EAZ-FIX and Rollback Rx vulnerabilities

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by appster

Enter Drive Snapshot.

Hi Appster

I've followed that whole thread, and I absolutely applaud the effort. But to me it's equivalent to scratching your left ear with your right hand.

Two issues

1) I use Shadowprotect, and when I want to image, I want to be able to do it from the desktop.

2) No functional equivalent to FDISR archives.

[Selukwe]

Originally Posted by appster

Enter Drive Snapshot.

Not necessarily, I've been successfully using ATI for years so I do have an image backup and restore solution, just that HDS claimed that with v8.1 you won't need ANY 3rd party utility. But as it turns out, you still very much do...:-)

[Selukwe]

I sorted out the problem with the Drive Image in EF v8.1 - the bug is in the Split Image File In Size Of settings: if the backup size in the Backup My Computer applet is left to the default (Automatic - which is a standard setting for a hard disk target), the backup is later not included in the Create Recovery Media applet when attempting to do it and the ISO is created with the Linux-based backup/restore program only. When any other size in the drop down box is selected and backup is created comprising of more files (e.g., split to 4GB DVD size), the ISO creator proceeds OK and includes the backup in the ISO. Hope they fix this in the nearest release, it's pretty illogical.

[Empath]

Why are we discussing the problems of one product as being in the other product, as if they're identical? Are they clones, or simply repackaged?

[appster]

Originally Posted by Selukwe

I sorted out the problem with the Drive Image in EF v8.1 - the bug is in the Split Image File In Size Of settings: if the backup size in the Backup My Computer applet is left to the default (Automatic - which is a standard setting for a hard disk target), the backup is later not included in the Create Recovery Media applet when attempting to do it and the ISO is created with the Linux-based backup/restore program only. When any other size in the drop down box is selected and backup is created comprising of more files (e.g., split to 4GB DVD size), the ISO creator proceeds OK and includes the backup in the ISO. Hope they fix this in the nearest release, it's pretty illogical.

Nice that you sorted out the issue, but even so, is it not true that EFv8.1's Drive Image can only image one snapshot (not all snapshots)?

[appster]

Originally Posted by Empath

Why are we discussing the problems of one product as being in the other product, as if they're identical? Are they clones, or simply repackaged?

They are exactly the same, version for version and build for build (except for the name of course).

[Empath]

Originally Posted by appster

They are exactly the same, version for version and build for build (except for the name of course).

Do you have an authoritative reference for that conclusion?

[Selukwe]

Originally Posted by appster

Nice that you sorted out the issue, but even so, is it not true that EFv8.1's Drive Image can only image one snapshot (not all snapshots)?

I think you are probably right though I didn't restore this image yet and can't be 100% sure. But it has already been mentioned here that only ATI 11 is capable of doing it as it must be done on a sector basis. When I tried it I found out that the size of such an image would be two to three times larger than the one taken in the old fashioned way, which is not something I am really interested in. For me even an image with only the latest snapshot will do as I need it just in case my system crashes beyond EAZ-FIX/Rollback recovery.

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by Empath

Do you have an authoritative reference for that conclusion?

Appster is right, but feel free to download and trial both of them. You can then draw your own conclusions.

[appster]

Originally Posted by Selukwe

I think you are probably right though I didn't restore this image yet and can't be 100% sure. But it has already been mentioned here that only ATI 11 is capable of doing it as it must be done on a sector basis. When I tried it I found out that the size of such an image would be two to three times larger than the one taken in the old fashioned way, which is not something I am really interested in. For me even an image with only the latest snapshot will do as I need it just in case my system crashes beyond EAZ-FIX/Rollback recovery.

Acutally, I was speaking about EF/RB's Drive Image capability, not ATI's. But you are correct about ATI v11 being the first Home version of ATI to include sector-by-sector imaging, and naturally a 'sbs' image (all sectors in partiton) will take up more disk space as well as more time than a 'normal' image (only sectors used by Windows)!

[appster]

Originally Posted by Empath

Do you have an authoritative reference for that conclusion?

My eyes are all that's needed to come to that conclusion. With the exception of their name, all screens, functionality and operation are identical between EF and RB (version for version and build for build)!

[nexstar]

Originally Posted by Peter2150

But to me it's equivalent to scratching your left ear with your right hand.

That's not that hard, try it

Originally Posted by Peter2150

Two issues

1) I use Shadowprotect, and when I want to image, I want to be able to do it from the desktop.

Do I remember reading that SP only gets the baseline of RB from within Windows rather than the current snapshot?

Originally Posted by Empath

The 30 day return policy is for unopened packages, not online sales.

