Why I Removed Comodo Time Machine

Hi All

I have been using CTM since it was launched including the latest beta. I was disappointed that Comodo moved from the DiskShield concept, because in my opinion it would have met a simple need of trying out software requiring a reboot.

With CTM I notice that when one rebases snapshots it can take a long time (several minutes) to achieve this, getting worse the more snapshots one has. In addition CTM is very susceptible to abnormal shutdowns. Which if they occurr requires the use of CheckDisk. Even this does not always resolve the foul ups.

CTM works well, if somewhat tediously, but the big big problem is how to achieve Bare Metal Backup that is fool proof. Comodo won't or can't tell me.

Some knowledgeable people at Wilders tell me it can be done, but if you want to image and include CTM and all snapshots you have to jump through hoops to achieve it. That is you have to image in Raw mode without compression. Which produces a huge image and a long time unless you have a very small partition.

To achieve the backup of the current image only is not easy, in my case I had to uninstall CTM to do it although I am told that if you image from within Windows (Not Using recovery CD and no compression) it can be achieved. In my case I could not.

So I ask myself the question why did not Comodo think this through first before developing a product that is so flawed.

It is simply easier in my view to image before trying new software then replacing the image if the software is not useful. At least one can guarantee bare metal recovery to the latest date.

Terry

 

the product isnt flawed, thats just how a rollback product works, u dont seem to be able to grasp the point of a product like this and its natural limitations. it shuldnt even be compared to disk shield since ther is no similarity.

there a BIG downsides to this type of software but for some (like me) it is indispensable for its ability to revert any changes on ur system in almost no time instead of using the half done restore of Windows built in restore or having to take the hours to do a full actual image. this is convenient and pretty easy to use.

 

Hi Firzen

I do, like you understand the limitations and "grasp the point" of a product like CTM. However, what is different is that I don't share your view. Clearly others don't if you read the commentaries in various fora.

I have just expressed my view, you and others are entitled to your opinion.

But to suggest that "I do not seem to be able to grasp how a rollback product works..." is frankly silly how do you know what my knowledge is?

The only thing different about CTM is that it will be free, it removes none of the limitations that you apparently are prepared to accept. I am not preapared to accept those limitations.

That is my right of choice just as it is yours to live with them.

Terry

 

hi....RB/CTM....have limitations but they provide a different approach to get over botched installations/infections/update glitches/testing 4 av in different snapshots and that too at a fast speed...plus you can recover files from snapshots but with the downside of not using defraggers/lousy un-installation and other issues but to compare this approach with drive backup/imaging and dismissing it is not prudent either.No doubt an image back is the way to go but RB/CTM etc offer a refreshingly fast way to undo pc issues now whether its safe/likable or not is a subjective notion

 

Why are you posting this? Its beta................Use at your own risk. Dont complain if you don't want to pay the price for using it.

 

Hi XPS743

Why I have I posted?

Because I want to share my views, that how we all learn!

The fact that CTM is Beta has nothing to do with it. I cannot see the point you are making. If Comodo were going to allow for Imaging surely they would have incorporated it before now. The other issues I point out may or may not be resolved. I simply say for me that there are too many issues versus the convenience.

I do not think Comodo is adding any value other than it is free over and above Rollback & AyRecovery

Terry

 

I tried CTM knowing the risks and ended up having to format my pc. I have had bad experiences with Rollback Rx yet many use it, and CTM, successfully. using CTM hepled me to realize that for me this inherent risks of this type of technology, whether beta or not, is not worth its benefit (just my opinion). Since I have VM Ware and storage is cheap, complete virtualization is much more safe and reliable for my purposes.

 

No need to bother with anything like this kind of software. In today's world everyone should be using an external drive for back ups or using something like IDrive. I use both. Now with Win7 it only takes 20 mins to reformat and your done. Since I have never been infected in well over 6 years now I am not worried. No security can every replace common sense.

 

I gave CTM a good try, but in the end walked away rather irritated with the whole concept of all of these products. Nothing wrong with them but they just don't fit my bill. I am not entirely conviced of thier stability, but some have great luck.

