A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Converting From 1 TB to 2 TB via Macrium Reflect Re-Image: Partitions?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #76  
Old June 24th 18, 12:52 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ant[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default 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  
Old June 24th 18, 01:02 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default 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  
Old June 24th 18, 02:07 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default 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  
Old June 24th 18, 03:14 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default 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  
Old June 27th 18, 03:10 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
pyotr filipivich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 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?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.