Disk Imaging Software Recommendations

[Fred_S]

HelloI've recently built my first system, and have found that I enjoy tinkering with it, adding new software, change settings etc. What I've found that I hate is restoring my system after fouling something up. I would like to know if anyone has any recommendations for a good disk imaging / crash recovery software?PLEASE what ever you do do not recommend Drive Image 7!!! It is the pits, and that is the good side. I went out to Symantec's web site to post a question to support and I could not find any place to do so.I could be wrong ( which I am 98% of the time ) BUT, when the software shows that you can write to a DVD to store your image file and it ejects the DVD before it is done writing. If you attempt to create an image over multiple CDs and it stops after the 1st CD. Where the software gives you an option to create smaller more manageble archive images, but the software wont let yoy check that software....As for the problem wiith ejecting the DVD, I did find out when I was trouble shooting ( at the Symantec website ) that Drive Image 7 does not support all DVDRW+-/CD-RW, and guess what mine is one of those that is not supportedThere is only one thing I can say, and that is GRRRRRRR.Please don't get me wrong, I use the Norton Antivirus, Symantec Personal Firewall, and Symantec Utilities, throughout my 20 some years of working with computers. Maybe I got a bad copy ( I even downloaded a fifty meg patch from Symantec AND upgraded my .NET software and still no luck.SO, if someone has hay recommendations please let me know, or if anyone wants to tell me where I went wrong please do so.Thanks Fred

[Stryder]

The two I always recommend are Drive Image and Norton's Ghost. In my opinion, they are the two best products out there for what they do. Since Drive Image is giving you problems I would take a look at Ghost.

[epp_b]

Just My 2¢ ...I have no personal experience with DriveImage, but I know that Ghost has been known to inadvertently miss files in backup operations.

[Peachy]

Welcome to SNLF, Fred!Ghost 2003 is probably the best consumer imaging application. I used to prefer Drive Image but 2002 and Drive Image 7 have not been as good as older versions of Drive Image. By the way, Symantec bought PowerQuest so the two top imaging applications is now sold by one company. The optical drive writing capabilities of both products is limited to CD-RW, CD-R, DVD+R, and DVD+RW. Neither will work with DVD-R/RW media. This is a limitation of the DVD-R/RW format.

[mrainey]

Well-known guru Fred Langa shares your disgust with Drive Image 7. He raves about Bootit, which gives you the capabilities of Partition Magic and Drive Image for about $35.00. "Fortunately, I found an amazing replacement that combines the functions of PowerQuest's Partition Magic, Drive Image and Boot Magic--- software that PowerQuest sells on multiple CDs for $140. This alternative tool fits on a *single floppy* and costs just $35! I'll have a complete report soon, but this looks like it could be the software find of the year!"http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html

[-ct-]

my recc. is to get another hard drive, and ghost the SOBMUCH faster to just copy over and be done in 10 min instead of trying to write to a dvd or multiple cdr

[b2cm]

Ghost isn't perfect but its got to be the best.

[jodef]

Well-known guru Fred Langa shares your disgust with Drive Image 7.  He raves about Bootit, which gives you the capabilities of Partition Magic and Drive Image for about $35.00.  "Fortunately, I found an amazing replacement that combines the  functions of PowerQuest's Partition Magic, Drive Image and  Boot Magic--- software that PowerQuest sells on multiple CDs  for $140. This alternative tool fits on a *single floppy* and  costs just $35! I'll have a complete report soon, but this  looks like it could be the software find of the year!"http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html

Bootit is a nice piece of software you could try doing a search in the linux forums there were many discussions and reviews of a general nature there since in addition to everything in does in windows it supports linux as well.I have used it to backup my windows install although never to DVD or CDRW so can't comment on these.I have done resizing and moving of partitions never had a problem.For the price really a great little software.

