XXClone turns out to have been time-limited trialware all along.

[John Corliss]

And now that the author is dead, it no longer works. If you start the
most recent version of the program, you get this message (direct copy
and paste of the message box):

---------------------------
XXCLONE: You have a very old copy
---------------------------
This XXCLONE Freeware package was created more than
one year ago. If you downloaded it from a third party
download site (such as download.com or softpedia.com),
you should visit our web site for the latest version
of XXCLONE Freeware.

http://xxclone.com

---------------------------
OK
---------------------------

When you click on "OK", the program shuts down.

Seems pretty chickenshit to me, but oh well. It was the guy's right to
do that if he wanted.

Now I'm looking for something to take the program's place. I installed
the latest version of Macrium Reflect (Free Edition) on my W7 computer.
Snapfiles says that it's only a 2.94mb download, but that's because it's
only a stub file which initiates an online installation. If you're not
online, setup tells you that it can't connect to a server and closes.

So I then started my cable modem and rigged my firewall to allow the
setup file to freely communicate, then tried running it again. First
thing it did was to tell me that it needed to download WinPE, over
200mb! I allowed that to happen. Then after it had done so and (finally)
setup began, it installed a ?!#@$&! SERVICE.

I *HATE* programs that install services without warning you in advance.
But I decided to allow it to see if the program could do a clone from a
partition on one drive to another partition on another drive. Maybe it
can, but the UI is a clusterfuck and I don't see how it's done. I don't
want to take a chance with my data, so I canceled the clone. Maybe the
help file would show me how, but you can only access it online. Fuck
that nonsense.

I have no idea why so many people in this newsgroup think that Macrium
Reflect's is so great. I, for one, don't care for it at all.

Does anybody have another recommendation for an XXClone alternative
which they like?

TIA
--
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts originating from Google Groups and recommend you do likewise. I
also block (can't see & won't reply to) posts from the following trolls:
»Q« and BurfordTJustice.

[Shadow]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:53:38 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

What exactly do you need it for ? I use Clonezilla for images
and FreeFileSync (adware at install, beware) for everyday data.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[John Corliss]

I always run two hard drives in all of my computers. They are, generally
speaking, partitioned in half and exact clones of each other. In other
words, partition A on drive 1 is cloned to partition A on drive 2, etc.
This way, when the main drive goes south, it's just a simple matter of
pulling it out and hooking up the backup as the new main. Then when you
get a replacement drive for the one that wore out, you can hook it into
the system and clone the ex-secondary drive onto the new one.

And no, I don't like or use RAID. In fact, I detest RAID setups.

Thus, I want something which can accurately clone a partition on one
internal hard drive to a partition on another internal hard drive.

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 00:41:54 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>And no, I don't like or use RAID. In fact, I detest RAID setups.

RAID isn't a backup strategy. It provides depending speed increase and
failover.

Main one's

0 striping low cost very fast read write rates no failover
1 fast read rates high cost good performance on failover
5 fastish read write rates lowish cost with failover but with slow
performance on failover

>Thus, I want something which can accurately clone a partition on one
>internal hard drive to a partition on another internal hard drive.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

[John Corliss]

p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>> And no, I don't like or use RAID. In fact, I detest RAID setups.
>
> RAID isn't a backup strategy. It provides depending speed increase and
> failover.
>
> Main one's
>
> 0 striping low cost very fast read write rates no failover
> 1 fast read rates high cost good performance on failover
> 5 fastish read write rates lowish cost with failover but with slow
> performance on failover
>
>> Thus, I want something which can accurately clone a partition on one
>> internal hard drive to a partition on another internal hard drive.

Yes, I know that RAID increases performance, but:

"RAID 1: Mirroring

Data are stored twice by writing them to both the data drive (or set of
data drives) and a mirror drive (or set of drives). If a drive fails,
the controller uses either the data drive or the mirror drive for data
recovery and continues operation. You need at least 2 drives for a RAID
1 array.'

That sure sounds like data protection to me.

I would also still call RAID 5 data protection (however, it requires
three drives). Regardless, I only made my remark because I assumed that
given the way I'm doing things now (something I jokingly call "RAID on
demand"), somebody would recommend that I use RAID.

Believe it or not, this ancient Sony VAIO is capable of RAID, but I have
it disabled.

[Cully Wnen]

+1

I shifted to Clonezilla and FreeFileSync when Macrium started with
WinPE. Clonezilla can handle imagining partitions or whole disks.

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 02:41:49 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>
>>> And no, I don't like or use RAID. In fact, I detest RAID setups.
>>
>> RAID isn't a backup strategy. It provides depending speed increase and
>> failover.
>>
>> Main one's
>>
>> 0 striping low cost very fast read write rates no failover
>> 1 fast read rates high cost good performance on failover
>> 5 fastish read write rates lowish cost with failover but with slow
>> performance on failover
>>
>>> Thus, I want something which can accurately clone a partition on one
>>> internal hard drive to a partition on another internal hard drive.
>
>Yes, I know that RAID increases performance, but:
>
>"RAID 1: Mirroring
>
>Data are stored twice by writing them to both the data drive (or set of
>data drives) and a mirror drive (or set of drives). If a drive fails,
>the controller uses either the data drive or the mirror drive for data
>recovery and continues operation. You need at least 2 drives for a RAID
>1 array.'
>
>That sure sounds like data protection to me.

Backups provide rollback and consistency.

Mirroring provides neither.

If you create an inconsistent file system a mirror will just copy it.

RAID for home users primarily provides protection against hardware
failure.

It's usually RAID 1. Hardware RAID on home user systems is usually a
pain and software RAID in particular rebuilds very slowly. On
professional servers it's usually stupid simple. You get an alert, you
hot swap the offending drive which is marked, you unclip it, pull it out
and replace, a monkey could do it, and the drive is rebuilt
automatically. Software RAID is used on professional systems. It sucks
when the shit hits.

>I would also still call RAID 5 data protection (however, it requires
>three drives).

It's not a replacement for a backup whatever you call it.

>Regardless, I only made my remark because I assumed that
>given the way I'm doing things now (something I jokingly call "RAID on
>demand"), somebody would recommend that I use RAID.
>
>Believe it or not, this ancient Sony VAIO is capable of RAID, but I have
>it disabled.

[Shadow]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 00:41:54 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>

Clonezilla. Do unplug that drive after the clone. An
encrypting malware will destroy both.

[mike]

Reflect downloads PE so it can make a recovery disk to boot from
scratch.
Services let it do things like mount a backup as a drive letter.

I'm curious as to how often you swap drives to replace a bad one?
Is this really a critical parameter in your decision?

Not sure which OS you're running.
I run win7.
I have two partitions C: and D:.
C: is only as big as it needs to be to hold the stuff that
must reside on C:, AKA Microsoft stuff. Backups are fast.
And I don't backup music or videos. They're already backed
up on a USB drive.
D: has backups and media and archives and stuff that doesn't
change much.

Macrium reflect has a button labeled something like,
"Create an image of the partitions required to backup and restore
windows."
Follow the prompts...It's hard to go wrong.
I do routine backups of C: to directories on D:.
If your system tanks, you boot the rescue CD and restore a backup to C:.
That also restores the boot sector so it keeps everybody happy.
That covers 99% of my requirements.

For the next .99%, I sync the D: partition with its counterpart
on a removable USB drive. That solves the hard drive failure problem.

For the last .01%, sysprep the C: partition and back that up to your
USB drive. Then you can restore that to recover from a complete
system failure that requires a new motherboard. Don't think that
works on win10, but it's not the fault of the backup.

Bottom line is that I've tried several backup methods and Reflect
has been the simplest, most comprehensive method I've tried.

[Shadow]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 04:38:28 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:

>Macrium reflect has a button labeled something like,
>"Create an image of the partitions required to backup and restore
>windows."

What do you do when malware encrypts all your files ?
Including the Macrium backups ?
John's "removable spare drive" is a safer option.
If he images once a week, he loses a week. If he uses
FreeFileSync to backup new data to a pendrive once a day, he'll lose a
day.

[mike]

On 10/14/2017 10:41 AM, Shadow wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 04:38:28 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>> Macrium reflect has a button labeled something like,
>> "Create an image of the partitions required to backup and restore
>> windows."
>
> What do you do when malware encrypts all your files ?
> Including the Macrium backups ?
> John's "removable spare drive" is a safer option.

His posting says they're both installed.

> If he images once a week, he loses a week. If he uses
> FreeFileSync to backup new data to a pendrive once a day, he'll lose a
> day.
> []'s
>

Well, first, you read the entire post and don't snip it.

For the next .99%, I sync the D: partition with its counterpart
on a removable USB drive. That solves the hard drive failure problem.

The removable USB drive contains all the files on D: which includes
ALL the saved C: backups that reside there.

I'm not suggesting that you do fewer backups than make you comfortable.
Backups do not prohibit you from doing more file syncs if you require.

Quoting the snipped part:
I always run two hard drives in all of my computers. They are, generally
speaking, partitioned in half and exact clones of each other. In other
words, partition A on drive 1 is cloned to partition A on drive 2, etc.

If you have both drives installed, both are vulnerable to
corruption,
malware,
hardware failure,
theft,
cat pee,
operator error.
If you trash a file, then sync it, you've lost both copies.

An installed drive is not a backup solution; it's a convenience
for simple problems.

Externally archived backups are far better.

As for file sync operations, you have to be very careful to navigate
the often-complex processes available in the sync program.
I've had numerous occasions where files were not sync'd because
they had the same date and size.
Dates can get borked by the sync process. Files can be edited and
have the same size. Unless your program has the ability to compare
each file by content, and you enable it, and you're willing for it
to do the compares, you may not get what you thought.

I took a quick look at the tutorials for freefilesync.
I don't think most people have the discipline to do all the configurations
to use it's capabilities every day.

With macrium, you can have a full backup every day with a couple of clicks.
And if you save a few older ones, you can recover from that accidental
deletion.

[Shadow]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 11:58:29 -0700, mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote:

>If you have both drives installed, both are vulnerable to

...
>cat pee,

Racist !!!

[Diesel]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:orsf4j$qrh$1...@dont-email.me Sat,

Are both drives physically connected to the machine at the same time
often?



--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:
I was on a train this morning, in the loo, when a voice called out
"Can I see your ticket please?"
"Not right now," I replied, "I'm having a shit."
"I don't believe you," said the voice, "slide it under the door."
"No problem," I said. "The yellow bits are sweetcorn!"

[Shadow]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 23:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

Apparently yes. I thought he did as I do, disconnect "the
Internet", plug in a backup drive, clone the original one onto an
image on the backup drive, then unplug it. About once a week.
Alternate backup drives "just in case".
Daily updates to smaller drives (pendrives, dirt cheap).
I know what you are going to say ... a power surge(MB, PS or
even lightning) or even malware will take out both drives...

