xp that much better and why?

Hi richmusick!

Thanks for the information. I'll look into it you can be sure.

I use GoBack since I do a lot of the same stuff you seem to be referring to and occasionally I need to revert to a time when things were in good shape. GoBack is great for "No Fear" testing of new software.

Prior to XP I always kept an up to date bootable Clone of my primary drive stored on a secondary drive and felt very secure with that in addition to GoBack. With the XP system I haven't been able to bootably clone the drive with my previous utility (XXCOPY) since several files are not available while the system is booted, 13 to be exact.

Does Nova Store create a bootable copy or is it just a backup only and would require reinstalling the system to a bootable state to use it?

ps, I see they are asking $10 for the restore cd's to cover "Production and shipping costs ". I would rather put that dough toward some Ghosting or Cloning program and not have to have their disk. That would also get around the drive wiping problem that their method requires and save my added software, not to mention all the patches that are required to be re-applied.

 

ZEPHER

To run InstantRecovery by NovaStor ...... run the cd and it prompts for 3 blank diskettes. These are then used to reboot into what appears to be a UNIX or Linux operating system in memory. Since the backup OS is running in memory it don't care what is on the Hard disk. It can copy to cdr and restore exactly since the xp, win95, DOS or any other OS is never read, but just cloned bit by bit. Since this is the case, even the blank parts are cloned. If the partition is full or 1/3 used, the same amount of CDs are needed for a backup. With compression on, 6 CDs back up 5 gig.

Recovery is ... just boot the 3 diskettes and feed in the 6 cds. The partition (or HD if desired ) is overwritten.

I have restored to slightly larger and smaller HDs just to see if it would work. with tweaking, yes.

Take a look.
-----------------------------------------------

InstantRecovery performs disk image backups of your hard drive directly to CD-R/CD-RW, tape, or Disk. Runs with any operating system.

http://www.novastor.com/products.html

-------------------------------------------------

 

http://www.powerquest.com/driveimage/dicomments.html
This is bootable too! I just love this powerquest stuff

 

Rancher

In going to the powerquest driveimage site, I noticed a footnote..

----------------------------------------------------------------------
New imaging technology allows you to create and restore drive images while running in Windows*,unlike other de..........

*Non-system partition only ???
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure what this means. I want the system partition too.

They mention another product,, Drive Copy, do you have an idea of the difference.

This may well be a more user friendly product since some folks aren't used to the Linux boot proceedure.

 

richmusick

It means; "you can only create/restore, while in a WINDOWS session ", any other partition EXCEPT the ONE you are currently IN" obviously if you are in windows ya can't restore while it's being used

Drivecopy does not support xp at this time, driveimage does.
Drivecopy is slick & I have used it a few times wiht win98se. Copy's actual physical files/settings/programs etc to another hard drive that is to be used on SAME box only. Purpose is to simply replace your smaller failing drive with a new one.
Driveimage takes a picture, like ISO on cd's, then compress this & transfers the thang in 25% the time of copy

 

What does the last several posts have to do with the gains and benefits of XP? Arie is probably pulling out his hair trying to figure out how to bifurcate this thread into a general discussion about the deficiencies of HP and various other unconnected subjects.

 

WinXP PRO beats Win98

I love windows XP a lot better then win98 because driveimage is built for XP=experience..

 

what? how to bifurgate this ..... ??

ok ok I hit the Webster Dict. key and am back with the program.

-------------------------------
xp that much better and why?
-------------------------------

XP IS , that much better than 98. I installed XP with several "can't do without" utilities that made Win98 complete for me.

It wasn't obvious but almost all of the utilities that I depended on are not needed in Win XP because the operating system can already do their functions.

I am one that misses DOS, but I am beginning to ask myself why.

System resources don't seem to fade away causing a reboot after 20 30 hours.

etc..

 

Nothing is so impressive as using a big word and misspelling it.