[Specmon]

I've switched from Drive Image to BootIt too.Had a little bit of learning curve, but now find it pretty easy to work with.So far, BootIt has done everything I need it to without any problems, although I don't bother burning images to disks either, usually.I make a lot of images for the same reason as Fred, and I find that simply placing those images on a separate partition is as complicated as things need to be. Works great.I sure wouldn't make Fred install a second HD just to store his images. No need.

[Ed_P]

I sure wouldn't make Fred install a second HD just to store his images. No need.

Well when the single hard drive fails, for what ever reason, the image backups on it won't be available to help with the recovery efforts. If you want a place to create images so you can test software changes safely yes a separate partition is most convenient. If however you want the images for disaster recovery then a separate removeable storage media is better. In my case, using Drive Image 2002, my removeable media is another hard drive. Tray mounted IDE or USB 2.0 drives work great. :thumbsup:BTW Welcome to the forums Fred_S.

[-ct-]

...I sure wouldn't make Fred install a second HD just to store his images.  No need.

in this case, "image" is to mean an image of the entire hard drive, not picture files ;)so yes, a second hdd, and a ghosted image of the 1st one on it will make for the fastest restore possible

[Cluttermagnet]

I sure wouldn't make Fred install a second HD just to store his images. No need.

Well when the single hard drive fails, for what ever reason, the image backups on it won't be available to help with the recovery efforts.

Yep, you can't rely on a single hard drive. I have read Fred Langa's newsletter for several years now. As far as I know, he still does burn images to CD, although I believe he recently was musing about the possibility of moving up to DVD's and weighing the problem of incompatible DVD formats. He mentioned at one point that he has quite a few CDs kicking around. That data is his living. He is extremely careful about backing up data. Fred says that his most important backups are on removable media and he physically removes some of them from the premises and stores them in another safe location offsite. In other words, he periodically makes multiple copies of certain select images. This guards against total loss of data in a catastrophe such as his house burning down. He also makes copies of copies periodically, to guard against the possibility that a known good disk might go bad in normal storage (this definitely does happen on occasion, and I have certainly seen it with floppy diskettes). So far as the images stored on his hard drive(s), he makes them pretty often but he certainly does not rely on them as a failsafe.BTW Fred was on the forefront of the issue as it became apparent that CDR's of low quality can start to suffer data loss in just a couple of years, and that on balance, the use of fancy printed paper labels is also very risky and can contribute to data loss. He recommends marking CDs only with a permanent marker and skipping the labels entirely. Being basically lazy, I have been using only markers for years and have never gotten around to trying my label- making software. Oh, BTW I have personally witnessed disk failure due to a label. The reason is somewhat surprising- the label must have shrunk because I found it was actually physically warping the CD so that it was cupped, with the edge pulled up out of plane from the center of the disk. Another user who also had a copy of this limited edition homemade CD first alerted our group to the problem. His CD would not play in his laptop drive. I found mine would work in some drives, not at all in in others. I quickly burned a copy of it while I still had the chance.The most important point Fred has made over recent years is to back up frequently and to use multiple methods for insurance. So yes, do park some frequently- made images on another internal hard drive, or perhaps some even on the same HD on a different partition, but also keep some copies on CDRs or DVDs or Zip disks or removable hard drives and so forth. Of course, optical media (CD, DVD) should in theory be best. Zip and Jazz disks are at risk of erasure from magnetic fields. There was a cartoon that summed that up nicely. It showed a group of IT people cowering at the approach of an individual. The caption reads: "Back up- he's got a magnet!"- a nice example of double entendre (phrases having more than one meaning) Fred was definitely unhappy with Drive Image 7, and this after recommending Drive Image for years. He is solidy in the Bootit camp now. I think I will give that software a try myself. Mostly what I hear about it is rave reviews, with many users happy with its power and utility, and the reasonable price.

[James M. Fisher]

Well-known guru Fred Langa shares your disgust with Drive Image 7.

His main reason was the need for .NET in order for DI7 to work. It's the same story with v2i Protector. I loved DI 5.01 and DI 2002, neither of which require .NET.

