Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #182288 > unrolled thread

Convinced me, going to backup first.

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  Convinced me, going to backup first.  micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-02-14 22:27 -0500
    Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-15 03:06 -0500
    Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. "Allan Higdon" <allanh@vivaldi.net> - 2025-02-15 04:51 -0600
      Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-02-15 08:42 -0500
        Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. "Allan Higdon" <allanh@vivaldi.net> - 2025-02-15 10:58 -0600
          Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-02-15 23:34 -0500
            Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-02-15 23:46 -0700
            Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-16 09:21 -0500
              Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-01 18:08 -0400
    Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-02-15 09:14 -0500
      Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-16 11:21 +0000
        Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-02-16 13:45 -0500
          Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 13:14 -0700
            Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-02-16 17:53 -0600
              Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 00:49 -0700
              Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-10 10:33 -0400
                Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-03-10 13:24 -0500
            Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-10 10:38 -0400
          Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 20:54 +1100
            Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-02-18 11:53 -0500
              Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-20 20:04 +1100
                Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-20 09:07 -0500
                  Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 18:25 +1100
                    Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 09:21 -0500
                      Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:06 +0000
                        Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 16:16 -0500
    Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. eternal@notreally.com (Juancho) - 2025-02-16 18:31 +0100
      Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-16 19:51 -0500
      Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-02-17 06:48 -0500
        Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-17 15:06 +0000
          Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-02-17 10:58 -0500
            Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-17 16:38 +0000
        Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 12:49 -0700
          Re: Convinced me, going to backup first. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-02-17 22:05 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#182432

On 19/02/2025 3:53 am, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:54:24 +1100,
> Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>> On 17/02/2025 5:45 am, micky wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on 16 Feb 2025 11:21:56 GMT, Frank
>>> Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/14/2025 10:27 PM, micky wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://knowledgebase.macrium.com/display/KNOW80/Cloning+a+disk#Cloningadisk-0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
says "Important
>>>>>> Windows cannot boot from a USB-connected drive. This is a
>>>>>> restriction imposed by Microsoft. If you clone your system
>>>>>> disk to a USB-connected external drive then, to boot your
>>>>>> clone,  the physical disk must be removed from the USB
>>>>>> caddy and attached internally."  I can't very easily do
>>>>>> that with a laptop, especially with a 5 1/4" drive.  Is
>>>>>> this actually true?    Still true??  The page that says it
>>>>>> was "Last modified by Macrium Software on Dec 05, 2022" Was
>>>>>> it true 2 years ago?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't understand the issue here. Whatever imaging program 
>>>>> you use should be on a CD or USB stick, from which you boot, 
>>>>> writing the image to a non-C:\ partition or disk. So why do
>>>>> you need to boot Windows from a USB caddy?
>>>> 
>>>> micky is mixing up cloning with (image) backup (and restore).
>>>> In his
>>> 
>>> You're right that I still don't understand what it is I would
>>> need to repair things (a clone or a backup?)
>> 
>> As I understand it, micky, a clone is an EXACT COPY OF YOUR DRIVE 
>> (programs, data and blank space) whereas a Backup is just a copy of
>> your Programs and Data.
>> 
>> A Clone of a 4GB drive which contains, say, 1.5GB of Programs and
>> Data would take up 4GB on your Clone drive .... whereas a
>> (Byte-for-Byte) Backup of the same drive would only be 1.5GB.
> 
> I believe the software uwed to insist on clone drives being as big
> as the source drive, but they now permit the destination drive to be
> only as big as the part of the source that has been used.    So in
> your example, if you'd only used 2GB of the 4GB and the destination
> drive was only 2GB big, that would work too.   Indeed, my new laptop
> drive is 1T (with much less used) and the destination drive was only
> 320GB and Macrium did not complain. And if I could install the clone
> drive in place of the original drive, the PC would not complain
> either.
> 
O.K., so your EXPERIENCE is different to my UNDERSTANDING. So be it!!
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182434

On Thu, 2/20/2025 4:04 AM, Daniel70 wrote:

>> I believe the software uwed to insist on clone drives being as big
>> as the source drive, but they now permit the destination drive to be
>> only as big as the part of the source that has been used.    So in
>> your example, if you'd only used 2GB of the 4GB and the destination
>> drive was only 2GB big, that would work too.   Indeed, my new laptop
>> drive is 1T (with much less used) and the destination drive was only
>> 320GB and Macrium did not complain. And if I could install the clone
>> drive in place of the original drive, the PC would not complain
>> either.
>>
> O.K., so your EXPERIENCE is different to my UNDERSTANDING. So be it!!

