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

Groups > comp.sys.laptops > #540 > unrolled thread

Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.laptops

Contents

  Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "ghelf" <ghelf@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> - 2011-08-15 14:24 -0700
    Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 22:55 +0100
      Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "~misfit~" <sore_n_happy@nospamyahoo.com.au> - 2011-08-16 12:16 +1200
        Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "ghelf" <ghelf@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> - 2011-08-15 20:35 -0700
      Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "ghelf" <ghelf@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> - 2011-08-15 20:47 -0700
        Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 19:40 +0100
          Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-08-16 13:49 -0500
          Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? Tazz <dmswaine@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 16:22 -0300
            Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-08-16 15:33 -0500
              Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 06:57 -0500
    Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? AJL <2579843445nomail@none.com> - 2011-08-15 16:21 -0700
      Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "ghelf" <ghelf@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> - 2011-08-15 20:11 -0700
        Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? AJL <1245nomail@none.com> - 2011-08-15 23:21 -0700
          Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "ghelf" <ghelf@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> - 2011-08-16 13:39 -0700
            Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-08-16 16:30 -0500
              Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-08-16 16:35 -0500
              Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> - 2011-08-16 22:55 +0100
                Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-08-18 06:40 -0500
              Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "ghelf" <ghelf@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> - 2011-08-18 19:17 -0700
                Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-08-19 18:05 -0500
            Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? AJL <1245nomail@none.com> - 2011-08-16 16:47 -0700
              Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-08-18 06:04 -0500
                Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? AJL <2579843445nomail@none.com> - 2011-08-18 17:23 -0700
                  Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-08-19 18:34 -0500
                    Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? AJL <2579843445nomail@none.com> - 2011-08-19 21:26 -0700
                      Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-08-20 11:03 -0500
    Re: Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition? wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2011-08-16 02:04 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#540 — Anybody have any success installing software applications to a separate partition?

Many people agree that keeping your data files on a partition other than C: 
is a wise move.
I was thinking keeping program files on separate partition would also have 
benefits but the feedback I get is that software applications want & expect 
to be placed in the same partition as the OS.
Some Windows 7 people have said they were able to do this.
Anybody got ideas on this? 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#541

On 15/08/2011 22:24, ghelf wrote:
> Many people agree that keeping your data files on a partition other than
> C: is a wise move.
> I was thinking keeping program files on separate partition would also
> have benefits but the feedback I get is that software applications want
> & expect to be placed in the same partition as the OS.
> Some Windows 7 people have said they were able to do this.
> Anybody got ideas on this?

No problem whatsoever. I've done it with Windows 95/98, XP and 7.

Most decent applications - certainly if you do a custom install rather 
than accepting all the defaults - allow you to specify where to install 
them. So you partition your disk and create (say) an E: drive and then 
create a 'Program Files' folder on that drive. Then, when you install an 
application, you specify the location as E:\Program Files.

Bear in mind though that all the Registry entries for the application 
will still be on the C:\ drive - as will things like .ini files and 
other configuration information - so backing up your E: drive doesn't 
necessarily make it any easier to get up and running again if your hard 
disk fails.
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom 
checked.

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

#545

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Roger Mills wrote:
> On 15/08/2011 22:24, ghelf wrote:
>> Many people agree that keeping your data files on a partition other
>> than C: is a wise move.
>> I was thinking keeping program files on separate partition would also
>> have benefits but the feedback I get is that software applications
>> want & expect to be placed in the same partition as the OS.
>> Some Windows 7 people have said they were able to do this.
>> Anybody got ideas on this?
>
> No problem whatsoever. I've done it with Windows 95/98, XP and 7.
>
> Most decent applications - certainly if you do a custom install rather
> than accepting all the defaults - allow you to specify where to
> install them. So you partition your disk and create (say) an E: drive
> and then create a 'Program Files' folder on that drive. Then, when
> you install an application, you specify the location as E:\Program
> Files.
> Bear in mind though that all the Registry entries for the application
> will still be on the C:\ drive - as will things like .ini files and
> other configuration information - so backing up your E: drive doesn't
> necessarily make it any easier to get up and running again if your
> hard disk fails.

