I am feeling generous - an independent incremental updater

[Colin Wray]

Attached is my Win32 "CloneUPD.exe" incremental updater which I wrote because XXClone free only does complete copies.
I have included the source in case you want to port it to another NTFS platform.
It has only been used on Windows XP, so please let me know of problems on later versions.
It performs the update between drive letters: Source is 'C', and target is entered on the command line, eg: "CloneUPD E"
Every action is recorded in text file: "C:\CloneUPDlog.txt". I keep copies of these logs and have reached number 61.
The program performs the registry adjustment to make the target bootable just like XXClone does.
In fact it will create the clone from scratch, eg: by 'updating' a blank windows formatted drive.
It does not modify 'C' in any way, so you have to write your own dual-boot if you don't have one.
I have included a copy of my boot.ini.

Apart from making regular updates to my clone drive, it has seen me survive a hard disc crash and a blue-screen problem.
When 'C' crashed I simply swapped 'E' into the 'C' position and ordered a new drive for 'E'.
After formatting the new 'E' drive, CloneUPD wrote the new clone for me no problem.
Secondly, when some crap installer blue-screened my 'C' drive, I simply booted 'E' and ran CloneUPD back onto the wrecked 'C' drive ('E' in this situation).
Problem solved, box unopened.

Enjoy.
(Comments welcome).

[Dan Anderson]

Hi Colin,

Thank you for making this application available as an accessory to augment that XXclone version.

This is probably over my head, but to give non-techies some understanding of what the revised application is doing, the sort of questions that come to mind include:

a) Is CloneUPD a newly written application or is it somehow wrapped around that current version of XXclone?

b) When an updated version of XXclone becomes available, how would a non-techie integrate that with the CloneUPD application?

c) In addition to CloneUPD.exe there were six other programs inside the zip file attached to your email ... what would be the functionality of each of those additional programs and do they essentially disappear when CloneUPD is installed?

d) General curiosity on how the new application converts that current version of XXclone from doing only a complete copy to doing an incremental copy.

There is always an element of risk when running software from a relatively unknown source.  Any suggestions as to how a non-techie could establish some comfort that the process is working okay, and to what extent the process would differ from the stand-alone running of XXclone?


Thanks,
Dan

_____________________________________________

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Xxclone Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xxclone+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to xxc...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/xxclone.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Colin Wray]

Hello Dan,

On Sunday, 24 May 2015 15:28:59 UTC+1, Dan Anderson wrote:

Hi Colin,

Thank you for making this application available as an accessory to augment that XXclone version.

This is probably over my head, but to give non-techies some understanding of what the revised application is doing, the sort of questions that come to mind include:

a) Is CloneUPD a newly written application or is it somehow wrapped around that current version of XXclone?

 

It is completely stand-alone. You do not need XXClone at all.

b) When an updated version of XXclone becomes available, how would a non-techie integrate that with the CloneUPD application?

CloneUPD operates on your selected target drive only, making it a clone of your 'C' drive in terms of files and folders, adding and removing them as applicable.
It is easy to test, just target a newly formatted windows drive letter.

c) In addition to CloneUPD.exe there were six other programs inside the zip file attached to your email ... what would be the functionality of each of those additional programs and do they essentially disappear when CloneUPD is installed?

All but one are the source-code of the program which was compiled using MSVC++ V6.
'boot.ini. comes from my 'C' drive, and is included as an example of a setup offering to boot drive 'C' or 'E'.

d) General curiosity on how the new application converts that current version of XXclone from doing only a complete copy to doing an incremental copy.

 

n/a.

There is always an element of risk when running software from a relatively unknown source.  Any suggestions as to how a non-techie could establish some comfort that the process is working okay, and to what extent the process would differ from the stand-alone running of XXclone?

as above.

Colin.

[Dan]

Windows 7 is quite different in booting from XP.  Do you have a Windows 7/8 version?  Thanks.

[Colin Wray]

Sorry Dan, no I don't.
There are two possible issues here:
1. Whatever Win7 uses instead of boot.ini. My program does not touch boot.ini
2. The drive assignments in the registry. My program does swap them round on the cloned drive because xxclone did this to enable booting the clone without hardware changes.
However, the clone still works if you shift it to the 'C' hardware position, so it does not appear to matter much.
Regards, Colin.

