Can I 'image' a section of C:?

I'd like to learn about a subject that's always been something of a
black art to me: imaging. So as an exercise I want to try making an
image of my OS onto a USB memory stick, which I would then specify in
BIOS as an alternative boot drive. Is that even possible please, given
that XP is installed on my 750 GB C: drive, which is NOT partitioned?
The Windows folder currently uses only (!) about 12 GB of that.

So my question is: if I install an imaging program, can I somehow make
an image of *just the OS* on a USB stick please? If necessary I could
temporarily transfer all my programs, files and data from C: to a
large external HD.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell wrote:
I'd like to learn about a subject that's always been something of a
black art to me: imaging. So as an exercise I want to try making an
image of my OS onto a USB memory stick, which I would then specify in
BIOS as an alternative boot drive. Is that even possible please, given
that XP is installed on my 750 GB C: drive, which is NOT partitioned?
The Windows folder currently uses only (!) about 12 GB of that.

So my question is: if I install an imaging program, can I somehow make
an image of *just the OS* on a USB stick please? If necessary I could
temporarily transfer all my programs, files and data from C: to a
large external HD.

An image, is not good for anything. It consists of a copy
of all the "used clusters" on the drive. You say your 750GB drive
has 12GB of content. The something.img file will be 12GB in size.
It is not suitable for booting, because it is "sparse" and
the clusters do not form an LBA-continuous copy. Only the imaging
program knows how to put them back. The .img file has an Index
which tracks which clusters need to be put back. And which
files they correspond to (necessary if resizing). The imaging
program could even defrag the drive while restoring if it wanted,
but so far, no program offers that.

In an image, your entire partition is stored inside a
single (non-booting) file on the destination drive.

The other option is "cloning". By definition, a clone is an
exact copy. Which means, copying a 750GB partition, takes...
750GB. A clone is suitable for booting, because it's
an exact copy. You clone all the parts needed to boot,
and it'll boot.

Note that clone programs hardly ever consider "white space"
on the drive, so if you clone and then attempt data recovery
with Recuva, there is nothing there. That's because all the
deleted files, have no status as far as the cloning software
is concerned, and they're ignored. By ignoring white space,
the cloning of your 750GB drive, takes only 12GB of writes.
In your case, the clone will run very fast.

However, the industry has a "relaxed" definition of cloning.
Some programs combine Partition Management functions with
their cloning operation. In the process of capturing a
750GB partition, the software can resize the partition
on the fly. For example, it could take your 750GB partition
(realize 12GB is occupied), then create a 12GB partition
on the destination drive. The destination partition would
be seen as 100% full when it boots and the OS sees what
happened. The destination drive could have an MBR,
an active flag, a C: partition with PBR copied,
and C: is ready to go. The cloning program could
make the destination partition, anywhere from 12GB
to infinity. At your choice.

*******

WinXP does not have a boot from USB capability. What happens
if you boot a USB with WinXP, the USB bus is commissioned
half way through the boot cycle. The storage device ends up
"disconnected" from the OS momentarily, which is enough to
stop the boot process. By the addition of "BootBusExtender"
and changing the status of USB, it is possible to shift
USB commissioning in time, so that the OS can complete
the boot process. This modification is complicated, and
suitable for IT people who want to impress one another.

(Example, flip the scroll wheel on your mouse to get an idea how long this is)

http://www.techquark.com/2009/06/ins...-from-usb.html

The latest Windows has some new boot capabilities, but I haven't
spent any time investigating them. It's possible you
can boot from a VHD file (or maybe a VHDX). Maybe even
boot from USB. I haven't been keeping track. Older
OSes like WinXP, are less adventurous.

Paul

In message , Terry Pinnell
writes:
I'd like to learn about a subject that's always been something of a
black art to me: imaging. So as an exercise I want to try making an
image of my OS onto a USB memory stick, which I would then specify in
BIOS as an alternative boot drive. Is that even possible please, given
that XP is installed on my 750 GB C: drive, which is NOT partitioned?
The Windows folder currently uses only (!) about 12 GB of that.

1. By normal current use of the terms, you're talking about "cloning";
"imaging" usually means backing up (another term that has multiple
meanings) the _contents_ of your drive, or selected partitions from it,
into a single file (an "image" file). An image file (a) isn't bootable,
(b) needs the software that made it to be of any use (i. e. to unpack it
and put it back). [Also, AFAIK, none of the current "imaging" - or
cloning, for that matter - softwares will do _part_ of a partition.]
2. XP doesn't really like booting from USB - see Paul's reply for the
details.