Thanks for the info but I was referring to a specific offer made to silver by one of the support staff on the HDS forum, which looked as though it was going to be taken up. It would have been poor if they had not honoured that offer subsequently and I was just wondering why it hadn't happened.

Originally Posted by Selukwe

The Drive Image feature of v8.1 works somehow strangely. First, it wasn't able to detect any of my two internal LG DVD-RW multi drives. Then, when trying to include a created image inside the bootable ISO file, it didn't do it and my bootable DVD thus contains just the restore program. It loads OK but with EF installed it does not see any of my partitions though the program's documentation says EF doesn't have to be uninstalled. Is this its normal style of operation? What's the benefit of the backup image if it cannot be used (I cannot even locate it on an unprotected partition)?

To make things even worse, I couldn't even manually copy the created image to the Drive Image bootable disk as it was closed for other recording even though I specifically set my burning software not to close it. Really untested feature this new drive image option in v8.1. How can they release something like this without trying to successfully run it at least once?!

I gave this a go after reading your post and had a broadly similar experience. It didn't see my SATA DVD, it did however create a bootable iso with an image included. However when I booted it up from the DVD it saw my drive as one partition instead of two so I decided it was probably safer not to proceed with the restore.

Graham

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by nexstar

Do I remember reading that SP only gets the baseline of RB from within Windows rather than the current snapshot?

If you image within windows, you get a screwed up restore. You have to do it all off line. And then compress all snaps to the baseline.

[EASTER]

Good Grief! I'm trialing EAZ-FIX myself this week and it looks almost like a clone of RollbackRx? Am i seeing things? The ABOUT of EAZ-FIX is in Texas whereas HorizonDataSys looks to originate in Blaine WA. Are these two entirely different breeds? Or are they linked?

At any rate, things seem to be going smooth with EAZ-FIX so far but it's far too early right now to draw any opinion up or down yet. But then the same thing happened with RollbackRx for me when i took it for a spin, after awhile it began to show irreversible signs of degradation and finally puked, and that did it for me.

I understand from some of the earlier replies it's a repackaged replica of sorts of Rollback but what the heck, i got a spare drive to run it ragged on to see if it holds up or not.

I'll have to re-read this topic again to try DS imaging/restore myself as pertains to these snapshots/baseline etc.

[Empath]

I haven't install EAZ-FIX, since I already use Rollback Rx, but, in comparisons of what I can see, they look nearly the same. There is a difference noted in the GUI image. Eaz-Fix has a link to "Image Snapshots", whereas Rollback has a link to Image Drive. Whether they perform the same function, I don't know. To me, the terminology seems different.

I've no idea what the relationship is with the companies. The literature on both sites have each claiming to have developed it. Somewhere, there may be a "software engineering firm" acting independent of marketing, and then marketing rights to different firms after development.

Incidentally, does anyone know how FD-ISR ended up being marketed by so many different firms?

[ErikAlbert]

Originally Posted by Empath

Incidentally, does anyone know how FD-ISR ended up being marketed by so many different firms?

Nobody sells FirstDefense-ISR Workstation anymore, not even HDS, because it is terminated.
HDS sells now "FirstDefense-ISR Rescue", which isn't the same anymore, just a simple boot-to-restore software, like Returnil, etc.
No multiple snapshots and archives anymore.

[Selukwe]

Originally Posted by EASTER

No wonder they (HDS) 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.

What do you mean by butchering FD-ISR? Has it become less reliable since v1.10 Pro by Raxco owing to HDS's "improvements"?

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by EASTER

Good Grief! I'm trialing EAZ-FIX myself this week and it looks almost like a clone of RollbackRx? Am i seeing things? The ABOUT of EAZ-FIX is in Texas whereas HorizonDataSys looks to originate in Blaine WA. Are these two entirely different breeds? Or are they linked?

At any rate, things seem to be going smooth with EAZ-FIX so far but it's far too early right now to draw any opinion up or down yet. But then the same thing happened with RollbackRx for me when i took it for a spin, after awhile it began to show irreversible signs of degradation and finally puked, and that did it for me.

I understand from some of the earlier replies it's a repackaged replica of sorts of Rollback but what the heck, i got a spare drive to run it ragged on to see if it holds up or not.

I'll have to re-read this topic again to try DS imaging/restore myself as pertains to these snapshots/baseline etc.

Easter

Rollback = Eazfix just as Raxco FDISR = Bootback. From my spin of 8.1, I think you will find it more stable. Nothing comparable to archives, and then off course the imaging. I was also able to image if I did an update of the baseline getting rid of all snapshot, and if I imaged from a recovery CD. Then restore was perfect.

I personally(read as in ME) don't consider the DS stuff a solution. To complex. As you know from your experience, when you need the restore, usually it's cause you have a minor to major disaster, and are already under stress. Thats the point at which the restore should just be throw in the recovery disk and restore. No stress with that.

