On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:49:14 PDT, jack450 wrote:
>I appreciate all the comments. I'm pretty satisfied with the results I get from IFL. A full disk backup of 140 gig of data in 4 hours with a byte for byte validation and no compression is acceptable to me. The restore of the image took 59 minutes, which is also quite good.
>
>I intentionally do not use Image for Windows because of the potential issues Windows can introduce. For years I used a program that originally ran under DOS and I never had a single problem. When newer versions came out, the program was no longer DOS based and had to run under Windows. One had to upgrade to the newer versions to to keep up with the newer devices that computers use these days. It worked well more often than not, but when something didn't, you could spend half a day trying to figure out what went wrong. Backing up a hard drive is a necessary task and not something I look forward to doing, or something that I take great pride in being able to accomplish. I prefer programs that are reliable and as "idiot proof" as possible. I love the simplicity of IFD and IFL.
>
>Jack
>
I've been using IFW since 2004 with never a problem. This includes
restoring from time to time.
I can't see any logical connection between some DOS program that you
had problems with and IFW. If you want to take a backup you just run
IFW, supplying the same information that you would give to IFD or IFL.
It's that simple, and it doesn't go wrong.
IFD/IFL File Compression
Re: IFD/IFL File Compression
TAC109 wrote:
>
> >
> I've been using IFW since 2004 with never a problem. This includes
> restoring from time to time.
>
> I can't see any logical connection between some DOS program that you
> had problems with and IFW. If you want to take a backup you just run
> IFW, supplying the same information that you would give to IFD or IFL.
> It's that simple, and it doesn't go wrong.
TAC109,
I think you misread my post. I specifically said that I NEVER had a problem with the DOS version of the program I previously used -- the problems didn't start until I used the Windows version of the program, and the program was not a Terabyte Unlimited program. I simply prefer to run my backups outside of Windows. As you know, there are updates to Windows, as well as other Windows programs and utilities that are routinely downloaded to your computer, often without your knowledge, for various purposes, that are potential problems for other programs installed on your computer. When the entire backup program, including the operating system, is run from a CD, you can be sure that nothing has changed.
I can, however, appreciate your your experience with Image for Windows, and understand your preference completely.
Jack
>
> >
> I've been using IFW since 2004 with never a problem. This includes
> restoring from time to time.
>
> I can't see any logical connection between some DOS program that you
> had problems with and IFW. If you want to take a backup you just run
> IFW, supplying the same information that you would give to IFD or IFL.
> It's that simple, and it doesn't go wrong.
TAC109,
I think you misread my post. I specifically said that I NEVER had a problem with the DOS version of the program I previously used -- the problems didn't start until I used the Windows version of the program, and the program was not a Terabyte Unlimited program. I simply prefer to run my backups outside of Windows. As you know, there are updates to Windows, as well as other Windows programs and utilities that are routinely downloaded to your computer, often without your knowledge, for various purposes, that are potential problems for other programs installed on your computer. When the entire backup program, including the operating system, is run from a CD, you can be sure that nothing has changed.
I can, however, appreciate your your experience with Image for Windows, and understand your preference completely.
Jack
Re: IFD/IFL File Compression
jack450 wrote:
> I simply prefer to run my backups outside of Windows. As you
> know, there are updates to Windows, as well as other Windows programs and utilities
> that are routinely downloaded to your computer, often without your knowledge, for
> various purposes, that are potential problems for other programs installed on your
> computer. When the entire backup program, including the operating system, is run
> from a CD, you can be sure that nothing has changed.
>
Jack,
I can understand your preference for offline backups but not your logic. PHYLock takes care of the snapshot prior to the backup commencing. As hot backups are as reliable as offline backups I find it much easier to run the backups on a schedule in Windows. They just happen without my being aware the computer is any different. I continue to use the computer normally during a backup.
