If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Converting From 1 TB to 2 TB via Macrium Reflect Re-Image: Partitions?
Paul wrote:
Ant wrote: Ed Cryer wrote: Here's a version for non-IT-guys. 1. Do the full guided setup. 2. Image the whole lot with Macrium. 3. Do a factory-restore with the OEM-provided software. 4. Image that with Macrium, and keep safe. 5. Restore image 2 above. 6. Duplicate image 2 for safety. Too bad OEM companies don't include the physical discs anymore. Do they still provider options to make discs from the internal drives at least? Mine did: The system prompts to create discs, soon after setup and usage. Acer 3-DVD set for C: partition restoration Acer single CD for hardware drivers (in case reinstalling later from MS media) Microsoft System Restore CD for putting back Windows 7 style backups. A total of five discs. Oh right. I remember my Acer test desktop PC at work a few years ago doing that to me. I think HP also had that option too. This was in the early 2010s though. -- Quote of the Week: "At high tide the fish eat ants; at low tide the ants eat fish." --Thai Proverb Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly. /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit- | |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link. \ _ / ( ) |
Ads |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Converting From 1 TB to 2 TB via Macrium Reflect Re-Image: Partitions?
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | Isn't it better to make images for each partition? Like an image for | recovery, an image for OS, image for whatever left, etc.? It seems | easier to manage that way for my setups. | | Depends _why_ you're making images. I image (C: & any hidden partition), | to a single image file (which means when I restore from it, the boot | sector/master table/whatever get set up for me) so that in the event of | drive failure, I can restore my system - OS (including activation), | updates, software, configurations, and tweaks - all in one go. [I backup | _data_ using just synctoy - basically just a copy.] Some people might be | doing it so they can restore an as-new condition to sell or give away; | others might be imaging for other reasons again. | | I can't think of a good reason for making separate images for each | partition, _if_ you're anticipating restoring the original configuration | anyway. I put an OS image on one or two DVDs. What you're describing is basically a disk clone. It may be compressed, but you're backing up all of your data unnecessarily. (Assuming "synctoy" is something you use to back up data seaprately from imaging.) No. I make a Macrium image - often uncompressed. That's a single file, on an external disc. Of my C: partition and the hidden ones, so that I can restore everything in one go, to a new disc if necessary. Sorry, by "everything" I mean the OS and updates and tweaks and software, _not_ data; data I just copy to the backup drive. (SyncToy is just a (SysInternals) utility that makes the copying go faster, by only copying what's changed since last time.) I don't know how big that ends up being, but it sounds like you need a 2nd hard disk just to hold your backup. In that case, why not just copy disk to disk? Because (a) I keep several images/copies on the backup disk, (b) I have images/copies from more than one computer on it. So a big part of the reason to image partitions separately is to have conveniently-sized backups that don't require a hard disk or expensive USB stick to store. That's just wasting space. But it requires a little planning to do itr more efficiently. If you just install Windows on a 500 GB C drive and put all of your files in your docs folder then you may be stuck backing up one giant pile of stuff. Every time you I don't; I keep all my _data_ - sounds, images, videos, downloaded installers, genealogy stuff, documents - on D:; more or less all that's on C: is stuff that needs _maintaining_, and/or would take a _long_ time to reconfigure as I like it. want to back up one doc you're also backing up GBs of system files unnecessarily. Even if you have some kind of tool to only back up changed files, you're still maintaining a massive backup that you don't need. That's always a matter of opinion. _Everybody_ backs up stuff they don't need backed up, and doesn't back up stuff they later wish they had! (And that applies to both images and backups.) I think this also gets back to whether people are willing to deal with partitioning and disk issues. You shouldn't need to be backing up restore partitions, MBRs, or anything like that. If you're using a disk image program it should be able to make an image of any partition and restore it to any disk. But that Yes, but given the small size of the restore partition and MBRs compared to even just the C: partition, it's negligible extra storage (and time): and also, after the distressing event of a hard disc failure, many people don't want to have to mess around restoring individual partitions when they get the replacement - they just want to set it going, and leave it to it. does require getting into more details. For instance, you need to know about boot config. If you make an image of Win7 that's the second partition and then install it to a disk as 1st partition, it won't boot. It will try to boot the 2nd partition. And even that will only work if you've set it active. But once you work out those details you no longer need to be tied to