A good backup program for win98SE needed

[Rod Speed]

WHY on earth would ANYBODY want to copy the Swap File?

Its not a question of want to, its claimed to be undesirable
to do that and the sort of cloning of a drive that is being
discussed tends to end up with the swap file included in a
brute force copy of everything, at least at the command level.

In practice he's mangled the story all over again.

When something other than xxcopy is used, most of
the time the attempt to copy everything fails when it
gets to the locked swap file that it isnt allowed to read.

xxcopy just carrys on regardless and lists the swap
file as not copyable and so the problem doesnt arise.

 

[PCR]

Well, how many lies is it now, did you add them up?

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
(e-mail address removed)
|
| |
| > Well... you mean... no, no, pay no attention to my limp...
| > I always play that way!
|
| Another obvious lie.
|
|
| > | > |
| > | | > |
| > | > Really, I came to play baseball with Campanella.
| > |
| > | Obvious lie.
| > |
| > |
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | | > | > |
| > | > | > Well, you are tough to please, Rod Speed.
| > | > |
| > | > | Wrong. As always.
| > | > |
| > | > | > But I never did come here to please you.
| > | > |
| > | > | Wrong. As always.
| > ...snip
| >
| >
|
|
|
|
|
|

 

[cquirke]

| On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:01:43 -0400, "PCR" <[email protected]> wrote:

| FWIW, some background stuff..

| http://users.iafrica.com/c/cq/cquirke/lfns.htm on LFNs

Cquirke, why can't I see that offline? It should be in my TIFs! (Other
stuff I viewed last night does work fine.)

Can't think of a reason, other than limitations of T-I-F; like all
pages from the site, it's just flat HTML with no scripts, css etc.

Did you SaveAs? That's what I do with virus descs, etc.

| Can Win9x-LFN-algorithm Win9x read NT-LFN-algorithm LFNs?
Can Win9x read WinNT? That is a different question.

Yep, and the question I was asking

However, the implication is that they can coexist on the same OS.

What I was asking was; if NT saves a file with an LFN that uses NT
logic for the generated 8.3 name, can Win9x read it? If Win9x saves
(not SaveAs) it, does the 8.3 name stay same or revert to 9x logic?

I suppose Yabumoto purposefully did not write his own file system

Fair enough - few do, and doing so makes it brittle to version changes
(noting that NTFS file system structure is undocumented and
proprietary for exactly this reason, so MS can change it at will).

There's some benefit in a cautions blended approach, i.e. read the raw
dir to harvest both 8.3 and LFN names, store this as metadata, use
"front door" renamery to apply these, alert when blocked by existing
files on target. IOW, if you have to go "deep", do so only to read.

Note that few (if any) generic archivers store dual file names; e.g.
..zip stores only what it sees when the file was archived, and most
..zip utils rely on the OS's API to generate these in both directions.
That can cause a crisis when an LFN-unaware pulls LFNs out of an
archive during extraction, i.e. generates illegal (e.g. space
containing) 8.3 names that are simply truncated to 8.3

The other problem is related to multitasking risks, i.e. other
processes changing the dir's contents so that what you saw when you
checked for existing names is not what is there when you generate
names (esp. if predicting auto-generated 8.3 names).

The more baroque the logic (esp. if it scales badly with number of dir
entries), the larger this critical window.

The most likely multitasking conflict is where the same task is
double-launched in quick succesion, e.g. double-clicking an icon that
runs after one click (discussions of "Specify a new..." misadventures
apply here) so it's helpful if the app is self-aware and guards
against multiple instances of itself operating on the same target.

| >| Since XXCOPY uses a combination of standard file I/O API functions
| >| iteratively to manipulate the SFN in order to preserve the
| >| SFN (rather than using direct low-level device I/O operations),
| >| XXCOPY will give up the /NX operation when the SFN preservation is
| >| not possible.

| That suggests XXCopy can't manage LFNs in DOS mode at all ...?

There are two version of XXCopy. The "true" DOS version is not as
capable.