Your OS isn't just "The Windows folder"; it's that, and the registry,
and bits of Program Files, and lots else. I'd say you should start
moving your _data_ to a separate partition/drive (so you're left with a
C: partition that _is_ your OS, which you could make an image for - for
backup purposes, not "as an alternative boot drive" [why were you
thinking of doing that? Or are you thinking of backup anyway.]), but
this far down the line that's going to be hard work, as you'll have lots
of software which defaults to storing on the C: drive, and unless you go
into each such software and change its default storage location, then
even if you do move all your _data_ over to D: or wherever, after a
short while your C: will start to silt up again.

So my question is: if I install an imaging program, can I somehow make
an image of *just the OS* on a USB stick please? If necessary I could

Short answer no (-:

temporarily transfer all my programs, files and data from C: to a
large external HD.

You think you could, but in practice that'd be a long and tedious
process - not the data, but the programs.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Lewis: ... d'you think there's a god?
Morse: ... There are times when I wish to god there was one. (Inspector Morse.)

[Default] On Sat, 21 May 2016 17:10:48 -0400, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Micky
wrote:

XXCopy allowed files to be excluded.

Shouldn't have used the past tense.

XXCopy is still available, free and probably paid, and is a fantastic
upgrade from XCopy.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

In message , Terry Pinnell
writes:
I'd like to learn about a subject that's always been something of a
black art to me: imaging. So as an exercise I want to try making an
image of my OS onto a USB memory stick, which I would then specify in
BIOS as an alternative boot drive. Is that even possible please, given
that XP is installed on my 750 GB C: drive, which is NOT partitioned?
The Windows folder currently uses only (!) about 12 GB of that.

1. By normal current use of the terms, you're talking about "cloning";
"imaging" usually means backing up (another term that has multiple
meanings) the _contents_ of your drive, or selected partitions from it,
into a single file (an "image" file). An image file (a) isn't bootable,
(b) needs the software that made it to be of any use (i. e. to unpack it
and put it back). [Also, AFAIK, none of the current "imaging" - or
cloning, for that matter - softwares will do _part_ of a partition.]
2. XP doesn't really like booting from USB - see Paul's reply for the
details.

Your OS isn't just "The Windows folder"; it's that, and the registry,
and bits of Program Files, and lots else. I'd say you should start
moving your _data_ to a separate partition/drive (so you're left with a
C: partition that _is_ your OS, which you could make an image for - for
backup purposes, not "as an alternative boot drive" [why were you
thinking of doing that? Or are you thinking of backup anyway.]), but
this far down the line that's going to be hard work, as you'll have lots
of software which defaults to storing on the C: drive, and unless you go
into each such software and change its default storage location, then
even if you do move all your _data_ over to D: or wherever, after a
short while your C: will start to silt up again.

So my question is: if I install an imaging program, can I somehow make
an image of *just the OS* on a USB stick please? If necessary I could

Short answer no (-:

temporarily transfer all my programs, files and data from C: to a
large external HD.

You think you could, but in practice that'd be a long and tedious
process - not the data, but the programs.

Thanks, appreciate that clear explanation. Rather suspected the answer
would be a No.

I guess the terminology must have changed sometime over the last
decade or so, as I'm almost certain cloning software used to refer to
'making an image'?

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Paul wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:
I'd like to learn about a subject that's always been something of a
black art to me: imaging. So as an exercise I want to try making an
image of my OS onto a USB memory stick, which I would then specify in
BIOS as an alternative boot drive. Is that even possible please, given
that XP is installed on my 750 GB C: drive, which is NOT partitioned?
The Windows folder currently uses only (!) about 12 GB of that.

So my question is: if I install an imaging program, can I somehow make
an image of *just the OS* on a USB stick please? If necessary I could
temporarily transfer all my programs, files and data from C: to a
large external HD.

An image, is not good for anything. It consists of a copy
of all the "used clusters" on the drive. You say your 750GB drive
has 12GB of content. The something.img file will be 12GB in size.
It is not suitable for booting, because it is "sparse" and
the clusters do not form an LBA-continuous copy. Only the imaging
program knows how to put them back. The .img file has an Index
which tracks which clusters need to be put back. And which
files they correspond to (necessary if resizing). The imaging
program could even defrag the drive while restoring if it wanted,
but so far, no program offers that.