[mrainey]

Here's an interesting response to Fred Langa's criticisms of Drive Image 7.http://www.ugr.com/nl0703.html

[jodef]

Here's an interesting response to Fred Langa's criticisms of Drive Image 7.http://www.ugr.com/nl0703.html

Very interesting reading I can't say am a fan of anyone I usually read newsletters,articles and any computing material I can get my hands on but I usually take everything with a pinch of salt.Never used Powerquest products so I can't comment on them.Was Fred being biased who knows.One thing that did catch my attention were the last few paragraphs of the response after stating he the author was not affiliated with Powerquest except for being an avid user he wades into Bootit for the following reasons :

• 1.This product cannot be found in stores, but must be purchased from some obscure web site.
• 2. 40 plus years of experience in the software industry has taught me that products with significantly smaller lines of code have significantly less function or less reliability
• 3. Also, you probably will find that this product is shallow in its ability to handle exceptions and error conditions
• 4. Experience has taught me that you usually get what you pay for. So, to think that I will get everything for $35 that I get in two products that costs $140 retail leaves me very uncomfortable.Experience has taught me that you usually get what you pay for. So, to think that I will get everything for $35 that I get in two products that costs $140 retail leaves me very uncomfortable.

While some or all of the above may be true it seems to be that he might be guilty of the same bias that he accuses Fred of; why attack a product you have never tried are there no exceptions; I have actually used many freeware or shareware products that are in my opinion very superior to their fully commercial counterparts.Just my 2cents.

[mrainey]

I've been quite happy with PowerQuest products for several years now, and currently use Drive Image 5 with XP Home, no apparent problems. As I recall, Fred suggested that if you already have DI5, you would be smart to just keep on using it rather than buy anything new. I probably won't be buying PowerQuest upgrades in the future, though.I fully agree that price and size don't necessarily have any bearing on quality.

[nlinecomputers]

"The Response" in that link(thanks for posting that) is a bunch a bull. Criticism of any disk utility that REQUIRES any operating system is valid. Drive Image used to be able to copy even Linux partitions. So I have to load windows now just to maintain my boxes?I could argue the merits of or against using .NET as a "good" programming environment that isn't the point. DI might be a well written, bug free, code that runs very well on Windows. But the point is if you are doing maintenance on a system you want to avoid booting that OS if at all possible. Running .NET precludes that. His whole argument about DOS missed that point. You use DOS to boot with because of two reasons. One that you avoid booting the OS that you are trying to copy(which makes it a WHOLE lot easier to copy.) and 2 that by using DOS you can use bootable media(floppy or CD). A bootable copy of Linux would have just as acceptable. Or even some kind of special bootable Windows CD like WinPE or Bart's PE. The point is that it be BOOTABLE. This nitwit missed that point. The guy has some valid points about drivers but that is outweighed in my opinion but the problems caused by trying to copy an OS that you have fully booted up.The real reason for adopting .NET is to deprive techs of a cheap tool. Technically if you read the license for DI you are only allowed to use it on one computer. I know of no one that does that. So you required to buy a copy for every machine you maintain. By making the program a windows only program you lock that requirement up or at least make it a great hassle to do so. Dumb move on PowerQuest's part. One that will cost them more customer base then they realize.As to the size of the program equaling quality. I am an amateur programmer. It is real easy to create bad bloated code. The goal of any GOOD programmer is make tight code. You make your code as small and as quick running as possible. This guy needs to compare features and performance and not just look at the size. But if he is willing to part cash just for bigger code then I hope he loves Longhorn. I was amazed he was dumb enough to post such a statement publicly.I've not used BootIT so I can't comment on how good or bad it is. But rejecting it simply based on "size" or price is laughable. Skepticism perhaps is justified but out and out prejudice isn't.