There are tools that are, but they are rare. I know of 2 DOS TSR
drivers that support LFNs, one of which is fatally flawed and is to be
left that way (the author's abandoned it) plus there's "Odi's LFN
Tools", which are non-TSR replacement external commands for most
internal file operations (i.e. LDir, LCopy, LMD, LRen etc.)

I mainly use Odi's, but they don't "stack" with other file system TSRs
such as NTFSDOS. So you can't, for example, run NTFSDOS as a TSR to
access NTFS and then use Odi's tools to preserve LFNs.

Bummer, but understandable.

I think I am blessed in my CD-R/W software, as I never did notice that
particular problem. I have CEQuadrat PacketCD. But I may also just
drag/drop hdd to CD & back again. I'm looking now-- nothing that I
copied back after my hdd crash is Read-Only. Ah, ha, ha!

CDRW isn't "standard" and is handled through proprietary code that
prolly resets the +r attribute (do files that are *supposed* to be +r
come back as -r or +r?). Win9x forces +r on all copy-back from CD(R)
in both DOS mode and GUI. XP does not do that, but whether it flips
+r to -r or not, I don't know.

The CD file system standards are the problem, because Joliet and ISO
file name rules differ from MS OS rules in ways that can be quite
subtle. And I dunno if the CD file system metadata preserves the MS
file system attributes r, s, h and (does anyone care?) a.

--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Error Messages Are Your Friends

 

[PCR]

OK. Thanks for the information. I'm sure I have gone both ways with my
CD/R-W w/o that problem.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
(e-mail address removed)
| >| On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:01:43 -0400, "PCR" <[email protected]>
wrote:
|
| >| FWIW, some background stuff..
|
| >| http://users.iafrica.com/c/cq/cquirke/lfns.htm on LFNs
|
| >Cquirke, why can't I see that offline? It should be in my TIFs!
(Other
| >stuff I viewed last night does work fine.)
|
| Can't think of a reason, other than limitations of T-I-F; like all
| pages from the site, it's just flat HTML with no scripts, css etc.
|
| Did you SaveAs? That's what I do with virus descs, etc.
|
| >| Can Win9x-LFN-algorithm Win9x read NT-LFN-algorithm LFNs?
| >Can Win9x read WinNT? That is a different question.
|
| Yep, and the question I was asking
|
| >However, the implication is that they can coexist on the same OS.
|
| What I was asking was; if NT saves a file with an LFN that uses NT
| logic for the generated 8.3 name, can Win9x read it? If Win9x saves
| (not SaveAs) it, does the 8.3 name stay same or revert to 9x logic?
|
| >I suppose Yabumoto purposefully did not write his own file system
|
| Fair enough - few do, and doing so makes it brittle to version changes
| (noting that NTFS file system structure is undocumented and
| proprietary for exactly this reason, so MS can change it at will).
|
| There's some benefit in a cautions blended approach, i.e. read the raw
| dir to harvest both 8.3 and LFN names, store this as metadata, use
| "front door" renamery to apply these, alert when blocked by existing
| files on target. IOW, if you have to go "deep", do so only to read.
|
| Note that few (if any) generic archivers store dual file names; e.g.
| .zip stores only what it sees when the file was archived, and most
| .zip utils rely on the OS's API to generate these in both directions.
| That can cause a crisis when an LFN-unaware pulls LFNs out of an
| archive during extraction, i.e. generates illegal (e.g. space
| containing) 8.3 names that are simply truncated to 8.3
|
| The other problem is related to multitasking risks, i.e. other
| processes changing the dir's contents so that what you saw when you
| checked for existing names is not what is there when you generate
| names (esp. if predicting auto-generated 8.3 names).
|
| The more baroque the logic (esp. if it scales badly with number of dir
| entries), the larger this critical window.
|
| The most likely multitasking conflict is where the same task is
| double-launched in quick succesion, e.g. double-clicking an icon that
| runs after one click (discussions of "Specify a new..." misadventures
| apply here) so it's helpful if the app is self-aware and guards
| against multiple instances of itself operating on the same target.
|
| >| >| Since XXCOPY uses a combination of standard file I/O API
functions
| >| >| iteratively to manipulate the SFN in order to preserve the
| >| >| SFN (rather than using direct low-level device I/O operations),
| >| >| XXCOPY will give up the /NX operation when the SFN preservation
is
| >| >| not possible.
|
| >| That suggests XXCopy can't manage LFNs in DOS mode at all ...?
|
| >There are two version of XXCopy. The "true" DOS version is not as
| >capable.
|
| There are tools that are, but they are rare. I know of 2 DOS TSR
| drivers that support LFNs, one of which is fatally flawed and is to be
| left that way (the author's abandoned it) plus there's "Odi's LFN
| Tools", which are non-TSR replacement external commands for most
| internal file operations (i.e. LDir, LCopy, LMD, LRen etc.)
|
| I mainly use Odi's, but they don't "stack" with other file system TSRs
| such as NTFSDOS. So you can't, for example, run NTFSDOS as a TSR to
| access NTFS and then use Odi's tools to preserve LFNs.
|
| Bummer, but understandable.
|
| >I think I am blessed in my CD-R/W software, as I never did notice
that
| >particular problem. I have CEQuadrat PacketCD. But I may also just
| >drag/drop hdd to CD & back again. I'm looking now-- nothing that I
| >copied back after my hdd crash is Read-Only. Ah, ha, ha!
|
| CDRW isn't "standard" and is handled through proprietary code that
| prolly resets the +r attribute (do files that are *supposed* to be +r
| come back as -r or +r?). Win9x forces +r on all copy-back from CD(R)
| in both DOS mode and GUI. XP does not do that, but whether it flips
| +r to -r or not, I don't know.
|
| The CD file system standards are the problem, because Joliet and ISO
| file name rules differ from MS OS rules in ways that can be quite
| subtle. And I dunno if the CD file system metadata preserves the MS
| file system attributes r, s, h and (does anyone care?) a.
|
|
| >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
| Error Messages Are Your Friends
| >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