> I simply prefer to run my backups outside of Windows. As you
> know, there are updates to Windows, as well as other Windows programs and utilities
> that are routinely downloaded to your computer, often without your knowledge, for
> various purposes, that are potential problems for other programs installed on your
> computer. When the entire backup program, including the operating system, is run
> from a CD, you can be sure that nothing has changed.
>
Jack,
I can understand your preference for offline backups but not your logic. PHYLock takes care of the snapshot prior to the backup commencing. As hot backups are as reliable as offline backups I find it much easier to run the backups on a schedule in Windows. They just happen without my being aware the computer is any different. I continue to use the computer normally during a backup.
Re: IFD/IFL File Compression
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:22:42 PDT, jack450 wrote:
>TAC109,
>
>I think you misread my post. I specifically said that I NEVER had a problem with the DOS version of the program I previously used -- the problems didn't start until I used the Windows version of the program, and the program was not a Terabyte Unlimited program. I simply prefer to run my backups outside of Windows. As you know, there are updates to Windows, as well as other Windows programs and utilities that are routinely downloaded to your computer, often without your knowledge, for various purposes, that are potential problems for other programs installed on your computer. When the entire backup program, including the operating system, is run from a CD, you can be sure that nothing has changed.
>
>I can, however, appreciate your your experience with Image for Windows, and understand your preference completely.
>
>Jack
>
For your information, the Image for (Windows/DOS/Linux) stable of
programs were developed at the same time. IFW is *not* a later
conversion of IFD. The current version 2 programs (first released in
2008 if I recall) were developed from the successful version 1 which
was released in 2004.
As Brian has stated, PHYLock ensures that the image created by IFW is
entirely consistent, and can be regarded as having occurred when the
Imaging process starts. Changes to the file structure occurring after
this point in time will not be included in the image. It is a very
clever and foolproof system.
The intention of this post is to clear up any misunderstandings you
may have about these products. Also, I have no connection with
Terabyte other than being a very satisfied customer.
Cheers Tom
>TAC109,
>
>I think you misread my post. I specifically said that I NEVER had a problem with the DOS version of the program I previously used -- the problems didn't start until I used the Windows version of the program, and the program was not a Terabyte Unlimited program. I simply prefer to run my backups outside of Windows. As you know, there are updates to Windows, as well as other Windows programs and utilities that are routinely downloaded to your computer, often without your knowledge, for various purposes, that are potential problems for other programs installed on your computer. When the entire backup program, including the operating system, is run from a CD, you can be sure that nothing has changed.
>
>I can, however, appreciate your your experience with Image for Windows, and understand your preference completely.
>
>Jack
>
For your information, the Image for (Windows/DOS/Linux) stable of
programs were developed at the same time. IFW is *not* a later
conversion of IFD. The current version 2 programs (first released in
2008 if I recall) were developed from the successful version 1 which
was released in 2004.
As Brian has stated, PHYLock ensures that the image created by IFW is
entirely consistent, and can be regarded as having occurred when the
Imaging process starts. Changes to the file structure occurring after
this point in time will not be included in the image. It is a very
clever and foolproof system.
The intention of this post is to clear up any misunderstandings you
may have about these products. Also, I have no connection with
Terabyte other than being a very satisfied customer.
Cheers Tom
Re: IFD/IFL File Compression
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:49:14 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
jack450 disturbed my reverie and wrote:
>I intentionally do not use Image for Windows because of the potential issues Windows can introduce.
IfW is bullet-proof, that is why we use it and it is so popular.
--
Cheers
DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
jack450 disturbed my reverie and wrote:
>I intentionally do not use Image for Windows because of the potential issues Windows can introduce.
IfW is bullet-proof, that is why we use it and it is so popular.
--
Cheers
DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
Re: IFD/IFL File Compression
On 2012-09-13 3:30 PM, jack450 wrote:
> When I do a backup, my number one consideration is reliability. I wouldn't mind smaller files and faster backup times, but never at the expense of reliability. For that reason I always choose "NONE" for compression. However, I have noticed that the new "Enhanced Speed A" cuts the backup time in half. That's a pretty desirable result if the backup is just as reliable as one without compression. So I guess the question is this: Anyone have any reliability issues when restoring a backup made using the "Enhanced Speed A" compression scheme?