In an image, your entire partition is stored inside a
single (non-booting) file on the destination drive.

The other option is "cloning". By definition, a clone is an
exact copy. Which means, copying a 750GB partition, takes...
750GB. A clone is suitable for booting, because it's
an exact copy. You clone all the parts needed to boot,
and it'll boot.

Note that clone programs hardly ever consider "white space"
on the drive, so if you clone and then attempt data recovery
with Recuva, there is nothing there. That's because all the
deleted files, have no status as far as the cloning software
is concerned, and they're ignored. By ignoring white space,
the cloning of your 750GB drive, takes only 12GB of writes.
In your case, the clone will run very fast.

However, the industry has a "relaxed" definition of cloning.
Some programs combine Partition Management functions with
their cloning operation. In the process of capturing a
750GB partition, the software can resize the partition
on the fly. For example, it could take your 750GB partition
(realize 12GB is occupied), then create a 12GB partition
on the destination drive. The destination partition would
be seen as 100% full when it boots and the OS sees what
happened. The destination drive could have an MBR,
an active flag, a C: partition with PBR copied,
and C: is ready to go. The cloning program could
make the destination partition, anywhere from 12GB
to infinity. At your choice.


Thanks. Not sure I fully understand all of that, but it nets down to a
No too!

BTW, it seems you may have misread a key point. I didn't say my "750GB
drive has 12GB of content." That's merely the Windows folder. Which
(together with extracts from my registry and perhaps the OEM Win XP
CD) I had naively hoped would be sufficient for some modern, clever
application to make an 'image' or 'clone' of my OS in its current
state.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK


*******

WinXP does not have a boot from USB capability. What happens
if you boot a USB with WinXP, the USB bus is commissioned
half way through the boot cycle. The storage device ends up
"disconnected" from the OS momentarily, which is enough to
stop the boot process. By the addition of "BootBusExtender"
and changing the status of USB, it is possible to shift
USB commissioning in time, so that the OS can complete
the boot process. This modification is complicated, and
suitable for IT people who want to impress one another.

(Example, flip the scroll wheel on your mouse to get an idea how long this is)

http://www.techquark.com/2009/06/ins...-from-usb.html

The latest Windows has some new boot capabilities, but I haven't
spent any time investigating them. It's possible you
can boot from a VHD file (or maybe a VHDX). Maybe even
boot from USB. I haven't been keeping track. Older
OSes like WinXP, are less adventurous.

Paul

Terry Pinnell wrote:


Thanks. Not sure I fully understand all of that, but it nets down to a
No too!

BTW, it seems you may have misread a key point. I didn't say my "750GB
drive has 12GB of content." That's merely the Windows folder. Which
(together with extracts from my registry and perhaps the OEM Win XP
CD) I had naively hoped would be sufficient for some modern, clever
application to make an 'image' or 'clone' of my OS in its current
state.

There are recipes for making recovery images, but
I'm not up-to-date on what works and what is broken.
Likely to be Vista or later that supports it. You're
better off imaging a stripped down and working C: if
none of these other options is available.

http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials...8-a.html?ltr=R

And sites like that have a whole bunch of tutorials.
One guy administers all of these. As well as
write "journalism" articles (ghacks).

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/
http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/
http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/
http://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/

Paul

Paul, Micky:

Many thanks for those follow-up replies and the extensive link
references.

I'm sorely tempted to pursue all of them, but I'm going to resist.
Temperamentally I'm not only highly inquisitive but also rather
obsessive when it comes to unresolved puzzles etc. And there's a
nostalgic element too, as I dimly recall using XXCopy decades ago. But
in this case the likely time and effort versus payoff balance is even
more skewed than for my usual excursions!

A few more comments for background and clarification.

As mentioned, my query was motivated by a thirst for know-how, not a
practical need. Within six months or so, with great regret, I'll no
longer be using XP, after nearly 15 years.

I've postponed it several times over maybe the last five years, but on
each occasion the daunting task of restoring my usage to its current
relatively sweet state on this highly populated and heavily tweaked PC
has dissuaded me. But the final trigger was a recent email from
Dropbox informing me that on the expiration of my current year's
subscription (end August) they will no longer support XP on my desktop
device. I use that facility scores of times daily, so I've finally
bitten the bullet and am in the process of specifying a high end PC
running Win 10. I'll run my XP PC in parallel (with difficulty in my
relatively small home office) until I have the new one working
satisfactorily.

