Any reason why a file-copy (and restore) of the OS partition would fail ?

Paul,

I do Rudy's file copy thing, because my WinXP is on
a FAT32 partition. And it works.

Thanks for confirming its actually a viable method. :-)

... and for (indirectly) indicating XP doesn't expect certain 8.3 style
filenames to be present for certain files.

The trick is, you need to boot the installer CD to its Command Prompt, and
do a Fixboot to put the boot sector back.
....
The other type of repair is "fixmbr", for putting the 446
byte boot sector back in the MBR, after a whole disk wipe

To me that sounds like the used OS (program) to partition and format the
partition doesn't do its work all too well ...

If you "format" the partition, to either FAT32 or
NTFS, that wipes the boot sector (PBR or partition
boot sector).

Not quite. It writes a new BR, which contains all the (new) information
pertaining to the (new) partition.

But there is a possibility, as JJ remarked, that the BR needs to be storing
a "disk ID" matching that of the copied-back OS, otherwise it will barf.

To fix that one is "fixboot", only
available in the repair environment.

That would make sense if its that disk ID needs to be read from within one
of the restored OS files (registry most likely).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Bill,

Is there any reason to not want to use an imaging program to do this?

Besides of just recently having had to ditch my old-and-trusty DOS-era
'Ghost', because it could not cope with an USB stick (which I wanted to use
as the backup medium) which seemed to have more than 1023 sectors-per-track
?

Yes. To make a backup which does not depend on special software (other
than what the OS itself offers I mean) to be able to restore it (in short,
and absolute minimalistic approach).

Just wondering what the disadvantage in doing so might be. ?

Nothing really.

That is, as long as you do not run into a 'gotcha!' like I did when I tried
to run Ghost from/on a new (larger capacity) stick ...

It made me realize that trusting a program to keep being able to restore
your backups even when you change hardware (even when its just an USB stick)
is ... dangerous. Now I have a set of Ghost backups which are fully
worthless to me, as I can't restore them anymore (or otherwise access the
files in the proprietary formatted backup blobs).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Steve,

In Windows XP the OS and programs cannot simply be copies file
by file and work again.

And you are sure about that ... why exactly ?

Yes, I know that that was true for Win98 (maybe only because of its awfull
mix of dependancies on LFN and 8.3 filenames ...), but was not sure at all
if that would be true for XP too. Why do you think I asked ? :-)

Also, read Pauls reply. He indicates the exact opposite of what you seem to
be holding as a fact, and seems to have hands-on experience in this matter.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Bill,

Is there any reason to not want to use an imaging program to do this?

Besides of just recently having had to ditch my old-and-trusty DOS-era
'Ghost', because it could not cope with an USB stick (which I wanted to use
as the backup medium) which seemed to have more than 1023 sectors-per-track
?

Yes. To make a backup which does not depend on special software (other
than what the OS itself offers I mean) to be able to restore it (in short,
and absolute minimalistic approach).

While agreeing with your minimalist objective (I originally did use to
just do a plain copy for my _data_ backup; I switched to using SyncToy
to speed up the process, but what results is still just a file-by-file
copy), I would point out that you are using a second OS (even if it's
another copy of the same one! I'm not sure if you've said) to do the
copying, which arguably isn't all that simple. Bill and I have found
Imaging to be relatively simple once set up (in my case that meant
making a mini-CD I can boot from).

Just wondering what the disadvantage in doing so might be. ?

Nothing really.

That is, as long as you do not run into a 'gotcha!' like I did when I tried
to run Ghost from/on a new (larger capacity) stick ...

I don't think I'd use a USB stick for backup purposes.

It made me realize that trusting a program to keep being able to restore
your backups even when you change hardware (even when its just an USB stick)
is ... dangerous.

Do you mean change the hardware to which you intend to restore (which I
think will give activation problems, for XP and later), or the hardware
on which you are keeping the backup (i. e. copying/moving the backup)?

Now I have a set of Ghost backups which are fully
worthless to me, as I can't restore them anymore (or otherwise access the
files in the proprietary formatted backup blobs).

Well, it was your choice to ditch the Ghost - that's like throwing out
the record player and then complaining you can't play your records (-:.
[I'm guessing that I must have misunderstood what you're saying.]

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


JPG
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Security is the perfect excuse to lock you out of your own computer.
- Mayayana in alt.windows7.general, 2015-12-4

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 16:04:07 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:

Hello JJ,

One thing I'm sure of is that the boot manager's BCD registry would
still refer to the old partition's volume ID.

It really does depend on that / will fail if it doesn't find it ? I have
not thought that far aahead I'm afraid/. But if that is so than I guess I
would need to backup (and restore) that ID too. Thanks for mentioning it.
:-)

Windows Boot Manager uses volume ID (GUID) instead of partition location.
The OS will still be bootable if the files were copied using partition based
copier (which also copy the volume ID), but not if they were copied into a
partition that was created manually (either from scratch, of by reformatting
an existing partition).

