Introducing AX64 Time Machine - hybrid imaging/snapshot software

Oops, sorry 'bout that

 

Occasionally, from time to time, steadily, slowly, diligently, intensely, and we can expect its release in a few days, weeks, months, quarters, years?

Norman

 

Hahaha, I give up

 

and so, apparently, have the developers.

Norman

 

All you are doing is try to promote your religious beliefs with absolutely no knowledge about what AX64 is all about.

Since when is AX64 based on the Win7 backup? And in case you haven't noticed AX64 does backup to external drives. And for many people incremental backups do work.


AX64 without the Hot Restore capability would just be another image backupper with very limited features (no multi-partition support, no image verification, no differential backups). Nobody would spend a dime for such software. Like Bill Clinton used to say: "It's the Hot Restores, stupid."

It is quite obvious that you hate this concept, but then why do you even bother to post in this thread? Nobody is trying to convert you to a different religion, but please do the same and spare us from your efforts to convince the folks who follow this thread that they are all dummies. PLEASE GO AWAY...



Cheers
manolito

 

Morning all... the "Pontificating FROG" here...

It's clear from some of the comments on this forum about AX64's active development, or lack thereof, that many of you have never been part of a software development project that works this close to the the Windows API (Applications Programming Interface) and even lower in some cases... it is not a simple endeavor. Most think of Macrium, Acronis, IFW, etc. as being solid and not having some of the "irritations" of AX64 and wonder how come AX64 can't get past these problems? Well the programs I mention have been around for years and years and years and years and have had lots of time to work out the kinks as they have been discovered. Ax64 TM has been in release for appx. 1-yr and with its FAST RESTORE tries to do something no one else has really put forward... an even more gargantuan effort.

We can be sure that the development is on-going, and with the recent notice that most of the effort is going into AX64, that is a very good thing... especially since the belief is that Real Copy will embody almost all of the eventual AX64 technologies. Why spread yourself thin... let's get the CORE running well then we'll expand the product.

So... what do we think the biggest problem areas are? Well... HOT RESTORE for sure, that's the product's unique feature and it HAS TO WORK all the time! RECOVERY MEDIA issues dealing with working devices as well as image discovery... well this stuff HAS TO WORK or you don't really have a useful product for disaster recovery. MULTI-PARTITION protection... well it wasn't part of the original plan as far as initial product was concerned, but pressure from this forum seems to have put it on the front burner. These (3) items are needed for a solid CORE before the added "niceties" come along.

Being a Frog I have certain feelings about items such as these. My gut feel is that WARM RESTORE is probably ready for testing but they need to have an in house consensus agreement before they move it into our hands. We're BETA testers and as such it would be nice for the developers to have some semblance of real success in house before we move to "the OUTHOUSE" for real testing. Remember... we're the ones with all those strange and unnatural system configurations, the ones they could never conjure up in house for testing... it's impossible to know what's out here, that's why they abuse us as much as they do with their testing requests. WARM RESTORE... coming soon to a BETA testing forum as I type. Of course, please realize... I'm just a Frog and the "Virtual VP of Marketing" for AX64 LLC... my contact is very limited (mostly in my dreams, actually) so my "feelings" might lack a bit of basis

MULTI-PARTITION PROTECTION... definitely being worked on and probably quite a bit functional (based on my experience with AXTMcmd)... but something like this needs a LOT of testing, and my guess is that's where this functionality is at the moment, it's very close to being finished if not complete already at this time, and the testing phase is ongoing. There's a lot of work here... just think about all those different partition configurations out there. We, ourselves, use a lot of them! GPT disks, EFI partitions, M$ SRPs (System Reserve Partition), ACTIVE BOOT partitions, LOGICAL partitions, multi-boot systems... it's mind boggling the amount of testing that has to be performed to accomplish this. This will take a while...

RECOVERY MEDIA... it has to work, period! If it doesn't, the product is dead. I think they are close with this but W8 & W8.1 have thrown some real wrenches in this area so the work gets tedious at this point. It's not Windows "fault," if you're developing a Windows product you need to DEAL WITH IT, that's the way it works with Windows. But in this area we have UEFI, Legacy BiOS, individual mainboard issues, drivers for every weird piece of hardware that any of us might have on their system that needs to be functional during these processes... it's another area that requires tons of different system configurations to get completely at the bottom of. That's why we're here... we provide that "extended" development testing environment... without it, the developers will spend, literally, years trying to finalize this product.

To summarize... software development is not a simple process, there are no simple answers to most of the "bumps in the road," patience and intestinal fortitude (guts) are what gets most of these guys through this process, and as auxiliary testers, that's what we need to have as well.

Protect those systems... and let's help these guys get this thing DONE!

 

Quite right, of course. Sorry!
I guess I just hanker for the days when ISSO used to keep the beta testers (this forum) abreast of his progress and plans, including rough timelines.

Norman

 

Believe me, all us "hankerers" join you, Norman. It was very informal and we all felt like we were part of the team. I guess this changed the most with the "merger."

Hopefully, the product will wind up as we all thought it would... super!