So I suppose there's an 'end-of-term' element in my enquiry too ;-)

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell wrote:

But the final trigger was a recent email from
Dropbox informing me that on the expiration of my current year's
subscription (end August) they will no longer support XP on my desktop
device.

Maybe someday, they will. Because they won't know
what the code is running on.

https://cwl.cc/2010/11/useful-or-not...rom-cloud.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8667087

There are a variety of projects that attempt
to run executables in something "thinner than a VM".
Dropbox wouldn't have to support a WinXP version
then - it could support a Windows 7 version, and
using a thin containerization, you could run
it on WinXP. As long as the container environment
supports WinXP as a host, there is hope.

The only problem with articles like this, is a
lack of accurate description of how it works.
for the "free" version, you would be using
whatever is on their Repository, and Dropbox
isn't likely to be there. With a $2400 developer
kit, Dropbox could package this themselves. And there's
no reason they can't use their Windows 7 version
as the payload.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_(software)

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
Terry Pinnell wrote:

Thanks. Not sure I fully understand all of that, but it nets down to
a
No too!
BTW, it seems you may have misread a key point. I didn't say my
"750GB
drive has 12GB of content." That's merely the Windows folder. Which
(I got that.)
(together with extracts from my registry and perhaps the OEM Win XP
CD) I had naively hoped would be sufficient for some modern, clever
application to make an 'image' or 'clone' of my OS in its current
state.

There are recipes for making recovery images, but
I'm not up-to-date on what works and what is broken.
Likely to be Vista or later that supports it. You're
better off imaging a stripped down and working C: if
none of these other options is available.
[]
Indeed: better to get all the _data_ off C:, and amend all the softwares
- which it can be argued _should_ be on C: - to not save their _data_ on
C:, but only their settings and the like. Then you'd have a small C:
which could be imaged fairly simply, and would contain your OS,
completely patched (updated) and tweaked how you like it, along with all
your softwares, similarly tweaked how you like them - which could be
restored in the event of any problem (hardware failure, malware, or just
you breaking it), back to how it was when you saved it, without
requiring everything to be set up, updated, and patched. Your _data_
would just be, in its simplest form, copied (though after a few times I
think you'd switch to SyncToy or similar to speed up that process).

But it seems this is academic as you're moving to 10 after all (you said
with difficulty for space reasons - but I suspect the new machine could
be a, reasonably powerful, laptop, wouldn't need to be a desktop -
modern laptops outperforming your old XP machine).

One thing that makes me ask though: you say you're switching because
Dropbox soon won't run on XP, "and I use that several times a day". If
you're not using it _continuously_, i. e. leaving it running all the
time and it sync's files whenever you finish with them, but instead are
doing - several times a day - some sort of action that _you_ instigate,
then I don't think you need worry: you can use something else. If a
local backup would do, then there are plenty of things that will do the
job, including I think SyncToy; if you _need_ the backup to be remote
(and that _is_ safer, I grant, provided the remote company doesn't go
bust or change things), then I _think_ there are alternatives to
DropBox.

What actually _are_ you using DropBox for - just a sort of remote backup
(which is what I've been assuming), or because you actually want to be
able (or someone else to be able) to access the files from a different
location?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Lewis: ... d'you think there's a god?
Morse: ... There are times when I wish to god there was one. (Inspector Morse.)

In message , Terry Pinnell
writes:
[]
Thanks, appreciate that clear explanation. Rather suspected the answer
would be a No.

I guess the terminology must have changed sometime over the last
decade or so, as I'm almost certain cloning software used to refer to
'making an image'?

I think it's the definition of what an "image" is that's changed. I
think cloning has always meant making an identical copy - a "clone" -
ideally one that, in the case of a hard disc, could just be shoved in in
place of the original one. That could have been described as an "image"
too; I'm not sure if it ever was. At some point, the concept of an image
_file_ started to become the current meaning - meaning a _file_ that
could be unpacked back to recreate whatever it was that was imaged. A
sort of giant ZIP file, if you will. The main differences being (a) that
you need separate software to do the restore (usually the same software
that created the image in the first place, but it has to be bootable) -
a _dis_advantage compared to a slot-in clone; and (b) that it tends to
make a smaller file, only copying the _used_ parts of the source disc
(and sometimes offering compression too), which means (it is quicker
and) you don't have to worry about using (even obtaining!) the same size
discs, and you may be able to store several images on your backup -
_advantages_ over the slot-in clone.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Lewis: ... d'you think there's a god?
Morse: ... There are times when I wish to god there was one. (Inspector Morse.)