[John Corliss]

The extra drive is to protect against the other crashing. I also back up
my data in multiple other ways which can't be corrupted by encryption
malware.

[John Corliss]

Yes, but I don't *want* a recovery disk.

> Services let it do things like mount a backup as a drive letter.
>
> I'm curious as to how often you swap drives to replace a bad one?
> Is this really a critical parameter in your decision?

I've worn out hard drives at least three times in the past. I've always
been saved by my strategy.

> Not sure which OS you're running.

On this computer, XP MCE SP3.

> I run win7.
> I have two partitions C: and D:.
> C: is only as big as it needs to be to hold the stuff that
> must reside on C:, AKA Microsoft stuff. Backups are fast.
> And I don't backup music or videos. They're already backed
> up on a USB drive.
> D: has backups and media and archives and stuff that doesn't
> change much.
>
> Macrium reflect has a button labeled something like,
> "Create an image of the partitions required to backup and restore
> windows."
> Follow the prompts...It's hard to go wrong.
> I do routine backups of C: to directories on D:.
> If your system tanks, you boot the rescue CD and restore a backup to C:.

I prefer not to do it that way for my own reasons.

> That also restores the boot sector so it keeps everybody happy.
> That covers 99% of my requirements.
>
> For the next .99%, I sync the D: partition with its counterpart
> on a removable USB drive. That solves the hard drive failure problem.

Again, I prefer not to do it that way for my own reasons.

> For the last .01%, sysprep the C: partition and back that up to your
> USB drive. Then you can restore that to recover from a complete
> system failure that requires a new motherboard. Don't think that
> works on win10, but it's not the fault of the backup.
>
> Bottom line is that I've tried several backup methods and Reflect
> has been the simplest, most comprehensive method I've tried.

MR keeps asking me which *disk* to clone a partition to. When I tell it,
it shows me both partitions on my backup disk and doesn't give me the
option to select one or the other.

I'm not about to risk losing the data on the backup disk's second
partition or even the partition itself.

Thus, my original request for an alternative to XXClone, and by context,
Macrium Reflect Free, stands.

[John Corliss]

Shadow wrote:

> mike wrote:
>>
>> Macrium reflect has a button labeled something like,
>> "Create an image of the partitions required to backup and restore
>> windows."
>
> What do you do when malware encrypts all your files ?
> Including the Macrium backups ?
> John's "removable spare drive" is a safer option.

?? That's not what I do. I have two hard drives permanently installed in
all of my computers. I occasionally back up my critical data to thumb
drives and DVD-Rs. Having two hard drives means that if I screw up a
file or one gets corrupted, I can easily copy the backup file from the
second hard drive (whichever partition is appropriate) to the main drive
(whichever partition is appropriate.) That and the ability to quickly
replace a "click-of-death" hard drive with an exact replacement are the
reasons I have two hard drives installed.

> If he images once a week, he loses a week. If he uses
> FreeFileSync to backup new data to a pendrive once a day, he'll lose a
> day.

I rarely do anything in a week or day that I need to worry about losing.
If I do create something I don't want to lose, then I back it up on the
appropriate thumb drive, stored in a secure location.

Yesterday, I tried downloading the most recent version of XXClone,
version 2.08.8, installing it and running it. It's still gave me the
"obsolete version" error message and then shut down.

I don't like Macrium Reflect Free and XXClone won't work. Thus my
request for an alternative to both of those programs.

[John Corliss]

All of my computers have two hard drives permanently installed. This is
not my only backup technique either. Each technique serves a different
purpose.

I really don't want this thread to devolve into a discussion of backup
strategies, I only want a program which is easy to use (like XXClone
was) and which will fully clone a partition one one drive to a partition
on another drive. I do NOT want to create an "image" (meaning a
compressed and-or encrypted single file), I want to clone. And the
program should be able to clone files which are in use. Here's a list of
the XXClone's features which explains fully what I'm looking for:
________________________________________________________________________
XCLONE copies (clones) your Windows system disk into another disk with
the system files, installed applications, and all of your data files.

It is an ideal tool for periodic system disk backup on a regular basis.

It makes the target disk Self-Bootable that can replace your main disk
without further steps (such as the Restore procedure).

It can migrate your Windows disk into a new one with a different
capacity (typically to a larger one).

Our proprietary HyperSync algorithm makes the periodic backup operation
extremely fast.

XXCLONE operates inside the Windows environment which allows you to use
your computer while XXCLONE runs in the background.
________________________________________________________________________

A problem I've been running into is that backup programs use the term
"disk" when they should be using the word "partition".

[John Corliss]

And for that instance, I also back up my data on thumb drives and DVD-Rs.

As I said in another reply, I don't want this thread to devolve into a
discussion of backup techniques. I have my own reasons for doing things
the way I do and it's far to tedious for me to go into them again and
again or to debate the pros and cons of other methods.

Suffice it to say that I don't like Macrium Reflect Free and XXClone no
longer will work, so I'm asking others to recommend an alternative
FREEWARE program to both of those programs.

I want to be able to clone both system and non-system partitions on one
internal hard drive to corresponding partitions on a second internal
drive. Period.

[John Corliss]

I've looked at Clonezilla, but I don't like (and will not debate the
pros and cons of using) command line programs:

http://clonezilla.org/screenshots/?in_path=/00_Clonezilla

or any of this stuff:

http://clonezilla.org/livehd.php

Thanks, but I don't consider Clonezilla an acceptable alternative to
XXClone.

Neither is Macrium Reflect Free for my purposes, unless I can figure out
how to clone both system and non-system partitions on one

internal hard drive to corresponding partitions on a second internal

drive using that program.

[John Corliss]

My thanks to everybody who has replied to this thread so far, but I
really would prefer that it not devolve into a debate about the pros and
cons of various backup strategies. I have my own reasons for doing
things the way I do.

All I'm asking is for a suitable alternative for XXClone which can clone

both system and non-system partitions on one internal hard drive to
corresponding partitions on a second internal drive using that program.

Both Clonezilla and Macrium Reflect Free have been recommened, but for
various reasons neither is a suitable replacement for XXClone.

I really wish that guy had been able to remove the timeout limitation
from XXClone before he kicked the bucket (may he rest in peace.)

[Shadow]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 04:11:54 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I want to be able to clone both system and non-system partitions on one
>internal hard drive to corresponding partitions on a second internal
>drive. Period.

https://www.disk-partition.com/features/copy-disk-partition.html

Can't get much simpler than that.
Freeware ( though there are a lot of giveaways to the Pro
version out there). And a small download.
DO test the second disk afterwards and see if it boots
correctly.

[John Corliss]

Shadow wrote:

> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>> I want to be able to clone both system and non-system partitions on one
>> internal hard drive to corresponding partitions on a second internal
>> drive. Period.
>
> https://www.disk-partition.com/features/copy-disk-partition.html
>
> Can't get much simpler than that.
> Freeware ( though there are a lot of giveaways to the Pro
> version out there). And a small download.
> DO test the second disk afterwards and see if it boots
> correctly.

aomeitech.com conceals who they are and where they're headquartered. Run
it through here: http://centralops.net/co/DomainDossier.aspx and you'll
see what I mean. Also, there's no "About us" info at their home page.

After looking around for a while, I found this:

https://www.backup-utility.com/company.html

"CHENGDU AOMEI Technology Co., Ltd.
Address: 17F, Chamber of Commerce Tower, NO.100 East Main Street,
Jinjiang District, Chengdu City, China
Postcode: 610061"

Afraid I'll have to pass. I refuse to use any software from Communist China.

[John Corliss]

John Corliss wrote:
> Shadow wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>
>>> I want to be able to clone both system and non-system partitions on one
>>> internal hard drive to corresponding partitions on a second internal
>>> drive. Period.
>>
>> https://www.disk-partition.com/features/copy-disk-partition.html
>>
>> Can't get much simpler than that.
>> Freeware ( though there are a lot of giveaways to the Pro
>> version out there). And a small download.
>> DO test the second disk afterwards and see if it boots
>> correctly.
>
> aomeitech.com conceals who they are and where they're headquartered. Run
> it through here: http://centralops.net/co/DomainDossier.aspx and you'll
> see what I mean. Also, there's no "About us" info at their home page.
>
> After looking around for a while, I found this:
>
> https://www.backup-utility.com/company.html
>
> "CHENGDU AOMEI Technology Co., Ltd.
> Address: 17F, Chamber of Commerce Tower, NO.100 East Main Street,
> Jinjiang District, Chengdu City, China
> Postcode: 610061"
>
> Afraid I'll have to pass. I refuse to use any software from Communist China.

Forgot to add "Thanks anyway!"

[Cully Wnen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 04:27:30 -0700, John Corliss wrote:

{SNIP}

> I've looked at Clonezilla, but I don't like (and will not debate the
> pros and cons of using) command line programs:

While you can use the command line, it isn't necessary. I have used
Clonezilla for a couple of years without resorting to a command line
entry.

Perhaps we are discussing different releases?

[Shadow]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 05:24:17 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Shadow wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>
>>> I want to be able to clone both system and non-system partitions on one
>>> internal hard drive to corresponding partitions on a second internal
>>> drive. Period.
>>
>> https://www.disk-partition.com/features/copy-disk-partition.html
>>
>> Can't get much simpler than that.
>> Freeware ( though there are a lot of giveaways to the Pro
>> version out there). And a small download.
>> DO test the second disk afterwards and see if it boots
>> correctly.
>
>aomeitech.com conceals who they are and where they're headquartered. Run
>it through here: http://centralops.net/co/DomainDossier.aspx and you'll
>see what I mean. Also, there's no "About us" info at their home page.
>
>After looking around for a while, I found this:
>
>https://www.backup-utility.com/company.html
>
>"CHENGDU AOMEI Technology Co., Ltd.
>Address: 17F, Chamber of Commerce Tower, NO.100 East Main Street,
>Jinjiang District, Chengdu City, China
>Postcode: 610061"
>
>Afraid I'll have to pass. I refuse to use any software from Communist China.

Interesting. What's the software (firmware) inside your
hardware ? Motherboard, router, HDs, video cards, net cards etc ....
Made in NSA ? Sorry, I meant "USA". Slip of the tongue.
I hope not.
[]'s

PS AOMEI products are coded in Microsoft Visual C++ v8.0, no
encryption Child's play to reverse engineer. It's WYSIWYG.

http://www.virustotal.com/latest-report.html?resource=89fe302bf50238e2d9886efa21914abe8881ed94

(PAssist_Pro.exe v6.5.0.0 released 21 August 2017 )

[John Corliss]

Cully Wnen wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>
> {SNIP}
>
>> I've looked at Clonezilla, but I don't like (and will not debate the
>> pros and cons of using) command line programs:
>
> While you can use the command line, it isn't necessary. I have used
> Clonezilla for a couple of years without resorting to a command line
> entry.
>
> Perhaps we are discussing different releases?

