Future-proof HD backup?
 

The computer in front of me at the moment is running Windows 98 - so it's quite old! It does everything I want but there's always the worry that it and its hard drive (all 19Gb of it) are past their best.
I've been looking at getting an external hard drive for the sole purpose of taking a regular snapshot of my internal one so that I could reinstate things if the worst happens. This is probably a silly question but I'm very likely to get myself a new computer if I suffer a major failure with this one so would I be able to get things going again on a shiny new Windows Vista machine from the image I'll have from this computer?

Backup
 

No connection with the company but I have used their software for 9 years used since Win ME Days. without probs
CAT III

Use the external PC to make backups of the actual data files as well as storing images of the PC.

Then you are covered (except for fire, flood and theft).

SD

I (while being computer illiterate) take your recommendation, Saab Dastard, to mean that "Yes, in principle, a straight copy of my Windows 98 machines hard drive should be easily reinstatable on a new Vista machine's drive BUT it would be sensible to have the data files copied separately (partition?) as well for a belt and braces policy". Is this because to be truly "future-proof" I should look beyond Vista?

If it's a very old machine, USB HDDs and DVD writers may not work (needing USB 2.0 vs USB 1.1). Also, Windows 98 may have trouble coping with HDDs larger than 128 GB.

I would suggest you concentrate on backing up the data itself rather than the whole system. After all, you've said that if it goes pop you'll buy anew.

Cameronian,

It might be possible to use the image from the old PC on a new one, but I wouldn't bet on it.

It will be preferable to backup the data independently of any system images created, so that it can simply be copied across to a new PC.

It would be straightforward to create a blank partition of 20 GB on the new PC (besides the new OS system disk) and restore the old image onto that, and then extract the data as required.

Fundamentally, creating a disk image is different to copying files from one location to another. The image is a disk block by block copy (blind to what the blocks contain), the other is a file by file copy (blind to which blocks are used).

More recent disk imaging software may allow individual files to be recovered from the image, but you would need to verify this with whatever imaging software you have or buy.

SD

Thank you for that Saab Dastardand Quartz-1. I'm sorry CATIII-NDB but I'm not certain your posting related directly to my problem - probably because I didn't make myself clear - but thank you anyway.

I'll go to Makro and get myself a relatively low capacity external HD in the hope (and I'll try to confirm it too) that it will work with USB 1 and that it's below 128 Gb to, hopefully, avoid control problems with 98. Then I'll try to manage both a snapshot image and a data file-by-file copy onto a separate partition - phew! for someone of my limitations.... And I'll try to arrange a repeat every month or so.

I've seen a few back-up programmes for 98 spring to mind - Cobian Backup, Karen's something-or other, for example. I'll try to find an easy one!

Since this is going to be an external disk (and not bootable), there will not be any BIOS problems with a large hard disk - so up to at least 500GB should be possible - the limitation is the partition that fdisk can create.

In fact, Win 98SE can use disks up to 2TB!! - although the block size would be 32K!!

Cameronian, you should read up about Windows 98 (whatever version you have), FAT32 and hard disk sizes before you buy. Check that you have the most recent patches from Microsoft for Fdisk.exe!

Also, any external disk with its own power supply will be backwards compatible with USB 1.1 - it just won't be as quick as it could be on USB 2.0

SD

Thanks again, Saab Dastard. I really do hate to be a bore but my lack of understanding obliges me to be one. Would you be kind enough to explain what eventuality was worrying you when you recommended making a file-by-file copy of my data AS WELL as the easier (duh!) regularly updated snapshot?
If ever the safety copy is used it will certainly be used to "load up" my old machine's programs, settings and data onto a new machine with a much newer OS.

Thanks camerionian - I was thinking of a product that does image the hard disk to another drive and takes care of file size issues and the FAT32 to NTFS issue automatically while allowing re mounting of the saved drive as a logical drive on a different Computer. There are some issues if the Backup is from an NTFS Machine as the security file descriptors on the NTFS backup will not always allow access (e g \my documents ) - But your point of thinking ahead of Vista and future possible file systems e.g like photographic archives in longevity is another bigger problem entirely.