 

[Vibes]

To get back to what PCR said, I use Drive Image 2002 to clone my HD to a
CD-RW. I used it to replace Norton Ghost, which I found flaky, and not
therefore to be trusted.

One side benefit not referred to in the product details and one I did not
expect was the process 'cured' certain programs that were not working, or
working properly, e.g. PB Restore

A big word of caution, however. The Help in both programs is dreadful, if
you are an ordinary user, like me. So much so, I had to telephone Power
Quest, in Amsterdam, to talk me through. Give them credit, they did so
without demur, and I succeeded, but only thanks to them. My concern was
that the process wipes the HD and you are then totally reliant on the CD-R
disks that contain your precious data. Any defect in those or other mistake
in the process and you are stuffed completely. Early on in the process, the
on-screen stuff and the Help just ran out, and it was guesswork for me to
proceed further. Hence I wanted to know exactly what to do, and also what I
should expect to happen when I did it. So we used Norton PCAnywhere, which
I had trialed, so I did not need to buy it. This meant the guy in Amsterdam
could see what I was doing and talk to me live. Altogether a harrowing
experience, and not for the faint-hearted.

Another HD is a good idea, but my way I have disks separate from the PC and
I can carry around and store anywhere.

 

[PCR]

Don't talk to that ornery cuss or to Colorado either!

I am glad that Drive Image 2002 cured various problems, e.g., PB
Restore. Also, it is good to know you survived a harrowing experience in
the restore, by the good services of Norton PCAnywhere & the good folk
at PowerQuest. Below, in the spirit of tit for tat, is a harrowing
experience of my own. You are correct to have a full system backup on
CD. I suggest you also get a second hard drive, to calm all fears of the
CDs getting temperamental again. And you never know-- it could be
altogether a different bugaboo with it, not the one you already know how
to solve. Anyway, you will need a second hard drive to restore that CD
to, should this one crash. The CD backup is great, but may as get
another hard drive and put a full system backup there too.

....Start.... or harrowing experience all my own......
Well, I don't know whether it would be the same for you, but this is
what I did on my Compaq 7470. Remember, this totally wiped out
everything & restored to factory default condition. This does an Fdisk,
so, if you want to backup first, it must be done to CD or another HDD
altogether.