So are you saying that it can be installed in Windows and has a gui?
That doesn't jibe with the info I got here:

>> http://clonezilla.org/livehd.php
>>
>> Thanks, but I don't consider Clonezilla an acceptable alternative to
>> XXClone.
>>
>> Neither is Macrium Reflect Free for my purposes, unless I can figure out
>> how to clone both system and non-system partitions on one internal hard
>> drive to corresponding partitions on a second internal drive using that
>> program.

[Cully Wnen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 13:28:21 -0700, John Corliss wrote:

> Cully Wnen wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>> {SNIP}
>>
>>> I've looked at Clonezilla, but I don't like (and will not debate the
>>> pros and cons of using) command line programs:
>>
>> While you can use the command line, it isn't necessary. I have used
>> Clonezilla for a couple of years without resorting to a command line
>> entry.
>>
>> Perhaps we are discussing different releases?
>
> So are you saying that it can be installed in Windows and has a gui?
> That doesn't jibe with the info I got here:
>
>>> http://clonezilla.org/livehd.php
>>>
>>> Thanks, but I don't consider Clonezilla an acceptable alternative to
>>> XXClone.
>>>
>>> Neither is Macrium Reflect Free for my purposes, unless I can figure
>>> out how to clone both system and non-system partitions on one internal
>>> hard drive to corresponding partitions on a second internal drive
>>> using that program.

No, it isn't installed on your PC. I run it from optical disk. I
haven't attempted to install and run from USB drive.

[Flasherly]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:11:21 +0000 (UTC), Cully Wnen
<cull...@invalid.com> wrote:

>>>> Neither is Macrium Reflect Free for my purposes, unless I can figure
>>>> out how to clone both system and non-system partitions on one internal
>>>> hard drive to corresponding partitions on a second internal drive
>>>> using that program.
>
>No, it isn't installed on your PC. I run it from optical disk. I
>haven't attempted to install and run from USB drive.

I run Ghost in that manner, from **DOS. Only one, I can readily think
of, that'll take to a "universal" platform.

Three discs: 2 SSDrives, the one mechanical plattered only used for
storage purposes, ie no active partitions.

Variously -- so not to exclude the mechanical, for imaging purposes,
transferring, or writing to a SDD, disparately located images across
all available partitions according to subjective speed constraints;- I
haven't, largely, any immediate software constraints, as there isn't
anything, other than a token partition, which isn't FAT32 (excluding
dedicated OS partitions, depending on the OS).

Three OS available from a *NIX-styled boot arbitrator (also ported for
**DOS).

A window in time, as I'm inclined, when GHOST's engine was so finely
tuned to be nothing short of a class act;- nothing much else can come
a pole's-length to touching it. An IT's wetdream.

[Flasherly]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 19:24:18 -0400, Flasherly <Flas...@live.com>
wrote:

- nothing much else can come a pole's-length to touching it.

-
Short of a *NIX-based Developer's platform.

[John Corliss]

Well, thanks for replying but I'm looking for something simple and which
can install in Windows, like XXClone was and did.

[John Corliss]

Flasherly wrote:

> Flasherly wrote:
>
> - nothing much else can come a pole's-length to touching it.
>
> -
> Short of a *NIX-based Developer's platform.

Ghost is $ware.

[Flasherly]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:37:02 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Ghost is $ware.

Yes, and I use SyncBack for the interim tier partitions, mainly
programs;- my last tier, for me, it's manual, where various
strategies, including an old XXCopy might help with "manual" aspects;-
nothing like pure and unmistakable organizational skills for an
hand-crafted hierarchal bulk of archival data.

You see, when working with binary streaming, you of course want that
stuff, especially your programs off to the side, preferably on another
partition. Besides, no shortage of hierarchal freeware --I'm near to
solely running standalone freeware these days-- if to ignore the
redundancy factor, the OS, in the case of MS's, isn't;-- the
interdependencies, low-level kernel, MS proprietary dependencies are
intended to be anything but hierarchal.

A 900Meg compressed image, in my case a GHOST image, reserved for a
little extra leeway, 2G, for its receptor OS partition -- is just over
30 seconds for me to rewrite the OS;- add probably that for the
two-way boot sequences, or another minute;- I'm in and out with a
freshly rewritten ISO of the OS, thankfully, at 2 to 3 minutes.

I'd rather push it, than not: You want that speed over the long haul.
I try and GHOST from my images once a week;- sometimes longer, other
times a few times within a single week. There's really no limit to
things -- sometimes even intentionally obliged, say with testing
programs and encountering malware -- things which can go all kinds of
shades wrong;- other times, it's just plain good sense, when leaving a
computer on, 24/7, with a darker nature of the WEB lurking around the
next corner.

Operational System Imagery, without which, it's pretty much nothing
short of pain. I got into it back in Windows 95, given a
complementary Ghost with a hardware item purchase. It was shit back
then, too, nothing like an integrity, I'd imagine, offered to you with
Clonezilla.

I'd also using be Clonezilla, in lieu of Norton Ghost Enterprise;- as
it is, you just have to read it and weep.

[Mike Dee]

John Corliss wrote:
>
> John Corliss wrote:
>> And now that the author is dead, it no longer works. If you start
>> the most recent version of the program, you get this message
>> (direct copy and paste of the message box):
>>
>> ---------------------------
>> XXCLONE: You have a very old copy
>> ---------------------------
>> This XXCLONE Freeware package was created more than
>> one year ago. If you downloaded it from a third party
>> download site (such as download.com or softpedia.com),
>> you should visit our web site for the latest version
>> of XXCLONE Freeware.
>>
>> http://xxclone.com

[...]

>>
>> Does anybody have another recommendation for an XXClone
>> alternative which they like?
>>
>> TIA
>
> My thanks to everybody who has replied to this thread so far, but
> I really would prefer that it not devolve into a debate about the
> pros and cons of various backup strategies. I have my own reasons
> for doing things the way I do.

John

Can you use an earlier version release of XXClone that perhaps isn't
encumbered with time limitations?

I DL'd a copy from 2007 and it doesn't appear to be time limited.

This will work fine for my old XP, but there may be newer versions
also that aren't affected.

I got my copy via the Wayback Machine.

XXCLONE Freeware Package (for personal use only):
http://web.archive.org/web/20080225165313/http://xxclone.com:80/idwnload.htm

--
dee

[John Corliss]

H-Man wrote:

> John,
>
> Clonezilla is not a direct replacement, as you have found out. Really none
> of the free drive imaging programs are. Inevitably there will need to be
> some change or compromise on your end to make the suit. The differences
> between XXCLONE and other imaging programs is noted here;
> http://www.xxclone.com/itheory.htm
> You, of course, are already familiar.

Thanks. Yes, I was aware of this page but never really have taken the
time to study it carefully. There is some really great information there.

> Thinking outside the box, for just a minute. The freeware version states it
> is good for a one time migration. Is it the freeware version you have? Is
> it an older freeware version?

The copy I had was the freeware version and was an older version.
However, I downloaded and installed the most recent freeware version
from the website (version 2.08.8, released 2017-01-20.) When I attempted
to run it, I still got the error message and the program shut down. Even
if it hadn't done so though, eventually it would have. The late
developer had built a timeout feature into all copies of the program and
when you paid for it, you were on a "subscription" basis. Shades of what
M$ has in store for us with Windows I'm betting.

> The only option I can see is to hack the exe and essentially make it warez.

This thought has crossed my mind, but not being a programmer somebody
else would have to do that. Using such warez would be taking a serious
risk. Besides, there still might be legal risk from the late
programmer's estate.

> This is, of course, not ideal by any means. Have you the possibility to
> contact the company and discuss options with them?

The current message at the home page says:

"All official development and support of mentioned products will also be
discontinued although there may be continued activity in the Yahoo
product forums through the grace of our active community members."

So there is hope at least.

> XXCLONE is entirely unique in many respects and it has no direct
> replacements. At best you would be limited to creating your partition
> images as sector by sector images, and then "synchronizing" the files.
> Obviously this is less than ideal.

Agreed.

[John Corliss]

Thanks very much Mike, that's a great idea. I notice that the "Download"
link in the left hand column has been rendered inoperable, but the
"xxclone.zip" button in the middle of the main body of the page still works.

Now it will be a matter of figuring out which version it was when the
developer implemented the timeout thing.

[John Corliss]

John Corliss wrote:
> And now that the author is dead, it no longer works. If you start the
> most recent version of the program, you get this message (direct copy
> and paste of the message box):
>
> ---------------------------
> XXCLONE: You have a very old copy
> ---------------------------
> This XXCLONE Freeware package was created more than
> one year ago. If you downloaded it from a third party
> download site (such as download.com or softpedia.com),
> you should visit our web site for the latest version
> of XXCLONE Freeware.
>
> http://xxclone.com
>

> ---------------------------
> OK
> ---------------------------
>
> When you click on "OK", the program shuts down.

> (SNIP)

>
> Does anybody have another recommendation for an XXClone alternative
> which they like?
>
> TIA

I just noticed this page:

https://pixelab.com/cgi-bin/support.pl

which contains this:
_______________________________________________________________________
Please check similar products you have used.

XXCopy Freeware XXCopy Pro
Acronis True Image DriveImage XML
Macrium Reflect Norton Ghost
Runtime ShadowCopy Future Systems Casper XP
Effitek PING EaseUs DiskCopy TodoBackup
Miray HDClone Open Source CloneZilla
Microsoft Backup Paragon Backup Express
Dantz Retrospect Ranish Partiton Manager
TeraByte BootIt NG VipMeister My Own Backup
NTI Backup Now Drive SnapShot
_______________________________________________________________________

Now to figure out which are freeware and check them out.

Of course, I will also still try Mike Dee's suggestion to try older
versions of XXClone which seem not to have the timeout limitation.

[John Corliss]

John Corliss wrote:
> H-Man wrote:
> (SNIP)

>> This is, of course, not ideal by any means. Have you the possibility to
>> contact the company and discuss options with them?
>
> The current message at the home page says:
>
> "All official development and support of mentioned products will also be
> discontinued although there may be continued activity in the Yahoo
> product forums through the grace of our active community members."
>
> So there is hope at least.
>
>> XXCLONE is entirely unique in many respects and it has no direct
>> replacements. At best you would be limited to creating your partition
>> images as sector by sector images, and then "synchronizing" the files.
>> Obviously this is less than ideal.
>
> Agreed.

I looked and looked for a "Yahoo product forum" for XXClone but was
unsuccessful in finding anything. I must be doing something wrong I guess.

[Flasherly]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:51:13 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Now to figure out which are freeware and check them out.