Cloning was originally done at the sector level, using the "disk dump" dd
utility. Such a utility laughs at details. The developer does not
have to be very clever, to get a result by doing it that way. The clone
copies every flaw.

Later, cloning was done at the cluster/inode level. Only the
busy clusters needed to be copied from one disk to another disk.

As a further refinement, when the user requests that the target
clone be smaller than the source, a combination of "file-by-file"
and "cluster-based" activity makes the clone copy. This allows the
clusters to be packed in, defragmented, and so on. The reserved space
for NTFS, prevents perfect defragmentation from happening.

Those are examples of cloning. Some versions are more magical
than others.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182447

On 21/02/2025 1:07 am, Paul wrote:
> On Thu, 2/20/2025 4:04 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
> 
>>> I believe the software uwed to insist on clone drives being as big
>>> as the source drive, but they now permit the destination drive to be
>>> only as big as the part of the source that has been used.    So in
>>> your example, if you'd only used 2GB of the 4GB and the destination
>>> drive was only 2GB big, that would work too.   Indeed, my new laptop
>>> drive is 1T (with much less used) and the destination drive was only
>>> 320GB and Macrium did not complain. And if I could install the clone
>>> drive in place of the original drive, the PC would not complain
>>> either.
>>>
>> O.K., so your EXPERIENCE is different to my UNDERSTANDING. So be it!!
> 
> Cloning was originally done at the sector level, using the "disk dump" dd
> utility. Such a utility laughs at details. The developer does not
> have to be very clever, to get a result by doing it that way. The clone
> copies every flaw.
> 
> Later, cloning was done at the cluster/inode level. Only the
> busy clusters needed to be copied from one disk to another disk.
> 
> As a further refinement, when the user requests that the target
> clone be smaller than the source, a combination of "file-by-file"
> and "cluster-based" activity makes the clone copy. This allows the
> clusters to be packed in, defragmented, and so on. The reserved space
> for NTFS, prevents perfect defragmentation from happening.
> 
> Those are examples of cloning. Some versions are more magical
> than others.
> 
>     Paul
> 
Wasn't there, at one time, an OS which, when formatting a HD, would put 
some data in the very last sector of the Drive??
-- 
Daniel70

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182452

On Fri, 2/21/2025 2:25 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
> On 21/02/2025 1:07 am, Paul wrote:
>> On Thu, 2/20/2025 4:04 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
>>
>>>> I believe the software uwed to insist on clone drives being as big
>>>> as the source drive, but they now permit the destination drive to be
>>>> only as big as the part of the source that has been used.    So in
>>>> your example, if you'd only used 2GB of the 4GB and the destination
>>>> drive was only 2GB big, that would work too.   Indeed, my new laptop
>>>> drive is 1T (with much less used) and the destination drive was only
>>>> 320GB and Macrium did not complain. And if I could install the clone
>>>> drive in place of the original drive, the PC would not complain
>>>> either.
>>>>
>>> O.K., so your EXPERIENCE is different to my UNDERSTANDING. So be it!!
>>
>> Cloning was originally done at the sector level, using the "disk dump" dd
>> utility. Such a utility laughs at details. The developer does not
>> have to be very clever, to get a result by doing it that way. The clone
>> copies every flaw.
>>
>> Later, cloning was done at the cluster/inode level. Only the
>> busy clusters needed to be copied from one disk to another disk.
>>
>> As a further refinement, when the user requests that the target
>> clone be smaller than the source, a combination of "file-by-file"
>> and "cluster-based" activity makes the clone copy. This allows the
>> clusters to be packed in, defragmented, and so on. The reserved space
>> for NTFS, prevents perfect defragmentation from happening.
>>
>> Those are examples of cloning. Some versions are more magical
>> than others.
>>
>>     Paul
>>
> Wasn't there, at one time, an OS which, when formatting a HD, would put some data in the very last sector of the Drive??

