freeware alternative to driveimage

[badgolferman]

What do you recommend?

 

[Figaro]

What do you recommend?

--

Check this out:
http://www.xxclone.com/

 

[Mel]

What do you recommend?

I used savepart http://www.partition-saving.com/ ,
before I picked up a free copy of Drive Image on a magazine
disk.
Compared to drive image it's rather slow and can only write
image files to a fat partition although it can copy or image NTFS.

 

[Clif Notes]

Looks like a really great program. Too bad it doesn't work for my WinMe
system.

 

[Roger Johansson]

I used savepart http://www.partition-saving.com/ ,
before I picked up a free copy of Drive Image on a magazine
disk.
Compared to drive image it's rather slow and can only write
image files to a fat partition although it can copy or image NTFS.

I have used both Drive Image and Savepart and found that Savepart is
faster than DI, when used correctly.

I wonder why people use NTFS at all. Why use a proprietary microsoft file
system which only microsoft has the full knowledge about? Freeware
program authors tell the story about how difficult it is to get enough
information from microsoft about NTFS to write programs for it.

Conclusion: If you use NTFS, ask microsoft for freeware progs and
solutions for any problems and needs you have.

 

[Mel]

I have used both Drive Image and Savepart and found that Savepart is
faster than DI, when used correctly.

Drive Image is MUCH quicker here at both creating and restoring partition
images than savepart. I've used both correctly.

Drive Image was also marginally quicker than the version of Arconis
I have (also off a magazine disk).

I wonder why people use NTFS at all. Why use a proprietary microsoft file
system which only microsoft has the full knowledge about? Freeware
program authors tell the story about how difficult it is to get enough
information from microsoft about NTFS to write programs for it.

You could equally ask, why use a propriety system like Windows
which only Microsoft has the full knowledge about, when you could
be using linux...

NTFS is a superior Filesystem to FAT32, if I was using a
half decent OS like 2000 or XP that supported NTFS
I wouldn't even consider using fat for my hard disk partitions.

Incidently Savepart was little, or no slower at backing up NTFS
partitions than it was with fat32.

 

[Roger Johansson]

You could equally ask, why use a propriety system like Windows
which only Microsoft has the full knowledge about, when you could
be using linux...

Older versions of windows, and filesystems like fat32 are well known to
freeware writers, and microsoft have had to reveal basically everything
about them over the years. The reason why big companies like MS are
changing the standards every few years, if needed or not, is to exclude
third parties who cannot gain knowledge fast enough about these
proprietary standards until a few years later, and then the big company
has already moved on to new standards.

So, by using the newest versions of windows you support that dirty
strategy from MS.

NTFS is a superior Filesystem to FAT32, if I was using a

I have used fat32 for many years, and it has never created a problem. I
can use a lot of freeware which is built on the knowledge of fat32 which
freeware authors have gained over the years. I see no real need for a new
file system, other than microsofts need to monopolize the market.

 

[Mel]

I have used fat32 for many years, and it has never created a problem. I
can use a lot of freeware which is built on the knowledge of fat32 which
freeware authors have gained over the years. I see no real need for a new
file system, other than microsofts need to monopolize the market.

NTFS isn't so new! In fact NTFS was in use before FAT32 came into
existence with Win95 OSR2.

 

[badgolferman]

NTFS isn't so new! In fact NTFS was in use before FAT32 came into
existence with Win95 OSR2.

This is true. WinNT was using NTFS, although I am not sure if it was
the same version?

NTFS is better than FAT32 because of smaller clusters, larger drive
support, and enhanced security permission settings within the OS.

 

[derek / nul]

NTFS isn't so new! In fact NTFS was in use before FAT32 came into
existence with Win95 OSR2.

NTFS is not new at all, it started life as HPFS with OS2/NT back in the IBM /
Microsoft joint project days BEFORE windows Version 1.x
The HPFS driver (pinball.sys) still exists on the w2k cd.

 

[Roger Johansson]

NTFS is not new at all, it started life as HPFS with OS2/NT back in the
IBM / Microsoft joint project days BEFORE windows Version 1.x
The HPFS driver (pinball.sys) still exists on the w2k cd.