>
> Jack G.
>
>
Amen to those who support using IFW.
I have zero qualms about running Restore for almost any reason where I
don't like what I see after, say, a new download/install that acts
funky. It just works!
AlanD
> When I do a backup, my number one consideration is reliability. I wouldn't mind smaller files and faster backup times, but never at the expense of reliability. For that reason I always choose "NONE" for compression. However, I have noticed that the new "Enhanced Speed A" cuts the backup time in half. That's a pretty desirable result if the backup is just as reliable as one without compression. So I guess the question is this: Anyone have any reliability issues when restoring a backup made using the "Enhanced Speed A" compression scheme?
>
> Jack G.
>
>
Amen to those who support using IFW.
I have zero qualms about running Restore for almost any reason where I
don't like what I see after, say, a new download/install that acts
funky. It just works!
AlanD
Re: IFD/IFL File Compression
For the record, nothing I've written is intended to be critical of Image For Windows. I've never used the program. My criticism is of Windows itself. Dr. T says that IFW is bulletproof. That may be, but Windows itself is not. If it was, we wouldn't need backups in the first place except for those occasions when a failing disk needs to be replaced, or moving to a larger capacity disk is desirable, etc.
I don't like troubleshooting a computer or the many devices connected to it. I just want everything to work so I can do the things on it that I need to do. I'm not interested in why all of a sudden my printer won't print. I just want it to work when I need it. At any moment, a Windows system file or a device driver can become corrupt making for undesirable computer behavior at best or making the computer unuseable at worst.
None of this has anything to do with Image for Windows except that Image for Windows runs under the Windows operating system. Obviously, some people prefer the disk based media (IFD/IFL) or Terabyte wouldn't continue to update it and sell it. Right now, I'm one of these people. At some future time I may install IFW and try it out, but right now my only interest is having a valid backup in case the worst happens, and the disk based programs do that to my satisfaction easily and effectively.
Jack
I don't like troubleshooting a computer or the many devices connected to it. I just want everything to work so I can do the things on it that I need to do. I'm not interested in why all of a sudden my printer won't print. I just want it to work when I need it. At any moment, a Windows system file or a device driver can become corrupt making for undesirable computer behavior at best or making the computer unuseable at worst.
None of this has anything to do with Image for Windows except that Image for Windows runs under the Windows operating system. Obviously, some people prefer the disk based media (IFD/IFL) or Terabyte wouldn't continue to update it and sell it. Right now, I'm one of these people. At some future time I may install IFW and try it out, but right now my only interest is having a valid backup in case the worst happens, and the disk based programs do that to my satisfaction easily and effectively.
Jack
Re: IFD/IFL File Compression
On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 12:21:17 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
jack450 disturbed my reverie and wrote:
>At any moment, a Windows system file or a device driver can become corrupt making for undesirable computer behavior at best or making the computer unuseable at worst.
....which you could have backed up using IfD or IfL. NO OS is 110%
corruption-free, but that is no reason, IMHO natch, to avoid a backup
program that runs on it. You USB drive or CD containing IfD or IfL may
become corrupt. The logical conclusion of your argument is never to
back up as no OS can be 100% reliable - it is like not eating as there
is a chance that you will choke to death.
--
Cheers
DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
jack450 disturbed my reverie and wrote:
>At any moment, a Windows system file or a device driver can become corrupt making for undesirable computer behavior at best or making the computer unuseable at worst.
....which you could have backed up using IfD or IfL. NO OS is 110%
corruption-free, but that is no reason, IMHO natch, to avoid a backup
program that runs on it. You USB drive or CD containing IfD or IfL may
become corrupt. The logical conclusion of your argument is never to
back up as no OS can be 100% reliable - it is like not eating as there
is a chance that you will choke to death.