For me, it is easier and faster to use imaging. The short amount of time it takes to create/restore one for me was faster than CTM much of the time.

Sul.

 

Exactly. Rollback & Co provide top recovery speed. But there is a price to pay.

Each user should evaluate pros and cons.

Personally, after trying FD PC Rescue and Rollback, i prefer FD PC Rescue much more, because it may be a bit slower, but has proved to be rock stable and once you are booted to Win you can do whatever you like as always (including defragging) and Windows itself is working as always (as opposed to pass every new data on HD through Rollback's driver).

In absence of a FD PC Rescue for Win7x64, i came to the same conclusion. I use Paragon Free which is a much slower solution, but i like more the concept of it and the reliability.

 

CTM must not be a clone of the three clones then. With AyRecovery, a new snapshot takes less than two seconds. A recovery takes two clicks of the mouse and normal boot time. Defragment or deletion of snapshots takes just a few minutes. If some software or update crashes my pc, to the point that I can't even shut it down, the recovery takes: "power button" off>power on>tap the home key>tab to "Restore" in the Ay GUI>Enter>tab to which snapshot>Enter and it boots normally.
I also have a raw a Paragon image on an external HD. Paragon repairs the boot order (or you could use your Windows CD) so it will bypass Ay if that is what you need.
This software has worked perfectly on an XP SP3 desktop and a Vista SP1 laptop. Naturally, CTM is not going to work on some setups. Even now, I can't figure out why Avast won't work on the laptop but every other anti-virus runs great. My non tech (admittedly) opinion is that the snapshot clones are no more unstable than any software. Even in the recovery segment, look at the threads from posters using imaging products who have had major crashes trying to restore conventional images, or just check any of their support forums!
I guess my point is I'm glad you've been warned, but that doesn't mean the risk is any worse than anything else you might install.

 

I use CTM purely for the convenience of trying out new software- nothing else.
On occasion, I have experienced BSOD and on reboot have all but once been able to recover the system.
For it's intended purpose and because it is free, I believe CTM to be unparalleled.

-However-

I revert to Macrium Reflect Images when I desire to start over.
For absolute certainty, nothing short of a from-scratch build beats true, clean, and unambiguous bare-metal recovery.

Both methods have their place.
There is no way I can re-image or even clone a new install as fast as CTM can do it's thing.
And there is no way CTM can provide the ultimate stability of reimaging or cloning.

Having both and the choice to use either puts me exactly where I want to be.

 

My observations come from the fact that the 'data', where it lives, consumes a lot of space when using CTM. For example I put it on a machine with 20gb of space on the hdd. I was copying some things, and not a big deal. However, when I ran a benchmark tool for testing overall system performance, my hdd space ran out. This lead to a lockup, in which led to a very long 'reindexing' of CTM in bios during boot. Coupled to the fact that it autosaves images, left my hdd full I guess with no room left.

I found that to be quite disturbing. And yes, I know many here love these types of programs, and that is great. I am not saying it sucks, only that it is not on my list of 'great' programs for me.

I compare it to my Macrium image. I boot into bartPE or LiveXP from the hdd into ram in approx 30 secs. I spend about 1 minute navigating the Macrium plugin to the image, and about 3 minutes to restore the image. One reboot and I am back to square one. That to me seems much much easier than dealing with what CTM brings me.

I had hoped CTM would allow me to do as many desire, test a program and then 'roll back' to before I tested it. I was using Shadow Defender a lot, but now only occasionaly.

Actually I have switched to using more and more things in Sandboxie than I was before. Now I just focus on keeping my macrium image up to date with my small changes so that if I really want to install a new program and test it (outside of VM) I do it and then put my macrium image back in place. All it takes me is a small amount of 'organizational skills' to keep things on other drives so when I replace the image I don't lose anything. The RoboRestore feature of Macrium also works well to keep new files not in the image, but takes a bit longer.

As always, ones mans trash is another mans treasure.

Sul.