Exactly. Which is why I stopped having three partitions as the norm on my 
machines last year and now have reverted to two. A single partition for OS 
*and* programmes and a (larger) partition for data. I point Window's '[My] 
Documents' to a documents folder on the data partition and I also store 
Acronis images of the boot partition on the data partition (and restore them 
from there fine).

Of course I also copy the Acronis images (and data) to an external drive (or 
two) for redundancy. After all, they may be two seperate partitions but 
they're both on one physical disc and subject to the same potential failure.
-- 
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a 
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) 

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

#551

> I also store
> Acronis images of the boot partition on the data partition (and restore 
> them from there fine).
>
 Instead of storing those large image files in with your data, why don't you 
use the Acronis Secure Zone. It creates an invisible partition that can only 
be accessed through the Acronis program or by booting from your Acronis 
Emergency Boot disk (CD). 

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

#552

> No problem whatsoever. I've done it with Windows 95/98, XP and 7.
>
> Most decent applications - certainly if you do a custom install rather 
> than accepting all the defaults - allow you to specify where to install 
> them. So you partition your disk and create (say) an E: drive and then 
> create a 'Program Files' folder on that drive. Then, when you install an 
> application, you specify the location as E:\Program Files.
>
Just curious why did you decide to keep the programs on a separate 
partition? 

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

#561

On 16/08/2011 04:47, ghelf wrote:
>
>> No problem whatsoever. I've done it with Windows 95/98, XP and 7.
>>
>> Most decent applications - certainly if you do a custom install rather
>> than accepting all the defaults - allow you to specify where to
>> install them. So you partition your disk and create (say) an E: drive
>> and then create a 'Program Files' folder on that drive. Then, when you
>> install an application, you specify the location as E:\Program Files.
>>
> Just curious why did you decide to keep the programs on a separate
> partition?

It seemed like a good idea at the time - to separate the data from the 
programs from the OS. It meant that the programs could be backed up 
'live' by copying to an external device - reducing the amount of the 
stuff on the system drive to be backed up as a Ghost image with the 
system shut down. But, as per my previous post, you still end up with a 
lot of application-related stuff on the system drive, so the advantages 
are not all that great.
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom 
checked.

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

#562

In news:9avrqdF8o7U1@mid.individual.net,
Roger Mills wrote:
> On 16/08/2011 04:47, ghelf wrote:
>>
>>> No problem whatsoever. I've done it with Windows 95/98, XP and 7.
>>>
>>> Most decent applications - certainly if you do a custom install
>>> rather than accepting all the defaults - allow you to specify where
>>> to install them. So you partition your disk and create (say) an E:
>>> drive and then create a 'Program Files' folder on that drive. Then,
>>> when you install an application, you specify the location as
>>> E:\Program Files.
>> Just curious why did you decide to keep the programs on a separate
>> partition?
>
> It seemed like a good idea at the time - to separate the data from the
> programs from the OS. It meant that the programs could be backed up
> 'live' by copying to an external device - reducing the amount of the
> stuff on the system drive to be backed up as a Ghost image with the
> system shut down. But, as per my previous post, you still end up with
> a lot of application-related stuff on the system drive, so the
> advantages are not all that great.

I too used to think the exact same way at one time. But storage is so 
cheap nowadays and it just doesn't matter anymore.

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 

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

#563

On 16/08/2011 3:40 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
> On 16/08/2011 04:47, ghelf wrote:
>>
>>> No problem whatsoever. I've done it with Windows 95/98, XP and 7.
>>>
>>> Most decent applications - certainly if you do a custom install rather
>>> than accepting all the defaults - allow you to specify where to
>>> install them. So you partition your disk and create (say) an E: drive
>>> and then create a 'Program Files' folder on that drive. Then, when you
>>> install an application, you specify the location as E:\Program Files.
>>>
>> Just curious why did you decide to keep the programs on a separate
>> partition?
>
> It seemed like a good idea at the time - to separate the data from the
> programs from the OS. It meant that the programs could be backed up
> 'live' by copying to an external device - reducing the amount of the
> stuff on the system drive to be backed up as a Ghost image with the
> system shut down. But, as per my previous post, you still end up with a
> lot of application-related stuff on the system drive, so the advantages
> are not all that great.

