RollBack...geez...they got me too...

Probably your friend did not identified the correct virtual disk/directory. Not every result of superscan will point to the correct location of the file. e.g. if a file was moved with defragmentation some virtual disks will point to the old position of the file and some others to its new position (the first will give corrupted files the second will recover the correct file).

Panagiotis

 

17 locations were checked. The filesize and filename was right, but the contents were wrong. Perhaps I'll conduct my own test. I assume they have trial versions of RBRX? I can just do a real image restore with acronis when I'm done.

If there are any special instructions or testing procedures that should be done, I'll be happy to experiment around.

I assume that placing a small text file in the root directory while rbrx is monitoring the system is good enough? Then take a new snapshot, then switch snapshots, plant another test text file, then return to baseline. THEN do active@ superscan. Finally, manually examine each TEST1.TXT file that SuperScan finds.

Perhaps we missed checking ALL the files?

 

It is not difficult:
-Select the partition to scan, Right-click and chose Superscan.
-In the "Analyze and detect deleted or damaged partitions" area leave only "ntfs" checked.
-Press scan and wait until it completes scanning the entire surface of the volume.
-Save the scan results to a file on another drive
-(Filter the results to display only the "excellent", "very good" and "good" volume status.) Start first exploring/recovering from the "excellent" status virtual drives, then you can go to the "very good" and so on.

You'll have to inspect/review the status of the files that you recovered to be sure that they are the correct ones and not scrambled data.

Panagiotis

 

The only important thing is that you do not delete the snapshot that contains the file to be recovered.
If you do delete it there is a big chance that a new snapshot will overwrite the data of that file...

ps.and let the superscan to complete the scan on the entire surface, the partial results are not very accurate.

Panagiotis

 

BTW there is a teaser on their Facebook page about some massive announcement. What is that? They bought AX64 or Instant Recovery or Drive Clone is complete?

 

All the talk on "Drive Cloner" has been related to Q4 of this year... it's hard for me to believe they're ahead of schedule by more than (2) quarters, but stranger things have happened.

 

Walk, don't run... to Rollback XP, and it's FREE

Here's the Press Release...

 

Restore piece of mind_?_?_? I guess ignorance is indeed bliss.

 

Rollbackrx is the worst choice to safeguard data. Infact doing nothing is better than using rollbackrx to safeguard one's data.

 

I think it's a great move on HDS' part - as long as your important stuff is imaged or filesynced to an off-line backup medium. I prefer to see RBRX as a system utility just like anything else. I also feel that XP + RBRX is less likely to get people in trouble because XP is now static. No more updates. It's a known quantity as opposed to the "early morning radio zoo" of confusion caused by daily or hourly updates in a modern day OS.

I frakking swear that every time a modern computer starts something is clamoring for attention, whether it be an AV, or bona-fide Windows update, or browser w/plugins, Java, Flash, or just plain old run-of-the-mill applications. SOMETHING!! Next we'll see updates for the updated updater.

Ohhh how I long for the days of the Apple II, when your printer driver was a 2K firmware chip on a plug-in interface card that never needed updates. And that stuff actually worked.. sigh..

@PANDLOUK:
My test SuperScan is in progress.
I made a baseline system.
I made 1 snapshot.
Into this new snapshot I copied 4 text files (2 RTF and 2 TXT) to the Desktop and to the root C:\
I reverted back to baseline leaving the snapshot intact. I verified the files were no longer visible in the baseline.
I rebooted and now am running SuperScan.

 

And if this were indicated by HDS in its promotional literature it would be great,,,,and Rx would be a fine app,,,,,but they don't do that do they. All you need for peace of mind is Rx. Thats all you need. Ya right. With Rx you can sleep but its the sleep of the ignorant of just how vulnerable to data loss you are because of Rx.

 

I would suggest they claim RBRX gets you 98% of the way there, and why not include a free disk cloning app to get you the other 2%. Or integrate real backup operations into RBRX.

 

I totally agree with Keatah. Rollback RX is NOT a backup software, but for what it does it is extremely useful. The HDS company may have a questionable user support, and their marketing department could use a little dose of honesty, but their products are certainly not as bad as some folks on this forum suggest.