[mm2...@bigfoot.com]

Comments: 

Has anyone tried running this yet?  Is it safe?

I ask because if someone wanted to be generous, as the subject line says, there are any number of forums where this could have been offered, including my favorite place, Usenet.   And people would have been interested.

But instead the poster offers it here, on the forum created by Kan and dedicated to a very similar product, from which Kan makes part of his living.

If the OP is ready to sabotage Kan's liveliehood, maybe he's ready to sabotage our files. 

Does anyone have a test environment, not subject to damage, easily reloadable from a backup, on which the offered program could be tested?  Or has anyone tested it in any way?

MIke


--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Xxclone Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xxclone+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to xxc...@googlegroups.com .
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/xxclone.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Content-Type: application/zip; name=CloneUPD.zip
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=CloneUPD.zip
X-Attachment-Id: f484e388-7e66-4dd1-9fb9-3a9ace3e82b4
Content-ID: <f484e388-7e66-4dd1-9fb9-3a9ace3e82b4>

[DES]

Colin, does your program rely on VSS? I ask because I believe Microsoft has intentionally rendered it inoperable on XP as the latest parting gesture?

Down in this thread is the implication it only applies to XP (because of the boot.ini reference). With Windows 7 (Vista actually) the critical boot file was changed to the bcd store (bcd file). Found on an MBR disk installation in the hidden folder Windows/BCD/. The boot is keyed to the Disk Signature, which is found in the MBR and the BCD file (in byte reversed format).  I'm certain you're aware of this as it's also found in the Drive Letter and Volume assignments in the registry which you are swapping in the destination to make that volume the installed to volume for booting. In Windows 8.1 the Disk Signature becomes a GUID, a 32 byte value. I have no experience with a W8.1 MBR disk, but with GPT disks under UEFI, the BCD of interest is in the EFI partition. If this is assigned a drive letter under diskpart then all will be revealed. The disk signature is then found (if I recall correctly) at offset 380hex. The catch is the first three groupings are individually byte reversed to make things interesting. Example:

disk signature as revealed by diskpart: {EE2A08E8-CC43-4F02-AA6E-30A5DB75FCDB}

  what's actually seen physically on disk E8082AEE43CC024FAA6E30A5DB75FCDB

After creating a complete image copy/clone, W8.1 will put the duplicate Offline as a Signature Collision. If the clone is placed Online, Windows will change the Disk Signature, rendering the clone un-bootable. However, the EFI partition BCD can be repaired by coping it off, and replacing the instance(s) of the original disk signature with the new (and of course putting the "repaired" bcd back). And This should be all that's required to fix up the bcd on an MBR disk as well for both W7 and W8(.1).

I'd be most interested in hearing some details about you incremental cloner?

DES

[Colin Wray]

Googy, I posted it here due to naivety - I didn't look elsewhere, nor realise it was a company specific forum. Sorry.
All you need to test it is a blank NTFS partition or drive (drive letter) large enough to take the data from your C drive.
I don't know (care) how you then boot/configure it.
On WinXP I formatted a new drive, ran the program onto it, and it was bootable - either by swapping the hardware into place or via the boot.ini on my C drive.
It simply does NOT write on the C drive.

[Colin Wray]

Des, Sorry, I don't know about VSS, the only quirky OS call is to overcome permissions to read some protected files.
If the registry works differently on Win 7/later then I am sure you can find the code that modifies the registry on the clone drive and disable it, then resort to hardware swapping.
I guess if I ever move to Win 10 I will have to look at it all again, meanwhile I have an excellent clone operation that is preserving my WinXp.

[DES]

That's very problematic... I use SyncBackPro (with a manual registry mod to swap the source & destination drive letters & volume assignments in the destination) to updated clones. Which relies on the Volume Shadow Copy Service. It's decided to quit working in XP only for me? Not too long after the Kernel update that screwed text rendering in all the "obsolete" OS's (including if you were getting POS security updates in XP)! Since that one was fixable, they though up something better is my opinion. I even restored disk0 from an image made when it was definitely working with no joy. They've figured out how to reach out and Touch you just so apparently? Something in the Writers and/or Providers no doubt.