Someone may already have thought of that.

https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-commercial-disk-imaging-software-features-and-backuprestore-speed-comparison/

[Shadow]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:51:13 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I just noticed this page:
>
>https://pixelab.com/cgi-bin/support.pl
>
>which contains this:

For me:

//General Error

Invalid formno()

Something is wrong. Please report to webm...@pixelab.com
Hello, Kan. Please tell me what.
QUERY_STRING: qstr2 = //
[]'s

[Rod]

In the main window place check mark in box for drive you wish to make an
image of. Then click on image this disk. You should now be able to select
where to place the image - anywhere but the selected disk you are imaging.

[John Corliss]

Thanks for replying, Rod.

I'm not talking about creating an image, but rather cloning one
partition on my main internal hard drive to a partition on my backup
internal hard drive.

I put a checkmark by the partition I want to clone, then as I said when
I try to specify the partition on the second drive, there is no way to
do that. At least that I can see.

[John Corliss]

H-Man wrote:

> John,
>
> Looks like version 058 was the last to not care about expiring.

Many thanks! I just downloaded it. Yep, it installs and runs.

You saved me a whole bunch of time. Thanks again!!

That takes care of this XP computer, but I'll still have to find
something which works on my W7 Pro 64 bit computer.

[John Corliss]

Well, that's a different list but it's still a good one. Thanks!

[John Corliss]

H-Man wrote:

> Moving down the list I can share what I know about these products.
>
> XXCOPY ... obviously not the same thing. I believe XXCOPY could be used to
> do a in place update of your clone though.

XXCopy can clone Windows ME and earlier partitions, but anything newer
required XXClone. Don't know if that was a file system problem or what.

> Acronis True Image ... commercial, can approximate the functionality of
> XXCLONE by doing smart file and folder backups. Supports incremental and
> differential backups as well. This is more than just a disk imaging
> program, but it ain't freeware

I've used the free version which came with some hard drive I bought and
it worked fine for cloning an entire hard drive, but I don't think you
could limit it to a partition as the source or destination.

> DriveImageXML ... sector by sector imaging/copying.

Not entirely sure from the info at the website if it can do cloning. It
creates a compressed .xml image and that's not what I'm looking for.

> Macrium Reflect ... you already know about this one

Yep. It still might work, but if it will I haven't been able to figure
it out.

> Norton Ghost ... commercial, no longer supported

Deadware.

> Runtime ShadowCopy ... a good candidate once a bootable copy has been
> created. It cannot create a bootable copy. Quite useable with DrfiveImage
> XML to create the bootable image copy.

This one claims to be able to copy all files from one place to another
using Microsoft's Volume Shadow Services (VSS). I have it on my system
already, but have always been afraid to use it.

> Future Systems Casper ... commercial ... slated as XXCLONE alternative.

Yep, not freeware.

> Effitek PING ... linux based and needs to be booted as live CD/USB. Not in
> place imaging.

Yep,

> EaseUs DiskCopy TodoBackup ... These guys started out offering free
> software, then went to crippleware. As far as I know they are commercial
> software. Last look I gave them, anything that had for free was almost
> useless. That doesn't mean it's bad, just it ain't freeware.

Sounds like "Crippleware".

> Miray HDClone ... commercial. Could likely be an alternative

Free version won't clone partitions according to this chart:

https://www.miray-software.com/products/applications/hdclone6.html#tab-panel-282

> Open Source CloneZilla ... I use this a lot. Linux only AFAIK. On Linux it
> can not do in place imaging / copying.

Live disc stuff. I'm looking for something like XXClone which installs
in Windows and can run in that environment.

> Microsoft Backup ... I don't think you can make this work like XXCLONE at
> all.

LOL. I think you're right. I have looked into it before, but it only
files which aren't in use.

> Paragon Backup Express ... I don't know about this one

Found these two websites:

https://backstage.paragon-software.com/free/br-free/#

and:

https://www.paragon-software.com/home/br-free

Different company logos, not sure if they're related. This is a flaky
situation, so I'd have to pass on either.

> Dantz Retrospect ... commercial

Yep, not freeware.

> Ranish Partiton Manager ... I don't think there is any XXCLONE
> functionality in this one. I haven't used this in years, looks like it
> hasn't been updated since '/02

Then it most likely wouldn't work in W7 Pro 64bit.

> TeraByte BootIt NG ... commercial, has been discontinued and replaced

Yep, not freeware.

> VipMeister My Own Backup ... cloud backup

*shudder* ...cloud.... *gag* *puke*

> NTI Backup Now ... commercial

Yep, not freeware. No free version.

> Drive SnapShot ... commercial, creates a single file image file for
> restore.

Yep, not freeware. No free version.

Oh well, I'll keep looking. Thanks for your reply, H-Man!

[John Corliss]

Shadow wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 02:51:13 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I just noticed this page:
>>
>> https://pixelab.com/cgi-bin/support.pl
>>
>> which contains this:
>
> For me:
>
> //General Error
>
> Invalid formno()
>
> Something is wrong. Please report to webm...@pixelab.com
> Hello, Kan. Please tell me what.
> QUERY_STRING: qstr2 = //
> []'s
>
>
>

Yep, now it's doing that to me too.

[Rod]

When I click on Clone this disk, I get a new window that allows me to chose
another disk to clone to. Are you sure that you only have one disk selected
as source? I have seen where if you have extra disks selected, it doesn't
work.

[Rod]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:18:18 -0700, John Corliss wrote:

John,
Also noticed that besides having box checked, you also have to click on the
drive so it is highlighted. If you don't, it will keep sying "select source
disk'. Hope this helps.

[Diesel]

Shadow <S...@dow.br> news:baf5ucpplnmtm1nnh...@4ax.com
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 01:53:02 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 23:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:

>>Are both drives physically connected to the machine at the same
time
>>often?
>
> Apparently yes.

So if he has a PS supply failure and it doesn't suicide itself, but
passes higher voltage along to the components inside the machine, he
potentially loses the contents and hardware for both drives at once
then. Not to mention, various ransomware having access to both drives
if executed by accident. Or worse, ransomware that uploads specific
types of files to a 3rd party to auction off later.

It's also possible one or more voltage regulation components on the
mainboard could fail in a horrific way and take both hard disks and
the data they contain with them in one swoop. Where as, if the
secondary drive wasn't physically attached and either hardware
failure event took place, he'd be out one drive, instead of both.

It's also possible the hard disk controller circuitry on the
mainboard could fail, and again, take both drives south in one shot
for him. Then we have the small amount of excess heat being generated
and additional voltage/amperage being consumed all the time when it's
not necessary to do so.

I fail to see the advantage of having both drives always up and going
if the second one is only serving as a backup data wise to the first
one?

> I thought he did as I do, disconnect "the
> Internet", plug in a backup drive, clone the original one onto an
> image on the backup drive, then unplug it. About once a week.
> Alternate backup drives "just in case".

I think John does a lot of things his own way. Either because it's
the only ways he knows and/or feels most comfortable doing it those
ways, because, it's the only ways he's accustomed to doing things. He
isn't one for taking well intended advice easily.

> Daily updates to smaller drives (pendrives, dirt cheap).
> I know what you are going to say ... a power surge(MB, PS or
> even lightning) or even malware will take out both drives...

Damn. I should have read your post first. [g]


--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:
Don't question authority, it doesn't know either.

[Diesel]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:orvfqc$htg$1...@dont-email.me Sun,
15 Oct 2017 11:11:54 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:


[snip]

> And for that instance, I also back up my data on thumb drives and
> DVD-Rs.
> As I said in another reply, I don't want this thread to devolve
> into a discussion of backup techniques. I have my own reasons for
> doing things the way I do and it's far to tedious for me to go
> into them again and again or to debate the pros and cons of other
> methods.

Okay.

> Suffice it to say that I don't like Macrium Reflect Free and
> XXClone no longer will work, so I'm asking others to recommend an
> alternative FREEWARE program to both of those programs.

Okay.

> I want to be able to clone both system and non-system partitions

> on one internal hard drive to corresponding partitions on a second

> internal drive. Period.

Okay. Your request seems simple enough, but, based on the fact you've
already listed one program that can do what you want, but, for
reasons you haven't listed don't like it. It might be easier if you
told us what you specifically liked about using xxclone in order to
recommend something more to your liking. That most likely, since it's
not going to be xxclone actually won't be. That said, if you provide
a little more detail, someone might take the time to to be shot down
by you with their recommendation. Worth a shot.

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

Top Tip. If someone shoves your feet in a fire, quickly put your head
in a bucket of iced water. On average, you will be pretty
comfortable.

[Diesel]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:orvean$8it$1...@dont-email.me Sun,
15 Oct 2017 10:46:29 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

> Diesel wrote:
>> John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:orsf4j$qrh$1...@dont-email.me

>> Are both drives physically connected to the machine at the same
>> time often?
>

> All of my computers have two hard drives permanently installed.
> This is not my only backup technique either. Each technique serves
> a different purpose.

Yes, I gathered that already from reading other posts in this
thread...I also know you don't want to hear advice concerning this,
so I won't waste my time offering any on that approach, specifically.

> I really don't want this thread to devolve into a discussion of
> backup strategies, I only want a program which is easy to use
> (like XXClone was) and which will fully clone a partition one one
> drive to a partition on another drive.

I've never used xxclone (I do use xxcopy on occasion though, but for
the most part, it's duties have been reassigned to karens replicator)
And what's easy to me likely won't be easy to you. So, if you'd be so
kind as to specifically state what you felt was easy, that would be a
big help.

> I do NOT want to create an
> "image" (meaning a compressed and-or encrypted single file), I
> want to clone. And the program should be able to clone files which
> are in use. Here's a list of the XXClone's features which explains
> fully what I'm looking for:

I've seen you shoot down two programs which are able to do as you're
requesting. One because there was something about it you didn't like,
but I didn't see any specific details concerning your dislikes. The
other because of it's country of origin; which seems rather odd to
me, because most of the firmware code present in your machine likely
comes from there or another country overseas. And you trust it, so...

> A problem I've been running into is that backup programs use the
> term "disk" when they should be using the word "partition".

I don't typically run into that problem. I usually want the entire
disk duplicated myself. But, sometimes, I do opt for a partition or
two only.

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

Cat: a nice animal, frequently mistaken for a meatloaf.

[Diesel]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:orvgnj$n6k$1...@dont-email.me Sun,

15 Oct 2017 11:27:30 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

> I've looked at Clonezilla, but I don't like (and will not debate
> the pros and cons of using) command line programs:

While you can use clonezilla via command line, you don't have to. It
does have a user interface, it's just not 'Windows' like. It uses
your keyboard, arrow keys and the enter button...I don't know why you
find that difficult?