If you know so much about NPFST, or whatever you are talking about, why
don't you help the freeware authors to write a partition saving program
for it?

 

[John Corliss]

Check this out:
http://www.xxclone.com/

However, note the following (from that page):

1. "Note: You need to sign up for a Test Drive in order to visit the
betatest section of this web page which requires a log-in with a password."

2. "# Note: This beta test version will expire within 30 days from the
release date of the program. We intend to release the next version
before the current beta test version expires. If you *MUST* operate a
verion of XXCLONE which does not expire (after a successful testing of
the current version on your system), please contact Pixelab.

# The current version of XXCLONE works only on Windows NT/2K/XP.
It does not support Windows 95/98/ME.
It does not support non-standard partitionings or boot control schemes
such as BootMagic.
It may not work with SCSI-interfaced disks."

 

[Mel]

I have used fat32 for many years, and it has never created a problem. I
can use a lot of freeware which is built on the knowledge of fat32 which
freeware authors have gained over the years. I see no real need for a new
file system, other than microsofts need to monopolize the market.

Over those many years both hardware and software have moved on.

Fat32 was not designed for today's large hard drives. Compared to NTFS,
it is very inefficient for storing files on large partitions because of the large
cluster size it has to use. There's also a performance issue with very
large file allocation tables.

FAT32 has a maximum file size of under 4GB, A disk image file could
easily exceed this and would have to be split.

NTFS has file permissions, Fat32 files don't even have an executable flag.

It's not really an issue, but FAT uses multiple directory entries to store
each long file name for reasons of backward compatibility with dos,
rather than efficient design.

 

[Al Smith]

I have used both Drive Image and Savepart and found that Savepart is

Drive Image is MUCH quicker here at both creating and restoring partition
images than savepart. I've used both correctly.

Drive Image was also marginally quicker than the version of Arconis
I have (also off a magazine disk).

Drive Image is damned fast. I am amazed that it can write a
complete image file for my C drive in under half an hour. We're
talking 30 gigs of data and program files. It restores somewhat
more slowly, because it checks as it restores, but even that only
takes around 40 minutes.

 

[dg1261]

I'm not going to argue that NTFS isn't more sophisticated than FAT32, but
"better" is in the eye of the beholder. I think you guys are skirting
Roger's point: how real is (was) the need for a new file system for the home
computer? I understand how it's easier for MS, but we're talking about
whether home users really needed it.

Fat32 was not designed for today's large hard drives. Compared to
NTFS, it is very inefficient for storing files on large partitions
because of the large cluster size it has to use. There's also a
performance issue with very large file allocation tables.

*Very* inefficient? What about those of us who don't subscribe to the "it's
okay to dump everything in one giant pile of garbage" point of view, and
split large disks into manageable partitions? My FAT32 cluster size is 4KB,
but even at 8KB (partitions over 32GB) I'm not sure I'd use that adverb. It
could just be my perspective because I didn't consider it much of an issue
on my Win95 FAT16 system until the cluster size got up to 16-32KB.

FAT32 has a maximum file size of under 4GB, A disk image file
could easily exceed this and would have to be split.

Is that a problem?

NTFS has file permissions, Fat32 files don't even have an
executable flag.

And for the home user, is that a problem? I mean, a *real* problem?

It's not really an issue, but FAT uses multiple directory entries to
store each long file name for reasons of backward compatibility
with dos, rather than efficient design.

Ah, yes--backward compatibility.

There are advantages and disadvantages to NTFS. Max file size limits: minor
advantage. Backward compatibility: disadvantage. Cluster size efficiency:
advantage. Accessibility from other OS's: big disadvantage. Ability to
trust file integrity: slight advantage. Ability to trust the spec:
disadvantage. Ability to lock files by permissions: advantage. Chances of
losing files by locking yourself out: disadvantage.

NTFS may be more sophisticated, but to say something is better also involves
other considerations besides the technology. Is it standardized? Does it
work with existing tools? Can third parties create new tools to work with
it? The ultimate question is, "do the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages?" I think a lot of this would be less of an issue if there
was a public standard and MS adhered to it, but as long as MS keeps it
private and changes it every year or two, I'm not sure I can answer that
with an unqualified "yes".