[b2cm]

Nathan

[littlebone]

I switched from DriveImage to TrueImage from Acronis. I think I found the recommendation here over a year ago. Although TI (v 7.0) can back up from within windows, I always boot it from a CD and do my backups. Even when booted from a CD to a graphics (but not MS Windows) version, it can access USB 2.0 devices. This allows me to make a backup to an external USB 2.0 hard drive.TI allows incremental backups. It can, if told to do so, back up only the clusters that have changed. Lastly, you can mount the backup files as disk drives (in Windows), which lets you access them through Windows Explorer. The last version of Drive Image did allow something similar. It had an application that looked like the Explorer that could also access the individual files in the backup.

[James M. Fisher]

Here's an interesting response to Fred Langa's criticisms of Drive Image 7.http://www.ugr.com/nl0703.html

Interesting. I just skimmed over it, but I still agree with Fred to a certain point. As someone who has beta-tested for PQ from DI v4 until now, I have seen changes not only in the product, but also in PQ's staff and their relationship with the testers. Being bought by Symantec does not bode well IMHO either.Still, they are great products, and I do not hesitate to recommend either since they have both saved my bacon numerous times!

[James M. Fisher]

As I recall, Fred suggested that if you already have DI5, you would be smart to just keep on using it rather than buy anything new.

I agree 100%! :)As a matter of fact, I copied the DI 2002 and PartitionMagic 8 boot floppies to a bootable CD and I just run it from there. Edited May 13, 2004 by James M. Fisher

[DeafBug]

I use the Image for DOS. It is very simple to use and very straighforward. It does have limitations. It only sees what the BIOS sees so if you have a drive that gets recognized after operating system gets loaded, it won't work. I have everything on my IDE so it was not a problem. The software is from the same company that made BootIt. I already have a boot manager and I enjoy it and don't need another so I got Image for DOS instead. Very easy to use. Make a system floppy disk and copy the required files on it then boot to floppy, type image at the prompt and off you go. It makes an image of the partition.I have used it a number of times already both making images and restoring them. BTW, before you make an image. Turn off the virtual memory and then power down. It does make a difference in size of the image. AFter the image, turn on virtual memory.

[James M. Fisher]

BTW, before you make an image. Turn off the virtual memory and then power down. It does make a difference in size of the image.  AFter the image, turn on virtual memory.

I have a whole protocol I go through before I make an image:

• empty TIFs
• virus scan/Ad-aware scan
• clean registry
• defrag

I already keep my swap file on another partition (retaining a small one on C:), so my images are as small and junk-free as possible!

[Ed_P]

My process is similar. I run Disk Cleanup, Norton's Speed Disk, create a fresh System Restore point then image.I also have my Swap file on a different partition, the d: partition, with a fixed size and none of it on the c: drive. I also have my TEMP, TMP and Netscape user cache folders on a separate partition. Although now that I think about it I think they would be better on the d: partition with the Swap file.

[Peachy]

Actually, you could leave your swap file on the C:\ partition because both DriveImage and Ghost do not copy it into the image when you use compression. Only if you do a sector-by-sector copy will it include the swap file.

[Ed_P]

Good to know. Thanks Peachy.

[James M. Fisher]

Good to know.  Thanks Peachy.

I was never 100% sure about this feature, and I could never find it explained anywhere. I always use compression, but my images are definitely smaller when I move the swap file off C:Any hard data on this as regards DI, Peachy?

[Peachy]

My bad. I assumed that it didn't copy the paging file. I did a check with both DI 2002 and Ghost 2003 and the paging file was included in both images. Peachy bad [smacks his fist to his head!] Sorry about getting your hopes up. I really believed that. Of course, when I was snooping around some older images and didn't see the paging file I just assumed so. Now I realise that I had already put the paging file on a second drive. Again, Peachy bad!

[James M. Fisher]

Don't be too hard on yerself, there Peachy! Thanks for checking your images, too.

[nlinecomputers]

Isn't there a switch you can throw in ghost to skip the swap file? I woulda sworn there is....