OT: Re: Windows registry cleanup tools - PowerQuest Drive Image

[J R FOX jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

--- Wolfgang Bechstein 
wrote:

> J R FOX  wrote:
>
> > >If you are unfortunate enough to experience a HDD
> > >failure, and need to replace the drive, your
> greatest
> > >chance of success with the image restore will be
> to
> > >the same make, model, and size of drive.
>
> Harry Binswanger  wrote:
>
> > Grrrr. What the hell is the use of an image
> program if it can't guarantee a
> > restore?
> >
> > This whole situation is ridiculous.
>
> No, this whole exchange is ridiculous. You both
> clearly don't know what
> you're talking about, and you don't have the
> gumption to download some trial
> versions and do a bit of controlled experimenting,
> rather than just surmising
> this and that.

Well, 'you're entitled to your opinion' is the best
thing I can say. Are YOU an IT pro, like Flash ? I
have migrated plenty of hard drives -- both for myself
and for others -- over the past 15 years or so, and
what I said is based on my own experience. For the
most part, these migrations have been successful,
until rather recently when what I was trying to
migrate has been complicated and perhaps overly
ambitious. (18 partitions and 3 OSes, to a HDD twice
the size, though not too surprisingly the only
intransigent parties are the Win boot partitions.
They clearly do NOT like being enlarged AND slid far
down the drive, even though the relative order does
not change.) But I think I will vanquish those too
after awhile, because a challenge like that tends to
motivate me.

As to your trial versions, why should I bother doing
such experiments ? I was a heavy user of Drive Image
over at least three main versions of the program, and
used Ghost enough to know I didn't like it. Now, I'm
generally satisfied with DFSEE as my drive cloning /
migration tool. (That said, something Patricia just
mentioned in regard to Acronis sounded intriguing.)

> But of course, it's so much easier to
> waffle on endlessly
> on a mailing list, never mind that it's totally off
> topic to boot.

Such messages _should_ have an OT: in front of them,
the better to aid you in avoiding them. In a slow
message period, when they are not crowding out more
on-topic stuff, *someone* may wish to read them, if
not you. I thought this was the prevailing consensus,
reached here long ago.


Jordan