EAZ-FIX and Rollback Rx vulnerabilities

I was an enthusiastic GoBack user since it was created by the WildFile company in 1999. I used it pretty successfully also in its latest v4 by Symantec. Unlike some others who developed big problems with their hard disks while using GB, I never lost any data or had to reformat my partitions. I have to admit that it happened to me that botched uninstallation of GB prevented my system from booting but this was solved by restoring the MBR and the rest was fine. The biggest drawback with GB, however, I saw in its ability to suspend itself due to massive file activity as well as in its long time of disabling, restoring or uninstalling (sometimes not minutes but hours!) with the first one having IMO the least pleasing implications.

I hailed Rollback Rx and its clone EAZ-FIX and having read the background of this type of progs was thrilled and keen to dump GB (so far, at least) and test the EAZ-FIX v8. I've been using it for about a week now and my experience (so far, at least) is unequivocally positive. The program is stable, doesn't seem to suck resources (I have 2GB RAM, 400GB SATA HDD partitioned to 60, 140 and 173GB NTFS with the system being on 60, use WinXP Pro SP2, Acer PC with Pentium 4 3GHz processor, nVidia GeForce FX5600 256MB graphics card).

Having read, however, testimonials of some users who warn against using Rollback or EAZ-FIX because of their bad experience with them, and keen to determine the circumstances (and versions used) of their failure on their systems, I would welcome more info on the programs' crashes to better determine their reliability and suitability. Anybody able and willing to share his/her/their views on this? (Some user mentioned in summer 2006 that his problem happened during the power outage when uninstalling Rollback Rx and the uninstallation lasted some 10 hours! This was probably an earlier version as my v8 uninstalls in a snap. Could it be that the later versions are more reliable? Anybody with bad experience with version 8 or later?) Please, share your experience.

 

Yes, those bad reports were history. RB and EAZ-Fix version 8.0 and above rocks !

 

maybe the old version is problematic....try RollbackRX ver. 8.1

been using ver 8.1 since its release date, 'til now i never experience any freakin' problem about Rollback.

 

Any examples of particular kernel based software that one should be careful with?

As far as imaging issues are concerned, from what I have understood so far I can use my drive imaging software without uninstalling EAZ-FIX (Acronis True Image) for creating an image of the current system (if it is run from a boot disc then only the Baseline state would be imaged, if I get it right) but to restore an image (irrespective whether from Windows or a boot disc I have to uninstall EAZ-FIX). Do I get that right? And if I do not uninstall it, what would happen? Can I ruin my partition(s) or it just wouldn't let me proceed?

Also is it OK to have a lot of snapshots? I have set them to restart, hourly and events (install.exe, setup.exe). Would it read wildcards properly, i.e. would also *install*.exe or *setup*.exe make sense? It makes a scheduled snapshot here and there and so far I am not squeezed with disk space. What would happen if I do not defragment snapshots (when there are more of them it takes too long and slows down the system)?

 

If your version of ATI is v11 you can create a restorable image of your entire system partition including all EF/RB snapshots (which is discussed in this thread). With earlier versions of ATI, you will only capture the EF/RB baseline snapshot when imaging from ATI's boot disk, or EF/RB's current snapshot when imaging from within ATI's Windows GUI. Insofar as disk-imaging is concerned, there is no need to uninstall EZ/RB. The only time that's necessary is when you wish to use a 3rd party defragger to defragment your system partition.

Although it is ok to have lots of EZ/RB snapshots, I never accumulate more than 12 RB snapshots and more often than not I only retain about 6 snapshots. Imho, it's good practice to use EZ/RB's defragger after deleting snapshots from within your group of snapshots. And as I indicated above, you should never use any other defragger on a volume with EZ/RB installed!

 

I've noticed that once the latest version rollback is installed on my laptop i can no longer see the partition information when i boot into trueimage 11. It just shows the entire hard drive as an unknown format. Uninstalling rollback fixes the issue, i never had this problem with the previous release. By the way i see they've changed the boot screen in the latest version as well, maybe they've changed how the bootmenu works as well?

 

Does this apply also to restoring an image or only to creating one? With GoBack I could also make an image without having to disable it (with a consequence of its suspension because of massive disk activity...:-() but to restore an image, I had to disable or uninstall it.

As far as defragging is concerned, a system with Rollback installed should not suffer from using a 3rd party defragger, the latter would just not do the job as expected as it would not be able to access all disk areas. Moreover, should you return to other snapshot, all your defragging would be lost. More on this in the HDS's Whitepaper on Defragging at https://supportcenteronline.com/ics...9c7f87d1d71ecc37af&accountID=4073&deptID=4443

 

I use Norton Internet Security 2006 with its firewall and antivirus. Are these OK?

 

Yes, that also applies to restoring the image (see my referenced thread).

HDS' whitepaper only tells part of the story, I can tell you categorically that some (but not all) of the major issues with earlier versions of EZ/RB were due to running 3rd party defraggers. HDS may have remedied that with v8, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

All that I can say with certainty is (per my thread referenced in post #6)when I used ATI v11's BootCD to backup & restore my system patition (with RB v7.2.1 installed) ATI had no problem seeing the C and D partitions of my laptop's drive as well as the USB external drive.