If any file which are required to boot (before the kernel is loaded),
is compressed or encrypted.

Can be any file if the NTFS security attributes are messed up (after
the kernel is loaded).

Same as a above. The first thing I wanted to make sure of is if files are,
or aren't locked (for whatever reason) to a physical location. If some
files still are than that throws a serious wrench in my ideas/plans, and all
the other stuff becomes moot ...

That's true. But Windows doesn't use any file which must be at specific
cluster number. Third party applications on the other hand, might. e.g. boot
managers.

Other than that, it's third party software copy protection. Although, I
haven't encountered one for modern OS. AFAIK, such copy protection is only
used on floppy disks way back in 80's.

Hello John,

I would point out that you are using a second OS to do the copying, which
arguably isn't all that simple

Well, (in the end) it was rather simple to put the DOS 7 part of Win98se
onto an USB stick, and boot from that. It was able to handle FAT32
partitions without a problem. Than I added Ghost to it, and my backup
stick was ready to go.

Bill and I have found Imaging to be relatively simple once set up

Same here.

I don't think I'd use a USB stick for backup purposes.

:-) You don't trust them ? I've had a few die on me, but just one or two
because their storage failed, and that early in their lifetimes (the others
physically broke apart from the abuse of being carried around in my trousers
pocket).

Do you mean change the hardware to which you intend to restore

No, not directly. I was talking about the USB memory stick there, which I
intended to hold the backup OS and program, as well as (at least) one
backup. A single, fast and easy restore solution. And easy to update
if/when the need would be there.

But yes, if the origional drive would die I would want to be able to restore
the backup to a new drive.

Well, it was your choice to ditch the Ghost

I didn't ditch Ghost, it became *unusable* because it could not cope with
the stick I wanted to run it from. And To me that functioned as a warning
that a simple change of hardware (the USB stick, but possibly also the drive
in the target computer as well as the USB drive to store further (OS and
data) backups on) could be quite a show-stopper. :-\

And to make things worse, the partition on the USB stick it balked on was
not even supposed to be used for the backup process itself (it was ment to
hold some other data). It could just have skipped it ...

[I'm guessing that I must have misunderstood what you're saying.]

:-) Yup. Hey, I may not be regarded as "normal", but I'm not crazy. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Hello John,

I would point out that you are using a second OS to do the copying, which
arguably isn't all that simple

Well, (in the end) it was rather simple to put the DOS 7 part of Win98se
onto an USB stick, and boot from that. It was able to handle FAT32
partitions without a problem. Than I added Ghost to it, and my backup
stick was ready to go.

Bill and I have found Imaging to be relatively simple once set up

Same here.
Glad you agree. I think my making of Macrium 6 bootable mini-CD probably
took me not much longer longer than your DOS7-plus-Ghost-onto-USB-stick.

I don't think I'd use a USB stick for backup purposes.

:-) You don't trust them ? I've had a few die on me, but just one or two
because their storage failed, and that early in their lifetimes (the others
physically broke apart from the abuse of being carried around in my trousers
pocket).

I agree, they're mechanically not great, but yes I have had one or two
fail - and it's the way they fail that makes me unwilling to use them
for other than sneakernetting: they fail suddenly and totally. (I think
I've had at least one that was working then wasn't next time I used it.)

Do you mean change the hardware to which you intend to restore

No, not directly. I was talking about the USB memory stick there, which I
intended to hold the backup OS and program, as well as (at least) one
backup. A single, fast and easy restore solution. And easy to update
if/when the need would be there.

Ah, restore OS-and-program on the _same_ stick as the backup itself; I
can see that that is attractive.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What does that even mean, star? It's just 'rats' backwards
- Art Malik in RT 2016/3/12-18

R.Wieser wrote:
Bill,

Is there any reason to not want to use an imaging program to do this?

Besides of just recently having had to ditch my old-and-trusty DOS-era
'Ghost', because it could not cope with an USB stick (which I wanted to
use
as the backup medium) which seemed to have more than 1023
sectors-per-track
?

Yes. To make a backup which does not depend on special software (other
than what the OS itself offers I mean) to be able to restore it (in short,
and absolute minimalistic approach).

Just wondering what the disadvantage in doing so might be. ?

Nothing really.

That is, as long as you do not run into a 'gotcha!' like I did when I
tried
to run Ghost from/on a new (larger capacity) stick ...