I install all of my games on a separate partition from the OS. It keeps 
the system drive a lot smaller, some of the games are > 7GB. The best 
part is if you reformat and reinstall Windows the newer games will 
'know' it's already up to date and you won't have to re-download the 
game updates. The installer will just install the stuff that's missing 
back to the system drive.

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

#564

In news:4e4ac344$0$8224$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net,
Tazz wrote:
> On 16/08/2011 3:40 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
>> On 16/08/2011 04:47, ghelf wrote:
>>>
>>>> No problem whatsoever. I've done it with Windows 95/98, XP and 7.
>>>>
>>>> Most decent applications - certainly if you do a custom install
>>>> rather than accepting all the defaults - allow you to specify
>>>> where to install them. So you partition your disk and create (say)
>>>> an E: drive and then create a 'Program Files' folder on that
>>>> drive. Then, when you install an application, you specify the
>>>> location as E:\Program Files.
>>> Just curious why did you decide to keep the programs on a separate
>>> partition?
>>
>> It seemed like a good idea at the time - to separate the data from
>> the programs from the OS. It meant that the programs could be backed
>> up 'live' by copying to an external device - reducing the amount of
>> the stuff on the system drive to be backed up as a Ghost image with
>> the system shut down. But, as per my previous post, you still end up
>> with a lot of application-related stuff on the system drive, so the
>> advantages are not all that great.
>
> I install all of my games on a separate partition from the OS. It
> keeps the system drive a lot smaller, some of the games are > 7GB.
> The best part is if you reformat and reinstall Windows the newer
> games will 'know' it's already up to date and you won't have to
> re-download the game updates. The installer will just install the
> stuff that's missing back to the system drive.

My X-Plane v9 is 60GB in size. I used to care years ago which partition 
it was installed on. But not anymore. Years ago there were so many 
barriers that we had to create partitions for. Going from memory, I 
think they went like this: 32MB, 512MB, 2GB, 32GB, 128GB, and now 2TB 
barrier. And nowadays, there are very few barriers to force us to 
partition.

And the one thing I always hated about partitions is I was always 
adjusting their sizes. Some people told me they never had to do that, 
but I did. Maybe I keep computers longer than most, I dunno.

Lots of people like partitions because they can backup one partition at 
a time. Sounds nice on the surface and all. But restoring one partition 
from one period of time with another can cause lots of weird problems. 
So it is better to backup everything in one shot and the problems 
disappear. But to make the problems disappear all at once... well it is 
better to store everything in Drive C in this case. So what's the point?

It is true, there are installs, music, movies, etc. that I don't store 
on Drive C. Most of these are rarely used and I store them on external 
hard drives. But that is about as far as it goes nowadays. But these are 
not partitions, but separate independent drives.

It is funny how I have evolved over the decades. First, I only backed up 
data and nothing else. As I had the OS install disks and the 
applications if I had to reinstall them once again.

And when storage got cheaper, I achieved whole partitions. Although 
mixing one partition with another from another date became a problem.

Later I backed up everything in one shot. This solved the mismatch in 
partition dates. It got better when I moved everything to drive C.

I gave up on backing up. Since to make sure they work, you have to 
backup and then restore. Sometimes they didn't work. That is bad! So 
nowadays I just clone the whole Drive C without partitions. That happens 
in one shot and none of this backing up and restoring. And I run the 
cloned copy of the drive to make sure everything works perfectly. The 
original is now my backup and we know that one works perfectly.

And I have five hard drives that I rotate. And if one of them fails, no 
big deal as I have four other copies ready to go. And not only if a hard 
drive ever fails, I have backup laptops too. Like I have six of these 
Gateway M465. As one of these fails for whatever reason, no big deal. 
Two screws and pull the hard drive and stick it in another one and it 
works just fine.

