Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by Tabvla, Apr 30, 2007.
Can you boot to the Acronis TI CD?
Yes... but it I wont be able to recover without the vista cd anyway
I was just confirming that it's only the Vista CD that won't boot as you asked..
Weird. Just like the member in the Radified forum.
ok nevermind. Reinstalled old vid card drivers and it works. Returning the 2900 for RMA
Any news on the winload.exe front? I looked at Ghost 12 but it seems too fancy for me. I just need a image of a fresh Vista install, and another incremental backup with all essential software installed, then I'm good...
Also am not sure if it works with Vista 64bit. Alot of people finding errors on it.
EDIT: heres something else thats weird.
after I got it to boot from vista cd, I thought I could just restore my system with that TI backup I made a few days ago. I ran the Acronis boot disc and restored the image, but decided to do it on a 100GB partition instead of the 200GB I made the image from. (I let the vista cd create and reformat the partitions). After the restore, I booted my computer, expecting the winload.exe error. Instead I got the "BOOTMGR not found" error. I ran the vista repair, and it told me I was missing the windows boot files. After the repair the SAME message popped up (Bootmgr not found). I ran the repair AGAIN and this time it seems to work. At least I got to the logon screen. After entering the password windows loaded up a blue screen with only the mouse curser. nothing else would load.
Just another bug Id like to point out... had to install vista yet again (4th time)
Anyone know hwo many times u can active vista with the same CDKEY before it expires?
So it was the new drivers that prevented the Vista CD from booting. That's worth remembering.
It was the card itself. Confused the BIOS for some reason.
Now I'm even more confused. The old card didn't work yesterday.
I had the 2900 plugged in, with its drivers installed. I uninstalled the drivers but ATI must have more of their crap polluting my system, and when I put my old card in, it must have still been recognized as the 2900. When I cleaned up my HD it worked. Frankly I'm confused myself. All I know is that when I had the 2900 in my system it never could boot the vista cd. The booting worked before i put it in, and after I took it out and cleaned my HD. So I'm putting my blame on the card.
The latest problem however, recovering with TI and getting nothing even after the repair... I blame on Acronis
MudCrab has posted an alternative workaround in his thread titled Fix Vista so a Repair is not needed after a restore or clone that enables you to image and restore a Vista partition without needing to carry out the Repair.
Although Acronis Support have stated that the problem has been identified and the fix will be incorporated in the next build of TI 10.0 Home, no timescale for its release has been given. In the meantime this workaround provides a solution for those users who do not possess either a BartPE CD or a full Vista installation disk.
to all, this has been a fantastic thread. Mudcrab, thanks again for the other threads, as i try to get this toshiba laptop fixed up.
To Bobj, you commented about non-technical users,and that they need to get more involved in their machines,and that software sometimes can't compensate or them.
well, I am an expert user, 20+ years of experience, but this flaw in TI10, and flaw with vista (not provding recovery disks), has cost me a week in time aready. I bought this machine, tablet PC, 2 gigs memory, etc. Super fast. BUT, I started to clea n this off, so it does not have the small icons, clutter, etc. That includes DELETING the two partitions that toshiba includes (play CD without windows, and recovery partition). BUT, that meant htat I had to take a crash course here, with vista, due to to lack of recovery disk (toshiba, microsoft crooks), problems with TI10 not being able to move partition corectly, etc, all the while doing full time work in my ooffice, implementing a new computer system.
SO, I really do expect software such as this to work, or at least explain its quirks up front.
I realize that there are people out there who probably should not use a system, but there are expectations for software to also perform adequately.
anyway, back to testing...
I've tested a Vista 2048 sector offset partition only restore with True Image 11. The good news is that a repair was not needed to get Vista to boot. The bad news is that the offset of the restored partition was changed to 63 sectors. I'm not sure how they did it. The three BCD enties that start out as "partition=c:" remained the same after the restore. They were not changed to "boot".
Other programs I have tested allow you to keep the 2048 sector offset. Norton Ghost and Backup Exec System Recovery 7 both maintain the 2048 sector offset automatically. Shadow Protect 3.0 has an option to edit the partition creation policy during the restore. You can view the partition policy in the image and then edit the default policy to match what is in the image. You can set the offset value manually and choose how the partition will be aligned. This is a great feature as you know the partition will be the same after the restore as it was before.
