 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> Ok, but what is the procedure then for using DriveXML to restore a
>> system that will not boot ?
>
> BartPE. Boot into a Windows LiveCD, partition and format the disk, and
> start up DriveXML and click "restore". Pretty much like Linux.
So one would have had to make a BartPE CD prior to the restoration ?
- And for it to be legal one would have to either have made the CD
from the Windows installation that one are about to restore or from
a Windows installation that has been deleted after the BartPE CD
was made ?
I.e. each BartPE CD must have it's own license ?
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> None of this lets you restore to a partition of a different size or
>>> backup only the used sectors, or browse the files in the backup over
>>> the network without decompressing them.
>>>
>>> It also doesn't let you clone a new Windows machine from an old one.
>>
>> Hmmm... Do many companies put themselves in situations that demands
>> such features ?
>
> Sure. When you have 5,000 Windows machines to deploy to your employees,
> or if you want to restore the backup to a bigger drive because the old
> one failed...
Does Windows refuse to run if the HD has grown bigger than the partitions
it holds ?
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> Does Windows refuse to run if the HD has grown bigger than the partitions
> it holds ?
No (or, rather, not that I know of...), but it makes it rather difficult to
use the extra space. Especially if there are multiple partitions on the
disk. It's possible there are MBR formats on the newer machines that know
how big the disk is and such, but the original MBR doesn't, assuming you use
LBA, which most everyone does nowadays.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> So one would have had to make a BartPE CD prior to the restoration ?
Yes.
> - And for it to be legal one would have to either have made the CD
> from the Windows installation that one are about to restore or from
> a Windows installation that has been deleted after the BartPE CD
> was made ?
One would assume so, yes. I *think* it may be that you can run only the
BartPE or the Windows installation you have a license for, but not both at
once. So if I understand it properly, you could make the BartPE disk before
you screw up your Windows and just leave it sit, legally. IANAL, YMMV, etc.
> I.e. each BartPE CD must have it's own license ?
Basically, I think it goes that you can only run one Windows per license. If
you boot the BartPE disk on the machine that has the Windows that has a
license, you're running Windows off the CD and not the HD, so there ya go.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> So one would have had to make a BartPE CD prior to the restoration ?
Of course, you could install enough Windows to get DriveXML running and
restore over top of the partition, I imagine.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Of course, you could install enough Windows to get DriveXML running and
> restore over top of the partition, I imagine.
Or just buy a copy of Ghost and image your disk into a file that'll run in a
VM on some other machine... :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:38:43 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Are there any that aren't alpha?
ntfs-3g is not alpha.
That doesn't mean there aren't disclaimers, Microsoft does have a habit
of making changes and not advertising them to the world.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:09:56 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> The device files still have to exist in the filesystem though. (That's
>> a fairly bizare concept in itself...)
>
> It's legacy.
But it is still heavily used, even by software in current development.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
