Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Hanson who wrote (5224)	1/17/1999 11:55:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

If each of the drives is capable of a restore, I guess I missed something. How does one restore the KOT? My understanding is that at minimum it will require a second FAT partition. IMO, Clarence's position of keeping the restore option on a drive other than the one to be restored makes sense. It protects against drive failure as well as OS failure. My position is to at least have one restore option somewhere. My preference is to have it on an alternate drive. I understood Spots to indicate that no restore option was necessary. No need to answer now. Zeuspaul

To: Dave Hanson who wrote (5224)	1/18/1999 1:52:00 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

But in Clarence's and ZP's case (lots of use of Win 9x) you'll want to retain more FAT. FWIW I am the Win95 guy, not a supporter, it is just what I use now..that will probably change when NT5 comes out. Clarence's machine is designed around NT. The only reason Win98 was installed was to provide a methodology to service NT. Spots had indicated that some things could not be done from NT and that some type of a DOS boot was necessary. The second drive was chosen for the DOS boot and Win98 the vehicle. I do not know anything about the best way to service an NT installation. I have had good luck preserving and restoring systems I do not understand. Some systems I could not recreate from scratch if I tried. My position is a restore option is a powerful tool. I believe it is especially valuable to someone who does not have developed skills. It does not mean that someone should not develop skills. I believe, as you have indicated, that a system design should include the elements of a quick restore. Naturally there is a lot of room here for personal preferences. The limitations of Drive Image and its strengths do seem to be a determining factor to some extent. I lack an understanding of Drive Image and its limitations in NT. The way I understand the restore options is 1. To create a Drive Image of NT Clarence would boot to the utility drive, execute Drive Image and then select NT as the source and the utility drive as the destination. 2. To restore the NT drive Clarence would boot to the utility drive, execute Drive Image and then restore the Drive Image file to the NT drive. 3. To create a Drive Image of the utility drive in Clarence's current set up is done how? His only option (without resorting to floppies) is to boot the utility drive and execute Drive Image. Can he select the FAT32 (soon to be FAT16) partition as the source and the primary NTFS (the only other partition) as the destination for the KOT image? 4. To restore the utility drive ..(assuming the above ie it can be created on the NTFS partition ) I do not think there is a current option. My understanding is the Drive Image file must reside in a FAT or FAT32 partition if it is to be restored? IMO this highlights the limitations of Drive Image. Later releases of Drive Image will alter the way we look at the possibilities. That is the way I have understand your view. My understanding is that if Clarence had an extended FAT partition on either drive he could store and retrieve a Drive Image file ..end result being the ability to restore the utility drive. I believe this scenario can exist in Spots' proposal if Clarence creates an extended FAT partition on the Utility drive. In all likelihood this would work for most failures...the reason being that most failures are OS/configuration failures. Drive failures are more rare. There are a couple of drawbacks to this approach IMO. 1. It does not protect against drive failure. 2. It requires booting from floppies. Hanging your hat on floppies is a last resort IMO. It is a good alternative and one should maintain the capability if the alternative fails. If the capability exists (with equal or less impact to Spot's proposal)to restore without resorting to floppies and to protect against single drive failure why not take advantage of it? If Partition Magic presents an opportunity that Drive Image does not why not use it until Drive Image catches up? If Partition Magic can give a restore option on the alternate drive from the NT boot why should it not be used? If Drive Image gains that capability I believe it will become the default procedure. IMO it makes the most sense to execute the option from your primary working environment if it makes sense to do so. Partition Magic is an NT executable. If Clarence were to install PM on the NT drive he could execute it and create a clone of the utility drive from NT and on the NT physical drive. The clone could reside on the NT drive in a hidden partition. It may or may not affect drive letters. I do not know how NT handles hidden partitions. NT does assign drive letters to FAT32 partitions on second drives as Clarence found out. I believe the restore issue should be addressed now. Waiting to come up with a restore will create complications. If one has to create new partitions drive letters will change. If drive letters change some software will not work if it makes incorrect calls. Also failures do occur. Why not have a restore option? Why should the only option be to reinstall? I am not arguing against reinstalling and the knowledge one gains by revisiting previous issues. Sometimes it can take a long time to do so. I am arguing for an option to restore and to create the option before one starts installing software. I believe a restore option should be contemplated for most users...one harddrive or two. I think it should be one of the first things done. If a new user buys a new machine with a load of canned software why not develop a restore option? Why wait? If you screw it up day one it is easy to fix, The manufacturer's disk will put you back where you were quickly. The time to learn is before one invests time in developing a software load. Zeuspaul