They probably just corrected the BCD file entries to be correct. All that's needed is to repoint it to the correct partition. It does seem odd that they did it that way instead of keeping the Vista 2048 offset, though.
I have two more interesting findings.
1. I found another way to get into trouble using TI10 with a 2048 sector offset Vista created partition. Simply create a Secure Zone on your Vista drive and take the space from the Vista partition. TI will resize the Vista partition and create the Secure Zone. On reboot you will get the missing winload.exe error. You will need to do a repair to fix it. Keep reading in 2. below for something else I discovered in this situation.
2. If you create a Secure Zone for the exact situation as described in 1. above using TI11, you do not need to do a repair. Vista booted fine the first try. However, I noticed something very curious. When TI resizes the 2048 sector offset partition, it converts the offset to 64 sectors. I found out that both TI10 and TI11 are changing the offset from 2048 to 64 after the creation of a Secure Zone. I don't think this is a problem, but it is different than the 63 sector offset created by certain types of restores that have been discussed previously.
Any thoughts on why the sudden change to a 64 sector offset with a Secure Zone? I checked creating a Secure Zone on a WinXP drive with TI9.1 Workstation and found the partition was left at the usual 63 sector offset.
This goes to MY issue of the 64 offset, vs 63 (see full thread). SO, even if I blow away whole drive, and restore, I still may get this at 64 instead of 63?
WHATever, I will find out in a week or so. I DID blow away the whole drive, as I have to ship this NEW UNIT back to toshiba, because the graphic card apears to be defective (and apparently is on motherboard....)
When I get it back, I will re-image it from my recent backup, and see what happens
You might want to read the post that Nick is referring to his post #114 above mine. He has ended up with partitions with 64-sector offsets just by resizing and moving (with Acronis Disk Director) partitions that were created by Vista and had 2048-sector offsets initially.
The post is in the Disk Director forum here. Jump to post #32 if you don't want to read the whole sordid story.
Very interesting. I know restores with TI 11 are producing a 63 sector offset. Now it looks like resize operation (whether they be by TI11 or DD10) are producing a 64 sector offset. Do you guys think they have a good reason for this or have they just plain screwed up.
The question of the Vista Anytime DVD, WinPE 2.0 and BartPE not seeing the dives is a driver issue. With WinPE 2.0 or the Anytime DVD, drivers are added on the fly after boot. Just choose the Repair You PC option and look for the Load Drivers button. With BartPE drivers can be added before the CD is built or by using the F6 key at boot time when the F6 message in visible at the bottom of the screen. The F6 option only works with floppy disks.
I'm wondering if 64 sector has something to do with 2048 (evenly divisible)??
Also, re: drivers -
to me, it really is not too simple.
The repair disk option sees nothing, then goes and does its own thing, and I have no clue what it s doing, and ther are absolutely NO directiions to be found (as far as I can see)
I know I can dig further, and we ALL have been digging stuff up to make this stuff work with vista, BUT it is very frustrating. Each supposed repair step requires yet ANOTHER repair step (nobody's fault here; it's the designers of this stuff...)
anyway, I'm hoping they can fix my machine rapidly, so I can get back into testing, and reload the images....
My hunch is that it's a screw-up.
When Nick gets his machine back I'd be willing to bet that if he restores one of the partition images (not a whole-disk image) saved with TI10, it will be restored with an offset of 63 sectors.
that is what aI intend to try. we'll see how toshiba expedited service is for tournaround..
I've been following this thread, can't say I fully understand all the details, but appreciate the info.
On a Toshiba laptop, I've got an Vista image that I created with ATI 10, never had to restore it yet. I now have ATI 11. If I restore that image with ATI 11, will it require the Startup Repair?
OK, got machine back (I think I posted to one of our other threads)
shipped in oversize box, able to jostle around.
ALSO, I replayed my DVD,and the video is - you guessed it- still choppy !!
they replaced motherboard even !!
I don't think they understand what the problem is @!
I am NOT sending it back....
ANYWAY, I blew away the stndard reimaging, with Disk Director
then,started TI 10.
reloaded C: partition (NO mbr/0)
see snap1.jpg, 63 sector offset @@!
THEN, disk director, created 2nd partition, primary, as D:
THEN, mounted prior d: bckup, as a drive (H
COPIED H: files to D:, and did a file by file comparison (8 gigs compared flawlessly)
THEN, did disk editor to see the tables; d: is NOW partitin #2 !!