CAT III.

If all you had was a disk image of a Win98 system, then I could see the potential for problems trying to extract the data files from the image when you had moved to a new Vista PC - but as I pointed out, it rather depends on the capability of the software you use to create the image.

And I would certainly anticipate problems attempting to put a Win 98 image on a new PC (and losing the Vista image).

I mentioned previously that you could put a Win 98 disk image on a blank partition on the new PC - assuming you have the ability to resize the partition(s) to achieve this.

Assuming it wasn't the disk that failed and caused the much needed replacement, it might also be possible to install the old disk into the new PC (assuming a spare drive bay and power supply - and indeed an IDE channel) and have access to the files that way.

Not your programs or settings it won't!

You might be able to transfer a few basic settings (IE favourites, email etc.) from Win98 to XP / Vista but you will need to re-install all programs and re-configure the vast majority of your personal settings.

You may also find that some (a lot?) of programs that work with Win 98 won't work with a 32-bit OS like Vista or XP.

Be prepared for a major undertaking.

SD

"You may also find that some (a lot?) of programs that work with Win 98 won't work with a 32-bit OS like Vista or XP."

Win98 is a hybrid 16/32 bit OS. Virtually all applications that work in Win98 will work in XP - Vista is another matter.

:ok:

PS: The converse is not true. You can try solutions like KernelEx v0.3.6 released! - MSFN Forums to allow some XP only apps to run on 98SE

CATIII-NDB

Administrator can always access the files, although it may be necessary to "take ownership" before changing the permissions.

Unless of course the files are encrypted - in which case they are only accessible if the key had previously been exported.

SD

I have to take issue with that, Mac.

With Win 98 it was possible for programs to still access the hardware directly, bypassing the OS. And many, many programs did so, particularly games software.

This is prohibited in the 32-bit Windows OS's (NT, 2K and XP - and Vista).

Some 16-bit programs work fine (properly written), others work in compatibility mode in 2K or XP, but many don't. I have a box full of games (mostly the kids') that don't work under any circumstances. I remember quite a few from work also.

SD

Saab, you're right - I was forgetting about the old kids games - yup, quite a few won't run on XP.....

:ok:

I'm a fan of the "multiple copies" route, and my data gets subjected to different levels of redundancy according to how important I think it is. In order of priority:

• The bulk of the data I currently have (in GB) is not that important, and a total loss would be annoying but no more than that. For example, I have a lot of bits downloaded from the internet, and MP3s ripped from my own CDs, so I could always re-rip them. This data gets replicated between two disks in the same Windows PC, using Microsoft SyncToy.
• More important data gets replicated between two PCs, a desktop and a notebook, across the home network. I used to use SyncToy for this too, but the notebook is now running Linux, so I use a program called Unison. This is a bit tricky to set up, but extremely powerful once you do e.g. it can replicate files across the Internet using SSH Copy (SCP).
• For a small subset of really important files,I use a free service called Dropbox. This runs on both my machines, and continuously replicates changes between them and to the Dropbox server. It has rollback / recovery facilities via their website, so even if I damage or delete a file, and that gets replicated, I can roll back the changes to an older version of the file. It's like an offsite backup service that also does replication between machines. Plus, I replicate those files to a uSD card in my phone, so the subset includes files I might need on my phone.

I know it sounds complicated, but it all starts with a basic principle: that that any data you want to keep should exist in multiple copies. Now that disk space is so cheap, the limiting factors are time and network/internet speed, since two disks in the same machine is not much better than one if you want real data redundancy. It's a setup that has evolved over years, all batch-scripted and works pretty well unless I fiddle about too much. :8

bnt has many words of wisdom!!

Read, so that ye may not have to weep!!

