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: Zeuspaul who wrote (5232)	1/18/1999 3:27:00 PM
From: Dave Hanson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14778

"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." Yes, exactly--you are right, and this a fair rep of my view. The balance of this post is well thought out too. Apologies if my earlier post seemed to contradict this--I may have missed something. I like backups in the form of compacted drive images much better than I do hidden partitions. The latter take more space, can't easily be archieved to other media like CD-R or cartridges, and risk being corrupted by operations that don't play nice with hidden partitions or tamper with drive letters (and I'd be more specific, but can't recall offhand what's worrying me here.) For these reasons, I'd put a FAT partition on the second drive (myself.) "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?" Agree 100%. (Am I contradicting Spots here?) "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." Again, I agree heartily. If I recall correctly, these were among the kinds of reasons I championed DI early-mid last year, before Sean and others joined us. Then again, this may be self-serving recollection, as your analysis is right on. ;) Feel free to follow up if questions linger or I've offered seemingly conflicting views.