It took a phone call or two to Compaq to run my QuickRestore from double
CD's after an HDD crash, since the instructions that came with the them
were lacking. They are bootable-- BUT I couldn't figure out how to get
them into the CD-R/W drive. It was dumbfounding. Here's the actual
process:

1. Turn on computer. (So that you'll be able to...
2. Open CD tray; put in CD 1; close tray.
3. Turn computer off, then on. CD will boot.
(Computer did stuff, some of it twice, maybe. How long?)
4. When asked to insert a Diskette, hold down CNTR and press "R"
three times.
(Big secret? Lucky the guy was still on the line; he wanted to
go; eventually, did.)
5. At the error message (something like "Not ready reading drive
N"), hit "R" for "Retry".
(This took a second phone call; he said sometimes it takes 3
Retry's.)
6. When prompted, put in QuickRestore CD 2.
7. When prompted, put in QuickRestore CD 1, again.
8. When prompted, remove it.
(Windows screen came up; it seemed to go back to DOS; it rebooted
to Windows again; it did some unzipping; it rebooted; it did a
SystemSave; it rebooted; it installed some drivers; it asked some
questions, and I told all.)

That's what I wrote, some of it from memory, during & after the process.
The only other item in my notes is, "NEVER NEEDED ANY DISKETTE",
capitalized. I remember wondering what that diskette asked for was
supposed to be. I don't remember how much time passed between steps;
overall, I believe it was less than an hour, maybe much less.

This QuickRestore, to "factory", from the CDs, is far more involved than
the one from the D: partition. I don't really want to do it again. So
many reboots! And I may have left some out in the notes! There is a lot
to like about Compaq, but QuickRestore from CD's is not one of them...
well, it did work, though. I hope I haven't given away a big secret.
.........End.............................................................
.........

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
(e-mail address removed)
| To get back to what PCR said, I use Drive Image 2002 to clone my HD to
a
| CD-RW. I used it to replace Norton Ghost, which I found flaky, and
not
| therefore to be trusted.
|
| One side benefit not referred to in the product details and one I did
not
| expect was the process 'cured' certain programs that were not working,
or
| working properly, e.g. PB Restore
|
| A big word of caution, however. The Help in both programs is
dreadful, if
| you are an ordinary user, like me. So much so, I had to telephone
Power
| Quest, in Amsterdam, to talk me through. Give them credit, they did
so
| without demur, and I succeeded, but only thanks to them. My concern
was
| that the process wipes the HD and you are then totally reliant on the
CD-R
| disks that contain your precious data. Any defect in those or other
mistake
| in the process and you are stuffed completely. Early on in the
process, the
| on-screen stuff and the Help just ran out, and it was guesswork for me
to
| proceed further. Hence I wanted to know exactly what to do, and also
what I
| should expect to happen when I did it. So we used Norton PCAnywhere,
which
| I had trialed, so I did not need to buy it. This meant the guy in
Amsterdam
| could see what I was doing and talk to me live. Altogether a
harrowing
| experience, and not for the faint-hearted.
|
| Another HD is a good idea, but my way I have disks separate from the
PC and
| I can carry around and store anywhere.
|
| Rod Speed wrote:
| > | >> PCR wrote:
| >>> I am not an expert in XXCopy. You must go to the site and see
| >>> whether there is a write-up on a full-system XXCopy one hdd to
| >>> another. Maybe Yabumoto has it covered.
| >>> http://www.xxcopy.com/
| >>>
| >>> (a) Rod Speed has sworn XXCopy will not copy the Swap File
| >>> (Win386.swp).
| >>
| >> WHY on earth would ANYBODY want to copy the Swap File?
| >
| > Its not a question of want to, its claimed to be undesirable
| > to do that and the sort of cloning of a drive that is being
| > discussed tends to end up with the swap file included in a
| > brute force copy of everything, at least at the command level.
| >
| > In practice he's mangled the story all over again.
| >
| > When something other than xxcopy is used, most of
| > the time the attempt to copy everything fails when it
| > gets to the locked swap file that it isnt allowed to read.
| >
| > xxcopy just carrys on regardless and lists the swap
| > file as not copyable and so the problem doesnt arise.
|
|

 

[Vibes]

Ok. And very interesting

In response, another point I would make is that with both Ghost and Drive
Image, you are able prior to completion of the process to check for errors
in the image (clone) you create, and to verify its contents. This should go
some way to reassuring doubting Thomases like me. But that said, another HD
would be cheap and it would be 'there.'

