Re: Alternatives to xxcopy /clone [XARC 287]



[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject[>>]    [<<]Thread[>>]

Number   :  287
Date     :  2001-06-27
Author   :  Dan Anderson
Subject  :  Re: Alternatives to xxcopy /clone
Size(KB) :  5



I haven't used it but Maxblast Plus (1.5MB) is available for download at
http://www.maxtor.com/PRODUCTS/DiamondMax/software/maxblast/default.htm

I had to use internet explorer when my netscape 4.08 couldn't connect with
it.



================================


----- Original Message -----
From: Kan Yabumoto 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 4:32 PM
Subject: [xxcopy] Alternatives to xxcopy /clone


>
> The following is an article which I posted in one of the newsgroups
> in recent weeks. Since my earlier posts here mentioned WDC's
> EZ-Install (which I have not tested yet), I thought this article may
> be of interest to you.
>
> Kan Yabumoto
>
> ===================================================================
> Hi, everybody.
>
> In this thread, many people have spoken the merit of XXCOPY which I
> authored. In recent months, I read many alternative solutions for
> hard-disk cloning in various newsgroups. Let me summarize my take
> on the subject. Although XXCOPY is my baby, I concede some merits
> on other solutions.
>
> Here are common methods people talk about.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> XXCOPY (my baby)
> XCOPY (Microsoft)
> MaxBlast Plus Free at http://www.maxtor.com (made by StorageSoft)
> DiscWizard 2000 Free at http://www.segate.com (made by OnTrack)
> FileCopy Bundled in DiscWizard 2000 (see above)
> DriveImage sold by PowerQuest
> Norton Ghost sold by Symantec
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> MaxBlast Plus (the winner)
>
> If you are interested in making a new (or old) disk to be a replacement
> boot disk, my first recommendation is MaxBlast Plus. It works like a
> charm. It first creates a self-contained system diskette (with DR-DOS)
> and runs from essentially a DOS-based environment. But it is a well
> written GUI program with clean user interface. Although it asks you
> whether you have completed the installation of Maxtor disk drive,
> it does not care if the brand of your disk drive is Maxtor or not.
> It performs the partitioning job (what FDISK.EXE normally does) in a
> much better way. The logical formatting job (what FORMAT.COM does)
> on-the-fly when you copy files which makes the operation very fast.
> It seems to work on any IDE drive (I haven't checked SCSI disk cases).
> From my limited tests, MaxBlast Plus worked flawlessly. It's easy to
> use, fast, and it preserves the Long filename (LFN) and short filename
> (SFN) relationships as it should. So far I found no flaw in this
> utility. It's an excellent tool. If anybody encountered problems
> with MaxBlast Plus, please let me know (tech.xxcopy@d...).
> The disadvantage of this method is that it is good for an initial,
> whole disk clone operation but not suitable for incremental
> (much quicker) backup. It is not meant to be a backup tool.
> It is a disk migration tool. I have only good things to say about it.
>
>
> DiscWizard 2000 (don't use it)
>
> I have also evaluated DiscWizard 2000 which is available from Seagate.
> It contains a utility called FileCopy. The programs were written by
> OnTrack. I don't recommend it. It is a Win-32 application
> MaxBlast, but that's minor. Its real problem is a familiar theme to
> me. When the contents of the old disk are copied to the new disk
> (this operation is apparently handled by FileCopy), the SFNs will not
> always be preserved. The file copy operation is apparently done in the
> "normal" way where the naming of the 8.3 filename was left to the file
> system (the flawed first-come-first-served naming scheme). For this
> reason, we think DiscWizard and FileCopy may cause a trouble down the
> road. Just like so many people argue "I never had a problem using
> XCOPY (or even a drag-and-drop method)". A simple test of LFN/SFN
> test reveals the well publicized vulnerability. For non-believers, here
> are a list of literature on this subject. The main problems with
> Microsoft's XCOPY and most file-copy tools are equally bad in this regard.
>
> http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy/xxcopy03.htm.
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/1/44.asp
> http://navasgrp.home.att.net/tech/clone_copy.htm
>
>
> DriveImage and Norton Ghost (they are not free)
>
> DriveImage and Ghost are both highly acclaimed commercial products
> and they have many satisfied users. Both of them work in the
> low-level disk access rather than using the standard file I/O API.
> The advantage is that they can copy certain files which are otherwise
> not accessible from a working OS (Windows 9x does not allow you to
> access the virtual memory swap file, WIN386.SWP, for example ---
> but this particular file need not be copied for successful system
> disk cloning). During the cloning process, you cannot use the
> computer as usual. Incidentally, I do not have first-hand experience
> with neither of these tools. But, I read mostly good things about
> either of these tools.
>
>
> XXCOPY (my stuff)
>
> I believe it works. The step by step description is available at.
>
> http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy/xxcopy10.htm
>
> (the rest of the original article is discarded here ... )
> Kan Yabumoto
> 
> ========================================================================
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.