Which partition software?

Do you put all your stuffs in one closet?

There are many advantages to drive partitioning. The majority of software issues are caused by some form of data corruption in WINDOWS. The best way to undo these problems is to restore a good windows image file. Restoring a good image file will also wipe out PC bugs.

If you have a virus infection, then you can restore a CLEAN OS image file, update the virus definition, and scan the rest of the HDD for bugs.

It is possible to maintain the OS primary active C partition under 1GB by moving non-essential files and folders to another partition. All personal data including bookmarks and e-mails should be stored in another partition. It takes Bootit NG 40 seconds to image or restore my 900MB OS partition.

I also maintain an AS LOADED image file of windows for software evaluation. This would eliminate any software conflict resulting from other installed applications. Instead of using the ADD/REMOVE icon, I simply restore the existing good image file to COMPLETELY remove the progam. Since my OS partition is only 900MB, I can backup/restore the windows partition in under ONE MINUTE.

Remember, it's much easier and faster to reload one application than reloading windows. The best way to protect windows is to image the windows partition. By isolating the windows partition from other applications and data, one can QUICKLY backup the windows partition in less than a minute.

 

It is also possible to test any new software with a current primary active partition. Just image the OS partition prior to loading the software. There is NO need to restore the as-loaded image file of windows. The image/restore time is still under 1 minute. FDISR is NOT a drive image application. Therefore, it does not carry the same level of fail-safe protection as a full image file of the OS! No need to spend more $ on layered full-time protections. I demand speed, stablitly, and easy of use.

Time is $. So what are the advantages of FDISR? It's slower than my mutiple partitions method. It is less robust. You claim the advantage to be one of "work style". Well, I can't debate about personal preference like color and taste!

You don't see the advantage of partitioning because you are happy with a less than ideal solution. Perhaps when FDISR fails, then you will realize the power of drive imaging. I am open to new ideas, and I'm smart enough to admit that solution A is better than solution B.

This is NOT a debate about NOD and KAV. If your OS partition has been compromised, then restoring a good image file of that partition will ALWAYS fix the corruption. FDISK cannot achieve this level of data security.

 

You are absolutely correct about this.

You have performed a logical fallacy here. Which imaging software do you use? It is likely prone to fail. FDISR is not perfect, but neither is your imaging software, I can assure you of that. If you are betting on it being guaranteed, then you are living under a false sense of security my friend.

There are too many for me to name, but I am sure that you can find many of them by perusing the Leapfrog forum.

I would take issue with your claim that FDISR is slower. I would be interested to hear your reasoning for claiming that partitioning and imaging are more "robust." Partitioning and imaging could certainly be argued to be more complicated. My opinion is that partitioning creates an unnecessary risk.

"Ideal" is subjective. I could say that you don't see the advantages of not partitioning and using FDISR because you are happy with a less than ideal solution.

Perhaps when your image fails, you will realize the vulnerability of relying on a single method.

Be careful when using words like ALWAYS and NEVER. Very few things in this world are ALWAYS or NEVER anything.

 

furballi, I understand because you are new here, but you aren't saying anything that hasn't been thoroughly discussed and analyzed before you arrived on the scene. Some of us partition, and some of us don't. We each have what we feel are very good reasons for doing what we do and we, generally, respect each others position and don't tell each other that they don't know what they're doing or don't know what they're missing.

I'm sure YOU don't see the advantages of FD-ISR because you haven't read the discussions or tried it out and don't know what YOU'RE missing.

I would match FD-ISR against IFD/IFW/BING in reliability ANY day. You probably know better than to even mention OTHER imaging softwares that don't even make it into this class in reliability.

Just in case you've forgotten that you've already tried to preach to me in other threads, save your breath. I use FD-ISR already, in addition to BING/IFD/IFW, Acronis True Image , and Retrospect for Windows Pro and don't need a lecture on any of them.

 

If FDISR does not backup EVERYTHING in the OS, then it is LESS capable than a FULLY FUNCTIONAL imaging software. Can you predict what will go wrong with your OS? I assure you that FDISR cannot cover all failure modes. Sure, you can argue that the created image file is corrupt and will not restore, but the same can be said about FDISR.

Why don't the big PC vendors use FDISR to restore the OS? Is it because they know that a working image file on CD/DVD is as close as possible to a perfect backup of the original data?

I have no issue with those who DO NOT partition the HDD. However, it is pure BS when someone claims that FDISR is just as reliable as a working image file. That's plain ingnorance. There's a difference between software reliability and software LIMITATION!!!

 

Neither can your imaging software.

Wow! You not only put way to much faith in your imaging software, but you put equally as much faith into your CD/DVD burner and CD/DVD manufacturer. Be honest, how many times have your successfully recovered from a disaster? Even if you are successful at obtaining a known good image of your OS, what do you do about your data? If your trust your imaging software and CD/DVD system that much, do you also rely solely on it to ensure your data is backed up? I surely hope not, for your sake.

What is pure BS is the fact that you virtually admit that you have no prior knowledge of FDISR, but you are very assertive in your claims about both its capabilities and its limitations. You are also very careless with your choice of words. For example, you say that FDISR in not as reliable as a working image file. Ignorance is failing to consider the possibility that your image file is either not a working one, or worse, is one that appears to work until you need it to.

