TeraByte Unlimited

Hello,

A question I've been meaning to ask for some time.

It would be really nice if there was a page or a forum posting that detailed exactly what are the differences between all of the different versions of IFW/D/L...

Specifically, what is the purpose of each, and some examples of why you might choose one over the other.

It is VERY confusing, just looking at the downloads page.

Even better would be to combine them all into just one, two or even three different versions. I just don't get why there are so many, and in all honesty, never know why I download one over the other.

Thx

it's as simple as whatever works best for your system.

"tanstaafl" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

Hello,

A question I've been meaning to ask for some time.

It would be really nice if there was a page or a forum posting that detailed
exactly what are the differences between all of the different versions of
IFW/D/L...

Specifically, what is the purpose of each, and some examples of why you
might choose one over the other.

It is VERY confusing, just looking at the downloads page.

Even better would be to combine them all into just one, two or even three
different versions. I just don't get why there are so many, and in all
honesty, never know why I download one over the other.

Thx

Different buyers have certain prod lic's so they only get that one product. Like say you only bought IFL, and nothing else. You could only D/L that....lic info posted under IFL in that listing of all products.

If like me, you bought the whole package, each one then shows lic info beneath it's listing & you can D/L everything shown. But, I only need to D/L the big IFW full pkg, with IFW/IFD/IFL, etc + updated/current BiBM...only 2 files from that list, in either GUI -or- CUI style.

Sometimes I use IFD, sometimes I use IFL in doing restores....IFL often shows netwok drives better in some situations.

GUI=graphical style interface.
CUI= character driven style interface.
Most often for Windows users we'd select the GUI style.

On GUI versions I have had more mouse problems.

Usually I need to remove my wireless mouse and use the touch pad instead.

I like to use IFL w/networking on a SD card when imaging outside of Windows.
Mary

On 3/5/2014 6:51 AM, a1pcfixer wrote:
> Different buyers have certain prod lic's so they only get that one product. Like say you only bought IFL, and nothing else. You could only D/L that....lic info posted under IFL in that listing of all products.
>
> If like me, you bought the whole package, each one then shows lic info beneath it's listing & you can D/L everything shown. But, I only need to D/L the big IFW full pkg, with IFW/IFD/IFL, etc + updated/current BiBM...only 2 files from that list, in either GUI -or- CUI style.
>
> Sometimes I use IFD, sometimes I use IFL in doing restores....IFL often shows netwok drives better in some situations.
>
> GUI=graphical style interface.
> CUI= character driven style interface.
> Most often for Windows users we'd select the GUI style.
>
>

I'm sorry, but this is quite simply a non answer.

We own about 8 licenses for the Suite here, and I don't think asking for a real, informative response to this question is asking too much.

And if you made it an FAQ you'd only have to do it once...

I asked *what is the difference* between all these different versions. How in the world am I supposed to *decide* '"whatever works best for me" if I have no way to determine how each version *differs*, or what each version will or will not do?

TeraByte Support wrote:
> it's as simple as whatever works best for your system.
>
> "tanstaafl" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Hello,
>
> A question I've been meaning to ask for some time.
>
> It would be really nice if there was a page or a forum posting that
> detailed
> exactly what are the differences between all of the different versions of
> IFW/D/L...
>
> Specifically, what is the purpose of each, and some examples of why you
> might choose one over the other.
>
> It is VERY confusing, just looking at the downloads page.
>
> Even better would be to combine them all into just one, two or even three
> different versions. I just don't get why there are so many, and in all
> honesty, never know why I download one over the other.
>
> Thx

They are all the same - the environment they run in is different - so you'd
actually have to try it on the system to see which works best - for some IFD
can be faster than IFL, but could have conflicts between USB keyboards and
hard drive if direct USB access needed, whereas Linux environment controls
both USB keyboards and hard drives and has networking support built in.
Likewise a Windows boot disk may take a lot longer to boot, but you can
always find drivers for your hardware.

Each environment has whatever that OS provides it such as Linux having
truecrypt, nfs, iscsi, etc.. Windows having whatever is available to it,
etc..

