1st time TI user

I've used D.Image 6 very successfully on win98SE - but since it was bought by Symantec [whom I loathe], instead of upgrading it, I bought TI7 for when I got my new XP Pro system. I've just d/loaded TI's build 613 & the Acronis report tool for good measure. And I want to have as positive an experience with TI as I always had with D.Image!

Have read these threads till I'm half blind, & decided to ask a few things here cos I want to do the job right. New system has 2 HD's, they're not in an array, just normal, & the 2nd one's unpartitioned, but I'll do this with PM8 [seeing as I bought it b4 Symantec took it over & am used to it.]

I don't do incremental images, I do regular imaging of the small O/S partition to their own partition, also burn the images to CD-R at slow speed using Nero. Now will TI do all this just like DI did, providing I do all the usual preparation? Or is there anything else I should know? BTW, I've printed out the full TI manual & this has been my bedtime reading lately!

 

Should be a piece of cake.

You can either image directly to the 2nd drive, setting the option to split them at CD-ROM size, or you can select the CD-R drive as the target for the backup, and have ATI take care of it for you.

 

Two small cautionary statements: DI5 images outside of windows with the assistance of Caldera dos. TI can image from windows by "locking" out certain operations so it can create the image file. Personally, I would prefer to image the partition when it is NOT in use. That's the idiot proof method of imaging.

Second, TI will change the imaged cluster size to a default value when you run the restoration program. My 2K cluster FAT32 partition was changed to 4K when I restored the image file. To me, this is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. A good image file is suppose to restore the data to the EXACT state.

F.

 

That was one thing D. Image wasn't good at - burning images directly to CD-R, these were always useless when DI controlled the burning, I think it used too high a speed & there was no option for this. So I imaged to a partition, & if the image wqas small enough to fit, I then burned it with Nero.

Does TI have a write-speed option - that'd be handy if the image had to be spanned.

 

I am rather worried about the process being done in Windows.

As for the 2nd part of your post, I wasn't aware of that & don't like that idea either. Now I'm not happy.

 

I image from within Windows all the time. I have restored quite a few such images, and have had zero problems.

Are you using some sort of non-standard or manually specified cluster size? If not, I don't see what the problem is.

 

In Win98 when I used P.Magic, it also let me specify cluster size. WinXP, which I haven't used yet, has been installec& partitioned by the guy who built the system. I don't know what cluster size he set, but I guess I'll use P.Magic to create partitions on the 2nd drive & hopefully make the clusters 4KB then.

BTW, where will I be able to see the cluster size in the 1st drive now?

 

If you are not sure what the cluster size is, then it must not be too important to you. Just let Acronis do its thing.

There are several ways to check the existing cluster size, but chkdsk is one.

 

I know what cluster size means, & they're set to 4KB in win98, I just didn't know where to find this info on XP, & Disk Management doesn't show this. Oh well, I was gonna install P.Magic anyway.

 

The cluster size business only has any effect in the rarest of cases (even then only a minor one) and you do not need to worry about it at all!!! (As wdormann has tried to advise you)

 

Hi, f123

I have tried to replicate what you say about clusters and can not do it.

I had my OS on a PATA default 4k Clusters, changed it to 16k Clusters rebooted ran CHKDSK telling if to fix file and sys errors also bad secs, did a defrag, created an Image, and then did a wipe of the PATA HDD [000] restored the Image went to defrag to see cluster size and they where 16k.

Then I tried this on my Raid Array.
I deleted my Raid0 16x16 then wipe of both the HDD's [000], remade the Array to Raid0 set 16k and put the PATA image on the SATA Raid0 Array booted went to defrag to check the cluster size and they are 16k.

So in neither case DID the Cluster size return to default.

So as a Guest why keep posting the same info time after time on the same one thing, and check to see if YOU did something wrong.

Instead of keep the same old grip going on about 2k clusters which Very few if anybody other then you seem to use, as most people if not all now have large HDD's.

Take Care,
TheQuest

 

Is there an option to defeat this feature in TI? No! If the user is happy with a particular cluster size, then the imaging software should take a hands-off approach.

Per my previous post, started out with a FAT32 2K cluster. Used TI 7 server build 613. Imaged the data. Restored the data. The last TI restoration screen showed that the 2K cluster will be coverted to 4K. There is no option to override this.

Acronis support has confirmed this issue. Just because you cannot duplicate the problem does not mean that it does not exist. Perhaps you need to contact Acronis support to confirm my finding. Don't blame it on the 2K cluster or the size of the HD. I'm here to learn and exchange ideas, not to butt heads with close minded individuals.

BTW, I test all software with an as installed image file of W9SE, W2K Pro SP1, and WXP Pro SP1.

