FD-ISR, Roll Back RX ?

Been reading about these two products, at the co. site and here as well.

I seem to recall reading in one post, that in comparing these two programs, there's a major shortcoming in Roll Back, vs FD-ISR? Major, in the sense, that there was a key difference possibly in what Roll Back CAN NOT DO vs. a fuller approach of FD-ISR, I take it?

Roll Back sounds slick/lightweight, & intriguing; but, I don't want to go down the wrong path and think a program has made our PC "bulletproof" as it were and then find out too late that I should've bought the other program instead.

Have XP PRO SP2, about 50 GB free on C drive. Am pretty good about backups, with standard programs, and I think the co. says that this is a good practice even if using their flagship product.

I do also have PG, and I think the co. mentions how that may "mess a bit" with FD-ISR? Tho' I think if one disables PG, that helps FD-ISR do its work?

 

I think it is possibly wise to disable most of the "active" security when running FD-ISR in an active task such as creating or copy / updating as it may have undesirable results.
As for RollbackRx, I know nothing about it, but I do know that very little will make your system "bulletproof" including FD-ISR, and I believe even in their faq's they will recommend it as a part of your recovery solution. I never got as far as trying RRX, as having tried FD I found it did exactly what I needed it to do and that was enough for me.

 

If you only want to get one of them, First Defense is the way to go. Very reliable, very stable.

 

I'm using both together - Roll Back provides a very quick way to jump back in time (you could install some software then roll back to get rid of all traces), where as FD-ISR provides whole system copies, but takes longer and more disc space to set up. However, you can set up different 'snapshots' so one could be your main system and one could be set up for say games with minimal software and drivers. Both have there uses. I believe Roll Back has had issues but I've seen none so far.

 

The only major difference I remember is :
FDISR allows 10 snapshots.
RBRx allows only 60,000 snapshots.

 

As much as i liked Rollback and it's quick restore plus other features it plagued my systems so i'm holding out for future better versions.

So long as they both run stable and don't make problems i suppose it's an idea worth trying but FD-ISR plus my Imaging Program is more than enough to keep confidence in a strong backup/rollback strategy.

 

>>> To: Easter

I agree, about messy - on my PC anyway.

>>> To: ErikAlbert

Please see my post, and possibly help with it(?) at

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=182470

 

But in reality, no-one would use that many snapshots in RollBack.

 

Yeah, when I used Rollback I think I had 20 something snapshots at the most, and even then I had hard times remembering why I had that many

Well there is another quite big difference imo, it´s the speed of how fast the snapshots are made.
FDISR 5-15 minutes, depending on how big the c part. is.
Rollback: 2-5 seconds.
Deleting a snapshot:
5+ minutes in FDISR
1 second in Rollback.

But the biggest and most important difference was (way back when I bought Rollback version 7 last year) the reliability.
Rollback was not reliable. It was all fine and dandy for two (or was it three) months, but all of a sudden the snapshots where corrupted.
I still havent seen any reason or explanation why it would stop being reliable. But I am sure (and hope) that doesnt happen in versions after 7.21 (if I recall right)

That sort of burned my fingers, so I dont dare to try it seriously again. And Just dont feel like paying for a non functioning software twice, now that version 8 is out.

 

I was just kidding with RBRx's 60,000 snapshots. Who needs so many snapshots anyway ?

I don't know much about RBRx, but I would never use it, not even in combination with FDISR, but other members seem to be satisfied with RBRx and some even praise it into heaven. I don't have technical explanation, why I don't like RBRx. I always use my intuition and experience when I choose my softwares and sometimes I do make mistakes.
If you like SPEED and LESS space use RBRx.

For me there is no choice. I have FDISR since March 2006 and it has proven its reliability and flexibility over and over again.
FDISR keeps my computer running properly and each little or big problem is fixed in no time and without knowledge.
FDISR keeps my system partition clean and I can use it as second backup for my system partition (archives).
Before FDISR my computer was a nightmare, not anymore on the contrary.

Most popular Image Backup softwares don't have a problem with restoring ALL FDISR-snapshots.
According my readings, RBRx requires a RAW image to restore all snapshots. That is for me unacceptable.
All snapshots of RBRx depend on the baseline snapshot, which I don't like either.

FDISR has INDEPENDENT snapshots, which can be created, copied, removed, archived, restored, renamed, ... at any time and each snapshot can have a different contents at free will, even another Windows Operating System
Special functions like empty snapshot, frozen snapshot, anchoring, import, export make FDISR even more flexible.
FDISR is only slower with NEW snapshots/archives, but pretty fast with EXISTING snapshots/archives.

I can't do anything with speed or less space, because they are NOT functions.
The only function that is clumsy in FDISR are schedules.

I always had the impression that RBRx-users work with throw-away snapshots and don't care if they lose their snapshots. I need stable snapshots.

EDIT:
Regarding your post about uninstalling RBRx, I can't help you there. I'm a FDISR-user, not a RBRx-user.
I would never try RBRx without having a backup of my system.

I can do whatever I want with my system partition, because all my data is stored on another harddisk/partition and that means total freedom in my system partition without being worried about my personal data.
I can install any combination of softwares in my system partition and 6 minuts later I have my old system partition back.

 

Same here. And AFAIK, those "high-quality" & "dependable" features alone far outweigh ETA. In fact, AFTER you set your snaps then archives, updating can be literally from seconds to just under a minute or so. That should be plenty velocity for storage needs plus you know what you're getting whenever you might need them. 100% restored files, completely intact. I currently alternate between 8 different snapshots and keep an XTREME compliment of many Archives strategically located in used hard drives in event of any HD or Motherboard Failure.

I could never trust or expect Rx to duplicate the feats FD-ISR is proven to offer time & time again WITHOUT FAIL!

 

Have to agree with what everyone's saying.
I use both.
BootBack(same as FD-ISR) and EAZ-FIX(same as RollBack) just different vendors.
I use EAZ-FIX for the quickies. To change a setting for eg. just to see how it works.
To try new software or for anything major I always use BootBack. No question.
Have come to like and trust this program.
If I had to chose, there'd be nothing to think about.
BootBack would stay.
Just for the record, I've had no problems running the both together.