Pete

[nanana1]

Originally Posted by ErikAlbert

Nobody sells FirstDefense-ISR Workstation anymore, not even HDS, because it is terminated.
HDS sells now "FirstDefense-ISR Rescue", which isn't the same anymore, just a simple boot-to-restore software, like Returnil, etc.
No multiple snapshots and archives anymore.

LOL....this FirstDefense-ISR Workstation software which this forum praises so much and some members cannot do without it has been killed. The Rollback Rx software which some members loathe and condemn survives....

What's the next story ?

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by nanana1

LOL....this FirstDefense-ISR Workstation software which this forum praises so much and some members cannot do without it has been killed. The Rollback Rx software which some members loathe and condemn survives....

What's the next story ?

And you point is.....

[appster]

Originally Posted by Peter2150

.....Thats the point at which the restore should just be throw in the recovery disk and restore. No stress with that.

Pete, "throw in the recovery disk and restore" is all that it actually takes to restore an image (of a system disk/partition with RB)! I think the part you disdain is having to use the Recovery CD to create the image. Certainly that's not as convenient as performing the backup from within Windows, but it's also not that cumbersome (just another step in the process).

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by appster

Pete, "throw in the recovery disk and restore" is all that it actually takes to restore an image (of a system disk/partition with RB)! I think the part you disdain is having to use the Recovery CD to create the image. Certainly that's not as convenient as performing the backup from within Windows, but it's also not that cumbersome (just another step in the process).

I throw in the recovery disk, and it's no go. Doesn't see my disks. I have not had any success with any recovery medium if it isn't windows based, ie Bartpe,Winpe, etc. None of the linux based stuff works. Only other exception is IFD, but that was painful.

Take it back as I think about it, Acronis v9 recovery CD saw my disks, but no mouse.

And yes, having to use the recovery CD is not that bad in some cases, but it rules out using Shadowprotects continous incrementals. That alone is amost a show stopper.

[Huupi]

So everybody has its own solutions,my experience with imaging with SP from windows was a no go so uninstalled it.Also see no benefit in doing so anyway,lucky me the recovery CD works like a charm,it never let me down.

I guess SP imaging is one of the fastest,it takes 3.20 min. to image 14 gig.

[Empath]

Originally Posted by ErikAlbert

The question wasn't really offered as another chance to complain about HDS's activities. It was asked regarding how FD-ISR ended up being sold by so many sources.

I'm noticing a situation here. I've seen the anger expressed in the Leapfrog forums, and considering it is a pro-FD-ISR forum, I can understand the highly negative atmosphere there. However, it is spilling over into the other forums of the board.

Rollback Rx is a fine product, appreciated by it's users. Even so, any discussion of it is derailed by about three disgruntled but prolific posters that jump at every chance to attack it, HDS, and repeat their anger on the loss of the features of a app other than Rollback.

Good gosh, guys! You have your features. They haven't been taken away from you. It's already been mentioned before that if a sustainable market for the workstation features previously available with FD-ISR can be expected, then a 'more expensive' version with those features would be offered. That won't be determined by the disappointment of present users, since they already have those features. It will be determined by the requests of potential future users. Regardless, it has no bearing on Rollback Rx, nor should it derail every discussion of Rollback.

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by Empath

The question wasn't really offered as another chance to complain about HDS's activities. It was asked regarding how FD-ISR ended up being sold by so many sources.

I think the developer Leapfrog, just chose rather then market FD-ISR chose 3 companies to do that. I suspect there is a simliar situation given Eaz-Fix and Rollback are identical products. Interesting situation, but neither good nor bad, just the way someone chose to do it.

Originally Posted by Empath

I'm noticing a situation here. I've seen the anger expressed in the Leapfrog forums, and considering it is a pro-FD-ISR forum, I can understand the highly negative atmosphere there. However, it is spilling over into the other forums of the board.

Rollback Rx is a fine product, appreciated by it's users. Even so, any discussion of it is derailed by about three disgruntled but prolific posters that jump at every chance to attack it, HDS, and repeat their anger on the loss of the features of a app other than Rollback.

Good gosh, guys! You have your features. They haven't been taken away from you. It's already been mentioned before that if a sustainable market for the workstation features previously available with FD-ISR can be expected, then a 'more expensive' version with those features would be offered. That won't be determined by the disappointment of present users, since they already have those features. It will be determined by the requests of potential future users. Regardless, it has no bearing on Rollback Rx, nor should it derail every discussion of Rollback.

You are 100% correct. It isn't appropriate. Actually either here or in the Leapfrog thread.

Pete