I don't know, this seems to be the best of the best so far. ;-)

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 

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

#602

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:33:28 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>In news:4e4ac344$0$8224$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net,
>Tazz wrote:
>> On 16/08/2011 3:40 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
>>> On 16/08/2011 04:47, ghelf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No problem whatsoever. I've done it with Windows 95/98, XP and 7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most decent applications - certainly if you do a custom install
>>>>> rather than accepting all the defaults - allow you to specify
>>>>> where to install them. So you partition your disk and create (say)
>>>>> an E: drive and then create a 'Program Files' folder on that
>>>>> drive. Then, when you install an application, you specify the
>>>>> location as E:\Program Files.
>>>> Just curious why did you decide to keep the programs on a separate
>>>> partition?
>>>
>>> It seemed like a good idea at the time - to separate the data from
>>> the programs from the OS. It meant that the programs could be backed
>>> up 'live' by copying to an external device - reducing the amount of
>>> the stuff on the system drive to be backed up as a Ghost image with
>>> the system shut down. But, as per my previous post, you still end up
>>> with a lot of application-related stuff on the system drive, so the
>>> advantages are not all that great.
>>
>> I install all of my games on a separate partition from the OS. It
>> keeps the system drive a lot smaller, some of the games are > 7GB.
>> The best part is if you reformat and reinstall Windows the newer
>> games will 'know' it's already up to date and you won't have to
>> re-download the game updates. The installer will just install the
>> stuff that's missing back to the system drive.
>
>My X-Plane v9 is 60GB in size. I used to care years ago which partition 
>it was installed on. But not anymore. Years ago there were so many 
>barriers that we had to create partitions for. Going from memory, I 
>think they went like this: 32MB, 512MB, 2GB, 32GB, 128GB, and now 2TB 
>barrier. And nowadays, there are very few barriers to force us to 
>partition.
>
>And the one thing I always hated about partitions is I was always 
>adjusting their sizes. Some people told me they never had to do that, 
>but I did. Maybe I keep computers longer than most, I dunno.
>
>Lots of people like partitions because they can backup one partition at 
>a time. Sounds nice on the surface and all. But restoring one partition 
>from one period of time with another can cause lots of weird problems. 
>So it is better to backup everything in one shot and the problems 
>disappear. But to make the problems disappear all at once... well it is 
>better to store everything in Drive C in this case. So what's the point?
>
>It is true, there are installs, music, movies, etc. that I don't store 
>on Drive C. Most of these are rarely used and I store them on external 
>hard drives. But that is about as far as it goes nowadays. But these are 
>not partitions, but separate independent drives.
>
>It is funny how I have evolved over the decades. First, I only backed up 
>data and nothing else. As I had the OS install disks and the 
>applications if I had to reinstall them once again.
>
>And when storage got cheaper, I achieved whole partitions. Although 
>mixing one partition with another from another date became a problem.
>
>Later I backed up everything in one shot. This solved the mismatch in 
>partition dates. It got better when I moved everything to drive C.
>
>I gave up on backing up. Since to make sure they work, you have to 
>backup and then restore. Sometimes they didn't work. That is bad! So 
>nowadays I just clone the whole Drive C without partitions. That happens 
>in one shot and none of this backing up and restoring. And I run the 
>cloned copy of the drive to make sure everything works perfectly. The 
>original is now my backup and we know that one works perfectly.
>
>And I have five hard drives that I rotate. And if one of them fails, no 
>big deal as I have four other copies ready to go. And not only if a hard 
>drive ever fails, I have backup laptops too. Like I have six of these 
>Gateway M465. As one of these fails for whatever reason, no big deal. 
>Two screws and pull the hard drive and stick it in another one and it 
>works just fine.
>
>I don't know, this seems to be the best of the best so far. ;-)


I still like the idea of separate partitions but I agree it's not
quite that simple.   Even when I tried to be diligent about it, some
programs still write to the C drive... other times I just forgot.   So
I guess what I'm saying is I like the idea in theory but in practice,
doesn't always work as planned.

