AX64 Time Machine VS Rollback RX PC?

Count me as another ex-RBRx user who suffered a catastrophic data loss when one day my system just wouldn't bootup (not even to RBRx's sub-console)!

I don't know what's worse - the RBRx design defects that have plagued its users over the years, or HDS' Tech Support washing their hands of any responsibility whenever RBRx has trashed a user's system (with no reliable means of recovering lost snapshots), or HDS' misleading marketing with respect to RBRx precluding the need for other backup/antimalware, or the disingenuous reps from HDS who appear every once in a while trying to disavow RBRx as the cause of such hardships! HDS gets my vote for entry into the Hall Of Shame.

TS

 

Hi TS

In regards to HDS marketing, I also think it is misleading. I had a question about "eazfix", a RBRX clone, around last October, and the question was in regards to TWO marketing websites 'eazsolution' and 'pcundo'. There it was stated with 'eazfix' one could create drive images. I knew this was not true, so I asked them about this and a sales guy from 'pcundo' responded that they do not offer that option any longer, and that the website needed to be updated. Apparently, they bundled Drive Cloner with eazfix at one time, but we all know that will not save ones snapshots, etc., and I must assume they stopped it because of just that reason...people were realizing their snapshots were not being backed up, or perhaps other issues.

I took a look last night, sure enough the very same claim is STILL clearly stated on the 'pcundo' site and it is simply not true, AND they know about it and apparently leave it up. This makes no sense to me and certainly could cause confusion. The fact it was acknowledged to me it was no longer supported, and needed updated, it still shows the same claim. For me, this is a lack of honesty and integrity, but that is just my opinion. I can understand an oversight, it can happen, but after 8 months and the same claim still present?

Certainly appears misleading, and it is.

Thanks for your thoughts TS. RBRX is interesting tech, and for the most part works, but it is well below a 'complete solution' in my opinion, and can be dangerous for anyone who truly feels 'safe' without a proper complete backup solution apart from RBRX or its clones. I do not mind some MBR editing by a program if it is necessary, as i always backup MBR, but the stories of those who have suddenly found unbootable systems, goes beyond just MBR problems, it would appear to me to be the type of program and how it operates and certain 'bugs' that may or may not be exposed. I often wonder if an application such as RBRX is perpetually in a state of "beta" because many have had to have special 'fixes' to their systems for it to operate properly. That never gave me a good feeling about the overall quality of the product. it would be one thing is they were a new company trying to iron out problems, but the latest version 10.X seems to have been a problem much worse than V 9.1 ever was for most.

Just my thoughts. I have nothing against HDS, but I do have a problem with some forms of 'sales tactics' and their clone sites making claims that are not true, and i do have a problem with HDS perhaps giving a false sense of security to potential customers who may not realize what they are buying into, which is NOT a complete solution for data protection...decent for the most part, but not complete. it does leave folks vulnerable to issues that are not addressed fully by HDS.

Jim

 

Hi Jim,

I believe you are way too kind wrt HDS. Although they have toned-down their claims for RBRx, here are false/misleading statements from HDS' current RBRx Features webpage (with my annotations in red):

• Does not affect computer performance, uses minimal system resources False. RBRx slows-down startup and uses lots of disk space!
• Reverse any system crash within seconds (even if Windows cannot startup). True only if the system crash was not caused by RBRx!
• Recover from any malware or virus attack within seconds. Not true if said malware corrupts the MBR or RBRx's baseline snapshot*.
• Supports Multi-boot, Multi OS workstations. Huh?, when I last used RBRx it only supported Windows!
• Retrieve files from a crashed PC, even if Windows cannot . Not true if the RBRx sub-console cannot boot.
• Built in snapshot defragger - optimize system resources and recover free space. False, the snapshot defragger optimizes RBRx snapshots, not system resources.

*This is a vital weakness of RBRx and the cause of many unrecoverable crashes. If RBRx's baseline snapshot (not actually a snapshot) becomes corrupted for any reason the integrity of the system is lost and more often than not the system will be unrecoverable (except, possibly, by restoring an image backup)!

TS

 

Hi TS

All excellent points, and a true representation of the weakness of RBRX. I only wish HDS was as open and concise in regards to their product as you have written. The manner in which they describe RBRX, one would think it is 'bullet proof'.

Your additions give proper perspective to the areas of weakness, AND expose the sales tactics that I see as very misleading to any potential customer.

Thanks TS Have a good night.

Jim

 

Since this thread is also about AX64 Time Machine, it's only fair to point out that it has its 'infancy issues'. However, with the caveat that I have not followed AX64 since Isso's departure, I never saw him make false/misleading statements about AX64's capabilities and Isso quickly acknowledged AX64's incompatibility with Shadow Defender when I first pointed it out to him.

You have a good night too Jim.

TS

 

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of HDS,,,,,the Shadow knows.

Well said sir,,,and right on.

 

That's not good advice. Rollback Rx does not prevent you from becoming infected so you will be doing all your usual activities online without ever knowing you are infected. Also, how will you know to roll your machine back if you do not even know you are infected. Also, Rollback RX does not always restore your machine to a clean state after becoming infected. Rollback RX has been tested against some really nasty infection, and it has failed to roll the machine back to a clean state. I was just going to use it for testing software.

 

if, in fact, the fellow defending the Rollback Rx is a clandestine agent of the NKVD, sorry make that HDS, he should be shot as a spy?

 

I've been using RBRX for some time now. And am rather pleased with how it works. And my recommendation is simple, it goes like this.

1- Build and configure your system.
2- Create a full disk image using a tested & trusted off-line backup solution. Macrium, Acronis..
3- Install RBRX and enjoy the benefits of rapid snapshot switching.

In case something goes wrong you can always go back to your golden master disk image and start anew with minimal fuss. My RBRX "protected" systems have indeed crashed from time to time. For me it was no big deal because I could simply make a cup of coffee while restoring from my real genuine backups.

Rollback RX is not a serious tool. It is a time-saver. It is a "nice-to-have" utility.

Under no circumstances can you rely on RollBack RX alone. You must have a real backup prior to messing with this program. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Capice?

 

Indeed I also like RBRX for it's swift recovery. I make a lot of changes to my system in a day and it comes in handy. And wih Froggie's (kudos, Froggie) method of using Image for Windows to do a HOT RAW backup and COLD RAW restore. You can backup as you work and if something goes wrong, you can restore a previous backup including all snapshots in about 45 minutes (at least 45 on my pc).

I agree HDS could be more forthcoming and could more rapidly develop their product, but that is their choice.

 

When RRX works, it is amazing. When it doesn't, it is devastating. Every time I reverted I held my breath and prayed. It almost always worked. A few times it didn't, I lost everything.
I found the danger far out weighted the benefits and I stopped using it a while ago.
I then moved to AX-64 and it seemed very promising. It sold and the dev team seems to be lost.
IMO, there isn't currently a reliable snapshot program. I was forced into a conventional imaging backup program. Reliable but VERY slow.

 

Masterblaster, I agree with Peter here, MR v6 restores are as fast as AX64 and is much more reliable than Rx and AX.

 

I have used Macrium but settled on AOMEI Backupper. Neither have the speed of a snapshot program but both offer slower but reliable image backups.

 

Masterblaster, you might want to take a look at the new version of Macrium (Version 6). Its speed is comparable to AX64 in both the backup and restore departments. A typical restore for me takes under 2.5 min and thats using an external drive plugged into a USB 2 port. A USB 3 drive in a USB 3 port will be much faster (of course).

 

OK maybe it will give it another try. Thanks.