eazFix/Rollback RX - The Case Of The Defect Snapshots

Discussion in 'backup, imaging & disk mgmt' started by wilbertnl, Oct 4, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    I'm pleased to announce that eazSolution released a new build of eazFix build 2691291151, which should elimitate the often discussed problems with defect snapshots.
    Since more than a week I have been running a test release and I haven't had one single error with this release.
    Rollback RX customers should tune in to the HDS website, expect the update release before this weekend.

    By the way, just for no reason I decided to install eazFix on a 15 GB FAT32 system partition and I noticed significant less hard disk overhead.
    Windows XP runs fast :thumb: . Something to consider?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2006
  2. sukarof

    sukarof Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Posts:
    1,714
    Location:
    Stockholm Sweden
    I´ll check HDS and look out for the new build (who is the developer, HDS or EAZsolution?)
    Nice to see that Windows runs faster. When I tried it a month ago I noticed that build slowing down Windows a bit. Never noticed that when I ran it the first time last winter.
     
  3. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    I will repeat my Q. Do u loose something by using FAT32 for OS partition as compared to NTFS.

    Thanks.
     
  4. starfish_001

    starfish_001 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Posts:
    1,041
    yes quite a lot - security and robustness
     
  5. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,049
    It's good that it might run faster under FAT, but that says they still have a lot of work to do. Kind of like saying it runs better under Windows 98.
     
  6. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    The explanation is that NTFS is not documented for developers. The snapshot concept of eazFix with their sector mappings is more complex compared to FD-ISR. To prevend the problems from the past they added checks to the NTFS implementation.
     
  7. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Microsoft has a reputation in that area. :rolleyes:
     
  8. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,049
    While there is a humorous elimate there indeed. I think the NTFS system has a lot of advantages, and like it or not it is the future. If the Rollback genre of programs doesn't work as well on NTFS as FAT, then they have to get with it.

    I grant you there are people that still have old and slow machines, and FAT probably offers them advantages, but that isn't the future. Having just bought a new high end high performance machine, no way I am degrading it for any one piece of software. Too many options.
     
  9. wilbertnl

    wilbertnl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Posts:
    1,850
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    I wasn't advocating FAT32, I share my experience.
    The good news is that eazFix/Rollback RX does support Windows 9x.

    On NT based Windows most users login with administrator privileges, simply because software doesn't work otherwise. This security design is accepted, while it's not done to suggest some alternatives in a different area that might work better.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.