> Neither is Macrium Reflect Free for my purposes, unless I can

> figure out how to clone both system and non-system partitions on

> one internal hard drive to corresponding partitions on a second

> internal drive using that program.

Unless something has changed in a significant way, Macrium does give
you the choice to clone partitions or the entire 'disk' to another
one.. Or, image the disk/partition(s) you select and store the image
elsewhere. I have an older version installed on this machine v5.3
build 7299 and I've confirmed that I can opt to clone
partitions/entire drive to another drive and/or create an image
instead of partitions/entire drive. It's not difficult (for me) to do
either. In fact, I opted to image this entire machine as I'm writing
this to another computer on the network. Going off without a hitch.
Completed in a little over two hours. It's not the fault of the
network or destination machine, though. It's entirely on this one.

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

Gambling: The sure way of getting nothing for something.

[John Corliss]

And therein lies the problem. When I do this, it also shows another disk
to clone to. However, it doesn't allow me to select a target partition
on that disk, although it shows the partitions.

> Are you sure that you only have one disk selected
> as source? I have seen where if you have extra disks selected, it doesn't
> work.

Yes, I only have one source disk selected. And I remove the checkmark
from the partition that I don't want to clone. Both of my internal hard
drives have two partitions, one contains the system and the other
contains data.

[John Corliss]

I am not having any problem selecting the source disk. The problem is
selecting the destination disk and in particular, the destination partition.

Here's a screenshot of the furthest I've been able to get:

https://i.imgur.com/97Pg5V3.jpg

You'll notice that there is a thin, dark blue line under the partition
on the source drive which has a checkmark. There's another such line
under the second drive's first partition. However, these lines seem to
have no function, since I can't move the line on the second disk.

You'll also notice that although there are checkboxes under each
partition on the source drive, there are none under the partitions on
the destination drive. WTF????? To my mind, having such checkboxes under
the secondary drive's partitions would be the only logical way of doing
things. As it sits right now though, there is absolutely NO WAY that I
can set the destination partition on the second drive.

[John Corliss]

Diesel wrote:

See my conversation with Rod in this same thread.

[John Corliss]

Diesel wrote:
> Shadow <S...@dow.br> news:baf5ucpplnmtm1nnh...@4ax.com
> Sun, 15 Oct 2017 01:53:02 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 23:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <m...@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Are both drives physically connected to the machine at the same
> time
>>> often?
>>
>> Apparently yes.
>
> So if he has a PS supply failure and it doesn't suicide itself, but
> passes higher voltage along to the components inside the machine, he
> potentially loses the contents and hardware for both drives at once
> then. Not to mention, various ransomware having access to both drives
> if executed by accident. Or worse, ransomware that uploads specific
> types of files to a 3rd party to auction off later.

*GROAN* This is EXACTLY the kind of technique discussion I've been doing
everything I can to avoid.

If you read this thread more thoroughly, you'll see that I mention that
this is NOT the only backup I'm doing. I'm also backing up my data to
thumb drives and DVD-Rs on a regular basis.

My dual drive tactic has bailed my ass out of problems so many times
that I've lost count. Sure, there are situations where it will be of no
use, but that's why I employ other backup strategies in addition to the
dual hard drives.

> It's also possible one or more voltage regulation components on the
> mainboard could fail in a horrific way and take both hard disks and
> the data they contain with them in one swoop. Where as, if the
> secondary drive wasn't physically attached and either hardware
> failure event took place, he'd be out one drive, instead of both.
>
> It's also possible the hard disk controller circuitry on the
> mainboard could fail, and again, take both drives south in one shot
> for him. Then we have the small amount of excess heat being generated
> and additional voltage/amperage being consumed all the time when it's
> not necessary to do so.
>
> I fail to see the advantage of having both drives always up and going
> if the second one is only serving as a backup data wise to the first
> one?
>
>> I thought he did as I do, disconnect "the
>> Internet", plug in a backup drive, clone the original one onto an
>> image on the backup drive, then unplug it. About once a week.
>> Alternate backup drives "just in case".
>
> I think John does a lot of things his own way. Either because it's
> the only ways he knows and/or feels most comfortable doing it those
> ways, because, it's the only ways he's accustomed to doing things. He
> isn't one for taking well intended advice easily.

Or perhaps you aren't (despite my having mentioned them in this thread)
of other additional backups I'm making.

>> Daily updates to smaller drives (pendrives, dirt cheap).
>> I know what you are going to say ... a power surge(MB, PS or
>> even lightning) or even malware will take out both drives...
>
> Damn. I should have read your post first. [g]

I've been using computers for a very, very long time. I know what I'm
doing. I may not be a programmer, but I am a very, very advanced user.

[John Corliss]

I have, several times in this thread, clearly stated that I want a
program which, like XXClone, can easily clone a partition on my main
internal hard drive to a corresponding partition on my backup internal
hard drive.

See this image of my attempt to do this in Macrium Reflect Free:

https://i.imgur.com/97Pg5V3.jpg

This is what I see when I try to do this on my Windows 7 computer. Where
are the checkboxes for the destination partitions? Why are they missing?
The program allows you to select a source partition by checking a
corresponding checkbox as shown in the image, but as you can clearly see
in the image, there are no such checkboxes for the partitions on the
second (destination) drive.

Am I missing something here?

[mike]

What happens when you read the first line in the box and
"drag partitions to the destination disk or click 'copy selected
partitions'"?
>

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 01:06:17 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Diesel wrote:
>> Shadow <S...@dow.br> news:baf5ucpplnmtm1nnh...@4ax.com
>> Sun, 15 Oct 2017 01:53:02 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 23:48:21 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <m...@privacy.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Are both drives physically connected to the machine at the same
>> time
>>>> often?
>>>
>>> Apparently yes.
>>
>> So if he has a PS supply failure and it doesn't suicide itself, but
>> passes higher voltage along to the components inside the machine, he
>> potentially loses the contents and hardware for both drives at once
>> then. Not to mention, various ransomware having access to both drives
>> if executed by accident. Or worse, ransomware that uploads specific
>> types of files to a 3rd party to auction off later.
>
>*GROAN* This is EXACTLY the kind of technique discussion I've been doing
>everything I can to avoid.

Yeah, fact is any IT consultant worth a shit would commend you backing
up to two drives because getting users to do anything regularly at all
is the real problem. Instead of scare mongering he should have just said
well done and mentioned doing another backup perhaps of just your
important stuff to a thumb drive because of the very rare possibility of
a power surge killing the drive. People skills and common sense he has
not. Where do you stop anyway. Have you backed up off site, off
continent, on the moon, in another star system. I leave my USB drive
connected all the time. I occasionally image to a spare offline drive
and so on like you. Dusty is running PC's with partially burnt out
mobos. He's posted about it. I mean Larf. You can bet this clown doesn't
even have a fire extinguisher. In fact I bet you have a greater chance
of a fire than a power surge taking out a drive. Has he got a fire safe.
He has 100's of terabytes of essential data on his 'network' we are told
but this highly paid and top security cleared imbecile is running
clapped out electronics. You carry on doing what you are doing. I've
seen people lose data and it's not funny. Any backup is 99% of the
problem solved.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

[Rod]

John,
Take a look at
https://knowledgebase.macrium.com/display/KNOW/Cloning+a+disk#Cloningadisk-0
I tried this and it works if you drag the selected drive down to the
partition you want to clone to. Note the icon in the left corner will show
up after dragging to the destination partition.

[Flasherly]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:22:24 -0600, H-Man <Sp...@bites.fs> wrote:

>. This way you can copy files
>regardless of their in-use status. Microsoft's own image creation solution
>(part of their backup suite) uses VSS. It has been a while since I've
>looked at this product but the last time I used it, it worked pretty well.

There's also advantage, if to disregarding the VSS concept;- a
sector-to-sector "shotgun effect", where an OS image is placed in a
last-known OS readiness, eg no modem connected while liberating, say,
a usual condition, as I prefer to run, with a locked-down registry.

Upon a subsequent rewrites, a consequence is there may be some small
amount of tweaking involved, should any new entry links, say, in turn
call to a existent condition, connected to the WEB;- perhaps a simple
matter of a new firewall rule, perhaps more of a formal correction, to
negative effects cause by curtailment of an actual progression and
involvement of the program install.

Or perhaps not. I prefer the strict and tight approach in that
regard, disconnected with the modem powered off, while closely
anticipating what new program installs may be up to. Should I make
the sorry mistake in judgment, the rare program that proves unsuitably
misleading, I've personal notes I've made to keep within the
directories where the OS image files stored -- sequentially dated back
for three generations of OS backups -- allowing me to skip one
beyond, a prior image predating the latest, to correct accordingly for
longer-term errors.

I expect the OS to be pristine, exactly and precisely for an operative
condition, a faultless entry at a same point, from where it was shut
down to engage another OS, to perform "disk maintenance" in a sector
overwrite, if not direct copy.

There's utterly nothing whatsoever to do, permitted OS contingencies
at the time of sector-streaming operations. Draconian HDD sector
manipulations are about being not one single iota more other than what
file format initially is used to create the target area. Thus their
decree is one of an inalienable right, on a need to know basis, that
nothing be further permitted to screw with absolutely anything, beyond
a stated and specific focus to which they're engaged.

It's what it takes to give me that sort of warm and fuzzy feel,
anyway, even though I should last to doubt what meaning backups hold
for cloud services, or having MSFT looking over their shoulder while
providing them, signifies to others.

[John Corliss]

Rod wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>> (big, huge snip)

>> Here's a screenshot of the furthest I've been able to get:
>>
>> https://i.imgur.com/97Pg5V3.jpg
>>
>> You'll notice that there is a thin, dark blue line under the partition
>> on the source drive which has a checkmark. There's another such line
>> under the second drive's first partition. However, these lines seem to
>> have no function, since I can't move the line on the second disk.
>>
>> You'll also notice that although there are checkboxes under each
>> partition on the source drive, there are none under the partitions on
>> the destination drive. WTF????? To my mind, having such checkboxes under
>> the secondary drive's partitions would be the only logical way of doing
>> things. As it sits right now though, there is absolutely NO WAY that I
>> can set the destination partition on the second drive.
>
> John,
> Take a look at
> https://knowledgebase.macrium.com/display/KNOW/Cloning+a+disk#Cloningadisk-0
> I tried this and it works if you drag the selected drive down to the
> partition you want to clone to. Note the icon in the left corner will show
> up after dragging to the destination partition.

Rod, thanks very much for that link. I've saved the page to my hard
drive and will give it a try on my W7 computer.

[John Corliss]

Thanks, for replying, Mike. Yes, Rod has just pointed out that (dragging
a partition) to me in this thread. I'm going to give it a try later on
with my W7 computer.