Back when hard drives were soft sectored, and you would do an
LLF to write the sector pattern on the disk, yes, there was
something critical at the end of the LLF process, that if it
didn't happen, the disk drive was bricked. I have no idea
what that is. I don't recollect reading about it anywhere.

We lost one drive back in that era, to a power failure of mains,
while we were doing an LLF on a drive. If the LLF didn't get
to the end, the drive would be lost. The reason we were doing
LLF, was to change the interleave factor from 3 to 1 (had just
received a new/faster controller for the drives).

After a while, the way disk drives operate, it changed. Today
there is *no* LLF process on your hard drive. None at all.
The power goes off, the heads retract safely, the drive
is ready to be detected again later.

I don't remember ever having a UPS in the lab (like, for doing
LLF on drives :-) ). The IT department would have many UPS boxes
in the locked server rooms. My badge couldn't get me into
any of those. My badge also couldn't get me in the lab
protected with a bank vault door. The scientists in that lab,
were real jokers (they were working on GaAs lasers). Nothing in
there needed a bank vault door, but seeing that door said
"don't come in here!" in plain English. Presumably they
had tried a cardboard sign with red letters "don't come in here!"
but that didn't work. Because not all the staff could read :-)
Or so it seemed.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182457

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:21:47 -0500, Paul wrote:


[snip]

> Back when hard drives were soft sectored, and you would do an LLF to
> write the sector pattern on the disk, yes, there was something critical
> at the end of the LLF process, that if it didn't happen, the disk drive
> was bricked. I have no idea what that is. I don't recollect reading
> about it anywhere.

My first hard drive required a LLF. You's run DEBUG and enter something 
like G=C800:000C. I didn't hear about any critical write at the end. If 
there's something critical at the end, how would you be able to start the 
LLF the first time? It can't have been completed before its started.

> We lost one drive back in that era, to a power failure of mains, while
> we were doing an LLF on a drive. If the LLF didn't get to the end, the
> drive would be lost. The reason we were doing LLF, was to change the
> interleave factor from 3 to 1 (had just received a new/faster controller
> for the drives).
> 
> After a while, the way disk drives operate, it changed. Today there is
> *no* LLF process on your hard drive. None at all.
> The power goes off, the heads retract safely, the drive is ready to be
> detected again later.

There must be a LLF, it just has to be done at the factory.

[snip]

-- 
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Error! No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182459

On Fri, 2/21/2025 1:06 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:21:47 -0500, Paul wrote:
> 
> There must be a LLF, it just has to be done at the factory.
> 
> [snip]

It's not in the command set.

Whatever happens at the factory, is "custom". There
are actually multiple ways to do it, and some of the
ways are not documented.

The more interesting cases, would be the Helium drives.

I looked at a takeapart video of a helium drive (10TB)
and a takeapart of an airbreather (6TB), and I don't see
any significant differences. An external servowriter
would have to come in from the side of the drive, and
there's no sign of an external servowriter port on the
helium drive. But there are also no suspicious structures
inside the drive.

When the Helium drive came apart, it seemed to be slightly
above atmospheric pressure. The Helium drive has two covers.
The outer cover is mechanical and protects the inner cover.
The inner cover has an adhesive around the outside of the plate,
that forms the Helioseal. One brand of Helium drive seems to
have a pressure sensor built into the drive, but nobody
knows exactly what the numeric values mean in the SMART
table. The helium contents are only Warranted for five years
or so.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182341

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:27:20 -0500, micky wrote:
> Okay, even though I still don't think I have a lot to lose if something
> goes wrong, Newyana's tactful urging and Paul's nagging have convinced
> me to backup first. 
> 
> Macrium Reflect Free is no longer free, even if you have the last free

I use "Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows FREE", and it is battle tested and
easy to use, not to mention FREE.

https://www.veeam.com/products/free/microsoft-windows.html

Any particular reason to prefer Macrium over Veeam Agent?