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

#544

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:24:32 -0700, "ghelf"
<ghelf@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> wrote:

>Many people agree that keeping your data files on a partition other than C: 
>is a wise move.

To what advantage? If it's for a backup, then it's not so wise since a
hard drive failure would likely do you in.

>I was thinking keeping program files on separate partition would also have 
>benefits but the feedback I get is that software applications want & expect 
>to be placed in the same partition as the OS.

Some apps will let you, some won't. Depends on the app. Try it with
the ones you want to use.

>Some Windows 7 people have said they were able to do this.
>Anybody got ideas on this? 

Some of my netbooks came with 2 partitions so I used the second one
for storing pictures, music, ect. but IMO it was a royal pain. IMO you
would be better off to keep your important data backed up on an
external device (or two)...

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

#550

"AJL" <2579843445nomail@none.com> wrote in message 
news:e0aj47h27iodqup094lecrcvkn4fbu8ovp@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:24:32 -0700, "ghelf"
> <ghelf@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> wrote:
>
>>Many people agree that keeping your data files on a partition other than 
>>C:
>>is a wise move.
>
> To what advantage? If it's for a backup, then it's not so wise since a
> hard drive failure would likely do you in.
>
Hard drives can either fail mechanically or by file corruption. If you get 
the clicking sound then you are right, you will not retrieve info from any 
of the partitions. However, many times just c: drive is corrupted. It is 
accessed the most and perhaps the head made contact with the disk. You can 
pull the HD and connect it as a slave on another machine and retrieve info 
on the other partitions. I have done this and sucessfully retrieved 
important info.

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

#553

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:11:32 -0700, "ghelf"
<ghelf@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> wrote:

>"AJL" <2579843445nomail@none.com> wrote in message 
>news:e0aj47h27iodqup094lecrcvkn4fbu8ovp@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:24:32 -0700, "ghelf"
>> <ghelf@sbcglobalDeathToSpam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Many people agree that keeping your data files on a partition other than 
>>>C:
>>>is a wise move.
>>
>> To what advantage? If it's for a backup, then it's not so wise since a
>> hard drive failure would likely do you in.
>>
>Hard drives can either fail mechanically or by file corruption. If you get 
>the clicking sound then you are right, you will not retrieve info from any 
>of the partitions. However, many times just c: drive is corrupted. It is 
>accessed the most and perhaps the head made contact with the disk. You can 
>pull the HD and connect it as a slave on another machine and retrieve info 
>on the other partitions. I have done this and sucessfully retrieved 
>important info.

Assuming the other partitions are still readable wouldn't it be easier
to run a live Linux CD and remove the data that way? My grandkid (a
gamer) had his W7 (Acer laptop) so corrupted that it froze in bootup
and wouldn't repair itself. I used a live Linux CD to get his files
off before restoring it with the hidden partition. The laptop was
still under warranty so removing the hard drive was out.

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

#565

> Assuming the other partitions are still readable wouldn't it be easier
> to run a live Linux CD and remove the data that way? My grandkid (a
> gamer) had his W7 (Acer laptop) so corrupted that it froze in bootup
> and wouldn't repair itself. I used a live Linux CD to get his files
> off before restoring it with the hidden partition. The laptop was
> still under warranty so removing the hard drive was out.

Yes I suppose that also would be an option. I use Acronis Home to image my 
HD. As part of the installation they have you create a bootable recovery 
disk (CD). When you boot using this disk it load a Linux OS and I believe 
you probably could get at your D: & E: drives to retrieve files without 
going through a slave setup. I'm not sure what the "live Linux CD" is that 
you are referring to. 

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

#566

In news:jrednZdagL_5SNfTnZ2dnUVZ5sudnZ2d@giganews.com,
ghelf wrote:
>> Assuming the other partitions are still readable wouldn't it be
>> easier to run a live Linux CD and remove the data that way? My
>> grandkid (a gamer) had his W7 (Acer laptop) so corrupted that it
>> froze in bootup and wouldn't repair itself. I used a live Linux CD
>> to get his files off before restoring it with the hidden partition.
>> The laptop was still under warranty so removing the hard drive was
>> out.
>
> Yes I suppose that also would be an option. I use Acronis Home to
> image my HD. As part of the installation they have you create a
> bootable recovery disk (CD). When you boot using this disk it load a
> Linux OS and I believe you probably could get at your D: & E: drives
> to retrieve files without going through a slave setup. I'm not sure
> what the "live Linux CD" is that you are referring to.