[John Corliss]

H-Man wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:19:16 -0700, John Corliss wrote:

>
>> H-Man wrote:
>
>>
>>> Runtime ShadowCopy ... a good candidate once a bootable copy has been
>>> created. It cannot create a bootable copy. Quite useable with DrfiveImage
>>> XML to create the bootable image copy.
>>
>> This one claims to be able to copy all files from one place to another
>> using Microsoft's Volume Shadow Services (VSS). I have it on my system
>> already, but have always been afraid to use it.
>>
>

> Many imaging programs, especially those that do in place imaging (that is
> image the file system that is currently live) use some form of volume
> shadowing. Microsoft made their own and included it in XP and newer. I know
> Acronis used their own as they had it from the Win9x days. VSS is part of
> Windows (XP and newer) and is already installed. It allows a program to
> shadow the system and pull in use files from the shadow. It's like a read
> only copy of the file that is in use. This way you can copy files

> regardless of their in-use status. Microsoft's own image creation solution
> (part of their backup suite) uses VSS. It has been a while since I've
> looked at this product but the last time I used it, it worked pretty well.
>

> My thought was that if you do a partition copy to another drive, you can
> maintain that copy by updating the changed files on your own schedule. Just
> a thought ... there may be more to what you are doing than this method can
> accomplish.

Thanks for your input, H-Man. What I've been doing is too occasionally
clone my partitions using XXClone, then more regularly I update files
changes using XXCopy. Pretty much what you describe.

I won't be having any problems with this ancient XP computer, but will
have to find a way to incrementally clone on my W7 computer.

[David_B]

Great comments! :-)

> You carry on doing what you are doing. I've
> seen people lose data and it's not funny. Any backup is 99% of the
> problem solved.

Good advice! :-)

--
David B.

[Diesel]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:os722d$3kv$1...@dont-email.me Wed,

18 Oct 2017 08:06:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

> I've been using computers for a very, very long time. I know what
> I'm doing. I may not be a programmer, but I am a very, very
> advanced user.

Okay. I know better, but, I'll bite. Have you given linux a serious
try? If so, which distros have you tried? If you haven't tried any,
you're a Windows end user, but, advanced... hmm.. we could debate that
if you'd like.

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

Any bureaucracy re-organized to enhance efficiency is indistinguishable
from its predecessor

[Diesel]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:os9loq$gsl$2...@dont-email.me Thu,

Umm...You haven't actually tried it to see what happens then?

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money. --Samuel Johnson

[Diesel]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:os72j4$74r$1...@dont-email.me Wed,

And I just described my doing that, across a network no less, using
Macrium reflect free as I wrote the post...A local HD would have
worked, too.

> See this image of my attempt to do this in Macrium Reflect Free:
>
> https://i.imgur.com/97Pg5V3.jpg

Yep...

> This is what I see when I try to do this on my Windows 7 computer.
> Where are the checkboxes for the destination partitions?

Did you try checking both partitions on source and hitting copy
selected partitions? The second drive serves as a backup drive for
the primary drive, right?

> Am I missing something here?

I think you might be, yes...

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

'Whatever temperature a room is, it's always room temperature.' -
s.w.

[Diesel]

David_B <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
news:30ZFB.38244$Se2....@fx11.fr7 Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:04:13 GMT in

Not really. Any competent IT consultant wouldn't recommend keeping
BOTH DRIVES ONLINE FULLTIME if one is to be a backup drive. It does
YOU NO GOOD WHATSOEVER if ransomware hits you or major hardware
failure occurs within the power supply and/or mainboard components.
as, BOTH DRIVES are at risk of being damaged/destroyed and the data
along with them.

No scaremongering involved, Dipshits. Ransomware is very real and if
you have both drives online fulltime, it has full access to both
drives and the data they contain. Rendering your backup pretty
fucking useless if you get hit.

Wanna backup using another HD, fine. When the backup is complete,
take the backup drive OFFLINE. We aren't talking about a raid array
here. We're talking about somebody who's using two internal hard
drives in the same box. One of which is suppposed to be a backup of
the other, but both are online fulltime. That's a fucking stupid
policy to follow and shows you don't really give a fuck about the
data your backing up in the first place. Atleast not what's those
hard disks. Using other backup methods is a good thing, but, keeping
your backup drive(s) connected and accessable fulltime isn't.

If you think ransomware is a fucking joke or something, just ask
anyone who's ever had their files encrypted with a cypher that's not
friendly to brute force and they don't know the key, because it
wasn't stored locally.

>> You carry on doing what you are doing. I've
>> seen people lose data and it's not funny. Any backup is 99% of
>> the problem solved.
>
> Good advice! :-)

I will carry on what i'm doing. Backing up data across multiple
shares with limited rights and once the backup is complete, MOVING
the data to a non shared area on that machine, using external drives,
optical media, usb sticks, AND most importantly, keeping full backup
drives OFFLINE once the backup is completed.

You would follow pooh straight to hell, with your tongue firmly
planted in it's arsehole, David. It shows it's incompetence, but,
because it takes what you think is a jab at me, it's good advice to
you. Seriously, I wouldn't let either of you anywhere near my fucking
machines. You're both a danger to yourselves and anyone stupid enough
to take your advice. Scaremongering my ass.

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

Do not put statements in the negative form.

[Diesel]

David_B <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
news:30ZFB.38244$Se2....@fx11.fr7 Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:04:13 GMT in
alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

>> the time. I occasionally image to a spare offline drive and so on
>> like you. Dusty is running PC's with partially burnt out mobos.
>> He's posted about it. I mean Larf. You can bet this clown doesn't
>> even have a fire extinguisher. In fact I bet you have a greater
>> chance of a fire than a power surge taking out a drive. Has he
>> got a fire safe. He has 100's of terabytes of essential data on
>> his 'network' we are told but this highly paid and top security
>> cleared imbecile is running clapped out electronics.
>
> Great comments! :-)

And one more thing. ROFL. This particular computer does have a burned
out trace going to an empty memory slot. otherwise, it's still good
to go. The other machines on the network have no hardware issues and
they are dual/quad core boxes. :) Infact, one of them has a gigabyte
board with two onboard gigabit network ports built in. ALL of them,
laptops included, except this one are running various flavors of *nix

I fully intend to run this computer into the ground. When I built it,
nearly fifteen years ago, it was a badass machine. It has TWO mated
processors in it on a tyan tiger230 mainboard. That's A SERVER class
board in case you didn't know, David. [g]

Not new these days, but in it's heyday, fucking bad to the bone. My
boxes aren't cheap shit, david. This one is old, but, it wasn't cheap
when I built it. And neither are the other CLONES nearby.

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

I don't care who you are, Fatso. Get the reindeer off my roof!

[John Corliss]

Diesel wrote:

> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>> I've been using computers for a very, very long time. I know what
>> I'm doing. I may not be a programmer, but I am a very, very
>> advanced user.
>
> Okay. I know better, but, I'll bite. Have you given linux a serious
> try? If so, which distros have you tried? If you haven't tried any,
> you're a Windows end user, but, advanced... hmm.. we could debate that
> if you'd like.

Frankly, I'd prefer not to debate anything. Discuss maybe, but not debate.

Yes, I've tried (and liked) Linux. I've used Knoppix (a long time ago)
Debian, openSUSE and Megeia.

Right now though, my computers are doing what I want them to for me. No
need to move on yet. I can tell you with absolute assurance though, I
will never EVER use Windows 10.

I said I'd never used Vista and I never did except to rig up a computer
which came with it and sell it.

Windows 7 came with my other computer. I bought the computer to tinker
with because so many of my friends and relatives had computers running
it at the time and were asking me questions about it.

I keep intending to get another SATA hard drive for this computer or the
W7 one, and start dabbling with Linux on that drive. Just never seem to
get around to it.

--
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts originating from Google Groups and recommend you do likewise. I
also block (can't see & won't reply to) posts from the following trolls:

»Q«, Kasey, FredW (also a stalker) and BurfordTJustice.

[John Corliss]

Not at that point, but now I have. Their continual use of "disk" instead
of partition still throws me. Their UI is absolutely not intuitive IMO.

--
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts originating from Google Groups and recommend you do likewise. I
also block (can't see & won't reply to) posts from the following trolls:

[John Corliss]

Yes, all my computers have second hard drives which are as identical
partition-wise and content-wise to the first hard drive as I can make
them. I manually synchronize them though, rather than automating that
process with say, RAID.

>> Am I missing something here?
>
> I think you might be, yes...

I don't want to clone both partitions at the same time. I want to be
able to clone one partition on my main internal hard drive to it's
corresponding partition ONLY on my backup internal hard drive.

--
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts originating from Google Groups and recommend you do likewise. I
also block (can't see & won't reply to) posts from the following trolls:

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

This is of course complete bollocks. A completely ridiculous ill thought
through policy. The fact is you have to plug the drive in to complete
the backup. During that time it will of course be liable to attack by
ransomware.

For a daily backup the mitigation [clearly not full protection against]
this offers is entirely unclear and subject to the specific intricacies
of the malware.

It's also completely obvious to me that this policy alone is
insufficient.

[Shit the Cat]

Nice one Pooh. I sooo luv it when you drive a steamroller over Dusty's
incompetence. LOL.

--
Shit the cat
Webmeister in waiting
Copyright theft advisor
http://shitsworld.com

[Diesel]

Shit the Cat <super...@IPaddress.invalid>
news:lgqouchhea3jnrhu8...@4ax.com Sun, 22 Oct 2017

If only that actually happened, for once in poohs life. Alas, one can
always keep dreaming and hope. Hint: pooh has a better chance of
winning a lottery multiple times in a row, but, no harm in trying
anyway!

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

[Diesel]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:oshdba$qf$1...@dont-email.me Sun,

22 Oct 2017 06:20:06 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

> Diesel wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been using computers for a very, very long time. I know
>>> what I'm doing. I may not be a programmer, but I am a very, very
>>> advanced user.
>>
>> Okay. I know better, but, I'll bite. Have you given linux a
>> serious try? If so, which distros have you tried? If you haven't
>> tried any, you're a Windows end user, but, advanced... hmm.. we
>> could debate that if you'd like.
>
> Frankly, I'd prefer not to debate anything. Discuss maybe, but not
> debate.

Fair enough. :)

> Yes, I've tried (and liked) Linux. I've used Knoppix (a long time
> ago) Debian, openSUSE and Megeia.

I'm really enjoying Linux Mint. CentOS isn't too shabby either.

> Right now though, my computers are doing what I want them to for
> me. No need to move on yet. I can tell you with absolute assurance
> though, I will never EVER use Windows 10.

I have no intentions of using Windows 10 anymore so than required to
provide client support for it. At most, it'll run inside a VM when
necessary, and even then, I don't really like the idea of dedicating
drive space to the VM.

> I said I'd never used Vista and I never did except to rig up a
> computer which came with it and sell it.