disk layout with your backups. On a typical disk I'll have 1-3 OSs and maybe 5 I don't think that makes you a typical user, even here! OK, among those here, I'm nearer the "user" end of the spectrum - I just want to _use_ the computer, rather than tinker with it, especially as I get older. I take precautions that enable me to resume if the HD dies, but otherwise am not trying new (to me) OSs and the like. data partitions. One of those is changeable data like business receipts, email, current desktop, programming work, website files, etc. One is graphics/video. One is non-changing data like manuals for appliances, programming docs, Windows SDKs, program installers, etc. I also like to use a 2nd disk for redundancy. And I make disk images of fresh OSs, configured and with most software installed. I would, but I use a laptop (despite the fact that I never thought I would use it as more than a toy, or for its portability, when I got my first one [one that had been upgraded to Windows 98: I don't think it was even built for that] - but soon found I was using it as my main machine), and most don't have more than one drive bay. With that setup in place, I make occasional copies of the graphics and non-changing data. I make regular backups to DVD of the changing data. That comes to less than 1 GB. I never need to back up Windows because I already have disk images of a fresh, configured system. Again, that's one of the places we differ: I wouldn't _want_ an image of a _fresh_ system, because I know (or even, I don't!) how long it would take me to restore such a system - reinstall software, and tweak everything how I like it. (Even ignoring all the OS updates.) The _only_ reason _I_ would make such an image would be to protect the activation status of the OS (and any software that was subject to similar, but I don't have any such). Since my image of my tweaked system also has this, I don't need the "pristine" one. OK, there's always the chance I might make some change that "breaks" the OS, and not notice I'd done so until too late - but having two or more backups/images (taken at intervals of a few months) protects me from that to _some_ extent (I could go back to a previous one). If there are problems I can put back the OS quickly without disturbing the data. There's nothing important that I have only on C drive. With XP the OS+software is about 1.5 GB. I make the C partition 10 GB. With 7 I make it 60 GB. The basic OS image is 7-9 GB and requires 2 DVDs to store. I think my XP C: was about 25G, to include the OS and all _installed_ software (plus the data from the few badly-behaved softwares that would insist on using C:; I don't allow many of those). On this 7, it's 100G, but that's probably too big, just because it's a 1T (actually 931G of course); only 31.5G of it is currently occupied. That's also a big part of the reason I like to avoid bloat. Bloated software is typically a sign of sloppy You and me both. or inexperienced programmers. But it also takes up a lot of space. Many people respond to that by saying, "Well, these days hard disk space doesn't cost much." But that misses the point. The same basic software that used to be 30 MB is now often 300 MB. It's crazy. It's sloppy. And it's inefficient. (A big part of Vista/7 Yup. The same attitude prevails re processor power. But I still feel efficient code (like IrfanView, for example) is slicker, even with modern multicore processors: I think it's in the _mindset_ of the programmer. (The code doesn't _do_ unnecessary things.) bloat is that MS forces one to accept a copy of the whole install DVD on disk, along with a copy of every single library that happens by during the course of using the computer. Win7 can grow to 40-60 GB for one reason only: So that plug and play appears to be improved. Just in case you end up somehow installing an Intel graphics chip on your AMD system, you have the drivers ready to go. That WinSXS folder they tell us its wisest not to mess with is a big part of that, isn't it? It accounts for 7.16G of the 31.5G on my C:, and that's after only a year or two of real use (and not being very enthusiastic about installing "up"dates). You might have an attic the size of a football field, but that's not a reason to fill it with junk. With a little planning, Windows and data can still be realistically stored on DVDs and/or inexpensive-sized USB sticks. I have images for all of our computers, ready to restore, and backed up to numerous locations. All on CDs or DVDs. But people are different. There's one category of people that I can think of offhand who can never have efficient backup. That's the people who hoard and never weed. The people who have 100 GB of music and videos, along with 2 TB of photos. They'll never look (And probably operate their digital camera at its maximum resolution all the time. I have mine - which is only 3M anyway! [but has a good lens] set to 1M most of the time.) at most of that again. Probably most of the photos are worthless. But to those people it's their riches and they want it all backed up. They have no choice but to buy extra hard disks and copy disk-to-disk. Nothing else is big enough to back up their football-field-sized attic. They're the same people who, 30 years ago, would have had a floor-to-celing bookshelf to store their photo albums. And when you go to dinner you're careful not to walk near that room, lest they invite you in: "Did you ever see the pictures from our 1970 trip to the Yukon? Oh, you gotta see them. The snow is amazing! Come on in. Here, sit on the sofa while I find the 4 Yukon trip albums..... Let's see.... I should probably organize these albums alphabetically, but it's all moving to a bigger library once we finish building the addition. Maybe I'll organize it all then.... Oh, here we go! I found Yukon Trip #2, anyway..." I guess the computer equivalent is not having - or only having very few - subdirectories, so you have hundreds (or thousands) of files at each level. If I have more than a few tens of items in a folder (and that includes the subfolders too in the count!), I feel it's time to subdivide (and sometimes weed). But Microsoft themselves are one of the worst offenders in this respect. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not the primary use of the computer. - VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Converting From 1 TB to 2 TB via Macrium Reflect Re-Image: Partitions?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| Again, that's one of the places we differ: I wouldn't _want_ an image of | a _fresh_ system, because I know (or even, I don't!) how long it would | take me to restore such a system - reinstall software, and tweak | everything how I like it. Actually it sounds like we're doing pretty much the same thing. By fresh system I mean Windows with all drivers and most software installed, and with configuration done as much as possible. So all I need to do it to import backed up data, like email, and it's ready to go. The only things I don't set up are things like Libre Office, which takes up a lot of room and I don't really customize the setup. Like you, I might also occasionally do a current image, if I'm doing something risky. But mostly I depend on my "fresh" image and backed up data. | Win7 can grow to 40-60 GB for | one reason only: So that plug and play appears to | be improved. Just in case you end up somehow installing | an Intel graphics chip on your AMD system, you have | the drivers ready to go. | | That WinSXS folder they tell us its wisest not to mess with is a big | part of that, isn't it? It accounts for 7.16G of the 31.5G on my C:, and | that's after only a year or two of real use (and not being very | enthusiastic about installing "up"dates). Yes. Winsxs is mainly what I'm talking about. There's also a smaller driver backup, but that can be deleted. Winsxs starts out at about 4 GB, being basically a copy of the install DVD. It would be nice if they asked before doing that. There is, also, one other factor: I'm not sure of the details on Win7 but sxs means "side-by-side". It's an idea to cure "DLL hell". It used to be that things could easily get screwed up when Acme editor installed abc.dll v. 4.1 and then Ace Editor overwrote that with v. 3 or v. 5, or even v. 4.11. Microsoft once had a famous case where they had different DLLs for RichEdit, a core component. Their instructions for people who needed to install it with their software were bizar ----------------------------------------------- There are three different Riched32.dll files that have the version number 5.0.1458.47, and one of them is not redistributable. This article describes the differences between these files and includes additional distribution information. MORE INFORMATION Each of the three Riched32.dll files with the version number 5.0.1458.47, and has a different size. These versions a .. A 169KB version (general release). .. A 176KB version that is optimized for loading on Windows 98, but is identical in code to the general release version. .. A 225KB version that was released by the Microsoft Exchange group. It is intended to cover all localized versions and is dependent upon GAPI32.dll. Of these three versions of Riched32.dll 5.0.1458.47, you can only distribute the 169KB or 176KB versions. If the target computer is already using the 225KB version, do not replace it with another Riched32.dll with the same version number or older. Also, keep the following in mind when distributing Riched32.dll using third-party setup programs: .. If the target computer is running NT 4.0, your setup program should not replace Riched32.dll. .. Riched32.dll is a part of the operation system installation of Windows 2000. Setup programs installing to Windows 2000 should not install Riched32.dll. --------------------------------------------- Similar problems could happen with COM libraries. Side-by-side is the slightly dubious idea that the problem can be solved by letting each program have its own version of a library, and store it in their private program folder if need be. So you can end up with, say, the Visual C++ runtimes in an almost limitless variety. First there's a version for each releas: VC 2008, VC 2010, etc. But then there are also incremental versions. I have 11 versions of the VC 2008 runtime just on my XP system! Probably each one was installed by a different program. Winsxs seems to be an institutionalizing of that idea. If 67 versions of abcdef.dll float by then Windows will grab a copy of each and put it into winsxs. That way the Ace software can use v. 1.413.2 and Acme can use 1.413.3. In 99% of cases it won't make any difference. Like copying all drivers to disk, it's an extremely sloppy, bloated way to make windows seem more stable. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Converting From 1 TB to 2 TB via Macrium Reflect Re-Image: Partitions? Now general discussions/moans about backing up etc.