I have used Rollback RX v. 9.1 extensively under WinXP and Win7 (no UEFI, no GPT), and it was always very solid. So I do applaud their decision to release a stripped down free version just for XP. As Keatah said, the XP platform is static now, and by limiting the maximum number of snapshots to 10 they also stay clear of the problems some people experienced when their HDDs filled up by the infinite number of stored snapshots.


Cheers
manolito

 

Manolito, being an old time v9.1 user I would love to agree with you but cannot anymore. An excellent example of "their products are certainly not as bad as some folks on this forum suggest" not being the case is right here on their current almost unused forum.

A brand new W8.1 user installs RBrx. He's running Windows AUTOMATIC Updates (which most general users are) and 2-days later, that update system, at 8am in the morning, installs UPDATE #1 for w8.1... the system never successfully BOOTs again. Cause? The UPDATE #1 modifies his system's MBR in a way that with RBrx installed, it never BOOTs again. Only way out for him was to CLEAN INSTALL his system (even after significant HDS support). Now think about this... how many W8.1 users, who don't populate that forum (tons, I would believe), do you think were affected by that update and wound up with not only unBOOTable systems but the loss of all their snapshot data along with it. We surely never hear about those folks... they aren't system testers, they're just casual users (like that guy who was actually a developer).

I would think that experience would surely neuter any gathered "good capital" gained from... "their products are certainly not as bad as some folks on this forum suggest." And lest we not forget the OP of this thread who's still trying to get some pieces of his unBOOTable system's data as we speak. His experience was even worse than what I mention above... all he did was attempt to upgrade his current version using HDS procedures to do so.

Agree, an XP-only version of this product should be a lot more stable than any other (I'd probably use v9.1 instead)... but it would still be based on the current v10.2 build which continues to have issues.

 

While I do agree that the HDS deceptive marketing does indeed make a lot of users believe that Rollback is all they ever need to recover from any HDD infection or other malfunctions, I have a hard time to believe how educated users (the ones who are frequenting this forum) could ever have believed those claims. Reminds me a little bit of the lawsuits chain smokers brought against the tobacco companies, because their advertising made them believe that smoking was actually good for their health.

The case of this Win 8.1 user you are referring to is very unfortunate, but IMO it is just as much Microsoft's fault as the fault of HDS. An automatic update of the operating system should never ever modify the MBR without issuing strong warnings to the user. As you said yourself, the MBR is kind of Wild West territory, and Microsoft must know that there is some software which does modify the MBR, so they cannot assume that the actual MBR of the user is identical to the MBR they created upon installation of the operating system.

And my main point is still that if this user had done regular image backups alongside with using Rollback, he would not have gotten into trouble.


Cheers
manolito

 

FYI, the user in the OP came here looking for help with a problem. He was not a member first and an Rx victim 2nd. He has indicated that he is not especially computer savvy and that he accepted what HDS said about its product at face value. There are many who buy Rx who are just looking for protection and stumble across Rx and accept what they are told by HDS marketing regarding the invulnerability of Rx. So, the responsibility is on HDS for making sure that its users understand the programs limitations. They do not and in fact indicate it has no limitations, that it can recover your PC IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. Take a look at the Rx home page. It says (among others)

Its interesting to note that HDS has a new homepage for Rx. It no longer claims to be able to recover from hardware problems. A small step in the right direction but,,,,,,,,,

 

Absolutely agree...

 

I agree as well, but he was told by HDS that he did not need to as Rx could do it all. Thats the entire issue here.

Now its a tad bit better now that they no longer claim to be able to recover from hardware malfunctions (they used to claim this as of a few days ago - see above in this thread). So anyone with a bit of an understanding that PCs are vulnerable to HD failure would understand that images are important even if you are using Rx,,,,,but many do not know that HDs can fail and have never imaged in the first place.

In fact, the fellow from the OP used to image and then installed Rx. Thinking he no longer needed to backup his data because Rx would be protecting it he stopped imaging and gave his external drive to one of his children.

 

I completely disagree.
Actually, RickFromPhila installed RollBack-RX to keep himself and his data safe from trouble (viruses, BSODs, etc.).
If he had not installed Rollback-RX he would not have gotten into trouble, regardless of taking regular image backups or not...

