Hi Manalito Your post just points out the huge differences, and to me the fatal flaw in Rollback. Ax64 just images the system like Macrium,IFW,etc. It's files are a form of typical image file. The difference is the hot restore from windows. But Rollback is very different. It stores it's snapshots out of the windows file system, and they are only reachable thru the Rollback filter driver. Filter fails and it's bye bye system. Also I can move AX64, macrium etc to another drive, unstall and reinstall the software and access those snapshots. Can't do this with Rollback. Also when I take snapshots/incrementals with AX64, I can also take incrementals with Macrium. Nowhere near that simple with Rollback. You can't just run a simple incremental with macrium and capture all the Rollback snapshot. I know they have come out with a new imaging program, but given the track record, I'll pass. Pete
So you advise is, great software, go purchase it, but be warned to remember to image/backup every-time you put something important on the disc... So, a user has to buy a software that is supposed to babysit him and instead ends up with him having to do the exact opposite. Panagiotis
Lemme see, Peter says... ...and from "the SOURCE"... Hmmmm... I really like MABOLITO the best (yea, I know it's a typo)
Hi Forggie, I agree, MABALITO sounds pretty cool... Just outside of my living room window the fire crackers have already started, and I also had some glasses of a nice Cabernet already, so I do have an excuse. Cheers manolito
Sorry, Rico... I didn't mean to scare you. But other than the "Unable to initially install" type of failures, Rick's is typical of what I've seen along the Rollback RX path. My initial attempt to use v10.2 (the current version) was an abject failure... it failed to BOOT following the installation. After much interaction with the RBrx Devs, they were able to get it working and I believe put the fix into the release. Haven't done much testing since then. One of the problems with this software is that many of its failures with individual users require CUSTOM fixes/patches just for that user, and these don't wind up in the release. This path of support guarantees the same problem later in the application cycle when the next new user hops on with the same problem. A lot of RBrx customers are corporate, and as such use identical machine configurations within that corporation. As you can see, a successful installation here produces many successful machine installations. That is not the case with random individual commercial customers. I have chatted with many RBrx users (usually trying to help them recover shattered systems) and their typical failure mode is... the installation works for a while then explodes due to things like special software installs, dual-booting changes, and even most recently the Microsoft W8.1 to W8.1.1 update (this one shattered many v10.2 RBrx installations due to a M$ partition size change during the update). Even Rick's failure was due to a supposed fully supported in-line RBrx version upgrade which spiraled out of control and seems to have left him with absolutely nothing. EDIT: It appears that the most recent Build of v10.2 is now turning off the automatic installation of Windows updates. This is not only due to the update mentioned above but many updates since then starting in October 2014. HDS is now trying to pre-CLEAR all M$ issued updates then letting its users know which ones are safe. This is basically crazy as far as a support position is concerned, but they have to do it to keep their customers from getting shattered along the way. Waaay too much customization required here... This kinda stuff is very scary, and it appears that many users can be culled into a feeling of euphoria by a successful operation of RBrx along with its very exaggerated claims. You just kinda zoom along until Armageddon arrives. If you really wanna use this type of snapshot program (yes, it's pretty fast), PLEASE heed the warnings offered here.
Hi Pete, Although I'm anything but an Rx 'fan-boy' (per my posts 10 & 14), in fairness it should be noted that Rx users can capture their current snapshot with a simple (normal) backup image. Of course this will not capture any prior snaps and upon restoration of that image Rx will be broken, requiring reinastallation, but the most recent system state is restored and operational (which is usually good enough). Happy New Year to all, Cruise
First a disclaimer: I have never used or even tested Rollback. I was simply scared to death to even try it, it makes at least one very basic change to your hard drive's filing system, or however the Rollback folks describe it. I will not allow any program on my precious system that makes such deep or basic changes. I, for better or for worst, spend too much of my time in front of this pc thingie, as do many others here at Wilders; I want to be able to recover from EVERYTHING. Yes, imaging with your favorite imaging program, maybe supplemented by Raxco's Instant Recovery, are clunky, but THEY SIMPLY WORK!!!!!!!!!! Acadia Heh, both manolito and mabolito sound cool to me.
