I got these: Write operation failed - The semaphore timeout period has expired Backup aborted! - Write operation failed - The request could not be performed because of an I/O device error
I'm guessing these are REFLECT errors while processing. Does the drive work well as just a Windows volume (Copy, Delete, Paste, etc.)?
Yes, it does. Copying files [including doc, pdf, jpg, mp4] worked as expected. PLaying these files was tested. However both Macrium and AOMEI failed creating the images.
korben, I'm confused too. Can you state the problem. Does one external HD work as a target for images? And the other HD fail as a target for images?
@Brian, The new external, taken out at the shop to replace with SSD and play the role of the external works in terms of copying playing files. However, Macrium gives errors when I point to the external to store the image of SSD. When I used my old WD external, it worked very fast actually. Well, to fully test the image, I'd have to restore the image, which for now I don't want to do as I fear more things fall apart. For now I installed AOMEI and even though it created an image it couldn't be verified. I ran chkdsk on both new external as well as SSD. No errors found. The system on new Dell - not once misbehaved. SHould I see the Even Viewer for errors? Am I making myself clear now?
Sorry, I still don't understand. Is everything OK if you use the old external HD? Can you create/verify images with the old external HD?
Cool. With the old external - the image was created really fast. Verified, too. But the old one is almost 7 years old, hence I really wish to use the new one, Now I'm thinking I could partition the 250 Crucial SSD to see if Macrium can store the image from C: to D: partition, like I use to do on my old machines. Yet some people say I should leave the SSD unpartitioned.
korben, As I mentioned before, I think you have a bad USB enclosure. The HD is probably OK. Do you have another enclosure you can try. Sure you can do that. Having multiple partitions on an SSD is fine. I have 26 primary partitions on my SSD. You could store images in that new partition but if the SSD fails you will lose everything unless you have another copy of the backup image stored externally.
Reporting back... I ran diskchk and scandisk working on Dell. This time some errors were found and fixed. Tried to make an image using Macrium - cannot find the file specified error. I do not have another / spare enclosure. I guess it has to be sent back to the store. edit// now finished another procedure - AOMEI: image created successfully image verified successfully Now what? I honestly do not know what to think about this any more.
Dear Froggie, Sounds great. You appear to be the only source of information for CBT so far, so I hope you won't mind a few questions. 1. As far as I can tell from the version 6 User Guide, incremental backups cannot be spaced closer than 1/day. If that is so, how close do you expect it will be possible to space the CBT snapshots? (I am interested in hourly.) 2. Do you expect the CBT feature to be part of a version 6.x upgrade or to appear only in version 7? 3. In your estimation (and vast experience) are we talking about weeks, months, quarters, or (à la HDS) years? Norman
Incremental back ups run fine space at 1 hour. Just set that up in the schedule I haven't tried the CBT incrementals hourly yet, but see no reason it should be a problem. Sure is slick
Norman, as Peter has mentioned, at the moment you can create multiple DAILY schedule items each to run at a different hour... that's what I did originally when I was testing that approach (waaay back). At the time I asked Macrium, directly, if they could add an HOURLY option to their schedule system. They said it would be considered in the future. Other users have created a single DAILY item through Reflect, then gone into the System Task Scheduler and changed it there to HOURLY. In this case the scheduled item is now managed manually by the user and I don't believe it can be seen any longer within the Reflect User Interface. Users who have found it to be different... feel free to correct me here. Since they're so far along with the CBT development, I believe it will be part of v6.x. A la Macrium... weeks (only a few, I s'pect)... PS- does this mean you're actually considering moving on from XP (15-yrs and counting... )?
Yes, seriously. The prospect of being able to rely entirely on Macrium (hourly snapshots, daily and weekly images) for protection and not have the hassle of having to deal with RollBack RX and FlashBack as well (in Israel we call that using both a belt and suspenders), is very appealing. Norman
<Whoa!>... be still my heart I know it's a big deal but it'll be the best move of your life... not just for imaging. I LUVED XP... but now LUV Win7 even more. I tried Win8 (.1 & update 1) and Win10 but neither offered me anymore of what I need in a Windows system. I'll stay here until the time comes I have to move on (at which point I'll put on my Normanbg t-shirt and stand at the gates )...
Actually, I was thinking of going the whole hog (got to be careful with that sort of language here), but maybe I'd be better off with Win7. My age being what it is, you would be well advised to consider another patron. Norman
FrogMan- I take personal offense at your obvious and blatent operating system bias in today's age of "tolerance". Next, I expect you will be croaking about my XP machines camaraderie with my Win98 machine... SteveG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdGzicnEG4I
RBF- I am glad you are choosing to skip Win95... but wait... I didn't think you were old enough to remember MS-DOS based window programs! S PS - I do believe WFW 3.11 is probably still in operation today somewhere (although not in any of my accounts)... It was a very popular embedded OS and they don't change those often!
Has anyone succeeded in installing Win98 on modern hardware? I get the error message about "not enough RAM".
I actually do have a machine with Win98, but it is an old Pentium 4. Mine has 1G RAM, but I think the minimum RAM for Win 98 was probably 8 MB (Yes, that was an "M").
Win98 was good, but not that good It needed a minimum of 16mB to run successfully. Of course WFW 3.11 ran great in 8mB!
You are correct. I thought it might have to do with the loading order (remember high memory areas and the programs that optimized them?). However, it seems to be a known issue. I guess I don't have the issue since I use a VESA bus on that machine. Here is the workaround: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/253912 Or, perhaps you could try creating a virtual machine and see if that works. Now you can install 98 and have a competition with Froggie (but I think he will win).
