Bootable copy of XP partition.
in [Windows XP]
|
Prev: how to delete 'undeleteable' folder?
Next: Can NOT access Web-Site, ..... What's wrong with????
From: bobster on 23 Jun 2010 23:32 mm, You said, "And I've wondered about some of these things too. If no drive fails but I screw up my data on the first drive, how long before the second drive is just as screwed up? If the duplicating is automatic, it sounds like it will happen in a few seconds, and for sure, before I have time to stop it. So a second drive in an array would only be protection against the physical failure of the first drive, right? Good points and the very reason why I don't do automatic "duplicating", to use your term. As I said in a previous post, I manually update (re-clone) my "C" drive to my second internal HD and the external HD weekly as long as the "C" drive is exhibiting no problems. This puts a known good configuration on those drives. However, before I do this weekly re-clone operation, I run full Malwarebytes and SUPERAntiSpyware scans to ensure that I do in fact have a "clean" "C" drive configuration. I also run Microsoft Security Essentials and the MS Firewall full time. In the event of a non-correctable "C" drive problem, I boot up to one of the other HD drives, then manually clone it back to the "C" drive. Unless there has been a hardware failure of the "C" drive, this action puts me back in business with a "clean" "C" drive configuration. The clone app I use (Casper 6.0) typically takes 5-7 minutes to do a clone operation after a one-time "learning" run. Word of caution. It is essential that one has a "clean" "C" drive configuration before cloning it to the other HDs or else a bad configuration can be perpetuated in the those drives. That's why I run MSE+Windows firewall full time, and updated Malwarebytes and SUPERAntiSpyware before each cloning operation. ============================================================. "mm" <NOPSAMmm2005(a)bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:fqa526d5n7921q0b4ssri0hq5sbep3okl5(a)4ax.com... On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:28:36 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake(a)this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote: >On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:28:00 -0700, "bobster" <fauxie(a)bogus.net> >wrote: > >> Ken, >> >> An internal second drive backup does have some of the potential >> disadvantages that you mention. My personal belief and experience is >> that >> those occurrences are very rare (Except for a virus attack, I've never >> had >> one of those things happen). Much more likely for the average home user >> is >> non-recoverable "C" drive crash, a virus infestation, a drive physical >> failure or a self induced screw up by visiting a "bad" site or opening an >> infected email attachment. And I've wondered about some of these things tooo. If no drive fails but I screw up my data on the first drive, how long before the second drive is just as screwed up? If the duplicating is automatic, it sounds like it will happen in a few seconds, and for sure, before I have time to stop it. So a second drive in an array would only be protection against the physical failure of the first drive, right? >> Reversion to an internal second drive would >> allow recovery from any or all of those. Thus I don't consider it the >> weakest of all backup forms, in fact I have found it to be a very good >> approach and have used it to "recover" many times. > >> That being said, I agree with you that there are better forms of backup. >> My >> personal "best choice" --- a belt, suspenders and thumb-tack approach, >> and >> the one I use myself is: >> >> 1) A second internal HD, physically identical to the "C" drive. >> >> 2) A third, physically identical HD mounted in an external eSATA >> enclosure >> >> 3) A fourth HD stored in my bank safe deposit box. (protects against >> computer theft or home fire) > > >Since you do 2 and 3 as well as 1, we're actually pretty close in our >opinions. > > >> As an aside, thanks for all of your past posts and good advice. > > >You're welcome, and thanks very much for the kind words. > > >> Hope they will continue in the future regardless of what MS does with >> their forums. > >We'll see what happens with the newsgroups. I'm spending more time now >in the web-based Microsoft forums (using the NNTP Bridges), and I'm >afraid that these newsgroups may gradually peter out. I sure hope not. Newsgroups are far more efficient that web forums, allow easy saving of replies on one's own computers for future referecne, and work for people with dial-up, just as well as with highspeed. A lot of people I think don't know about newgroups and we shoudl tell people.