-- 
Juancho is in USENET.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182364

On Sun, 2/16/2025 12:31 PM, Juancho wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:27:20 -0500, micky wrote:
>> Okay, even though I still don't think I have a lot to lose if something
>> goes wrong, Newyana's tactful urging and Paul's nagging have convinced
>> me to backup first. 
>>
>> Macrium Reflect Free is no longer free, even if you have the last free
> 
> I use "Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows FREE", and it is battle tested and
> easy to use, not to mention FREE.
> 
> https://www.veeam.com/products/free/microsoft-windows.html
> 
> Any particular reason to prefer Macrium over Veeam Agent?
> 

Use whatever you have *personally* tested and verified.

It's a lot of work to build confidence in one of these products.

To give an example, I was interested in one tool, I did
a Google, and there was a report that someone tried to
clone a FAT32 partition with it and the operation failed.
The most likely explanation when things like that happen,
is the partition likely needed to have a CHKDSK run on it
first. Some products do a degree of verification before the
operation begins And that avoids wasting your time, by getting
half way through an operation, and bombing out.

A certain brand, I've tried their "trial" version for a
couple of things. There's "always a tiny problem". Now,
do I want to hitch my horse to that wagon ? No thanks.
Backup software should not feel like an experiment.

There are a number of free ones, but they're not all the
same, and some seem to have a distinct lack of in-house testing.

Macrium isn't perfect. It can be a new feature that malfunctions.
Something not associated with the core functions of backup/restore/clone.
And, it gets fixed. For example, on the Rescue CD, they added a
screen capture function, so you could take a picture of the screen
when booted from the CD. That didn't work on my copy, but not a problem,
because that's not part of making a backup. That's a toy.

Similarly, Macrium has a couple generations of Rescue CD. The
first generation, was a 20MB Linux method, fairly compact and
didn't require "prep". The second generation is based on WADK
and WinPE, and there is a download and a preparation procedure
to make the ISO for the media. The third generation, uses WinRE
(Reagent thing that Windows itself uses for emergency boot
and is in the System Reserved partition). When that feature was
introduced, my copy grabbed the wrong WinRE file (x32 versus x64 issue),
and while that wasted my time, it wasn't a big deal. But today,
for least trouble, I'd be telling people to use the second
generation WinPE method, because that seems to work, and that
has never let me down. I have six or seven Rescue CDs, made
at various times.

The Macrium product has a PDF manual for each version. It's
around 150 pages perhaps. Some other backup product tried to
top that, with a 500 page PDF manual, but I don't award points
personally, for turning products into "an Iron Man Event". So
while a 500 page manual shows attention to detail, it is unlikely
that every customer reads that from end to end.

Macrium has a learning curve. Noobs don't particularly like it.
It took me a while to "absorb the ambience". For the longest while,
I missed the button that promises to back up the whole computer.
The interface is fairly busy looking, but the materials presented
have their value, and it takes some getting used to.

I liked a certain Acronis product, one where they had just finished
revamping their story board, and the flow was very logical and not
a lot of clicks. But when Acronis decided to make a "suite" out
of their crap, and make a rental AV product out of their
backup software, I stopped suggesting that to people as an option.
That's just too silly for words. Acronis TrueImage would have been
good enough for most people, buy once and use, no need for
any sort of rental thang.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182371

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:31:25 +0100,
eternal@notreally.com (Juancho) wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:27:20 -0500, micky wrote:
>> Okay, even though I still don't think I have a lot to lose if something
>> goes wrong, Newyana's tactful urging and Paul's nagging have convinced
>> me to backup first. 
>> 
>> Macrium Reflect Free is no longer free, even if you have the last free
>
>I use "Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows FREE", and it is battle tested and
>easy to use, not to mention FREE.
>
>https://www.veeam.com/products/free/microsoft-windows.html
>
>Any particular reason to prefer Macrium over Veeam Agent?