But, you might be interested in this? (And I was incorrect in my recall of the disk signature offset!):

http://www.easyuefi.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=81

DES

[mm2...@bigfoot.com]

At 04:44 PM 6/9/2015, Colin Wray wrote:

Googy, I posted it here due to naivety - I didn't look elsewhere, nor realise it was a company specific forum. Sorry.
All you need to test it is a blank NTFS partition or drive (drive letter) large enough to take the data from your C drive.

Well, no.  That's only true if one knows it won't do harm to his current files.  Since I don't know that, I need the kind of test environment I described to test it.    And I don't have that, and most people don't.

And I note that you say you're sorry for promoting your program on a company specific forum,** but you're STILL doing that.   So how sorry are you?   So why should I trust you?

**(not just specific but founded by the owner for the purpose of supporting his program)

I don't know (care) how you then boot/configure it.
On WinXP I formatted a new drive, ran the program onto it, and it was bootable - either by swapping the hardware into place or via the boot.ini on my C drive.
It simply does NOT write on the C drive.

So say you.   And you are the one I didn't trust and now have additional reason not to.

BTW, on a newsgroup  that dealt with matters of topical interest, there was for a couple years one poster who often made up all kinds of stuff.   Eventually I noticed that whenever he used the word "simply", as you did, he was either wrong or consciously telling an untruth.  It was a  "tell". 

[Colin Wray]

Yawn.

[mm2...@bigfoot.com]

At 05:42 PM 6/9/2015, DES wrote:
>That's very problematic...

That he doesn't know about VSS, you mean? Yes, I think so. If
he doesn't even know about it, how can he judge when it's needed and
when it's not, if ever it is not?

Does XXClone use VSS or similar techniques? I don't think I've ever
read one way or the other.

For that matter, what about XXCopy? Doesn't it have the same need
for that kind of caution?

>I use SyncBackPro (with a manual registry mod to swap the source &
>destination drive letters & volume assignments in the destination)
>to updated clones. Which relies on the Volume Shadow Copy Service.
>It's decided to quit working in XP only for me?

Some software is very petty. ;-)

>Not too long after the Kernel update that screwed text rendering in
>all the "obsolete" OS's (including if you were getting POS security
>updates in XP)! Since that one was fixable, they though up something
>better is my opinion. I even restored disk0 from an image made when
>it was definitely working with no joy. They've figured out how to
>reach out and Touch you just so apparently? Something in the Writers
>and/or Providers no doubt.
>
>But, you might be interested in this? (And I was incorrect in my
>recall of the disk signature offset!):
>
>http://www.easyuefi.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=81

I'm looking at it. Thanks.

>DES

[Colin Wray]

My big mistake was including a binary with the source code.
You two have not even bothered to look for the answers to your questions within the source.

[DES]

I find it hard to believe that I asked earlier if xxclone relied on VSS too and got no answers period?

When whatever that can copy Open/Locked/System/ files is running look in the task manager for vssvc.exe for goodness sake. This doesn't mean a shadow copy was actually made, only that the shadow copy service tried. It's the "snap shot" from which the normally un-copy-able files taken.

Even if I was willing to try and figure out the included source code, and that "looked" fine... there's no way of knowing the Executable actually contains that, and only that.. is there? Without complying it myself!

My application of choice (which relies on VSS, which has stopped working on my XP) scans the Source and Destination for differences (based on last modified time/date, size, attributes, whatever) along with both a file by file Include/Exclude capability and a generalized Filtering method, and offers a simulation of what it will do if allowed before actually doing it, reversal of Source & Destination (Restore), and detailed HTML logs of what it did do (Phew). With possible options you wouldn't possibly think of... until the weird case came up. Point being there's more there than you'll ever need or use. No, I don't get anything for plugging it, but it's SyncBack(Pro) if you're interested.The point is, it sets a standard that nothing else I've ever seen even comes close to. Now as a parting gesture I believe, M$ has disabled VSS on XP as a further encouragement to "get Windows, 10 (the AH's)! I'm way off subject here now, but it's this very crap, and putting "Get Windows 10" icons in my tray as Critical Updates (Windows Updates are the only thing that has ever screwed any of my installations!) that is driving me to consider Not moving to Windows 10, but Linux instead. I tried Ubuntu (6.something) once and the only thing that stopped the change over then was it didn't play well Windows, especially W98 (see they do it too). But if there wasn't any Windows to network with then problem solved!