Start with IFL boot disk, if you have issues then consider IFD or IFW boot
disks.


"tanstaafl" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

I'm sorry, but this is quite simply a non answer.

We own about 8 licenses for the Suite here, and I don't think asking for a
real, informative response to this question is asking too much.

And if you made it an FAQ you'd only have to do it once...

I asked *what is the difference* between all these different versions. How
in the world am I supposed to *decide* '"whatever works best for me" if I
have no way to determine how each version *differs*, or what each version
will or will not do?

TeraByte Support wrote:
> it's as simple as whatever works best for your system.
>
> "tanstaafl" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Hello,
>
> A question I've been meaning to ask for some time.
>
> It would be really nice if there was a page or a forum posting that
> detailed
> exactly what are the differences between all of the different versions of
> IFW/D/L...
>
> Specifically, what is the purpose of each, and some examples of why you
> might choose one over the other.
>
> It is VERY confusing, just looking at the downloads page.
>
> Even better would be to combine them all into just one, two or even three
> different versions. I just don't get why there are so many, and in all
> honesty, never know why I download one over the other.
>
> Thx

tanstaafl wrote:
> I'm sorry, but this is quite simply a non answer.

I understand your point, but, at the same time, think there is some truth to the point that it's largely a matter of personal preference and that the only way to determine your personal preference is to try them all.

What I'm about to offer is probably not exhaustive and may be stuff you already know, but ...

Image for Windows (IFW) is a Windows application. If you use it, you can continue to work in Windows while it's running and you don't have to shut down Windows, boot something else to create an image and then probably boot Windows again. For these reasons IFW may well be the most convenient for creating images if you are backing up a disk or partition that you are not using or are willing to trust IFW to correctly back up one that is in use. If those things are not true, then you'd want to use Image for DOS (IFD) or Image for Limux (IFL) to create images.

For restoring, IFW could well be the most convenient if restoring something other than the system in use. If that's not the case, IFD or IFL.

Well, the last statement is not completely true. It's possible to create a TBWINRE or TBWINPE disk that could be used which, I guess, lets you boot that disk and run IFW. I can't talk much about that. I've never created or used one. Since using this would mean I wouldn't be running my normal Windows system, I haven't yet been able to figure out the advantage of creating something that's more involved to create and probably slower to boot just to have a "Windows environment" instead of using IFD or IFL to do restores, but I could well still be missing something here. It took me a long time to switch from using IFD to IFW for doing backups, but now that I have, it's much more convenient.

To me, at this point, the tradeoffs between using IFW, on the one hand, and either IFD or IFL on the other are fairly obvious, but it does still come down to personal preference and level of comfort backing up from a "live" environment.

I'm no expert either, but the tradeoffs between IFD and IFL are much less obvious to me. It seems that in my case, the actual restore process tends to be faster with IFL, but it takes longer to boot IFL than IFD.

There is the point that, as far as I know, IFD is a single application. When it's running, that's all there is. When you boot an IFL disk, you actually have a Linux environment in which IFL is one application and various things can be done if you are familiar with Linux. These things include, I think, running Terabyte's Partition Work and TBIView. Most of these things, I don't know anything about and they are probably not that useful for a Windows user who just wants to restore an image. Then, again, it depends on who you are and what you want to do.

Bob Coleman wrote:
> What I'm about to offer is probably not exhaustive and may be stuff you already know,
> but ...
>
> Image for Windows (IFW) is a Windows application.

<snip>

I guess I'm not making myself clear.

I know what IFW is. I know what IFD is. I know what IFL is.

What I would like clarification on is what is the difference between the NUMEROUS different versions that contain different mixes of different programs.

Ie:

Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-CUI, IFL-CUI, and IFU-CUI
Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-GUI, IFL-GUI, and IFU-CUI
Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-CUI and IFU-CUI
Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-GUI and IFU-CUI
Image for DOS V2.88 (GUI)
Image for DOS V2.88 (CUI)
Image for Linux V2.88 (GUI), (With Networking), (Linux or Windows Users)
Image for Linux V2.88 (GUI), (Without Networking), (Windows Users)
Image for Linux V2.88 (CUI), (With Networking), (Linux or Windows Users)
Image for Linux V2.88 (CUI), (Without Networking), (Windows Users)

Why so many different versions?

