Image for DOS/Linux Restore Options

I did Restores (Differential) of my System Partition of two of my Windows XP Pro PC's the other day using Image for DOS. The hard drive containing the System Partition is partitioned in both of my PC's. I had researched previously what people would "typically" recommend for the Restore Options. The following is what I chose for the Restore Options:

1. Set Active
2. Update BOOT.INI
3. Write Standard MBR Code
4. Validate before Restore

I understand "1" and "4". However, wouldn't "Restore First Track" do both "2" and "3"?

What do you select as Restore Options when doing a Restore with Image for DOS/Linux?

What Options would you select for different Restore situations?

Thanks in Advance.

 

Restore First Track is not the same as 2 and 3. It won't update the BOOT.INI file and it doesn't write Standard MBR Code. It restores the entire first track of the drive, including the MBR code saved in the image and the disk signature. The EMBR is also restored, if it existed in the image.

I usually don't select any special options when doing a normal restore back to the same partition.

 

i m giving a thought to purchase/use ,IFD/IFW simply because the Bootable CD takes no time to load, compared to Paragon/Acronis, BartePe.
Can someone tell me does IFD/IFW make an Image like Drive Snapshot i.e., Sector Mapping. Recently DS bumped in the middle of Restore and BartePe, Paragon Rescue Disc ,Hiren Boot CD even Winxp CD etc etc failed to load , i had to format with Easeus Disc to perform format.

Does it make Image like Paragon.

 

Yes, IFD/IFW is sector based imaging.

If you buy you'll never regret it. Great software with fantastic support.

Panagiotis

 

Same as DS,,,but after that bump i had while restoring (which was the rarest case i had till now)i m really in a dilemma as to what do i make my first Primary Imaging Solution.
Till now i m using Paragon (tried few others also) and havn't had a single mishap , performed 4 Bare Metal Restore on PC's with different rigs. The only reason i m looking for other solution is for faster boot of the Rescue disc and faster Restore of the Back-up, Paragon takes least 1 min few sec's to reach the Recovery console and at least 16 min to Restore. (Cause i h' an old rig)
DS does that at 1/4th of the time taken by Paragon.
IFD looks like the one.

I feel really stupid asking this but !!!
Does Paragon make compressed image or clone a drive like DS does i.e.,(Sector based)

 

I had the same thought, but IFD can be significantly slower than IFW from BartPE (depends on the computer - it can go the other way too).

Also, BartPE can load very fast if you use a bare bones version of it (no XPE, no ramdisk plugin, ...) and you run it off your hard drive or from a fast USB stick.

And when it comes to incremental backups, IFD/IFW uses the thorough (slow) method (file content comparison to identify changes), whereas Acronis uses (or can use depending on the version) the fast method (time stamps/file size comparison to identify changes).

 

The fastest restoration is with IFD and TBOSTD.
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/howto/howto-ifd-bootfile.htm
1-2 seconds to start the restore procedure.

Yes paragon makes compressed sector based images too.

Panagiotis

 

It depends. If it is slow on a pc try to use the "bios direct" feature instead of "bios".

Panagiotis

 

i did a little test between IFD and DS backing Primary Drive (4.5 GB)
DS: 1.74 GB
IFD:1.59 GB (Best compression)

DS took 6 min to backup and IFD took almost 6 min(didn't pay much attention here)
Now Restoring with DS from Barte, time taken was 10 min(add the time to boot the Barte) however with the advent of DS 1.40 with the function to Restore after restart would cut the time to 7 min.
(Please dont smirk here, thats the way i like comparing programs)
While for IFD, the time taken was 5 min, (add all the time to Boot the CD and select image etc etc).

Faster by 4 min then DS from Barte and 2 min faster from the Standalone/Win Installer of DS.
There are many great Commercial Backup Solution and many Freeware also, but this is the method i like comparing products and sticking with the one close which meets my need.
I dont h' the need for Incremental/Differential Backups as i like to make BACKUP of Fresh Install of Win.
In the end it boils down to Individual preference, but IFD is faster then DS, and both are equally good.

I think i'll stick with IFD for now.

 

After further reviewing the Image for DOS/Linux Manuals, I have come to the conclusion that it would probably be better to select "Automatic" during the Restore operation. As long as you are restoring to the exact same hard drive, partition and partition size as from which the Image was made, the Restore operation should be successful. Has anyone used the "Automatic" Restore option?

 

The above comparison i made was when i performed Restore(Automatic) function :time taken was 4.10 min (total time 5 min choosing the HDD and the Image etc)but it was only half an hour i had to Restore using IFD ,with the Restore(Normal) function and the time jumped to 5.40 min.
Howecever i didn't see any noticeble difference ,except their was another window prior to Restoring in the Restore(Normal) function. (may be i m not good at explainig things)
My PC has 2.0 GHz and 1GB ram , u can interpret how much faster it would be for those machines having greater mojo.

 

IFW/IFD users know that IFW is available in 2.55 and 2.55a flavour. i was looking for v2.55 and v2.55a seems to be floating everywhere.
Can someone know or give me a link to IFW v2.55, that would be great.

Many thanks.

 

What's the difference between "a" and "non-a" versions? I thought IFW 2.55a was just a newer build of IFW 2.55.

 

They are newer.
a, b, c, etc. versions are used for bug fixes.
http://www.bootitng.com/upgradehist-image-for-windows.htm

Panagiotis

 

one quick question..OT... when is bootit v 2.0 going to be released ?

 

Call me crazy, but when I'm restoring my HDD from a disaster, I don't quite care about shaving off a few minutes.

 

Does any one here know a link to v2.55 i know v2.56 is released.
Any site or direct link. I really need it.

 

Softpedia has it HERE

 

Thank u but i was looking for Image for Windows 2.55 , at the moment i m using Image-for-DOS 2.55a.
U see i h' one license which cant be accepted at 2.55a or 2.56 version.
I dont h' any older versions and v2.55 was just right for me.
And i had lost my Original copy of IFW 2.55. Even though thank u for ur effort.
Terabyte website doesn't h' and store older version of IFW /IFD.