I never used Vista on any of my own machines, but, For awhile, I did
have to preload it on custom built clones. I can't tell you how happy
I was to see techdata begin offering Windows 7. We quickly phased out
the vista offerings. Even with the service packs, Vista was a pile of
shit. XP was great, Windows 7 was nice once you got used to the
changes. Windows 8; horrible. Windows 10, I dunno WTF they were
thinking.

> Windows 7 came with my other computer. I bought the computer to
> tinker with because so many of my friends and relatives had
> computers running it at the time and were asking me questions
> about it.

Several boxes I've had given to me over the last few months are
Windows 7 machines, but, they don't stay Windows 7 for very long. I
image them to a nice external and load Linux Mint on them. I'm still
waiting for 18.x to mature a little more before I try it out again.
The last time I gave 18.2 a spin on a particular machine, it wouldn't
'wake up' from screen saver and give me the password prompt. I'm
fairly sure it was an issue with MESA, since it didn't do that prior
to the update, but, I just didn't have time to troubleshoot it.
Reverted that machine to 17.3 KDE and all has been well.

I might try 18.3 on that machine after I clonezilla it.. maybe.
they're making some changes I'm not sure I want/agree with, so 18.4
might be in the future?

> I keep intending to get another SATA hard drive for this computer
> or the W7 one, and start dabbling with Linux on that drive. Just
> never seem to get around to it.

I understand. I've been very pleased with the mint distro and centos.
Cent just works, Linux Mint does for the most part on everything i've
loaded it on so far, 18.2 has some nice eye candy, but like I said
above, it wasn't what I consider to be stable on the single machine I
tried it on; that has no problems with 17.3... so...for the time
being, I'm not going with the 18.x series just yet.

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL

[John Corliss]

My thoughts exactly. Pretty much the general public's too! Microsoft
turns a deaf ear on such assessments though, charges ahead with their
hidden agendas and social engineering. It will eventually be the death
of the company.

Yes, when I do try Linux at this point it will be Mint. Of course with
Linux, you never know when something new and better will come along!

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 04:12:35 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Yes, when I do try Linux at this point it will be Mint. Of course with
>Linux, you never know when something new and better will come along!

Windows 11

[John Corliss]

p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:

> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>> Yes, when I do try Linux at this point it will be Mint. Of course with
>> Linux, you never know when something new and better will come along!
>
> Windows 11

That thought gives me the shivering shits...

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:29:10 -0700, John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, when I do try Linux at this point it will be Mint. Of course with
>>> Linux, you never know when something new and better will come along!
>>
>> Windows 11
>
>That thought gives me the shivering shits...

Thanks for sharing.

[Diesel]

John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:ossfvq$aoj$1...@dont-email.me Thu,

26 Oct 2017 11:12:35 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

> Yes, when I do try Linux at this point it will be Mint. Of course
> with Linux, you never know when something new and better will come
> along!

Looks like Linux Mint 18.3 will be the last one to have a KDE edition.
Sad...I was really enjoying it.

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

Cats must groom the back of mom's neck.

[p-0''0-h the cat (coder)]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:59:18 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:ossfvq$aoj$1...@dont-email.me Thu,
>26 Oct 2017 11:12:35 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>
>> Yes, when I do try Linux at this point it will be Mint. Of course
>> with Linux, you never know when something new and better will come
>> along!
>
>Looks like Linux Mint 18.3 will be the last one to have a KDE edition.
>Sad...I was really enjoying it.

Yeah, you sure are sad.

Newbies.

So willing to join the cult.

Linux = Socialism.

#Trump news

BBC = Bringing Back Coal !!!

[Shadow]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:59:18 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

>John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:ossfvq$aoj$1...@dont-email.me Thu,
>26 Oct 2017 11:12:35 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>
>> Yes, when I do try Linux at this point it will be Mint. Of course
>> with Linux, you never know when something new and better will come
>> along!
>
>Looks like Linux Mint 18.3 will be the last one to have a KDE edition.
>Sad...I was really enjoying it.

Have you looked at Trinity Desktop Environment ?

It must be good. M$ "convin$$ed" LibreOffice to drop support
for it, looks too much like XP.
It's based on KDE 3.5, the last "good" version. And it does
not require Systemd.

https://www.trinitydesktop.org/

The documentation is confusing, proving it's real open source
.... and it appears to get frequent updates, though the last "stable"
version is almost a year old.
They say it runs on the latest Ubuntu (17.10), so it probably
runs on Mint.
;)
[]'s


--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[Diesel]

Shadow <S...@dow.br> news:ee35vc5s4h6bn4dak...@4ax.com

Fri, 27 Oct 2017 02:06:17 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:59:18 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>John Corliss <r9j...@yahoo.com> news:ossfvq$aoj$1...@dont-email.me
>>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:12:35 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, when I do try Linux at this point it will be Mint. Of
>>> course with Linux, you never know when something new and better
>>> will come along!
>>
>>Looks like Linux Mint 18.3 will be the last one to have a KDE
>>edition. Sad...I was really enjoying it.
>
> Have you looked at Trinity Desktop Environment ?

Briefly.

> It must be good. M$ "convin$$ed" LibreOffice to drop support
> for it, looks too much like XP.
> It's based on KDE 3.5, the last "good" version. And it does
> not require Systemd.

What do you mean by the last good version? I despise Systemd to a
point, likely for some of the same reasons as yourself... But like it
or not, it's probably not going away nor is it something that can be
avoided outright for too much longer, if you want to run a modern
distro.

> https://www.trinitydesktop.org/
>
> The documentation is confusing, proving it's real open source
> .... and it appears to get frequent updates, though the last
> "stable" version is almost a year old.
> They say it runs on the latest Ubuntu (17.10), so it probably
> runs on Mint.

Maybe, maybe not. You have to consider, 17.x series of Mint is based
on the older Ubuntu codebase which I've found some apps already don't
support anymore. Kdenlive being one example. Audacity being yet
another.

It may run on the newer 18.x series of Mint, but, after trying
various versions of that series and running into problems on hardware
that had no issues running 17.3 (and it's not a performance problem,
some of these are quad cores), I'm actually leaning towards switching
over to another distro at some point in the future. Kubuntu actually
looks impressive from what I've seen. The 17x series isn't LTS yet
though and I'd prefer to run an LTS version. so, I'm waiting.

When 18.3 KDE does come out, I'll give it a go, since it's
technically supported until 2021...Which gives me time if I want to
change distros or go the freebsd route, after all. 17.3 of linux mint
aside from some apps not working under it, and compiling them from
source trying to make them work under it, likely not working out
well, has been a great distro. And the reason those two apps in
particular can't run the latest versions of themselves on 17.3 is a
dependency issue. Getting away from MS doesn't resolve that, infact,
it introduces a fucking pile of new ones to deal with. :(

That is one thing I have to admit that bugs me with Linux. So many
distros and forks of distros and little coherency between them. Not
only can it make things frustrating for development purposes, but, it
can sometimes not be so fun for non development purposes either.
Hell, in some cases, some commands via cli are different, too.

Could be something simple like sudo. Under Kubuntu, it's kdesudo.
Only three more letters, but, if you're used to sudo or another
variant of the same damn command, it can be frustrating. Basically
only some of what you learn/memorize with one distro is going to work
right off the bat in another one, despite both being a linux based
distro. Atleast with MS, this didn't happen nearly as often, despite
various flavors of Windows and their own issues between them.

Despite the gotchas and other pitfulls, I've been having a blast for
the most part running it and learning more about it from the desktop
POV. My previous experiences with it were all via ssh/telnet sessions
and as you know, aside from learning it's cli (which can very from
distro to distro), it's not quite the same as having physical
possession of a machine running it with a DE to play with.

--
Now for a cheeky message from our sponsors:

Authors rarely welcome even the most constructive advice.

[John Corliss]

John Corliss wrote:
> Rod wrote:
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>
>>> (big, huge snip)
>>> Here's a screenshot of the furthest I've been able to get:
>>>
>>> https://i.imgur.com/97Pg5V3.jpg
>>>
>>> You'll notice that there is a thin, dark blue line under the partition
>>> on the source drive which has a checkmark. There's another such line
>>> under the second drive's first partition. However, these lines seem to
>>> have no function, since I can't move the line on the second disk.
>>>
>>> You'll also notice that although there are checkboxes under each
>>> partition on the source drive, there are none under the partitions on
>>> the destination drive. WTF????? To my mind, having such checkboxes under
>>> the secondary drive's partitions would be the only logical way of doing
>>> things. As it sits right now though, there is absolutely NO WAY that I
>>> can set the destination partition on the second drive.
>>
>> John,
>> Take a look at
>> https://knowledgebase.macrium.com/display/KNOW/Cloning+a+disk#Cloningadisk-0
>> I tried this and it works if you drag the selected drive down to the
>> partition you want to clone to. Note the icon in the left corner will show
>> up after dragging to the destination partition.
>
> Rod, thanks very much for that link. I've saved the page to my hard
> drive and will give it a try on my W7 computer.

A while back, I tried to follow those directions on my W7 computer, and
they didn't work for me. The problem is mainly that MR keeps using the
terminology "clone a disk". I do NOT want to clone a *disk*, I want to
clone a partition. In fact, I want to clone a partition on one internal
hard drive to another partition on another internal hard drive.

In frustration, I gave up and uninstalled MR. Perhaps it will do what I
want, but I can't work my way through the interface or instructions,
both of which are (IMO) poorly composed.

At this point (Nov. 21, 2017) I'm still looking for a replacement for
XXClone.

Either that or a crack which will disable its time limitation. The guy
who wrote the program is dead and the program isn't being maintained
anymore. He effectively took the program with him to the grave and I
think that's bullshit. I've decided that I'm going to find a way to make
XXClone work. He was using a fucking subscription model for his pro
version, and THAT was the act of an asshole as well.

--
John Corliss BS206. No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, pirated,
share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares for me please. I filter out
posts originating from Google Groups and recommend you do likewise. I
also block (can't see & won't reply to) posts from the following trolls:

[stevezi...@gmail.com]

Hi john i used the time machine to oct 20111 version 1910 an dit works
The next version is 2005 and it is timebombed
Thank you to whover put up te timemachine
Thanks

[vels...@gmail.com]

Thank you! I following your data I found it, and now it is working OK in Win 7 x64.

[wasbit]

<vels...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0490ffa-4bc4-42a2...@googlegroups.com...

> El lunes, 11 de diciembre de 2017, 1:57:57 (UTC-3), stevezi...@gmail.com
> escribió:
>> On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:12:13 AM UTC-8, John Corliss wrote:
>> > John Corliss wrote:

>> >
>> > At this point (Nov. 21, 2017) I'm still looking for a replacement for
>> > XXClone.
>> >
>

> Thank you! I following your data I found it, and now it is working OK in
> Win 7 x64.