From: mm on 24 Jun 2010 04:05 On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:32:59 -0700, "bobster" <fauxie(a)bogus.net> wrote: >mm, > >You said, > >"And I've wondered about some of these things too. If no drive fails >but I screw up my data on the first drive, how long before the second >drive is just as screwed up? If the duplicating is automatic, it >sounds like it will happen in a few seconds, and for sure, before I >have time to stop it. So a second drive in an array would only be >protection against the physical failure of the first drive, right? > > >Good points and the very reason why I don't do automatic "duplicating", to >use your term. As I said in a previous post, I manually update (re-clone) Okay. I thought that was a flaw, but yet some things pushed this automatic simultaneous updates as if it were very valuable, without mentioning the flaws. Thanks for this and the rest. >my "C" drive to my second internal HD and the external HD weekly as long as >the "C" drive is exhibiting no problems. This puts a known good >configuration on those drives. However, before I do this weekly re-clone >operation, I run full Malwarebytes and SUPERAntiSpyware scans to ensure >that I do in fact have a "clean" "C" drive configuration. I also run >Microsoft Security Essentials and the MS Firewall full time. > >In the event of a non-correctable "C" drive problem, I boot up to one of the >other HD drives, then manually clone it back to the "C" drive. Unless there >has been a hardware failure of the "C" drive, this action puts me back in >business with a "clean" "C" drive configuration. The clone app I use >(Casper 6.0) typically takes 5-7 minutes to do a clone operation after a >one-time "learning" run. > >Word of caution. It is essential that one has a "clean" "C" drive >configuration before cloning it to the other HDs or else a bad configuration >can be perpetuated in the those drives. That's why I run MSE+Windows >firewall full time, and updated Malwarebytes and SUPERAntiSpyware before >each cloning operation. > >============================================================. >"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005(a)bigfoot.com> wrote in message >news:fqa526d5n7921q0b4ssri0hq5sbep3okl5(a)4ax.com... >On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:28:36 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" ><kblake(a)this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote: > >>On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:28:00 -0700, "bobster" <fauxie(a)bogus.net> >>wrote: >> >>> Ken, >>> >>> An internal second drive backup does have some of the potential >>> disadvantages that you mention. My personal belief and experience is >>> that >>> those occurrences are very rare (Except for a virus attack, I've never >>> had >>> one of those things happen). Much more likely for the average home user >>> is >>> non-recoverable "C" drive crash, a virus infestation, a drive physical >>> failure or a self induced screw up by visiting a "bad" site or opening an >>> infected email attachment. > >And I've wondered about some of these things tooo. If no drive fails >but I screw up my data on the first drive, how long before the second >drive is just as screwed up? If the duplicating is automatic, it >sounds like it will happen in a few seconds, and for sure, before I >have time to stop it. So a second drive in an array would only be >protection against the physical failure of the first drive, right? > >>> Reversion to an internal second drive would >>> allow recovery from any or all of those. Thus I don't consider it the >>> weakest of all backup forms, in fact I have found it to be a very good >>> approach and have used it to "recover" many times. >> >>> That being said, I agree with you that there are better forms of backup. >>> My >>> personal "best choice" --- a belt, suspenders and thumb-tack approach, >>> and >>> the one I use myself is: >>> >>> 1) A second internal HD, physically identical to the "C" drive. >>> >>> 2) A third, physically identical HD mounted in an external eSATA >>> enclosure >>> >>> 3) A fourth HD stored in my bank safe deposit box. (protects against >>> computer theft or home fire) >> >> >>Since you do 2 and 3 as well as 1, we're actually pretty close in our >>opinions. >> >> >>> As an aside, thanks for all of your past posts and good advice. >> >> >>You're welcome, and thanks very much for the kind words. >> >> >>> Hope they will continue in the future regardless of what MS does with >>> their forums. >> >>We'll see what happens with the newsgroups. I'm spending more time now >>in the web-based Microsoft forums (using the NNTP Bridges), and I'm >>afraid that these newsgroups may gradually peter out. > >I sure hope not. Newsgroups are far more efficient that web forums, >allow easy saving of replies on one's own computers for future >referecne, and work for people with dial-up, just as well as with >highspeed. > >A lot of people I think don't know about newgroups and we shoudl tell >people. >
From: Daave on 24 Jun 2010 10:43 bobster wrote: > Daave, > > You said, > >> "If you plug a usb hard drive >> in and reboot, it does not see the drive until XP has loaded. Too >> late to boot it. No, I didn't say that. I said this: People have had mixed success with making ordinary USB external hard drives bootable (it's rarely recommended). The motherboard and BIOS must support the method and you would need to configure the BIOS correctly. The easiest way to do this is to use an eSATA hard drive (of course the motherboard must support eSATA). How about telling us about your hardware?
From: bobster on 24 Jun 2010 13:45 Sorry, Dave, that quote was from a post by Paul Taylor. My hardware configuration is described in another post on this topic. It is an all SATA3 setup including an eSATA external enclosure for a third drive. ================================================= "Daave" <daave(a)example.com> wrote in message news:uPilsu6ELHA.4120(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... bobster wrote: > Daave, > > You said, > >> "If you plug a usb hard drive >> in and reboot, it does not see the drive until XP has loaded. Too >> late to boot it. No, I didn't say that. I said this: People have had mixed success with making ordinary USB external hard drives bootable (it's rarely recommended). The motherboard and BIOS must support the method and you would need to configure the BIOS correctly. The easiest way to do this is to use an eSATA hard drive (of course the motherboard must support eSATA). How about telling us about your hardware?
From: bobster on 24 Jun 2010 13:51
OOPS, Previous post should have read, That quote was from a post by "Paul", not Paul Taylor "bobster" <fauxie(a)bogus.net> wrote in message news:i005j9$tcc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... Sorry, Dave, that quote was from a post by Paul Taylor. My hardware configuration is described in another post on this topic. It is an all SATA3 setup including an eSATA external enclosure for a third drive. ================================================= "Daave" <daave(a)example.com> wrote in message news:uPilsu6ELHA.4120(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... bobster wrote: > Daave, > > You said, > >> "If you plug a usb hard drive >> in and reboot, it does not see the drive until XP has loaded. Too >> late to boot it. No, I didn't say that. I said this: People have had mixed success with making ordinary USB external hard drives bootable (it's rarely recommended). The motherboard and BIOS must support the method and you would need to configure the BIOS correctly. The easiest way to do this is to use an eSATA hard drive (of course the motherboard must support eSATA). How about telling us about your hardware? |