Terry Pinnell wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

In message , Terry Pinnell
writes:
I'd like to learn about a subject that's always been something of a
black art to me: imaging. So as an exercise I want to try making an
image of my OS onto a USB memory stick, which I would then specify in
BIOS as an alternative boot drive. Is that even possible please, given
that XP is installed on my 750 GB C: drive, which is NOT partitioned?
The Windows folder currently uses only (!) about 12 GB of that.

1. By normal current use of the terms, you're talking about "cloning";
"imaging" usually means backing up (another term that has multiple
meanings) the _contents_ of your drive, or selected partitions from it,
into a single file (an "image" file). An image file (a) isn't bootable,
(b) needs the software that made it to be of any use (i. e. to unpack it
and put it back). [Also, AFAIK, none of the current "imaging" - or
cloning, for that matter - softwares will do _part_ of a partition.]
2. XP doesn't really like booting from USB - see Paul's reply for the
details.

Your OS isn't just "The Windows folder"; it's that, and the registry,
and bits of Program Files, and lots else. I'd say you should start
moving your _data_ to a separate partition/drive (so you're left with a
C: partition that _is_ your OS, which you could make an image for - for
backup purposes, not "as an alternative boot drive" [why were you
thinking of doing that? Or are you thinking of backup anyway.]), but
this far down the line that's going to be hard work, as you'll have lots
of software which defaults to storing on the C: drive, and unless you go
into each such software and change its default storage location, then
even if you do move all your _data_ over to D: or wherever, after a
short while your C: will start to silt up again.

So my question is: if I install an imaging program, can I somehow make
an image of *just the OS* on a USB stick please? If necessary I could

Short answer no (-:

temporarily transfer all my programs, files and data from C: to a
large external HD.

You think you could, but in practice that'd be a long and tedious
process - not the data, but the programs.

Thanks, appreciate that clear explanation. Rather suspected the answer
would be a No.

I guess the terminology must have changed sometime over the last
decade or so, as I'm almost certain cloning software used to refer to
'making an image'?

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

I think John may have covered this, but here's another viewpoint:

"Cloning" means making an exact copy of your hard drive to another drive
that can replace your original drive, should it fail. So if your main
drive fails, you can "simply" swap it out with the cloned drive. That's
great if your main drive suddenly died.

Making an image "simply" makes a backup "image" (file) of your partition to
another drive that can be restored to the original disk or another disk.
It offers the "advantage" of a) not requiring replacing your main disk drive
with the cloned drive (assuming your main drive didn't die), and b) allowing
multiple generational images to be stored on another drive, BUT it does
require the imaging software running to do this (either on the main drive or
a boot CD version of the imaging software).

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

In message , Paul
writes:
Terry Pinnell wrote:

Thanks. Not sure I fully understand all of that, but it nets down to
a
No too!
BTW, it seems you may have misread a key point. I didn't say my
"750GB
drive has 12GB of content." That's merely the Windows folder. Which
(I got that.)
(together with extracts from my registry and perhaps the OEM Win XP
CD) I had naively hoped would be sufficient for some modern, clever
application to make an 'image' or 'clone' of my OS in its current
state.

There are recipes for making recovery images, but
I'm not up-to-date on what works and what is broken.
Likely to be Vista or later that supports it. You're
better off imaging a stripped down and working C: if
none of these other options is available.
[]
Indeed: better to get all the _data_ off C:, and amend all the softwares
- which it can be argued _should_ be on C: - to not save their _data_ on
C:, but only their settings and the like. Then you'd have a small C:
which could be imaged fairly simply, and would contain your OS,
completely patched (updated) and tweaked how you like it, along with all
your softwares, similarly tweaked how you like them - which could be
restored in the event of any problem (hardware failure, malware, or just
you breaking it), back to how it was when you saved it, without
requiring everything to be set up, updated, and patched. Your _data_
would just be, in its simplest form, copied (though after a few times I
think you'd switch to SyncToy or similar to speed up that process).

But it seems this is academic as you're moving to 10 after all (you said
with difficulty for space reasons - but I suspect the new machine could
be a, reasonably powerful, laptop, wouldn't need to be a desktop -
modern laptops outperforming your old XP machine).