--
Cheers
DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
Re: IFD/IFL File Compression
DrTeeth wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 12:21:17 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
> jack450 disturbed my reverie and wrote:
>
> >At any moment, a Windows system file or a device driver can become corrupt
> making for undesirable computer behavior at best or making the computer
> unuseable at worst.
> ....which you could have backed up using IfD or IfL. NO OS is 110%
> corruption-free, but that is no reason, IMHO natch, to avoid a backup
> program that runs on it. You USB drive or CD containing IfD or IfL may
> become corrupt. The logical conclusion of your argument is never to
> back up as no OS can be 100% reliable - it is like not eating as there
> is a chance that you will choke to death.
> --
>
> Cheers
>
> DrT
> ______________________________
> We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
> our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
> to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
Oh, c'mon Dr. T!! I don't see how anything I've written could be interpreted as "...never to backup as no OS can be 100% reliable." I have, however, cut back on my eating, not because I'm afraid I'll choke to death, but beause I'd like to see my feet again someday while I'm standing up.
Jack
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 12:21:17 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
> jack450 disturbed my reverie and wrote:
>
> >At any moment, a Windows system file or a device driver can become corrupt
> making for undesirable computer behavior at best or making the computer
> unuseable at worst.
> ....which you could have backed up using IfD or IfL. NO OS is 110%
> corruption-free, but that is no reason, IMHO natch, to avoid a backup
> program that runs on it. You USB drive or CD containing IfD or IfL may
> become corrupt. The logical conclusion of your argument is never to
> back up as no OS can be 100% reliable - it is like not eating as there
> is a chance that you will choke to death.
> --
>
> Cheers
>
> DrT
> ______________________________
> We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
> our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
> to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
Oh, c'mon Dr. T!! I don't see how anything I've written could be interpreted as "...never to backup as no OS can be 100% reliable." I have, however, cut back on my eating, not because I'm afraid I'll choke to death, but beause I'd like to see my feet again someday while I'm standing up.
Jack
-
Bob Coleman
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:58 pm
Re: IFD/IFL File Compression
DrTeeth wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 12:21:17 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
> jack450 disturbed my reverie and wrote:
>
> >At any moment, a Windows system file or a device driver can become corrupt
> making for undesirable computer behavior at best or making the computer
> unuseable at worst.
> ....which you could have backed up using IfD or IfL. NO OS is 110%
> corruption-free, but that is no reason, IMHO natch, to avoid a backup
> program that runs on it. You USB drive or CD containing IfD or IfL may
> become corrupt. The logical conclusion of your argument is never to
> back up as no OS can be 100% reliable - it is like not eating as there
> is a chance that you will choke to death.
> --
>
> Cheers
>
> DrT
> ______________________________
> We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
> our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
> to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
I think the original point, or maybe just my biased interpretation of the original point, is unease with a backup program that's backing up something that's active and therefore potentially changing during the backup. I'm also, perhaps unjustifiably, somewhat uncomfortable with this.
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 12:21:17 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
> jack450 disturbed my reverie and wrote:
>
> >At any moment, a Windows system file or a device driver can become corrupt
> making for undesirable computer behavior at best or making the computer
> unuseable at worst.
> ....which you could have backed up using IfD or IfL. NO OS is 110%
> corruption-free, but that is no reason, IMHO natch, to avoid a backup
> program that runs on it. You USB drive or CD containing IfD or IfL may
> become corrupt. The logical conclusion of your argument is never to
> back up as no OS can be 100% reliable - it is like not eating as there
> is a chance that you will choke to death.
> --
>
> Cheers
>
> DrT
> ______________________________
> We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
> our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
> to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).
I think the original point, or maybe just my biased interpretation of the original point, is unease with a backup program that's backing up something that's active and therefore potentially changing during the backup. I'm also, perhaps unjustifiably, somewhat uncomfortable with this.