Only that I'd used Macrium and had never heard of Veeam until you list
it here. 

In fact, years ago, I found using Macrium confusing for quite some time,
and looked for something else this week.  I liked Minitools, the
partitiion manager that I'd used before, and dl'd and installed their
backup software, but it was confusing too.  Easeus recommended DiskCopy
and Todo, and only one was free and I couldn't tell from their blurb if
it would do what I wanted, as simple as that was. 

So back to Macrium.   Which I had to install on the new computer and as
I say in another thread insisted on registration and said it would send
me a link to a code, and the email came, with a link, but the link had
no code, only mention of Trial Version, good for a week or maybe 30 days
(with a monthly charge after that!!).  Others here say it doesn't insist
on registration, but I remember it doing so, a specific message which
only appeared after I clicked Next, that said roughly, Either register
or cancel.   But others here say no, so try it and let us know if you
could install it without giving a code (or an email address probably). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182379

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
[...]
> So back to Macrium.   Which I had to install on the new computer and as
> I say in another thread insisted on registration and said it would send
> me a link to a code, and the email came, with a link, but the link had
> no code, only mention of Trial Version, good for a week or maybe 30 days
> (with a monthly charge after that!!).  Others here say it doesn't insist
> on registration, but I remember it doing so, a specific message which
> only appeared after I clicked Next, that said roughly, Either register
> or cancel.   But others here say no, so try it and let us know if you
> could install it without giving a code (or an email address probably). 

  Paul not only decribed, but also *proved*, complete with umpteen
screenshots, that you can install and use the free version without
registration. Others posted similar information.

  So please stop posting your FUD/urban_legends over and over and start
reading!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182384

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on 17 Feb 2025 15:06:21 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> So back to Macrium.   Which I had to install on the new computer and as
>> I say in another thread insisted on registration and said it would send
>> me a link to a code, and the email came, with a link, but the link had
>> no code, only mention of Trial Version, good for a week or maybe 30 days
>> (with a monthly charge after that!!).  Others here say it doesn't insist
>> on registration, but I remember it doing so, a specific message which
>> only appeared after I clicked Next, that said roughly, Either register
>> or cancel.   But others here say no, so try it and let us know if you
>> could install it without giving a code (or an email address probably). 
>
>  Paul not only decribed, but also *proved*, complete with umpteen
>screenshots, that you can install and use the free version without
>registration. Others posted similar information.

I couldn't come up with a suitable rpely to Paul, but he didh't prove it
to me.   If I had taken pictures, it would have shown the opposite. 

>  So please stop posting your FUD/urban_legends over and over and start
>reading!

I red all the posts.  They don't change what I saw first-hand. 

I told Juancho, the person I was replying to, that others disagreed with
me and urged him to try Macrium. I think that was fair.  He asked me why
one should prefer Macrium and I don't think it would be right to tell
him only the good part of what happened.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182390

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on 17 Feb 2025 15:06:21 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> So back to Macrium.   Which I had to install on the new computer and as
> >> I say in another thread insisted on registration and said it would send
> >> me a link to a code, and the email came, with a link, but the link had
> >> no code, only mention of Trial Version, good for a week or maybe 30 days
> >> (with a monthly charge after that!!).  Others here say it doesn't insist
> >> on registration, but I remember it doing so, a specific message which
> >> only appeared after I clicked Next, that said roughly, Either register
> >> or cancel.   But others here say no, so try it and let us know if you
> >> could install it without giving a code (or an email address probably). 
> >
> >  Paul not only decribed, but also *proved*, complete with umpteen
> >screenshots, that you can install and use the free version without
> >registration. Others posted similar information.
> 
> I couldn't come up with a suitable rpely to Paul, but he didh't prove it
> to me.   If I had taken pictures, it would have shown the opposite. 