The thing we both seem to have suffered from, you much less than me, I
think, is the poor quality of the Help in these programs. At first, I found
Norton Ghost Help incomprehensible, and I had to read and reread it many
times. All Norton Help is the same. It seems to be composed by the same,
high-minded person, who is really doing us all a favour by imparting his
wisdom, so he will keep it short. The Help in Drive Image is a bit better,
perhaps because this program is a bit better, or simpler, than Ghost, or at
least, I found it so. That is until I started the process, and what I read
in the Help was not happening on screen: there was a resemblance, but words
and boxes appeared which I had no means of understanding. Perhaps I am too
literal, you might say, and I am well aware of the adage that after some
years, you develop a 'sense' for these things that transcends such
imperfections and takes you through. Not in my case, I'm afraid, hence the
call to Amsterdam

So in my eyes Drive Image was almost completely let down by its Help. Here
is a marvellous product that can so wondrous things (10 years ago, cloning
would have been a Wonder of the World), yet it can't be bothered to explain
itself in plain and clear language.

Anyway, I am rabbiting on, so will stop

 

[Rod Speed]

To get back to what PCR said, I use Drive Image 2002
to clone my HD to a CD-RW. I used it to replace Norton
Ghost, which I found flaky, and not therefore to be trusted.

Yeah, it can be like that with CDRWs.

One side benefit not referred to in the product details and
one I did not expect was the process 'cured' certain programs
that were not working, or working properly, e.g. PB Restore

A big word of caution, however. The Help in both programs is
dreadful, if you are an ordinary user, like me. So much so, I had
to telephone Power Quest, in Amsterdam, to talk me through.

Yeah, both can be a bit daunting for users at your level. Ghost
much worse than DI until 2003 which has had the user interface
complete redone and is now only a little worse than DI.

Give them credit, they did so without demur, and I succeeded,
but only thanks to them. My concern was that the process
wipes the HD and you are then totally reliant on the CD-R
disks that contain your precious data. Any defect in those or
other mistake in the process and you are stuffed completely.

That risk can be reduced by deliberately writing
two images to the CDRs. Its still a risk tho.

I prefer to write the image files to another
hard drive, much safer and faster.

Early on in the process, the on-screen stuff and the Help
just ran out, and it was guesswork for me to proceed
further. Hence I wanted to know exactly what to do,
and also what I should expect to happen when I did it.

Yeah, the manuals are pretty poor there too. Need
a complete rewrite by someone who can write well.

Ghost is even worse even now.

So we used Norton PCAnywhere, which I had trialed,
so I did not need to buy it. This meant the guy in
Amsterdam could see what I was doing and talk to me live.
Altogether a harrowing experience, and not for the faint-hearted.

Another HD is a good idea, but my way I have disks separate
from the PC and I can carry around and store anywhere.

Yeah, I think you basically need both, the extra HD for the
convenience and safety and the CDRs for that portability
and security against theft and the house burning down etc.

 

[PCR]

Yes, I am blessed with software that handles the Read-Only bit very
nicely. Nevertheless, I've definitely had problems with my CD-R\W drive,
including ungodly noises culminating in the inability to open it, not to
mention mangling of media. And I never did find the pinhole that
supposedly opens it manually.

One day, it did open again, & mysteriously & incredibly it all began to
work smoothly again. When last used to store files, it was even
amazingly quick too. I only use it now to play music CDs, as I do now
have a second hard drive. Some day soon, I still will like to put a
full system backup Image to it, though.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
(e-mail address removed)
|
| >OK. Thanks for the information. I'm sure I have gone both ways with
my
| >CD/R-W w/o that problem.
|
| Good to know that the proprietary driver layer that manages your CDRW
| is competent <g> ...it isn't always, and some are downright awful.
|
| For example, there was one I used that did not support DelTree
| properly - e.g. a .bat that would deltree an existing \BACKUP1 to
| create a new one would fail to delete all files, and end up with a mix
| of old and new material in the "new" BACKUP1 subtree. Nasty.
|
|
| >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
| Error Messages Are Your Friends
| >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

 

[PCR]

Yes, documentation is a problem. Once you do know how to use it, it must
be tested fully. I think the best way to do that is to get a second hard
drive & restore the image to that. Here are the problems you face...