 

The original post asked for feedback on DI and TI. I've tested both programs so I provided my inputs. You are welcome to present your finding. The fact that most people don't use 2K cluster is IRRELEVENT.

F.

 

Go to the PM screen and click on the partition with WXP. The info tab will show the cluster size. My WXP primary C partition is only 710MB. I keep it small to expedite the creation/restoration of the image file. This is a FAT32 2K cluster partition. The total size of the partition is 2GB. Total waste space is 1%.

 

You are so, so, so right!!!!! (Also, I believe his case only aplies to FAT drives making it even less relevant)

 

Well my mind's been relieved after this input. XP's on a new system that's still to ne networked to my win98 one.

I agree with the above concept, & I feel like nuking the XP install, which wasn't done like I specified, everything's been put in C drive & it's over 4 GB dammit. As I like to also burn images to CD-R, in the present scenario I'd have to let TI do it so the image could be spanned - & that was something that DI let me down on, cos though I followed the instructions to the letter, it just didn't work. So I did a minimum win98 install, & thus the image could be burned to 1 CD-R using Nero.

[No doubt you'll get a laugh out of this. Even though DI would verify each image for me, I wanted to be able to see what had been done - so I'd put a copy of my image on C drive, then restore it to a tiny partition dedicated to this. Then in Explorer I'd compare the files etc with what was on C drive. How anal's that.]

This is why I asked about TI's burning ability, cos I think DI used too high a speed, & I had no way of controlling this. I'd really like to know about this, because images of my Programs partition will definitely have to be spanned for burning. I never feel safe otherwise - even though the images themselves will reside on a separate h/drive on this new system.

 

Forgot to ask you, f123 - I'm awed by your 710 MB XP install. Is the swapfile on a separate partition? I have 1 GB memory in XP, wheread win98 has 256 MB RAM.

 

Swap file and driver cache folder moved to another extended logical partition. No need to image these data on a daily basis. Also deleted all items in dllcache folder (C:\WINDOWS\system32) after disabling windows file protection.

F.

 

On target!

Here's a great tool to reduce the size of Windows, still in Beta though:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=22479&hl=

 

Thanks for that info, f123.

Next step for me is a better XP install, then maybe I'll start using it! I guess I'll have to trust to luck that TI does a better job of burning than DI ever did for me, cos it doesn't look like anyone here has compared the 2 products in this respect.

 

If you're going to reformat the HD and reload WXP, then I would suggest that you give Bootit ng a try. Very small program. Combines partitioning, imaging, and boot loader in one $35 package. Try it for FREE during the first 30 days. Make sure you don't choose the option that will allow you to install more than 4 primary partitions when configuring Bootit ng.

F.

 

Hi, dee

No Need for Partiition Magic:- Partitioning

You can see the cluster size in Disk Defragmenter.

Take Care,
TheQuest

 

Bootit sounds excellent -

Windows XP/2003 Compatible!
IEEE1394/USB 2.0 high speed support for imaging/partitioning.
support for large hard drives (2 TB) and partitions (1-2 TB).
non-destructive resizing and conversion for FAT/FAT32.
non-destructive resizing for NTFS.
creation and (secure) deletion of partitions/volumes.
undelete partitions/volumes.
FAT/FAT32 formatting
copying and moving of partitions/volumes.
support for Linux Ext2/Ext3 and ReiserFS file systems.
Imaging (including directly to CD-R/RW or DVD+R+RW-R-RW)
booting any partition on any hard drive
booting from the CD ROM drive
booting multiple operating systems from a single partition.
create over 200 primary partitions (if desired).
user id and password protection.
free upgrades (1.00-1.99) (registration-key versions only)
and lots more....

Have you used it youself?

 

Yes, and have also installed on several high-end machines. I have an older PC with PartitionMagic 5 and DriveImage 5. Therefore, I see no need to spend $35 for something that would duplicate what I already have. Both programs run OUTSIDE of windows so you don't have to worry about drive access issues. Bootit is quicker than DI when it comes to imaging. However, the image file is a tad bigger.

Just download the program. Extract it. Click on the bootitng.exe file to write the program to a floppy disc/CD-R. Reboot PC with floppy/CD-R and follow the onscreen instruction (make sure PC is set to boot from this drive).

Avoid the use of more than four primary partitions with new installation. You can change this later as you become more familiar with Bootit ng. Click YES to have setup choose the installation partition for you. It is also possible to choose the partition manually...check out the instruction manual.

Bootit ng would be my first choice if I have a new PC.

F.

 

I have so much s/ware already! But I'll probably get Bootit too, then I can experiment in win98 with both Bootit & TI for imaging purposes, and compare the results with images made with DI.

Bootit seems to have a newsgroup, and TI has this support forum, but with Symantec's DI & PM, you're on your own apart from what passes for a knowledge base & expensive phone support.

Thanks for all the help here!