Why not combine most of them and boot to a menu to then choose what version to boot/run?

Its just that every time an update comes out and I have to navigate those, it ... bugs me...

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:58:28 PST, tanstaafl wrote:

>Bob Coleman wrote:
>> What I'm about to offer is probably not exhaustive and may be stuff you already know,
>> but ...
>>
>> Image for Windows (IFW) is a Windows application.
>
>
>
>I guess I'm not making myself clear.
>
>I know what IFW is. I know what IFD is. I know what IFL is.
>
>What I would like clarification on is what is the difference between the NUMEROUS different versions that contain different mixes of different programs.
>
>Ie:
>
>Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-CUI, IFL-CUI, and IFU-CUI
>Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-GUI, IFL-GUI, and IFU-CUI
>Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-CUI and IFU-CUI
>Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-GUI and IFU-CUI
>Image for DOS V2.88 (GUI)
>Image for DOS V2.88 (CUI)
>Image for Linux V2.88 (GUI), (With Networking), (Linux or Windows Users)
>Image for Linux V2.88 (GUI), (Without Networking), (Windows Users)
>Image for Linux V2.88 (CUI), (With Networking), (Linux or Windows Users)
>Image for Linux V2.88 (CUI), (Without Networking), (Windows Users)
>
>Why so many different versions?
>
>Why not combine most of them and boot to a menu to then choose what version to boot/run?
>
>Its just that every time an update comes out and I have to navigate those, it ... bugs me...
>
You want to choose one of the above options from a menu every time you
take a backup?

The most common would be the first or second download depending on if you
want the IFD/IFL GUI versions or the IFD/IFL CUI versions.


>Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-CUI, IFL-CUI, and IFU-CUI
Has Image for Windows GUI bundled with the IFD CUI, IFL CUI and IFU CUI
versions.

>Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-GUI, IFL-GUI, and IFU-CUI
Has Image for Windows GUI bundled with the IFD GUI, IFL GUI and IFU CUI
versions.

>Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-CUI and IFU-CUI
Has Image for Windows GUI bundled with the IFD CUI and IFU CUI versions.
(smaller download if you don't use Image for Linux)

>Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-GUI and IFU-CUI
Has Image for Windows GUI bundled with the IFD GUI and IFU CUI versions.
(smaller download if you don't use Image for Linux)

>Image for DOS V2.88 (GUI)
Standalone IFD GUI version

>Image for DOS V2.88 (CUI)
Standalone IFD CUI version

>Image for Linux V2.88 (GUI), (With Networking), (Linux or Windows Users)
Image for Linux GUI version (supports networking)

>Image for Linux V2.88 (GUI), (Without Networking), (Windows Users)
Image for Linux GUI version (without networking - smaller and faster boot if
no network exists or needed)

>Image for Linux V2.88 (CUI), (With Networking), (Linux or Windows Users)
Image for Linux CUI version (supports networking)

>Image for Linux V2.88 (CUI), (Without Networking), (Windows Users)
Image for Linux CUI version (without networking - smaller and faster boot if
no network exists or needed)


"tanstaafl" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

What I would like clarification on is what is the difference between the
NUMEROUS different versions that contain different mixes of different
programs.

Ie:

Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-CUI, IFL-CUI, and IFU-CUI
Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-GUI, IFL-GUI, and IFU-CUI
Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-CUI and IFU-CUI
Image for Windows V2.88 (GUI) with IFD-GUI and IFU-CUI
Image for DOS V2.88 (GUI)
Image for DOS V2.88 (CUI)
Image for Linux V2.88 (GUI), (With Networking), (Linux or Windows Users)
Image for Linux V2.88 (GUI), (Without Networking), (Windows Users)
Image for Linux V2.88 (CUI), (With Networking), (Linux or Windows Users)
Image for Linux V2.88 (CUI), (Without Networking), (Windows Users)

Why so many different versions?

Why not combine most of them and boot to a menu to then choose what version
to boot/run?

Its just that every time an update comes out and I have to navigate those,
it ... bugs me...