I can't get on with laptops - I far prefer a conventional mouse. And a
desktop offers much easier access if I (or, more likely a paid techie)
subsequently want to add or change internal hardware.

One thing that makes me ask though: you say you're switching because
Dropbox soon won't run on XP, "and I use that several times a day". If
you're not using it _continuously_, i. e. leaving it running all the
time and it sync's files whenever you finish with them, but instead are
doing - several times a day - some sort of action that _you_ instigate,
then I don't think you need worry: you can use something else. If a
local backup would do, then there are plenty of things that will do the
job, including I think SyncToy; if you _need_ the backup to be remote
(and that _is_ safer, I grant, provided the remote company doesn't go
bust or change things), then I _think_ there are alternatives to
DropBox.

What actually _are_ you using DropBox for - just a sort of remote backup
(which is what I've been assuming), or because you actually want to be
able (or someone else to be able) to access the files from a different
location?

I keep a large chunk of my data in C:\Docs\My Dropbox\, so it's always
accessible on my iPad or iPhone as well as any PC browser. And easily
shared with others in the several forums in which I participate.
Typically I'll illustrate a point with an annotated screenshot, or a
series of them, perhaps with a video clip or two, save, move or copy
it to a Dropbox sub-folder, right click it to copy the links, and
include that in my post or email. Like this arbitrary example:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ii8i63wrzk...-0850.jpg?dl=0

And I have a paid Dropbox account, so it's a valued tool I don't want
compromised.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

In message , Terry Pinnell
writes:
[]
I can't get on with laptops - I far prefer a conventional mouse. And a
desktop offers much easier access if I (or, more likely a paid techie)
subsequently want to add or change internal hardware.

You'd be surprised. I used to think the same re the mouse; I thought I'd
use a conventional mouse with the portable (which, of course, you can
do, so that's not something against portables). I soon learnt to use the
touchpad though, especially the tap-to-click, which I find a lot of
people don't even seem to know about: I actually find it easier than
clicking, for a lot of things. (Conversely, I do concede that some
things _are_ easier with a conventional mouse. I just don't find there
are enough of them to bother using a conventional - or mini - mouse with
my portable.) As for adding or changing internal hardware, there's no
argument there - but nearly everything is USB these days, so I don't
think I've missed the ability to "do" internal hardware since I bought
this portable (which was in the dying days of XP).
[]
What actually _are_ you using DropBox for - just a sort of remote backup
(which is what I've been assuming), or because you actually want to be
able (or someone else to be able) to access the files from a different
location?

I keep a large chunk of my data in C:\Docs\My Dropbox\, so it's always
accessible on my iPad or iPhone as well as any PC browser. And easily
shared with others in the several forums in which I participate.
Typically I'll illustrate a point with an annotated screenshot, or a
series of them, perhaps with a video clip or two, save, move or copy
it to a Dropbox sub-folder, right click it to copy the links, and
include that in my post or email. Like this arbitrary example:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ii8i63wrzk...-0850.jpg?dl=0

And I have a paid Dropbox account, so it's a valued tool I don't want
compromised.

So, basically, you're using it as storage that is _accessible_ from
assorted places, but I think most of the time you're only _changing_ it
from your home machine. But it _does_ sound as if you're relying on the
Dropbox copy always being as up-to-date as possible, i. e. you just save
to your local area, and rely on the software client to copy it to the
remote server within a minute or two (or whatever) - you don't manually
instigate an upload. _Could_ you operate that way (i. e. triggering
uploads manually)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science isn't about being right every time, or even most of the time. It is
about being more right over time and fixing what it got wrong.
- Scott Adams, 2015-2-2

[Default] On Sun, 22 May 2016 17:58:58 +0100, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Indeed: better to get all the _data_ off C:, and amend all the softwares
- which it can be argued _should_ be on C: - to not save their _data_ on
C:, but only their settings and the like.

Why the settings on C:? Aren't they data?

Then you'd have a small C:
which could be imaged fairly simply, and would contain your OS,
completely patched (updated) and tweaked how you like it, along with all
your softwares, similarly tweaked how you like them - which could be
restored in the event of any problem (hardware failure, malware, or just
you breaking it), back to how it was when you saved it, without
requiring everything to be set up, updated, and patched. Your _data_
would just be, in its simplest form, copied (though after a few times I
think you'd switch to SyncToy or similar to speed up that process).