  No it wouldn't. Read on.

> >  So please stop posting your FUD/urban_legends over and over and start
> >reading!
> 
> I red all the posts.  They don't change what I saw first-hand. 

  What you *think*/*thought* you saw! Paul even explained where you made
your mistake. There is a place where you *can* enter an e-mail address to
register a *non-Free* version, but since the 'License key' is already
filled in for the *Free* version, you should/need *not* enter an e-mail
address.

  That you were confused and made a mistake, is of course perfectly OK/
understandable, but continuing to spread FUD/urban_legends in the face
of *evidence* to the contrary, is not OK.

> I told Juancho, the person I was replying to, that others disagreed with
> me and urged him to try Macrium. I think that was fair.  He asked me why
> one should prefer Macrium and I don't think it would be right to tell
> him only the good part of what happened.  

  So Juancho should do your work for you, instead of you (re-)trying
yourself or just reading and accepting the evidence/information provided
by several people!?

  Anyway, see Paul's screenshots for what is *actually* happening if you
install the *Free* version for *Personal* use:

Message-ID: <voss9e$kl0g$1@dont-email.me>

(in this thread)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182395

micky wrote on 2/17/2025 4:48 AM:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:31:25 +0100,
> eternal@notreally.com (Juancho) wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 22:27:20 -0500, micky wrote:
>>> Okay, even though I still don't think I have a lot to lose if something
>>> goes wrong, Newyana's tactful urging and Paul's nagging have convinced
>>> me to backup first.
>>>
>>> Macrium Reflect Free is no longer free, even if you have the last free
>>
>> I use "Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows FREE", and it is battle tested and
>> easy to use, not to mention FREE.
>>
>> https://www.veeam.com/products/free/microsoft-windows.html
>>
>> Any particular reason to prefer Macrium over Veeam Agent?
> 
> Only that I'd used Macrium and had never heard of Veeam until you list
> it here.
> 
> In fact, years ago, I found using Macrium confusing for quite some time,
> and looked for something else this week.  I liked Minitools, the
> partitiion manager that I'd used before, and dl'd and installed their
> backup software, but it was confusing too.  Easeus recommended DiskCopy
> and Todo, and only one was free and I couldn't tell from their blurb if
> it would do what I wanted, as simple as that was.
> 
> So back to Macrium.   Which I had to install on the new computer and as
> I say in another thread insisted on registration and said it would send
> me a link to a code, and the email came, with a link, but the link had
> no code, only mention of Trial Version, good for a week or maybe 30 days
> (with a monthly charge after that!!).  Others here say it doesn't insist
> on registration, but I remember it doing so, a specific message which
> only appeared after I clicked Next, that said roughly, Either register
> or cancel.   But others here say no, so try it and let us know if you
> could install it without giving a code (or an email address probably).
> 

Missing the reason.
  The method you used that requested a link via email was unnecessary 
when running the installer bits for Version 8.0.7783 or earlier.

No registration is required, no link need be recieved.

You can clear up your confusion by uninstalling MR, reinstalling the free 
version(8.0.7783 or earlier) and follow the exact same steps that 
multiple persons have referenced or supplied.



-- 
...w¡ñ§±¤ñ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182399

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:49:37 -0700,
...w¡ñ§±¤ñ  <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:

.....
>Missing the reason.
>  The method you used that requested a link via email was unnecessary 
>when running the installer bits for Version 8.0.7783 or earlier.
>
>No registration is required, no link need be recieved.
>
>You can clear up your confusion by uninstalling MR, reinstalling the free 

I had some trouble installing it and as I said before, I don't want to
uninstall it. 

>version(8.0.7783 or earlier) and follow the exact same steps that 
>multiple persons have referenced or supplied.

And I don't want to argue anymore, with you or Frank. 

You can have the last words on this. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web