Panagiotis

 

@Pandlouk:
I was unable to recover all the files successfully with Active@. The smaller files which fit into one cluster or were not fragmented recovered ok. The larger files that were fragmented recovered with gaps in them or additional/missing data appended/truncated. They displayed symptoms of crosslinking. With pro-level custom tools, all the data was recovered. And that's with knowledge of what the end result is supposed to look like, with no logical damage done to the disk. And simple file extraction. I fear the OP is going to have a lot of tedious work ahead.

TO ALL:
I sometimes like to refer people here to get a primer on data recovery.
https://www.runtime.org/howto.htm

..which incidentally, was only marginally better at recovering my test scenario. Neither program Active@ or GetDataBack achieved 100% recovery.

I believe only one company should be controlling file management at this low a level.

Now along comes HDS and they upend the MBR and intercept every OS disk I/O request. They create phantom sector maps and all that good techno goobbledygook.

While I don't know the exact specific changes MS made to the MBR, I don't feel they are at fault. What we have here is a case of incompatibility. A simple software conflict that could be avoided by doing proper testing, validation, and qualification. Clearly that didn't happen.

And it's only going to get worse as software transitions into daily updates, then hourly updates. The user gets stuck re-testing and re-qualifying everything.

It's hard to place blame on one company. Because this situation, like many other disasters, has a chain of events that led us here. And the disaster (data loss) can happen because of many reasons.

The way I see it:
1- Untested software combination
2- No backups
3- Excessive updating
4- Non-technical operator

Another example, but much less known is the incompatibility between Paragon Hard Disk Manager's $mft optimization/compaction routine and Disktrix's Ultimate Defrag's Boot Time metafile defrag.

PHDM does something to the disk that halts DUDBT in its tracks. Or one could say that DUDBT doesn't understand something PHDM is doing. Without further examination, who's to say?

 

One of my more deep interactions with HDS and RBrx dealt with a simple MBR loader provided by BOOTice. The loader was prepared in advance of a test installation of RBrx v10.2. When RBrx v10.2 ws insrtalled, it never was able to advance to the point of BOOTing into Windows. HDS spent appx. 2-weeks looking at lots of screen captures provided by special version of RBrx then claimed that my loader was bogus and violated the "rules" of a MBR.

After much back and forth (BOOTice's loaded didn't violate anything, it was structured perfectly according to the MBR specification), they finally decided to change their special sub-Console loader and all of a sudden all as working perfectly (at least until the 2nd snapshot ). This back and forth was over v10.2 (the current). This same "bad" BOOTice loader was in use during my entire v9.0/9.1 days without issue... all of a sudden it's a bad loader.

This particular experience really made me question whether HDS has the in-depth knowledge to be messing around in this area of the system. I mean the MBR is one thing, but an EFI SYSTEM partition/Loader is a whole new ballgame, now add in GPT disks and things get pretty scary.

No, I don't blame MicroSLoth either... they wrote the book on BOOT loaders. If anyone can change an MBR according to spec I believe it most likely would be them, but they may have made a mistake along the way, I surely don't know.

RBrx, for me, has finally snapped about (10) successful snapshots for me on my W7sp1x86 MBR test system... I'm moving very slowly towards my EFI-based W8.1upd1x64 system with this testing... I've got goosebumps

 

The one thing which disturbs me the most is the amount of updates and custom builds the software seems to need. It makes one think that it is still beta and left wondering what hidden problems are awaiting discovery by an unsuspecting user.

While that's the norm for games and graphics card drivers; it is not ok for the disk subsystem.

 

And that's not true. If you restore a hot image with RBX in the MBR, it will go crazy and destroy your system. I tested that twice.

 

An unspoken grey area with RBRX, what sort of backup procedures do you use? Capture the system prior to installation of RBRX? And then from that point on filesync user data semi-manually to another disk? Old-school offline boot-disc sector-by-sector backup?

To the uninformed we encounter another two gotchas!
1- No hot imaging with VSS or backup-while-U-work procedures.
2- Complete sector-by-sector boot-disc-style off-line backups are required.

 

I do daily differential HOT imaging with Macrium. I had to restore from an image taken before I installed RBX. If I restore an image with the RBX MBR, RBX complains that I did an improper shutdown and then proceed to destroy everything.