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | Again, that's one of the places we differ: I wouldn't _want_ an image of | a _fresh_ system, because I know (or even, I don't!) how long it would | take me to restore such a system - reinstall software, and tweak | everything how I like it. Actually it sounds like we're doing pretty much the same thing. By fresh system I mean Windows with all drivers and most software installed, and with configuration done as much as possible. So all I need to do it to import backed up data, like email, and it's ready to go. Ah, right. I'd assumed you meant an as-new system with no software beyond the OS. [] | That WinSXS folder they tell us its wisest not to mess with is a big | part of that, isn't it? It accounts for 7.16G of the 31.5G on my C:, and | that's after only a year or two of real use (and not being very | enthusiastic about installing "up"dates). Yes. Winsxs is mainly what I'm talking about. There's also a smaller driver backup, but that can be deleted. (I wouldn't mind; drivers, if they're pure drivers and not megabloatware [I'm looking at you, hp, with printer install discs - well, all printer manufacturers], are arguably useful, and certainly small.) Winsxs starts out at about 4 GB, being basically a copy of the install DVD. It would be nice if they asked before doing that. I wouldn't mind just that; IIRR, I used to usually copy the '98 install CD - or the bit with the CABs in it, anyway - to somewhere on the HD; I actually installed from that, which meant anything that subsequently would have asked me to re-insert the CD, didn't. There is, also, one other factor: I'm not sure of the details on Win7 but sxs means "side-by-side". It's an idea to cure "DLL hell". It used to be that things could [] Similar problems could happen with COM libraries. Like many things, I thought the original concept of DLLs was a good idea; even updates to them. But insufficient care was taken in ensuring backward compatibility when updating. Side-by-side is the slightly dubious idea that the problem can be solved by letting each program have its own version of a library, and store it in their private program folder if need be. So you can end up with, say, the Visual C++ runtimes in an almost limitless variety. Once we got beyond a certain point in the cheapness of disc space, that was a workable, if lazy, solution. Though if you were going to have your own version anyway, then you might as well not bother with separate DLLs, but just include the code in the executables that wanted it. [] Winsxs seems to be an institutionalizing of that idea. If 67 versions of abcdef.dll float by then Windows will grab a copy of each and put it into winsxs. That way the Ace software can use v. 1.413.2 and Acme can use 1.413.3. In 99% of cases it won't make any difference. Like copying all drivers to disk, it's an extremely sloppy, bloated way to make windows seem more stable. Again, I wouldn't mind that sloppy approach _too_ much if it kept human-readable logs, showing what had installed what (and, I suppose, including notes on what _hadn't_ installed what because it was already there - i. e. a log of what _used_ what), so anyone so minded can clean it up if they wish. At present, I just accept it - 7-8G is irritating, but not yet more than that on a "1T" drive. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder... |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Converting From 1 TB to 2 TB via Macrium Reflect Re-Image: Partitions?
"Mayayana" on Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:10:35
-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: I think that's something that most people are not really aware of. There's no requirement to have a password or boot screen. That's mostly a corporate thing. When I set up a system for someone I just name the user Admin, Def, or some such. For the sake of privacy. Place I bought second hand laptops from makes the default account "Owner". So when I set this box up - I named it "Owner" too. -- pyotr filipivich Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing? |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Converting From 1 TB to 2 TB via Macrium Reflect Re-Image: Partitions?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|