Richmusick, I agree with you since I did much the same thing. I thought I would need all those neat little utilities that I had picked up down through the years while trying to tame those other versions of Windows. I haven't used them much lately and probably won't ever need some of them.

When I get the cloning issue settled, I'll be on easy street for sure.

Thanks for your comments.

 

Some people may find it annoying to go into the archives expecting research material for topic in question and have to deal and sort irrelevant material. I and many other people experienced that problem on the prior board.

I beleive that is Arie's rationale for his directive to stay on the subject. But he can speak for himself.

Zephyr, thanks for pointing out the misspelling, but you can' t prove it wasn't a keypuch error.

 

Scary Issues

Well -- To be honest I love XP -- But I too have discovered things that make me nervous since I first installed it.

Due to a limited budget I'm still running my old computer *gasp!* it's only an AMD K6-2 / 450MHz with 256 megs of ram. *Oh my God!* -- I too build my own systems, and love to tinker with new cards / addons, etc.

Frankly - Whenever I get an extra bit of "fun" cash, I usually go buy something for the computer, just to play with.. This could include ANY kind of hardware or software... Here's the biggest, scariest issue I've found with windows XP:

Here's a quote from "Windows XP: Inside Out" (Microsoft Press):

"tip - Don’t rush to activate :
When you install a retail copy of Windows XP, you’re prompted during the final stage of Setup to activate the product. We recommend that you choose not to activate it immediately. Instead, give yourself at least a week to verify that Windows XP works properly on your hardware and that you won’t be required to replace any hardware or the entire computer. After you’re confident that Windows XP is completely compatible with your hardware, you can safely activate. Use the persistent reminder balloons in the notification area, or click the Start button and choose the Activate Windows shortcut at the top of the All Programs menu. " (WinXP Inside Out, Microsoft Press)

Now, here's how "activation" works (another direct quote):

"You’re allowed to reinstall Windows an unlimited number of times on the same hardware. During the activation process, Windows XP transmits an encrypted file that serves as a "fingerprint" of key components in your system. If you reinstall Windows XP on the same hardware, the activation server checks the new fingerprint against the one stored in its database. If they match, activation is automatic. "(WinXP Inside Out, Microsoft Press)


------ SO, ladies and gentlemen out there who like to tinker.. Beware!! If you're anything like me, and like to tinker w/ different hardware configs on your system, you MAY run into problems! I find this totally unacceptable, and the first time I run into a problem because I've purchased new hardware, I'm calling Microsoft & b**ching about it!

Hell -- You know I'm running an OLD system -- When I can afford to upgrade to a faster processor & bigger hard drive, will I be out of luck with XP ? To be sure, when I do make the purchases, the people on this forum will be the first to know if I run into problems..

Has anyone else run into this issue, BTW?

 

Check my link on this other thread, there may be some relief for those who choose to move their operating system to different hardware and not feel that they should have to call big brother.



http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=19661#post19661

I don't know if that works but I'll keep it handy in case.

Good luck

 

Right on

I have been subscribed to that link. I Activated by phone.

I gave them the product key. They gave me a 42-digit activation code number. No further information was transmitted.

I think you can do it, Donniesito. I think nothing is new under the sun concerning the ability to load a Windows OS. I also think that's that answer to the question no one else will answer in the thread Zephyr mentions.

In Control Panel, MS asks "Is this copy of Windows XP legal?" So it could be not. How curious are you? The answer is online. But your cookies are, too. I wouldn't go there.

 

Thanks for the details about activation. Also, as I understand, there is a 30 day time limit to activate or do a reinstall for another 30 day limit. Apparently there is a clock and counter involved to monitor the time to a 30 day interval! Once that process is hacked M/S will be back to square one.

 

Aaah! Thank you for the info, much appreciated (and a might bit relieved also ;-) )

I don't mind doing this, because *I* know I'm not using an illegal version of Windows.. Frankly, it's none of Microsoft's businesss when I puurchase new hardware, nor is it any of their business WHAT hardware I'm running or what hardware I'm upgrading.. SO - When the time comes, I'll do that little trick and have my winXP up and running without having to run to M$ to reactivate Thanks again, much appreciated!!!