 

Well said Frog! Thanks for the commonsense reminder to us all who anxiously and at times over-eagerly await a more finished AXTM. Amen Brother!

 

Hi Jelson, Yesterday I was contemplating getting rid of my Avast and getting Emsisoft. I asked here if Emsisoft would conflict with AX64 before I made the move. I did install Emsisoft last night, not before uninstalling the Avast. As soon as my 30 day trial is over, assuming I want to keep Emsisoft, I'll bring my signature up to date.

 

Just for the record. I have been using 1.4.1.48 for a couple of weeks now on Win 8.1 and using std MBR format disks and have not had any problems with either hot or cold restore on internal disks. I do of course keep backups on external disks using another program.

The only problem I have with this version and one or two earlier ones is that I cannot create a boot stick or the boot menu version, but boot sticks from earlier versions work fine for me.

All my backups are manual and are only used for install of programs etc.

 

Is it possible to back up two computers one is win7 the other XP to one external drive? How would I keep the backup folders separate?
Yes, I have two AX64 Time Machine licenses.

 

Hi Seven64

Here is what is stated regarding backing up multiple machines using AXTM quoted from AX64 site:

"Some users are reluctant to use the same backup folder (AXTM) to back up multiple machines (disks) into. It's perfectly fine to save backups from different machines into the same folder. Backup Browser groups them according to the machines and displays using collapsible panels."

http://ax64.uservoice.com/knowledge...ing-up-multiple-machines-into-the-same-backup

Jim

 

Seven, you'll notice in the "Backup Browser" that you see the partition LETTER being backed up followed by the SYSTEM NAME in parentheses.

If your (2) systems above have different names, you will find different NAMED incremental chains in the common (AXTM) folder. I've never had a problem seeing multiple chains located in that common folder.. give it a quick try with a baseline and one incremental.

The only place things get difficult is when you try to manage those chained incrementals outside of AX64 TM's BROWSER... then you have those strange cryptic file names to deal with.

 

Thanks guys, for link and information.
I will give it a try.

 

...and to add to my pontification above, one other feeling I may have (and you know my feelings)...

As much as I love Windows XP, as a developer I would need to think this one out very carefully. As you all know by now, we have about maybe 30-days left before MicroSloth pulls the plug on this 13-yr old operating system... yup, NO MORE SUPPORT. And based on some of the XP update issues my clients have seen, they may have pulled the plug already on a large portion of that support work.

Think about it... how can I possibly justify any significant work on a product whose operating system is about to be abandoned by its developer, this is just nuts! What I would do is get it to a place that I think I told customers it would function at, then freeze that operating system support level... no more additions/changes. I know this hurts existing XP users but it's a decision that has to be made... it's a BUSINESS decision. If my only market was XP, of course the decision would be different, but that's not the case here.

So all you XP users (shudder as you may)... I would prepare myself for the worst as far as product improvement is concerned. I hope I'm wrong but you know me... I like getting to the bottom of things

 

Holy BatWires, Mr. Moo... that is incredible! That represents a speed of 330mB/sec across an off-line connection (USB2, USB3, GigaBit E-net, maybe eSATA) thrashing out at 2.64 gigabits/sec., and that's without any transmission protocol overhead at all... SMOKIN'!

I think you'll find the fastest storage connection available would be SATA<>SATA with smokin' SSDs at each end running at sequential I/O speeds, and I'm not sure you can even get those speeds in that configuration. And of course we all know that DIFFERENTIAL backups are clearly not SEQUENTIAL in nature so maybe only BASELINEs would move this fast.

I would love to know how your "rig" is configured... and whether I think I could even afford such a burnig beast.

 

Froggie that is not so uncommon. If you use 2 samsung 840pro ssds (1 source and 1 destination) on sata 3 you can restore 100gbs in less than 5 minutes.

Panagiotis

 

Maybe not so uncommon,,,,but I bet not very common either. I think its a safe bet not too many of us on this thread are using one of these.

Out of curiosity, how much would a system like this cost?

 

Only the ssds would add to the cost, all/most recent mobos come with Sata3. so it should be an upgrade of 400+ $

2 samsung 840pro 256gb cost around 400-500$
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...&sr=8-1&keywords=samsung 840pro&condition=new

Panagiotis

 

I WANT THAT SYSTEM!!!

Froggie, keep on pontificating away, please!

Acadia

 

WOW, thats not bad at all, mind you my current system is 500 gigs internal and 1 terabyte external but still, much less than I had expected. So does this mean AX64 is a waste of the developers time (just kidding, I still think the system you describe is out of the reach of many especially with larger drives,,,,at least for the short to medium term anyway).

 

Me too, I have 2 friends that they have such combos and they are impressive (I witnessed a 65GBs restore with IFW that took around 2 and a half minutes).

It is out of reach for most (and IMO if one does not do a lot of video editing such configurations are a bit extreme).

Panagiotis

 

If you separate your data from the OS you don't need large SSDs. I could cope easily with two Samsung 830 64 GB SSDs. Total cost $160.