 

If I uninstall EF and reinstall it to protect only two (C and D) of my 3 partitions leaving drive E for classical backup of important data (stored also on drive D), would this partition be spared if EF badly crashes causing disaster on drives C and D (requiring reformat) or would this affect all physical HDD? Before I ascertain myself that my system can properly digest EF (probably few months would do) perhaps such a temporary backdoor would be worthwile (that is if drive E would stay). Opinions?

 

I assume you have 3 physical HDD's : C, D and E.
If E is not included in the setup of EF and only C and D are included in the setup of EF, I would assume that E is still there after EF corrupted C and D.
It wouldn't be very logical if EF would corrupt E also, because it's not included in the setup of EF.
I've read at least one post where EF corrupted D as well.

On the other hand I would never use an internal HDD as backup, I use an external HDD. An internal HDD is always on-line and vulnerable for infections, that might even destroy E. My external HDD is always off-line and that is alot safer.
Having C and D is a very good idea, but not E as backup.
In your case, I would use E as second DATA partition for graphical data, like photos, video, etc. and an external HDD as backup of C, D and E.

I wish you good luck with EF and if something bad happens tell us about it.

 

The first version of RB v8.1 i downloaded seemed to work fine with ATI. Just a few days ago i had to download the RB installer again which is still v8.1 however the boot screen appears to be different and now its making partition backup with ATI v11 impossible unless i uninstall RB.

 

I can't help you there as I have RB only protecting my C-partition. That allows me to backup my D-partition (data, docs & photos) from within WinXP to an external drive - very convenient (as I do this daily), very fast and very reliable.

Btw, good advice from Erik!

 

That's kind of strange (it may be the same version #, but are you sure it's the same build #?)... I have no plans for moving off of the final build of RB v7.2.1 (it's been rock-solid for me)! So as far as RB v8.x goes I only know what I read.

If I were in your shoes, I'd discuss that with HDS support.

Good luck.

 

Which build of v7.2.1 is that? No problems with calling CHKDSK on booting? And would this build be identical to its EAZ-FIX homologue?

Have you experienced a power outage when 1) installing or 2) uninstalling this version, when 3) running CHKDSK on boot, when 4) defragging the snapshots or 5) a power outage in general when using it? With what consequences? I assume the first four situations are probably the thinnest ice for this type of apps.

 

You mean there are actual successes with this app? Because mostly all you read are about issues and problems each and every version although the general concensus of most is that the old 7.21 version still remains the closest stable & working release they've produced so far.

No wonder they butchered FD-ISR, they were looking under the hood (code) for something to prop up their own product's lack of stability but looks like thats failed to.

Rant Complete. HDS is NOT exactly favorable for the wisest of PC consumers unless they like playing slot machines. Trouble is does it ever reward/return the price with any positive returns. Truth though hard to stomach towers mightily above grounded intentions no matter how it's colored by claims.

 

Actual success (no kidding) is when the app delivers as expected, doesn't crash your system, doesn't drain resources, performs reliably and doesn't cause problems in general. I'd definitely rate this as a successful operation. I gladly share my experience, both good (hopefully) and bad if there is any.

Do you really feel that EF/RB v7.2.1 is better/more stable/more reliable than v8+? I do not really need v8+ as I do not use Vista and for imaging I succesfully use ATI, but the later version is expected to address bugs, problems and conflicts of the earlier version... Or is it so that apart from having addressed (some of) them it created new ones (and even worse) than the ones in the previous version? Normally, software does not evolve like that as it is gradually perfected with all good kept.

By saying this, do you mean than with upgrade to v8 the performance of EF/RB went down? Installer of v8.1 is five times as large as v7.2.1 (53.1MB versus 10.6MB); did they add some stuff that actually makes it less reliable or stable? Are you aware or can you somehow document that v8+ is actually worse? Why is it so much bigger? Just Vista compatibility and backup imaging features? Anybody with practical experience of v8+ crashing a system more often or worse than v7+ and under what circumstances? It wouldn't be expected to be this way; after all, the last build of v7 is quite old.

 

I read enough complaints and reviewed their same issues and frustrations that it leaves no doubt. I guess i share the same disgust Eric does over what HDS is done to FD-ISR instead of re-selling it in it's complete genuine form as before. That for me indicates clearly a lot about the internal policy that any software group resorts to when they recognize that their own product rates consistently below expectations & usefullness compared to another of a more skillful innovative & stable ability. The results echo loudly undeniable and speak for themselves.

 

Speaking about EF/RB, where does AyRecovery fit here (find at http://www.k62.net/Download.php)? Its limit of 1,000 snapshots compared to 60,000 with EF/RB anyway seems more than enough. The latter looks like one more ("lighter") clone of RB. But being still in v6 (15.4MB) does this equal to similar version of EF/RB, i.e. is even less advanced than EF/RB v7?

On a more general note - which type (and possibly version-build) of sector mapping restore programs (such as and including EF/RB/AR - hopefully there are also some other around) could be seen as best and most reliable to be recommended?