NOTE:
I just realized that my posts seem to indicate that I do not use imaging software. In fact, I use Image for DOS as my imaging software and I do not condone the use of FDISR as a substitute for imaging (neither do the developers). Rather, I endorse Peter2150's layered approach that incorporate both FDISR and a quality imaging software(s). To be sure, I am posting in this thread simply to advocate that partitioning is overused and rarely needed. The only legitimate reason I've heard in favor of partitioning in this thread has been from Longboard and that involves multiple bootable OS environments.

furballi,
I am sorry, but your reasoning is less than convincing. Even if I subscribe to your thinking that FDISR sucks and imaging is the only way to go, which I do not, you still have not listed a single piece of evidence that justifies the necessity of partitioning. Absent the necessity, it is clearly little more than an unnecessary risk.

 

A working image file application should make an EXACT copy of the OS partition. Therefore, it will cover ALL failure modes related to data corruption on the backed-up partition. FDISR cannot make this claim.

I test software on a daily basis...3 to 4 rounds of image creation/restoration per day. Never had to restore a partition containing my data except when I swap HDD. The data are archived once a month.

Data corruption can occur with ANY software. However, all else being equal, a software that copy EVERYTHING in the OS partition will always be more capable than one that does NOT.

 

furballi,
Arguing with you about which is better, FDISR or your yet-to-be-named magical imaging program, is futile. I am not trying to get you to admit defeat nor do I want you to surrender your methods. You are happy with your method and I with mine. That is all that matters relative to that issue. The topic of this thread is about partitioning. I challenge you to name one reason, just one, why it is necessary to partition any HD.

 

Well, there, as before, you are dead wrong, furballi. When you figure out that FD-ISR does indeed make just as exact a copy of the OS partition as any imaging software, you will then have to concede that "it will cover ALL failure modes related to data corruption on the backed-up partition".

 

Why waste your time responding to my posts if you are so sure about your level of protection? Time is $. There are FREE applications that will allow the user to compare the changes to a partition. Do the homework and setup your own test so you can criticize your own work.

 

I have not read this thread, but FD does not make as complete a copy as a backup under all circumstances, i.e., it backs up ONLY the drive on which the OS lives, and maybe a few things from the C drive.

If you have programs or somer of the magic directories not on the OS' drive, youse is up the creek.

 

Howard, read me again, will ya ? I said nothing to the contrary. Note, in particular, the use of the qualifier "OS partition" in my post.

 

Given the reason that many of us are here, it's not a waste of time to counter bald disinformation and ignorance. If your time is so valuable, furballi, just give it up.

 

I'm too old to play your game. There will always be those who will counter with ignorant BS like "those missing files" don't matter. Perhaps FDISR will never fail with your rig. However, it is still 2nd rate to a fully functional image file of the OS partition. Why? Because a good image file will pass a byte for byte comparison test.

By keeping the OS partition under 1GB, one can quicky image that partition for safekeeping in about 40 seconds. Since the OS takes the blunt of trashing, it is also much faster to defrag the OS partition when it is in isolation. If one is unable to restore a good OS image file, then one could always wipe the OS partition and clean install windows. The data and other programs stored in the other partitions should remain intact.

With FDISR and the one partition approach, one would lose everything if the OS partition is wiped out.

 

That simply is NOT true. Now I can see that we are indeed beating a dead horse. This debate, were it worthy, should definitely take place in another thread.

 

While there are times when that indeed should take place....this is one of those times where it simply developed into what it is. To moderate this thread now in regards to either asking that We get back on topic concerning the thread starters question....or attempt to split some of this thread into this other topic would destroy the flow IMHO.

However....what I will say in regards to moderating of this thread is that We do ask that for the thread to continue not only in the direction it has turned but also continue at all is that We keep the un-neccesary name calling out of the mix.

To no one in particular:

It is not our desire to close this thread....so Please discuss if you wish but keep the un-neccesary name calling out of the mix.

Bubba

 

Wow. I must admit I had misjudged the moderators' flexibility on this. It's good to know info can flow and evolve that freely -- no sarcasm, I mean that seriously and as a complement.

 

I stated that I had not read this thread.

I had a lengthy conversation with Raxco about FD back in Feb-Mar.
Raxco stated that FD just backed up the OS drive, so if one has stuff spread about, or if one has a multiboot system, FD does not get the deed done.

Thems their words, not mine.

 

I didn't spend much time with FDISR, but I quickly discovered several technical issues with the software:

1.It must reside on the boot HDD. It is not possible to export the protected data outside the PC for safekeeping.

2.It runs in WINDOWS. A good backup application is OS independent.

3.It cannot process FAT32. That would exclude W95, W98, WME, and WNT users who are using FAT32. BTW, FAT32 is faster than NTFS!

4.FDISR can cause the C primary active partition to grow significantly with multiple snapshots/points of restore. A multi-partition/drive image approach does not alter the size of the archived partition.

I could go on.... Unfortunately, one cannot teach those who are not open to new ideas. Common excuses...too complex, too risky, blah, blah, blah....

 

This is flat out false. I am open to your suggestions and opinions, but you have a responsibility to ensure that what you are saying is truthful. Are you open-minded? Re-read your posts and tell us if those are the words of an open-minded individual.

Not to keep going back to the original question, but other than multiple OS environments why is it necessary to partition? furballi seems to suggest that isolating the OS on its own partition gives the user the advantage of being able to restore the image of a clean, fresh copy of that OS at any time while leaving the rest of the data intact (sorry to paraphrase furballi). This seems like a good utilization of partitioning and I do not have experience with this kind of setup. My gut tells me that it probably comes at a price. In other words, I think that it could be problematic. I would think that Windows would not like having the OS separate from the other program files in many cases.