(1) Must be able to open box & properly install new drive.
(2) Will your BIOS recognize the size of your new hard drive?
(3) Must learn to run Drive Image from floppy.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
(e-mail address removed)
| Ok. And very interesting
|
| In response, another point I would make is that with both Ghost and
Drive
| Image, you are able prior to completion of the process to check for
errors
| in the image (clone) you create, and to verify its contents. This
should go
| some way to reassuring doubting Thomases like me. But that said,
another HD
| would be cheap and it would be 'there.'
|
| The thing we both seem to have suffered from, you much less than me, I
| think, is the poor quality of the Help in these programs. At first, I
found
| Norton Ghost Help incomprehensible, and I had to read and reread it
many
| times. All Norton Help is the same. It seems to be composed by the
same,
| high-minded person, who is really doing us all a favour by imparting
his
| wisdom, so he will keep it short. The Help in Drive Image is a bit
better,
| perhaps because this program is a bit better, or simpler, than Ghost,
or at
| least, I found it so. That is until I started the process, and what I
read
| in the Help was not happening on screen: there was a resemblance, but
words
| and boxes appeared which I had no means of understanding. Perhaps I
am too
| literal, you might say, and I am well aware of the adage that after
some
| years, you develop a 'sense' for these things that transcends such
| imperfections and takes you through. Not in my case, I'm afraid,
hence the
| call to Amsterdam
|
| So in my eyes Drive Image was almost completely let down by its Help.
Here
| is a marvellous product that can so wondrous things (10 years ago,
cloning
| would have been a Wonder of the World), yet it can't be bothered to
explain
| itself in plain and clear language.
|
| Anyway, I am rabbiting on, so will stop
|
|
|
| PCR wrote:
| > Don't talk to that ornery cuss or to Colorado either!
| >
| > I am glad that Drive Image 2002 cured various problems, e.g., PB
| > Restore. Also, it is good to know you survived a harrowing
experience
| > in the restore, by the good services of Norton PCAnywhere & the good
| > folk at PowerQuest. Below, in the spirit of tit for tat, is a
| > harrowing experience of my own. You are correct to have a full
system
| > backup on CD. I suggest you also get a second hard drive, to calm
all
| > fears of the CDs getting temperamental again. And you never know--
it
| > could be altogether a different bugaboo with it, not the one you
| > already know how to solve. Anyway, you will need a second hard drive
| > to restore that CD to, should this one crash. The CD backup is
great,
| > but may as get another hard drive and put a full system backup there
| > too.
| >
| > ...Start.... or harrowing experience all my own......
| > Well, I don't know whether it would be the same for you, but this is
| > what I did on my Compaq 7470. Remember, this totally wiped out
| > everything & restored to factory default condition. This does an
| > Fdisk, so, if you want to backup first, it must be done to CD or
| > another HDD altogether.
| >
| > It took a phone call or two to Compaq to run my QuickRestore from
| > double CD's after an HDD crash, since the instructions that came
with
| > the them were lacking. They are bootable-- BUT I couldn't figure out
| > how to get them into the CD-R/W drive. It was dumbfounding. Here's
| > the actual process:
| >
| > 1. Turn on computer. (So that you'll be able to...
| > 2. Open CD tray; put in CD 1; close tray.
| > 3. Turn computer off, then on. CD will boot.
| > (Computer did stuff, some of it twice, maybe. How long?)
| > 4. When asked to insert a Diskette, hold down CNTR and press "R"
| > three times.
| > (Big secret? Lucky the guy was still on the line; he wanted
to
| > go; eventually, did.)
| > 5. At the error message (something like "Not ready reading drive