 

On occasion, I have to interact with XP in my job, and I can't stand it. It just seems like for all the trouble people have with XP and Windows in general, why bother? In response to what's been posted here already:

1. NO form of windows has UNIX/Linux-like file permissions. Sorry. It just doesn't exist. The permissions system in windows doesn't work anything like UNIX, really, if you read up on it you'll see what I mean.

2. Windows is NOT 'more customizable'. XP *might* be more customizable than 98, but it doesn't even compare to Linux in that regard. What if I don't *want* a Start button, or even a task bar for that matter? What if I want to change the entire personality of the Window manager? What if I want more features on each window instead of the same old 'maximize/minimize/close' options? What if I just want to 'shade' the window up in place? What if I don't want to see a border around the window at all, and I want a program to blend into the background? What if I *do* want to see borders, but want the background to be 'transparent'? If *any* of this is doable in windows, it's not doable without downloading a bunch of tiny little programs which, for all I know, probably contain viruses.

3. Which brings me to another good point. Viruses are programs. 99.9999% of those programs are written in VB (or some subset thereof). VB doesn't run on Linux - so you can say goodbye to viruses, worms, and any other email or web based form of destruction.

4. What if I never want to see another pop-up ad again? Why can't I tell IE not to allow them? In Linux I can, with a couple of mouse clicks, tell my browser that I never want to see another popup again.

5. For you home users: I asked my mom recently why she doesn't just run Linux. She said "Oh, I just use the computer for web surfing and email, I don't need anything like Linux ". My response was "why pay all that money just to do that, when you can do it for free in Linux? ". I gave her a 10 minute tour, and she went back to her home (far away) and installed it Her favorite feature is the customizability, though she initially was thrilled with all the games and stuff it came with. She also likes that there are many more browsers available, and that she also never sees popups anymore.

6. You still have to reboot - even with XP. This is not true of Linux, where the only time you ever reboot is to install new hardware. With some Linux distributions, you don't even have to reboot after you install the operating system itself... it just launches! There are a million reasons for this, I won't go into OS design concepts here

7. XP is disgustingly bad for networking. You will, in all likelihood, NOT enjoy 'faster browsing' in windows on your home network or anywhere else. Why? XP 'chatters' even more than its older cousins. This means it puts unwanted and unnecessary communication on the network, taking up valuable bandwidth.

8. It's been admitted to by Microsoft that some of the aforementioned 'chatter' was actually data being sent to M$ regarding what YOU do on YOUR computer! Why is it their business? This doesn't exist in ANY other operating system that I know of.

9. There are services in XP that REQUIRE you to have a Passport account. 'Passport' is a system by which Microsoft seeks to collect data about as many people as possible, and extend their monopoly into online-payment, and basically get any money there is to get from your personal data (believe it or not, some companies pay a lot for info about people they don't even know. Also - this data includes your credit card number and such (in some cases), and given M$'s BAD security track record, I don't want that to be stored anywhere but in my wallet

10. Microsoft enabled things in XP by default that are not used by ANYTHING, and cause SEVERE security problems. Two examples are universal plug and play, and the remote control or remote help feature.

Well, there's my top ten list. I could go on and on, but I probably already sound like a lunatic. Sorry. I'm really not a zealot, I swear. But I've been using windows for years alongside Linux. Used to be I'd never talk about Linux - but as it gets better and better as a desktop system, I see fewer excuses for using Windows. I have a Windows box at home, but it was given to me by work, and the only time it gets turned on is when I wanna play Age of Empires or something.

 

All except for one thing

I believe you're absolutely right, njcajun. But your mother's son is a networking guru. Windows OSes are for the masses who have other things to do, like use their computers.

