How reliable is an image of a Windows XP Partition?

[Lumo]

I have 4 partitions, Windows XP and all my applications are on C and D.

If I make an image of C and D onto DVD how reliable will the image be, will I simply be able to restore it if/when windows starts to fall apart?

What are the chances that the image won’t boot windows properly when restored?

[jmk94903]

-{ Quote: "I have 4 partitions, Windows XP and all my applications are on C and D.

If I make an image of C and D onto DVD how reliable will the image be, will I simply be able to restore it if/when windows starts to fall apart?

What are the chances that the image won’t boot windows properly when restored?" }-The party line is that Acronis will only guarantee that the image will be bootable if all partitions on the hard drive are included in the image. This is the only case in which the MBR is included in the backup image.

However, if the drive is not replaced by a blank drive or repartitioned and if the MBR hasn't been damaged by a virus or other cause before the C and/or D partitions are restored, the disk will be bootable since the MBR is still in place.

Personally, I have restored an image of the C partition from a drive with more than one partition and had it boot normally, but you can't be sure you will be as lucky.

What I recommend is that you make one image of the entire drive. After that, make images of only C and D. If you have a problem, restore C and D. If the system boots, you are good to go. If the system doesn't boot, restore the image of all the partitions, confirm that the system boots and then restore the most recent image of C and D to bring the system up to date.

[tachyon42]

Various people, myself included, have problems getting TI to work successfully all the time. This forum will tend to have lots of problems discussed with very few good stories and this might give a misleading picture of a product that doesn't work. Of course nothing could be further from the truth - like most forums it's mostly those with problems that visit, the many users successfully using TI just don't spend much time here.
In my case I have two computers:
- a DELL which has no problems imaging with TI
- the other a home built box with ASUS motherboard and Athlon processor which sometimes works with TI but mostly either creates a corrupted image or won't verify successfully. I'm still investigating why this is so.
Anyway, the point is that some hardware/software configurations have problems working with TI (of course TI is not the only software that fails on some machines). So try it on your computer, ensure images can be successfully created, verified and restored (obviously not on your master disk in case it fails). Chances are you'll not have a problem with this excellent program.

[lynchknot]

I have 2 partitions (C and D) on master and image of C on slave (2 part also) with page file on slave as well. I have never had a problem restoring C using F11 secure zone. I have restored many times.

[feddup]

I've had the same experience as lynchknot. Tonight something weird happened and i had to restore my Raid array. TI said it would be eight minutes. It was. F11 secure zone makes it a breeze.

[jmk94903]

-{ Quote: "- the other a home built box with ASUS motherboard and Athlon processor which sometimes works with TI but mostly either creates a corrupted image or won't verify successfully. I'm still investigating why this is so." }-Hi Tachyon,

You make excellent points.

As far as the failures on the ASUS system, the greatest reason seems to be memory errors, particularly if the RAM is being pushed to run as fast as possible. The mem86+ program can test RAM.

Overclocking can also cause errors that result in corrupt backups.

The other reasons involve specific hardware. For example, with USB 2.0 external hard drives, the NEC USB chipset seems to have the least problems.

Perhaps one of these will be useful to you.

[tachyon42]

Hi John (jmk94903),
Thanks for the suggestions.
I've tried various things which I've detailed here:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=402100#post402100post402100
You mentioned 'mem86+' - I might try it too, do you have a URL?
Thanks again

[Menorcaman]

-{ Quote: "Hi John (jmk94903),
Thanks for the suggestions.
I've tried various things which I've detailed here:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=402100#post402100post402100
You mentioned 'mem86+' - I might try it too, do you have a URL?
Thanks again" }-Hi tachyon,

Hopefully John wont mind me jumping in but we have provided links to memetest86+ and instructions on how to burn an ISO CD in this <previous thread> (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=69586).

Regards

[tachyon42]

-{ Quote: "Hi tachyon,

Hopefully John wont mind me jumping in but we have provided links to memetest86+ and instructions on how to burn an ISO CD in this <previous thread> (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=69586).

Regards" }-
Thanks Menorcaman,
I was aware of memtest86+ (memetest86+ ??http://www.wilderssecurity.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif ) but haven't tried it. When John refered to 'mem86+' I thought there was another memory checker called exactly that.
I've been using memtest86 version 3.2 which incorporates some of the memtest86+ code. Also used the Microsoft memory checker.
Any thoughts on which is the best memory checker or if there are features in each which makes it worth checking memory with all 3.

[Menorcaman]

Hello tachyon,

-{ Quote: "I've been using memtest86 version 3.2 which incorporates some of the memtest86+ code. Also used the Microsoft memory checker.
Any thoughts on which is the best memory checker or if there are features in each which makes it worth checking memory with all 3." }-Memtest86+ is a very reliable and thorough memory checker. It's often mentioned in numerous technical forums and I've yet to hear any adverse comments. Leave it running for a few hours (overnight if you can) and rest assured, if your memory is in anyway flakey, memtest86+ will reveal it.

Regards