,
and reviews are a special type of documentation, requires communicating
valuable content showing an awareness of the actual needs of the users who
are supposed to benefit from the education. Developing content takes hard
work and that is what makes it have value to others. The problem with Sam's
review is that it leaves the user still in the position of having to find
out the
details that should have been in the review. Just from the secular slant of
maturing as an adult, expanding one's consciousness, "God is in the
details."

The internet was not a self-publishing paradise when I was in my 20's
either.
So the rate of my change from a Disney 'Ant and Grasshopper Winter story',
the world owes me a living because I'm so specially bright, revel as a
dabbler
when moving throught life as a Jack of all Trades and Master of none, to the
point of developing a focus and a commitment to a craft, was a slow
transition,
containing hard knocks.

That is because corrective/educational experiences came along at a slower
rate
before the advent of the internet, rather than after. Now comments from you
about honesty (like movie stars peddling products they haven't tried yet on
TV
in commercials) or mine: Ya can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear,
reach
other members of our culture at an accelerated rate.

If I had lived in the internet era all of my life all that crap
would probably clog up internet today.
I am glad that I never got the chance to spread my
learning to write stuff. And learning to think stuff.

So that is probably true. But I wonder if you would have grown out of it, or
matured faster, if you received more concentrated criticism from life,
earlier?
There seems to be some compensation generated by increased exposure.

My nomination for free software, which is excellent for writers in a
professional environment, is LyX which performs digital typography and is
well-documented. There are now not to difficult to install Windows versions.

An announcement, not a review,
Stephen

 

[Stephen Harris]

Here's a sneak preview of an article I plan to post in newseletter on
Sunday.

http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com/DriveImage

Let me know what you think ...

Clif
http://clifnotes.net & http://freewarewiki.pbwiki.com
Devoted to promoting Freeware and Free Information

I find the information way too shallow. I liked your
PrntScreen tutorial for completeness but compare
http://www.backup-software-reviews.com/
This is what I consider worthy of publication rather
than desperate for content journalism.

 

[Roger Johansson]

So that is probably true. But I wonder if you would have
grown out of it, or
matured faster, if you received more concentrated
criticism from life, earlier?

The development of a person's thinking depends much more
on local social factors than on possibilities to publish.

Publishing in a global medium has both negative and positive effects.

There seems to be some compensation generated by increased exposure.

Exposure, and the inevitable critique, leads some people to adopt
hard fixed positions quicker, it leads others to develop in a
positive way. Those who have learned a self-confidence based
on anger will get very angry and defend their ideas and get stuck
in an intellectual trench, fortified by adrenaline.

If somebody in this thread had been that type we would have
seen loads of messages filled with foul language in this thread
now. Luckily, we don't.

One effect of this global medium I have seen myself is that
you realize that there are always people around who know
much better.

I cannot use scientific examples which I am not very sure
of, in my philosophical writings, because I know it will be
chopped to pieces by people who know a lot more than
me about such things.

A lot of optimistic new writers get tough lessons as
soon as they try anything. This happens in real life too, by the way,
even small kids have seen the same tv shows as older people
and you can see young girls who know more about social stuff
than older people from a more naive and less organised society.

We live in an era when mankind is developing very quickly
in the thinking area, it puts a strain on all of us.
A lot of people learn to take critique in a more positive
way than earlier in history when somebody who lost a debate
got a bigger gun and killed his opponent.

To get back to the practical issue, I think it's okay for all to
write, but it can simplify things if you declare somehow at
what level you are aiming. And publish in places where it
doesn't get in the way.

If you write for fun without having a lot of experience, declare
that somehow, and people will be a lot nicer than if you
write at prestigious places, like wikipedia, and give the
impression that you know what you are talking about.