Linux is free and download-able from the Internet. The problem is that it is primarily a networking operating system and all its possibilities are a nightmare for the unwashed out here.

XP is good enough for the home user. XP Professional is better yet for the office and small business. Linux is even better, I am told. But I'm quoting Christopher Negus here, an author:

"Linux and other UNIX operating systems have the richest set of networking features.... UNIX-like systems can be difficult for non technical people to administer and work with, however. "

 

So who is this author you quote? If it's free, that means it costs nothing to try it, and then you can speak from your own experience.

'XP is good enough...' This just sounds silly. Why pay for 'good enough' when you can get 'pretty darn awesome' for free? This logic blows my mind.

PS - Linux is NOT 'primarily' anything. It's flexible. It's nice that it has a very robust set of networking functionality, but that's of more concern to enterprise users, not home users. At home, I'm more concerned with look & feel, stability, speed and graphics & sound (multimedia).

PPS - I am not a networking guru. I gave my mom two books on Linux and sent her home. I haven't had to support her on Linux over the past year, and she even upgraded by herself (which amazed me). She has since bought a couple of app-specific books (she wanted to learn GIMP - she used to use photoshop), but other than that, she got up and running on her own. She found a BBS, and some people there even helped her decide on a distribution (she picked SuSE and loves it. I don't really use that one myself). She called for my opinion on distribution - I told her redhat. She didn't listen - guess she felt comfortable enough with SuSE. Whatever.

An interesting note, however, is that if my mother *did* have issues, and was online, I could log into her machine remotely and probably fix it. She'd have to turn the feature on to let me in (unlike windoze, where the door is always wide open unless you shut it), but it's very easy.

I don't understand how you can say anything is a nightmare that you haven't experienced. Can you clarify? I thought IRIX was a nightmare before I tried it. Now I hate IRIX - but I hate it from EXPERIENCE.

Quit listening so closely to the media. If journalists are rarely qualified to talk about technology. Ask a journalist what TCP/IP stands for. They don't know. If you do - then you obviously are as qualified as any journalist to write articles about technology. These people didn't go to school for computer science - don't expect a qualified, authoritative story from them on anything.

 

This is an interesting debate. I rarely come by the windows forums. I wonder what other questions or misconceptions people might have. Throw them at me!

What keeps you from trying ANYTHING other than windows? (I don't really care if anyone uses Linux, I just see very little excuse left for using Windows).

 

My own personal experience....

I used to run Linux (dual boot between Win98 & Redhat). I liked Linux because it was *different*, it was *mysterious* and it was fun for me at the time. (It had been a long time since I had to WORK to make my computer do something.

Anyhow -- This was all fine and good for a while. But then (my profession) took a greater hold on my life and I started using my computer for work more than ever.. I needed the disk space.. I got rid of Linux...

To answer the question "Why would anyone use windows?" (paraphrased) I offer a few simple answers:

1) It's EASIER to use. Period.
2) WHy would ANY home user require more than basic security? (The only things I need are my Firewall and my login password.. That's it!)
3) Software software software. If I didn't like to use GOOD software, I would think about switching back.. But for now, I like the software available for Windows.
4) Frankly, Windows FLYS in comparison to X. As I've stated in a previous post, I'm only running a 450MHz machine. And X c-r-a-w-l-s !! Painfully slow for me.. (And again..Very little software) -- Windows runs just fine.

I have no problem with people wanting to use Linux. I like it myself, because it's fun. For serious work though I have to stick with windows.

But please don't fall into that category of people who hate Microsoft and Bill Gates and Windows.... Just because it's there. (I am so tired of people bashing Microsoft, just to bash, without good information to back up the argument, ya know?)

Frankly I like Bill Gates. I like Microsoft! (Here's a hint.. Microsoft being a software giant is OUR fault! I've been buying MS OS's since MS-DOS 2.11 !! -- So don't blame MS for it's success.. Blame the consumers who bought the OS's.)

Thanks for listening to my opinion ;-)