Ancient thread but XXClone (non Pro) is free for personal use & is available
from
- http://www.xxclone.com/idwnload.htm

--
Regards
wasbit

[occam]

On 07/09/2018 18:24, wasbit wrote:
> <vels...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d0490ffa-4bc4-42a2...@googlegroups.com...
>> El lunes, 11 de diciembre de 2017, 1:57:57 (UTC-3),
>> stevezi...@gmail.com escribió:
>>> On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:12:13 AM UTC-8, John Corliss wrote:
>>> > John Corliss wrote:
>
>>> >
>>> > At this point (Nov. 21, 2017) I'm still looking for a replacement for
>>> > XXClone.
>>> >
>>
>> Thank you! I following your data I found it, and now it is working OK
>> in Win 7 x64.
>

> Ancient thread but ...

You don't say. Seeing a John Corliss' post(s) was like seeing a ghost
from X-Windows past! I had visions of Win XP haunting me all night.

[Shadow]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 19:17:38 +0200, occam <oc...@invalid.nix> wrote:

> I had visions of Win XP haunting me all night.

You mean you no longer dual boot ?
Just Linux ? That's a bit radical, even for me.

[CRNG]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 19:17:38 +0200, occam <oc...@invalid.nix> wrote in
<fvfq5j...@mid.individual.net>

>Seeing a John Corliss' post(s) was like seeing a ghost

Whatever happened to Corliss? I haven't seen anything from him in a
very long time.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

[Shadow]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:21:52 -0500, CRNG <noe...@atthisdomain.gov>
wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 19:17:38 +0200, occam <oc...@invalid.nix> wrote in
><fvfq5j...@mid.individual.net>
>
>>Seeing a John Corliss' post(s) was like seeing a ghost
>
>Whatever happened to Corliss? I haven't seen anything from him in a
>very long time.

OT spam scared him away. He didn't like filters and the
Bouffant used to spam this group (dunno if it still does, I
reluctantly put some filters up).

[occam]

On 08/09/2018 18:42, Shadow wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:21:52 -0500, CRNG <noe...@atthisdomain.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 19:17:38 +0200, occam <oc...@invalid.nix> wrote in
>> <fvfq5j...@mid.individual.net>
>>
>>> Seeing a John Corliss' post(s) was like seeing a ghost
>>
>> Whatever happened to Corliss? I haven't seen anything from him in a
>> very long time.
>
> OT spam scared him away. He didn't like filters and the
> Bouffant used to spam this group (dunno if it still does, I
> reluctantly put some filters up).
> []'s
>

Oh, OK. I always thought his warranty ran out with the expiry of the
warranty of his Win XP, and they both retired gracefully together. (P.S:
I think he also mistrusted Microsoft, and this forum for was running
short on patience with his constant complaints about MS, essentially a
non-freeware product.)

[Flasherly]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 14:32:33 +0200, occam <oc...@invalid.nix> wrote:

>> OT spam scared him away. He didn't like filters and the
>> Bouffant used to spam this group (dunno if it still does, I
>> reluctantly put some filters up).
>> []'s
>>
>
>Oh, OK. I always thought his warranty ran out with the expiry of the
>warranty of his Win XP, and they both retired gracefully together. (P.S:
>I think he also mistrusted Microsoft, and this forum for was running
>short on patience with his constant complaints about MS, essentially a
>non-freeware product.)

John didn't like computing, what it has become: So far as Alt.freeware
was no longer relevant. And he's right.

The utility of free software once was everything to a computer, most
of what could be bought, anyway, for the alt/alternative aspect. That
is past. It was only for the few, terribly few apparently.

The rest were whiners, whom now have arisen, in repletion to
democratise a popular misconception: They, as well, now have full
claim the right at least to say what they think they are - successors
to the new computer operators, handed them, viz scaled-down
processors, on "handheld computer terminals", requiring an industry
cloud subscription.

But, how now can they claim this marvelous coup de grâce? Industry
during the height of alt.freeware, by in large, was on equal footing
and putting on their pants no differently. Technology hadn't yet
drawn the infrastructure of present distinction and scale.

The AI of social business networking came about through reading and
reinforcing ego imagery, much as advertising is and always will be --
to cultivate a propaganda, favorably provided another, in order to
turn the tidy profit.

When Microsoft, more of recent, developed an unpublicized AI project,
based on that same networking protocol - through actual AI interaction
with Facebook - they had to shut it down. The project AI was so
horribly all kinds of fucked up. Which is just about how jaded,
misanthropical, and in actuality how far this facade of the modern
"computer operators", with his bigmouth handheld, extends.

Like it or lump it, but you really are such a pitiful minority, an
extant relic perhaps with knowledge about all manner of free software,
perhaps with PC hardware skills, or even programming. Nevertheless,
it really is such a pain in the ass, indeed, not having everything
handed over on a silver spoon, without having to lift one finger. It's
goddamn mob rules John lumped over.

[CRNG]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:49:39 -0600, H-Man <Sp...@bites.fs> wrote in
<pn60a3$k87$1...@dont-email.me>

>John doesn't frequent the board anymore and is unlikely to see this post.
>I, for one kinda miss him. He was a pretty fair guy, but was, what I'd call
>a demanding user. He did not embrace change. As for many of us, change
>requires a level of effort to adjust. From John's perspective, it seemed,
>the effort to adjust should have some reward, other than just the change
>itself. It is a fairly unique perspective, but one I can respect.

+1

[M.L.]

>He did not embrace change. As for many of us, change
>requires a level of effort to adjust. From John's perspective, it seemed,
>the effort to adjust should have some reward, other than just the change
>itself. It is a fairly unique perspective, but one I can respect.

How could he possibly know what the reward was if he didn't bother to
adjust?

Frankly, I got tired of his daily anti-Microsoft rants and his calls
for help with Windows XP after tweaking it out of compliance. I binned
him long ago and didn't know he left.

[CRNG]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:14:16 -0500, M.L. <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
<0tfepd13ct6r3er9j...@4ax.com>

His resistance to change started long before WinXP. I recall when he
was using Win98SE how he resisted the move to XP for at least a couple
of years. I sympathized with him. Now I am using Win7/32 and have no
plans to upgrade unless: 1) the new version of Windows(10) provides me
a new functionality that I feel I must have or 2) it fixes a broken
functionality that I must have or 3) I must get a new computer that
only comes with the current WinOS.

[Flasherly]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:55:45 -0500, CRNG <noe...@atthisdomain.gov>
wrote:

>3) I must get a new computer that
>only comes with the current WinOS.

No computer Only Comes with Windows. MSFT may try, although they've
already been slapped with monopolistic lawsuits for meddling in
technology intended to constrain equally viable and efficient
technological trends, of a competitive nature least dependent on MSFT.
Some, true, can and do sell an assembled computer for MSFT compliancy,
including an installation of a MSFT software product to back that
claim. That same sales item may then be traced to its origins, no
less for what exactly comprises individual items in the finished build
product. Some may be proprietary, some an OEM overlap from a wider
industry, contractually providing unbranded production runs to the
branded computer. (An unbranded Gigabyte MB, for an instance, near or
exact to Gigabyte's so-branded component, HP, in another instance,
might contract by discount through volume production runs.) Other
builds may be standardized directly to parts branded from standard
end-market listings, most of all among easily obtainable marketable
technology items.

And some, notably in the last instance, may cost a fraction of the
brand emblazoned on potentially an otherwise $20 steel, mid-tower PC
case.

I once bought an IBM laptop, warranted by IBM, to included the MSFT
Windows OS. Which I then directly removed for another OS. I
encountered Terrible Bugs with IBM's nonstandard firmware memory
mapping (640K-1024K) segment. As I vaguely recall I was walking over,
mapping into memory areas that were interfering with the hardware,
possibly HD access.

I called to ask IBM support to ask what address exclusions might help
correct my issues. I briefly explained what I'd done.

"You did WHAT !!," the customer technician demanded, literally to
scream at me. He was the genuine FlabberGasted person in his
position, I do honestly believe. It happens, people lose it, nothing
occurred much else, in a conversationally supportive manner, to say
effectively for me to but hang up the phone in conclusion to my query.
(I recall fixing it with something along a BASIC bubble-sort routine,
splitting a larger memory area, observing results, for dividing again
into smaller areas when results occurred, until I'd found the smallest
upper-memory blocks for exclusion, while maintaining correct hardware
operability.)

I never bought an IBM product ever again.

And I always build, assemble from a discrete selection of individual
parts and brandnames, my own computers. But then I can get away, to
not like and turn my back on laptops, unlike others who may need them
for fieldwork and other considerations. A PC desktop build is the
most forgiving thing about the widest sense computers represent, when
a build will run anything, aside from MSFT, that you throw at it.

If they tell you the hardware requires MSFT Windows 10 support
something is really quite wrong. To which you reply -- take it back
and please build it again, but do it right.

[Cully When]

On 09/11/2018 08:55 AM, CRNG wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:14:16 -0500, M.L. <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote in
> <0tfepd13ct6r3er9j...@4ax.com>
>
>>
>>> He did not embrace change. As for many of us, change
>>> requires a level of effort to adjust. From John's perspective, it seemed,
>>> the effort to adjust should have some reward, other than just the change
>>> itself. It is a fairly unique perspective, but one I can respect.
>>
>> How could he possibly know what the reward was if he didn't bother to
>> adjust?
>>
>> Frankly, I got tired of his daily anti-Microsoft rants and his calls
>> for help with Windows XP after tweaking it out of compliance. I binned
>> him long ago and didn't know he left.
>
> His resistance to change started long before WinXP. I recall when he
> was using Win98SE how he resisted the move to XP for at least a couple
> of years. I sympathized with him. Now I am using Win7/32 and have no
> plans to upgrade unless: 1) the new version of Windows(10) provides me
> a new functionality that I feel I must have or 2) it fixes a broken
> functionality that I must have or 3) I must get a new computer that
> only comes with the current WinOS.
>

He seemed to be quite inflexible in altering the way he used the OS or
ancillary products. I suppose I was also in some things until I
purchased a second hard drive for my desktop and tried a few Linux
distributions. I settled on Mint KDE and dual booted W7 and KDE for
half a year until I was quite comfortable with KDE.

I had a copy of XP and loaded up VBOX to handle apps I wrote some years
ago when running DOS and updated through 98SE and XP. Due to the years
of information accumulated by the apps that I use daily, W7 is now
relegated to a laptop that I crank up perhaps once a year.

Unfortunately, KDE has been dropped by Mint so I now have Mint Cinnamon
as a backup DE but will continue on Mint KDE probably a year or two
after support is dropped. the other two laptops in the house are on
Mint Cinnamon and the users are highly satisfied.