| > N"), hit "R" for "Retry".
| > (This took a second phone call; he said sometimes it takes 3
| > Retry's.)
| > 6. When prompted, put in QuickRestore CD 2.
| > 7. When prompted, put in QuickRestore CD 1, again.
| > 8. When prompted, remove it.
| > (Windows screen came up; it seemed to go back to DOS; it
| > rebooted to Windows again; it did some unzipping; it rebooted; it
did
| > a SystemSave; it rebooted; it installed some drivers; it asked some
| > questions, and I told all.)
| >
| > That's what I wrote, some of it from memory, during & after the
| > process. The only other item in my notes is, "NEVER NEEDED ANY
| > DISKETTE", capitalized. I remember wondering what that diskette
asked
| > for was supposed to be. I don't remember how much time passed
between
| > steps; overall, I believe it was less than an hour, maybe much less.
| >
| > This QuickRestore, to "factory", from the CDs, is far more involved
| > than the one from the D: partition. I don't really want to do it
| > again. So many reboots! And I may have left some out in the notes!
| > There is a lot to like about Compaq, but QuickRestore from CD's is
| > not one of them... well, it did work, though. I hope I haven't given
| > away a big secret.
| >
.........End.............................................................
| > ........
| >
| >> To get back to what PCR said, I use Drive Image 2002 to clone my HD
| >> to a CD-RW. I used it to replace Norton Ghost, which I found
flaky,
| >> and not therefore to be trusted.
| >>
| >> One side benefit not referred to in the product details and one I
| >> did not expect was the process 'cured' certain programs that were
| >> not working, or working properly, e.g. PB Restore
| >>
| >> A big word of caution, however. The Help in both programs is
| >> dreadful, if you are an ordinary user, like me. So much so, I had
| >> to telephone Power Quest, in Amsterdam, to talk me through. Give
| >> them credit, they did so without demur, and I succeeded, but only
| >> thanks to them. My concern was that the process wipes the HD and
| >> you are then totally reliant on the CD-R disks that contain your
| >> precious data. Any defect in those or other mistake in the process
| >> and you are stuffed completely. Early on in the process, the
| >> on-screen stuff and the Help just ran out, and it was guesswork for
| >> me to proceed further. Hence I wanted to know exactly what to do,
| >> and also what I should expect to happen when I did it. So we used
| >> Norton PCAnywhere, which I had trialed, so I did not need to buy
it.
| >> This meant the guy in Amsterdam could see what I was doing and talk
| >> to me live. Altogether a harrowing experience, and not for the
| >> faint-hearted.
| >>
| >> Another HD is a good idea, but my way I have disks separate from
the
| >> PC and I can carry around and store anywhere.
| >>
| >> Rod Speed wrote:
| >>> | >>>> PCR wrote:
| >>>>> I am not an expert in XXCopy. You must go to the site and see
| >>>>> whether there is a write-up on a full-system XXCopy one hdd to
| >>>>> another. Maybe Yabumoto has it covered.
| >>>>> http://www.xxcopy.com/
| >>>>>
| >>>>> (a) Rod Speed has sworn XXCopy will not copy the Swap File
| >>>>> (Win386.swp).
| >>>>
| >>>> WHY on earth would ANYBODY want to copy the Swap File?
| >>>
| >>> Its not a question of want to, its claimed to be undesirable
| >>> to do that and the sort of cloning of a drive that is being
| >>> discussed tends to end up with the swap file included in a
| >>> brute force copy of everything, at least at the command level.
| >>>
| >>> In practice he's mangled the story all over again.
| >>>
| >>> When something other than xxcopy is used, most of
| >>> the time the attempt to copy everything fails when it
| >>> gets to the locked swap file that it isnt allowed to read.
| >>>
| >>> xxcopy just carrys on regardless and lists the swap
| >>> file as not copyable and so the problem doesnt arise.
|
|