SUCESS (see snap2.jpg)
OK, machine, in its screwed-up state, at least has the drives ok.
WHAT do we experiemnt with next? TI 11?
what are its flukes?
AND, how to get TI to recognize 2048 instead of 63?
anyway, I'm back up and running.
As aoz above has found out, the OS patition with Vista systems starts at an offset of 2048 (see sceenshot from SpinRite below), Disk 0 is the Vista drive, but XP's partition offset is 63, it seems to me that all we need from ATI is an option to select (check box) the 2048 offset (Vista) so we can restore Vista partitions successfully.
Nice to know that the restoration with TI acted predictably. Still don't know why the resize with DD got you an offset of 64 sectors??
Below is a tech support email I've sent Acronis and Western Digital about some issues I've had trying to move a Vista partition from an old drive to a new drive. I've not heard back from either tech support, and have just found this thread.
I wonder if you experts can identify from the description below, whether the problems I am having are likely to be related to technical description in this thread.
To summarise the issues I've had and described in more detail below:
When I have either cloned the system drive (contained several partitions) or restored the system partition from an image to the new drive, then when only the new drive is present in the system, the machine boots properly. If any other drive is present in the system, I get a missing NTLDR or no operating system error message after the bios has done its thing.
I've finally found a work around for the moment, which has involved wiping the second drive completely, and creating new partitions using Vista disk management. This ensures that no parition on the secondary drive is marked as active. If I use DD10 to do the partitioning it always makes one partition on the drive active, and booting fails.
I had assumed initially that the problems were likely to be related to the 1TB drive or a bios issue, but now having read some of this thread, I can't help but feel that it is an MBR issue I'm having.
Anyone got any ideas?
MSI K9N2 Platinum AM2+ mobo
Athlon X2 4600
2GB DDR2 800
AMD 3470 GPU
OS: Vista Ultimate 64bit
Current HDD set up: all Western Digital on ATI SB600 SATA controller
New HDD set up: all Western Digital on ATI SB600 SATA controller
Boot/OS: WD5000AACS also tried using WD1600AAJS
I recently purchased the a new 500GB HDD to replace the one currently installed.
In order to move the OS drive from the WD5000AAKS to the WD5000AACS, I have used both the clone drive function in TI11 and also used the recovery function in TI11 (and ensured I restored the MBR as well as the partition). Both methods successfully copy the OS partition to the new drive and when I only have one drive installed in the system (i.e. WD5000AACS) Vista boots up as normal. However, for some reason when ever I think install the WD1000FYPS drive into the system (on a SB600 SATA port), I get a NTLDR file is missing and therefore the system won’t load Vista. I can confirm that I have done the following to ensure that the BIOS correctly looks for the WD5000AACS to boot from
1. I’ve ensured that the WD5000AACS is the first boot device
2. Tried different SATA ports, while at the same time ensuring that the WD5000AACS is the first boot device
3. Removed all other devices (including the WD1000FYPS) from the list of boot devices
Of note, I have also done the same procedure as above with using the WD1600AAJS instead of the WD5000AACS, but I have got the same results.
Interestingly, when I install a bootable disc into the optical drive, the system correctly recognises the optical boot disc, even if it is 3rd or 4th boot device in the list and after the WD5000AACS (or indeed WD1600AAJS). It is almost as if the bios initially detects the primary drive, but then when it comes actually boot from it, it is not there and then looks for the next drive and so on.
I can’t help but think this has something to do with the WD1000FYPS and its compatibility with some other drives – why should the WD5000AAKS successfully boot in the presence of the WD1000FYPS, whilst the WD5000AACS and WD1600AAJS do not? I’m convinced that the OS partition on the WD5000AACS and WD1600AAJS are perfectly fine. I have conducted these type of disk changes many times previously without issue and the issue seems to be around the WD1000FYPS?
Any ideas would be very much welcome?
It is not clear from your post whether or not the following recommendation is appropriate. Ignore if not applicable.
It is strongly recommended that you should not have 2 instances of Windows, that share the same Product Key, available at boot. There is no consistent pattern in the reporting of problems. Some users report no problems, others report that Windows refuses to boot and behaves in a manner consistent with that which you have reported. Other users report that Windows boots but then becomes unstable.
Once the boot process has completed and you have logged on, you can then make the disk with the other instance of Windows available. I have not heard of any problems if the 2nd instance is made available post-boot.
Separate names with a comma.