Oh man, Acronis! Once I thought this program was great and once posted 
pages of problems with it. I used the free WD and Seagate versions and 
2009 and 2011 versions. And one problem keeps popping up with all of 
them.

Have you actually tried to restore from an USB drive yet? Acronis has no 
problems backing up to any USB drive. It does this perfectly. But where 
it has problems is restoring. Some it can never see at all. Some it can 
see on a good day. And some it can always see. This drove me to my wits 
end.

I could see if other programs had the same problem that it is probably 
not Acronis fault. BUT IT IS ONLY ACRONIS THAT HAS THIS PROBLEM! Acronis 
answer is to not use an USB drive to restore. What a load of crap if you 
ask me. Why the hell should I partition my laptop hard drive just to 
whole the backup? Then the stupid hard drive fails? Is Acronis really 
that stupid? It appears so!

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 

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

#567

In news:j2enik$pgm$1@dont-email.me,
BillW50 wrote:
> drive just to whole the backup?

Yeah sorry... "*hold* the backup?"

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 

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

#568

On 16/08/2011 22:30, BillW50 wrote:

>
> Oh man, Acronis! Once I thought this program was great and once posted
> pages of problems with it. I used the free WD and Seagate versions and
> 2009 and 2011 versions. And one problem keeps popping up with all of
> them.
>
> Have you actually tried to restore from an USB drive yet? Acronis has no
> problems backing up to any USB drive. It does this perfectly. But where
> it has problems is restoring. Some it can never see at all. Some it can
> see on a good day. And some it can always see. This drove me to my wits
> end.
>
> I could see if other programs had the same problem that it is probably
> not Acronis fault. BUT IT IS ONLY ACRONIS THAT HAS THIS PROBLEM! Acronis
> answer is to not use an USB drive to restore. What a load of crap if you
> ask me. Why the hell should I partition my laptop hard drive just to
> whole the backup? Then the stupid hard drive fails? Is Acronis really
> that stupid? It appears so!
>

So what drive/partition imaging software would you recommend?

I can't make Ghost2003 work properly with a USB2-connected external hard 
drive - so have to back up my system partition to my data partition on 
the same hard drive - and then copy the Ghost files to the external 
drive later. That means that, in the event of a disaster, I have to have 
a working system to be able to copy the backup back to the data 
partition before I can use it to create a working system! UGH!
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom 
checked.

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

#575

In news:9b0784F2d4U1@mid.individual.net,
Roger Mills wrote:
> On 16/08/2011 22:30, BillW50 wrote:
>
>> Oh man, Acronis! Once I thought this program was great and once
>> posted pages of problems with it. I used the free WD and Seagate
>> versions and 2009 and 2011 versions. And one problem keeps popping
>> up with all of them.
>>
>> Have you actually tried to restore from an USB drive yet? Acronis
>> has no problems backing up to any USB drive. It does this perfectly.
>> But where it has problems is restoring. Some it can never see at
>> all. Some it can see on a good day. And some it can always see. This
>> drove me to my wits end.
>>
>> I could see if other programs had the same problem that it is
>> probably not Acronis fault. BUT IT IS ONLY ACRONIS THAT HAS THIS
>> PROBLEM! Acronis answer is to not use an USB drive to restore. What
>> a load of crap if you ask me. Why the hell should I partition my
>> laptop hard drive just to whole the backup? Then the stupid hard
>> drive fails? Is Acronis really that stupid? It appears so!
>
> So what drive/partition imaging software would you recommend?

It depends on the machine. On 7 inch netbooks, I like Ghost32.exe (v11) 
and use it with BartPE. The reason is because it fits the small 800x480 
screens with lots of room to spare.