 

[Vibes]

It's comforting to know that for once I seem to have got the parameters
right. Thanks

It is of course all part of the fun. And I mean that.

 

[cquirke]

Yes, I am blessed with software that handles the Read-Only bit very
nicely. Nevertheless, I've definitely had problems with my CD-R\W drive,
including ungodly noises culminating in the inability to open it, not to
mention mangling of media. And I never did find the pinhole that
supposedly opens it manually.

Do you use packet writing? If so, do your CDRW disks get barfed if
they have been written to during the Windows session and there's a bad
exit before the disk is formally ejected? Does your system trap the
physical eject button so that it doesn't work, fail to trap it so a
manual eject barfs pending writes, or trap and flush pending writes
before honoring the request to eject the disk?

Typically the result of barfed pending writes is a CDRW with zero free
bytes and zero files on it. The CDRW disk has to be re-formatted.

--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Error Messages Are Your Friends

 

[PCR]

I did the formatting through the Packet stuff, but most writing to it in
Explorer. There was no barfing involved, & I never went near the eject
button until I was all through. Now-- your making me try to remember--
was there a crash of Windows on that day the Eject button refused to
work? Could of been, but I think not. It is the god-awful
screeching/thumping of the CD-R/W that I can't forget. I also recall I
was on my hands & knees looking for a pinhole. It took several reboots
before the door would open. I do believe it was days later that it
opened at boot.

Amazingly & incredibly it has worked well ever after, even phenomenally
quick when last used to copy files. I went to look, & all the files were
there. It's a Phillips 4x, but I don't know the model number. What a
trooper! But I only listen to music on it now.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
(e-mail address removed)
|
| >Yes, I am blessed with software that handles the Read-Only bit very
| >nicely. Nevertheless, I've definitely had problems with my CD-R\W
drive,
| >including ungodly noises culminating in the inability to open it, not
to
| >mention mangling of media. And I never did find the pinhole that
| >supposedly opens it manually.
|
| Do you use packet writing? If so, do your CDRW disks get barfed if
| they have been written to during the Windows session and there's a bad
| exit before the disk is formally ejected? Does your system trap the
| physical eject button so that it doesn't work, fail to trap it so a
| manual eject barfs pending writes, or trap and flush pending writes
| before honoring the request to eject the disk?
|
| Typically the result of barfed pending writes is a CDRW with zero free
| bytes and zero files on it. The CDRW disk has to be re-formatted.
|
|
| >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
| Error Messages Are Your Friends
| >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

 

[Bill Blanton]

Can Win9x-LFN-algorithm Win9x read NT-LFN-algorithm LFNs?

There shouldn't be any conflict. As an example create 8 file in NT named
longfilename_.txt

LONGFI~1.TXT longfilename1.txt
LONGFI~2.TXT longfilename2.txt
LONGFI~3.TXT longfilename3.txt
LONGFI~4.TXT longfilename4.txt
LO06DD~1.TXT longfilename5.txt
LO0ADD~1.TXT longfilename6.txt
LO0EDD~1.TXT longfilename7.txt
LO02ED~1.TXT longfilename8.txt

9x will see 5, 6, 7, and 8 as not in the sequence at all, and will pick up
at ~5 if you create another. (or more)

LONGFI~1.TXT longfilename1.txt
LONGFI~2.TXT longfilename2.txt
LONGFI~3.TXT longfilename3.txt
LONGFI~4.TXT longfilename4.txt
LO06DD~1.TXT longfilename5.txt
LO0ADD~1.TXT longfilename6.txt
LO0EDD~1.TXT longfilename7.txt
LO02ED~1.TXT longfilename8.txt
LONGFI~5.TXT longfilename9.txt
LONGFI~6.TXT longfilenam10.txt

Back in NT, NT will pick up on it's own algorithm.

LO95C5~1.TXT longfilenam11.txt


Reading the files isn't really a factor. The names are all unique. But it will
make a big sloppy mess of the SFNs, if copied.

That suggests XXCopy can't manage LFNs in DOS mode at all ...?

That's what it sounds like to me. I don't know fer sher, but the only
DOS API function that I can think of, that is even usable, is FindFirstFile
and FindNextFile. Pass them a spec, (such as *.txt), and they will pull the files
in the order they are found in the DIR. That should only be reliable if there have
been no deletes at all in the dir. Perhaps it crosschecks the timestamps,
to add a little more reliability.?

Window's API, otoh, has a function to get the short name from the long. I
would guess xxcopy uses that.