It made me realize that trusting a program to keep being able to restore
your backups even when you change hardware (even when its just an USB
stick)
is ... dangerous. Now I have a set of Ghost backups which are fully
worthless to me, as I can't restore them anymore (or otherwise access the
files in the proprietary formatted backup blobs).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

I had some serious issues with Norton (or Symantec) Partition Manager, which
I think relied on some Ghost files, too! But I use an older version of
Acronis True Image, which has been very reliable (and I've done a lot of
backups and restores). It comes on its own boot CD, plus I've also made a
bootable USB flash drive that has the True Image program on it, so that I
don't need to use a bootable CD to restore a partition backup, as the USB
flash drive works even better. I'd really recommend an older version of
Acronis True Image if you can find one, as the newer ones just seem dumbed
down in their interface. (Some people here recommend Macrium, too, or
BootItNG, as suitable alternatives).

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 10:18:13 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

Steve,

In Windows XP the OS and programs cannot simply be copies file
by file and work again.

And you are sure about that ... why exactly ?

Yes, I know that that was true for Win98 (maybe only because of its awfull
mix of dependancies on LFN and 8.3 filenames ...), but was not sure at all
if that would be true for XP too. Why do you think I asked ? :-)

Also, read Pauls reply. He indicates the exact opposite of what you seem to
be holding as a fact, and seems to have hands-on experience in this matter.

Well Paul is far more knowledgable than I am, so trust his word before
you trust mind.

When my old XP machine died I bought a new one and simply restored my
Acronis backups to it, and resized the partitions for the bigger hard
drives, and everything worked. No hunting in cupboards for
installation disks for all the software and so on. I doubt that it
would have worked with a file-by-file copy, because of complex
dep[endencies -- program files on the E: drive with their dll files on
the C: drive and things like that.

But, as I said, Paul knows more.


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

Steve,

I doubt that it would have worked with a file-by-file copy,

Why ? Copy files *from* the OS partition, copy files *back* to the OS
partition. Just as you would do with that full partition backup. Why do
you think I would want to do anything else ?

Also, your restored partition would not (be able to) run on any drive not
having the same drive letter as the one you took the copy from, for exactly
the same reason as you mention for mine: dependancies to the drive the OS
was origionally installed on.

Mind you, its not about trying to just spread the files wherever I want and
expect the OS to run regardless, but to see if I can create a situation
where restoring a backup can be done without any dependancies on external,
proprietary software.

Also, a big pro of having a file-based backup of a partition is that you can
do *partial* restores in case you (or the OS) deleted something you (it)
shouldn't have (without having to jump thru hoops to, for example, keep your
current emails -- or anything else thats stil on the OS partition and will
be erased in case of a full restore)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:
Steve,

snip

Also, a big pro of having a file-based backup of a partition is that you
can
do *partial* restores in case you (or the OS) deleted something you (it)
shouldn't have (without having to jump thru hoops to, for example, keep
your
current emails -- or anything else thats stil on the OS partition and will
be erased in case of a full restore)

Rudy, you can do this with some imaging programs like Acronis True Image, if
I understood what you were saying above. By that, I mean I do have file
access to the files stored in the image backup, so that I can copy a file
stored in the image backup and put it back on my main drive. Acronis True
Image (and perhaps some others) do have that capability, which is indeed
handy, sometimes..

In message , Bill in Co
writes:


R.Wieser wrote:
Steve,

snip

Also, a big pro of having a file-based backup of a partition is that you
can
do *partial* restores in case you (or the OS) deleted something you (it)
shouldn't have (without having to jump thru hoops to, for example, keep
your
current emails -- or anything else thats stil on the OS partition and will
be erased in case of a full restore)

Rudy, you can do this with some imaging programs like Acronis True Image, if
I understood what you were saying above. By that, I mean I do have file
access to the files stored in the image backup, so that I can copy a file
stored in the image backup and put it back on my main drive. Acronis True
Image (and perhaps some others) do have that capability, which is indeed
handy, sometimes..

But to have that access, don't you have to use Acronis? I think one of
the things Rudy wanted was after was something that didn't require extra
software above what comes with the OS.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Religion is a name for opinion that cannot be argued about. [Heard on Radio 4,
2010-10-18, 9:xx.]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:


R.Wieser wrote:
Steve,

snip

Also, a big pro of having a file-based backup of a partition is that you
can
do *partial* restores in case you (or the OS) deleted something you (it)
shouldn't have (without having to jump thru hoops to, for example, keep
your current emails -- or anything else thats stil on the OS partition
and will
be erased in case of a full restore)

Rudy, you can do this with some imaging programs like Acronis True Image,
if
I understood what you were saying above. By that, I mean I do have file
access to the files stored in the image backup, so that I can copy a file
stored in the image backup and put it back on my main drive. Acronis True
Image (and perhaps some others) do have that capability, which is indeed
handy, sometimes..

But to have that access, don't you have to use Acronis? I think one of
the things Rudy wanted was after was something that didn't require extra
software above what comes with the OS.

Of course. I was just addressing his second point about partial restores of
files..