PC time machines

What are the technical differences, advantages and disadvantage between

* Comodo Time Machine
* EAZ-FIX
* RollBack Rx


I already have and used RollBack Rx, and know that CTM is free.

 

Rollback Rx and EAZ-Fix are a pretty proven product overall,stable.

Comodo Time Machine has shown that when people uninstall it for whatever reason,it has a tendency to wreck the main boot record and causes the PC to not want to boot.

 

Are Rollback Rx and EAZ-FIX nearly the same products just distributed by two different companies?

 

http://horizondatasys-forum.com/eaz-fix/371-difference-rollback-rx-eaz-fix.html#post865

hope this helps.

 

next Pc time machine
http://www.wondershare.com/pro/time-shuttle.html

 

Oh dear, another one. Now there are at least four to choose from.

 

Imho you are already using the best of the lot. RB has gone through its 'trials and tribulations' growth-stage. It's one of my 'must have' programs - although it doesn't take the place of a disk-imaging program (for disaster-recovery)!

 

I have only dabbled with some of these. Are any of them capable of storing the "image" onto another drive for backup? I see the situation (and why I don't bother with them) as taking a somewhat long time to create/restore, and the possibility of the drive going bad making thier usage null and void. That is why I use macrium, it is fast to create/restore and I can house the image literally anywhere.

Sul.

 

Sul, these 'Instant Restorers' do not take the place of a disk-imaging program (as I indicated in my post above). It's best to think of them as a much better alternative to Windows System Restore.

I use a disk-imager (Drive Snapshot) to back-up my system onto an external drive (at which time it also captures the snapshots of Rollback Rx). To the best of my knowledge, there is no other way to store their snapshots on another drive.

Aaron

 

IFW and BING can 'capture' the snapshots and image to different partition/drive and restore if RB is installed.

AIR, there have been several good threads about this issue.

 

If you can't decide between those 4,you can try the 5th 1 ......:

http://www.ayrecovery.com/ayrecovery-professional/index.html

 

this is exactly what happened to my office pc.

 

The point I was making (to Sully) was that you need to use a disk-imaging program (properly) in order to save the snapshots of an 'instant restore' program to another drive/partition - there is no other way.

By 'properly', I mean that you have to perform an 'all-sectors' backup from outside of Windows in order for that to work. I wasn't suggesting that Drive Snapshot is the only disk-imaging program that can do it (any disk-imaging program with said functionality could do it).

 

If I understand this then, you are saying that rollback tools place thier image files on a drive, to which you can roll back and forth among these snapshots. But thier weakness is that you can't take a snapshot, and archive it to another device, then reinstall fresh to the OS drive and then apply the snapshot, or some form thereof. It is an all or nothing thing with all of these type programs?

You are then stating that a complete clone of the drive (by sectors) will then allow that cloned image to be archived to another medium. The penalty being time and size of the cloned image then. The, like any image, it can be placed back to a drive and the snapshots remain as they were before.

Correct?

Sul.

 

As far as I know, that is correct (I believe there was an instant restore program called FD-ISR which allowed archived snapshots, but it is no longer available).

Correct - if performed as I described above. Btw, an 'all-sectors' backup image can still be compressed, but naturally it would be larger than the more typical 'used-sectors-only' backup.

My strategy is to rely on Rollback Rx for inter-day & intra-day backups (snapshots) and run an all-sectors disk-image weekly. The bottom-line is that the last line of recovery is a disk-image/clone!

 

@Sully

Yes.

 

made by EAZ-FIX