As far as I can tell, all they need to do to speed it up to acceptable levels is to aggressively limit the chain length. Why they haven't yet done so I have no idea - maybe I'm wrong about this.
I agree with this but would extend it to include all imaging/backup programs regardless. I was badly burned by Acronis True Image and since then I have always used 2 different programs for protecting my system and data (actually 2 programs and critical files uploaded to the cloud). I might have used Rx along with DC except for the truly horrible support offered by HDS. Yes, Rx is faster but support is almost non-existent when you run into a problem, I would rather wait a few extra min to have an AXTM hot restore and know that if I have a problem I can get help if needed or simply do a cold restore (or use my alternate imaging program if nec). Each to their own of course but bottom line I agree, relying on Rx alone is a truly bad idea.
RBRX is a fun and interesting utility to play with. But it is not a backup or protection solution in the slightest. Only full disk imaging and file duplication can protect you.
You won't get it, not even at 2x their asking price. It is not in the nature of the program. RBRX is not a backup program. RBRX is not a security program. Furthermore, to me, RBRX doesn't have a good operating philosophy. All these custom solutions & bug fixes I keep reading about. It just screams incompetence. I don't know - maybe it works for you..
While IFW bootcd works quite well with RBX,I also regulary update RBX' baseline.....if something goes wrong,even if you can't boot anymore,either IFW can restore or you can restore to the latest baseline with a windows recovery cd...
I an not intending to suggest Rx is great software, its def not (please read my post again),,,,, what I am saying is that there is no such thing as fail-proof software and that even if you are using something other than Rx as you main back-up program its a good idea to have a 2nd layer of protection. For me, AXTM takes care of the majority of my concerns,,,,,,hourly snaps that are accessible (it is not nec to do full restore, you can get to files via copy and paste from the AXTM browser) and are relatively quick to revert to using hot restore. Then, on the rare chance that AXTM fails both in terms of hot and cold restore (there have been cold restore failures with some of the betas but I don't think with the official releases)(but never-the-less) I have my Paragon back-ups. So, to use your terms, AXTM is the baby sitter with hourly snaps and Paragon is the extreme case emergency protection with once a week images (and critical files off site, in the cloud, daily). Just to be absolutely clear,,,,I never had a failure with Rx but then I was fortunate enough not to move from the old 9 series of releases. What turned me off of the software was the number of horror stories, the lack of competent support offered by HDS to those who did have problems, and the seriously misleading claims for the program on the HDS site. In short I would NEVER recommend anyone use Rx (even with images as backups) and I indicated that in my first post in this thread (I think it was the 3rd one). At this point, even if the next release of Rx were 100% bullet proof, I would not use or recommend it because I will not support HDS in any way.
Sorry, I need to correct this. DVD, what I was referring to in relation to imaging failure at IFW v2.77 or 2.78 was not COLD imaging (WinPE-based), it was the REGISTRY patched LIVE version (HOT) of IFW ALL SECTOR imaging... that's what failed after those versions. COLD imaging (WinPE-based) may still work just fine but I've never used it with RBrx.
FarStone Total Recovery Pro Boot CD boots into a virtual desktop, I've imaged with that and Paragon Backup and Recovery Linux CD both have what seems to be reliable images to recover from. Also Imaged with IFW 2.93 so I have 3 backup images should I need them. Don't want to restore with them yet, however when/ if I need to I'll report back which one if only 1 or all have worked
Happy to say that Acronis 2015 Full Boot Disk which includes Universal boot 32bit completes the backup and restore perfectly
Yes, I was just going to add that, Sector by Sector backup & Recovery Total Recovery and Backup & Recovery both Blue Screened on restore, so Acronis is the only 1 that I've found that can do it now, Also IFW 2.93 PHYlock crashed also
...and based on my past experience with ZEROing unallocated sectors prior to doing such a backup on HDDs, anyone doing this with an SSD should get pretty good time and size results with an ALL SECTOR backup (active TRIM on W7 and W8 will ZERO out those bad boys). EDIT: actually some SSDs show "FF" rather than "00" after being trimmed but the compression should be just as effective.
Took 7 mins to both backup and restore 34.2GB used space compressed down to 19.5GB Corsair SSD pretty quick really