:ok::ok:

SD

Why, thank you! That's the nicest thing I've heard all day. :}

PS: I should add that I don't think it's a good idea to back up an entire system as an image, since that still leaves you with two problems:
- you still have the problem of restoring the data afterwards, and that can get awkward: creating bootable DVDs, proprietary software than you need to install, etc.
- you could be backing up the problem that later breaks the system - e.g. a boot virus or damaged system file - so it happens again, after you restore the system;

If you know where your data is, and back it up as files (by simply copying it, burning ISO standard file discs, or using one of those replication programs I mentioned), you'll be able to get to it quickly at all times - which is the point, I think. If it's on DVDs or an external HDD as files (not images or big backup files), you can get to it as soon as you can plug that DVD or HDD in to another computer. If I back something up, I don't want any hassle when it comes time to restore it from the backup.

Msg for Saab Dastard
 

Hello Saab

Thank you for your comments - It will probably take a new thread but just how do you take ownership of those awkward NTFS file descriptors - I came up againt this just after making that post yesterday.

CAT III

Any of you guru's have any comments, for or against, Carbonite?

www.carbonite.com

Seems to get around the fire/flood/theft idea as well as it remembers to do the cross pollination of data without human input (I think).

I volunteer as Computer Mechanic at an organization with some thousands of members. One of my tasks is to back up important files such as the membership data base. I do it roughly once a week. The source paper records are kept that long.

I have written a small BAT program which produces ZIP files of the membership data, the database programs that use the data, various correspondence directories (oops, folders) and copies of the accounting data. These ZIP files are collected into a directory / folder and I have written a simple C program which puts the date in the name of that folder.

This folder is then automatically written to a CD-RW in DLA mode (which I don't trust). I copy the dated folder of ZIP files to the other computer in the office. I also manually make two copies of the dated folder on CD-R disks, one of which I take home from the organization's office in case there is a disaster at the office such as a fire.

The result is six copies of the ZIPped data:
1) on the main PC,
2) on the secondary PC,
3) on a CD-R in the Office,
4) on a CD-R I take away,
5) on a CD-RW (DLA) in the office,
6) on a flash drive at the office (not mentioned above).

I put no more than about a dozen of the dated folders of the ZIPped data on a single CD - they don't seem to like as many as 16 folders on a single CD.

The automated writing to the DLA CD-RW came in very handy when I was in hospital* at the start of January 2007. We were still able to capture a year-end set of data. I phoned the not-very-computer-literate employee who was able to run the batch (BAT) program and produce the CD-RW.

While this may sound complicated, it takes less than ten minutes. Our PCs run Win XP. The BAT program goes though all the steps including writing the CD-RW. Transfer to the secondary PC and writing the CD-R disks is manual.

It doesn't answer the goal of continual backups as one changes file contents.

seacue

* gall bladder op on Boxing Day 2006, Angels isn't the only one to enjoy such attention.

CATIII-NDB,

It's all in Windows Help!

Although I seem to recall that XP Home and Pro differ in the availability of NTFS security.

SD

Thanks Saab
 

Thanks for that Saab - everyone watching this cut and paste Saab's advice into a doc ASAP - particularly if you are trying to access Win XP files backed up on another computer.

Saab. If we ever meet at a pprune do - I owe you a pint.

CAT III

Thank you all for your wisdom. I think that the clear conclusion to draw is that I should forget about the idea of a snapshot of the whole drive and simply copy my docs, address books, e-mails, favourites (there, you can see that I don't trust IE!) and other data to a DVD now and again and leave the software to be replaced with new stuff for the inevitably new OS which would come along in the event of failure of the current kit.

It's always worthwhile, helpful and stimulating to consult you chaps on here. I think that there has been some spin-off, which is not directly related to my question, which will have enlightened others too.

Thanks again!

First I've heard of it, but it doesn't appear to be doing any more than Dropbox, which costs nothing for the first 2GB of space used.

Note that Outlook mail files need special handling, because they're stored in an odd location in your profile that is normally hidden from view. Microsoft has a document on this, here: How to manage .pst files in Outlook 2007, in Outlook 2003, and in Outlook 2002