Otherwise I used to use either Acronis or Paragon to backup. And while 
Paragon restores just fine from any USB drive, incremental takes like 4 
times longer than a full backup. Acronis does incremental very much 
faster. Although backing up and restoring takes a lot of time.

So nowadays I just clone drives. This is so much faster. And I have 
about 5 drives that I rotate. Thus if any drive ever fails, I still have 
four other ones just ready to go complete with drive caddies.

> I can't make Ghost2003 work properly with a USB2-connected external
> hard drive - so have to back up my system partition to my data
> partition on the same hard drive - and then copy the Ghost files to
> the external drive later. That means that, in the event of a
> disaster, I have to have a working system to be able to copy the
> backup back to the data partition before I can use it to create a
> working system! UGH!

I do sync data with SyncBack to an external drive. But that is to sync 
between all of my different computers. And if that copy ever fails, no 
big deal since the other computers also have copies.

Cloning, well Acronis clones too. But you have to shutdown Windows to do 
it. Paragon can clone under Windows (live). And XXClone (free) also 
clones under Windows. And I really like XXClone. The paid version will 
do incremental cloning as well. So you don't have to rewrite everything 
all over again and it is really fast.

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 

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

#578

> Have you actually tried to restore from an USB drive yet? Acronis has no 
> problems backing up to any USB drive. It does this perfectly. But where it 
> has problems is restoring. Some it can never see at all. Some it can see 
> on a good day. And some it can always see. This drove me to my wits end.
>
 Just performed a C: drive image backup to a new HD via the USB port with an 
Iomega HD attached.
The results were less than satisfying. 2 hrs, 15 minutes to restore (about 
the same time it took to create the 53 GB image). I booted up with the new 
HD and I successfully logged in. Then I noticed the Norton AV icon had a red 
cross on it and lauching the program it said I had 3 items that required 
attention. Next I found I could not launch the Windows mail program. 
Something about MSOE.dll can not be initialized and another msg saying 
"unable to open the windows mail message store". In other words, I did not 
get a perfect copy transferred over to my new HD. Fortuneately I discover my 
laptop had a bay for a second drive. Once I get a caddy for my new HD I will 
try Acronis again, only this time without going through the USB port.

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

#580

On 8/18/2011 9:17 PM, ghelf wrote:
>> Have you actually tried to restore from an USB drive yet? Acronis has
>> no problems backing up to any USB drive. It does this perfectly. But
>> where it has problems is restoring. Some it can never see at all. Some
>> it can see on a good day. And some it can always see. This drove me to
>> my wits end.
>>
> Just performed a C: drive image backup to a new HD via the USB port with
> an Iomega HD attached.
> The results were less than satisfying. 2 hrs, 15 minutes to restore
> (about the same time it took to create the 53 GB image). I booted up
> with the new HD and I successfully logged in. Then I noticed the Norton
> AV icon had a red cross on it and lauching the program it said I had 3
> items that required attention. Next I found I could not launch the
> Windows mail program. Something about MSOE.dll can not be initialized
> and another msg saying "unable to open the windows mail message store".
> In other words, I did not get a perfect copy transferred over to my new
> HD. Fortuneately I discover my laptop had a bay for a second drive. Once
> I get a caddy for my new HD I will try Acronis again, only this time
> without going through the USB port.

Yeah, that backup and restore is such a time consuming task. I used to 
do it all of the time. Although nowadays I normally use cloning instead. 
As it cuts the time in half. Acronis does cloning, but not under 
Windows. I know Acronis 2009 and higher has this. And I would boot from 
the CD. Then select disk tools or tools something and there is the disk 
cloning. It will cut the time in half. Although you will need a second 
hard drive that will fit the laptop. You can use USB or that second slot 
you have. The latter will be faster.

If Acronis doesn't work out for you, there is the free XXClone that will 
do the job under Windows (while Windows is running).

-- 
Bill
Alienware M9700 - 1GB - Two Nvidia 7900GS running in SLI mode

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.laptops

csiph-web