[Colin Wray]

If you had read the first line of my two line post, you could have saved yourself all this wasted effort.

[mm2...@bigfoot.com]

At 08:36 AM 6/11/2015, DES wrote:
>I find it hard to believe that I asked earlier if xxclone relied on
>VSS too and got no answers period?

I googled XXClone vss last night, and I found your
post. But it didn't use the word vss, iiirc. It said
"snapshot", so if I read the post when it first came out, I didn't
know the two were related. Not only that, I didn't know anything
about VSS, so it's not surprising I didn't answer you. IIRC you
didn't give any background about why a snapshot might matter. I
couldn't have contributed anything anyhow, so nothing is lost there.

>When whatever that can copy Open/Locked/System/ files is running
>look in the task manager for vssvc.exe for goodness sake.

Are you saying looking for vssvc then is obvious. I can assure you
it's not. If it were obvious, I would have looked last night, but
until I can get the trial version of Home or Pro, I won't have
occasion to run xxclone again for quite a while.

>This doesn't mean a shadow copy was actually made, only that the
>shadow copy service tried.

That makes sense. Good point.

> It's the "snap shot" from which the normally un-copy-able files taken.
>
>Even if I was willing to try and figure out the included source
>code, and that "looked" fine... there's no way of knowing the
>Executable actually contains that, and only that.. is there? Without
>complying it myself!

Yes, I thought of that myself when I read his post. BTW, not
everyone reads email by thread, or by subject line, and when you
don't quote a bit from the post you're replying to, I can't tell what
post you're replying to.

>My application of choice (which relies on VSS, which has stopped
>working on my XP)

That's strange, isn't it.

>scans the Source and Destination for differences (based on last
>modified time/date, size, attributes, whatever) along with both a
>file by file Include/Exclude capability and a generalized Filtering
>method, and offers a simulation of what it will do if allowed before
>actually doing it, reversal of Source & Destination (Restore), and
>detailed HTML logs of what it did do (Phew). With possible options
>you wouldn't possibly think of... until the weird case came up.

What does all this? What's your application of choice?

>Point being there's more there than you'll ever need or use. No, I
>don't get anything for plugging it, but it's SyncBack(Pro) if you're

Oh, never mind.

>interested.The point is, it sets a standard that nothing else I've
>ever seen even comes close to. Now as a parting gesture I believe,
>M$ has disabled VSS on XP

I wouldn't put it past them, but what about, as a test, just running
vss.exe I think it's called, and seeing what happens? See if it's
in Task Manager and test to see if does what it's supposed to??

[mm2...@bigfoot.com]

At 04:17 PM 6/11/2015, mm2...@bigfoot.com wrote:

>>interested.The point is, it sets a standard that nothing else I've
>>ever seen even comes close to. Now as a parting gesture I believe,
>>M$ has disabled VSS on XP
>
>I wouldn't put it past them, but what about, as a test, just running
>vss.exe I think it's called, and seeing what happens? See if it's
>in Task Manager and test to see if does what it's supposed to??

I got the program name wrong. It's vsscopy.exe at www.vsscopy.com
. Free for personal use, and aiui, it doesn't have extra overhead
like some programs that use shadow copies as part of their method.

Mike

[Alex Howe]

Hi Colin
Did you ever get round to updating your program to be capable of working on later versions of Windows (in particular, Windows 7)?
If XXClone is not revived following the sad demise of Kan Yabumoto, I am seeking an alternative that performs the same job.
It must be capable of being run from within a Windows system disk at scheduled times to produce a bootable clone with incremental updates, without interrupting the operation of the Windows system.

Thanks

Alex

[Colin Wray]

Hello Alex,

No, I haven't tried in on Win10 because I bought an Optiplex760 with Win10 installed and no way to fit a second drive. It is still working fine on my XP box, but I am not sure if it was ever capable of starting from scratch. I did use it to create a drive from the clone when my C drive went down, so maybe it was.

A lot of the code was copied from an expert post on the web, and I think it made assumptions about the directory structure which may not hold good on Win10.

Regards,
Colin.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Xxclone Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/xxclone/nE2dA9idoEc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to xxclone+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to xxc...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/xxclone.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

[Alex Howe]

Hi Colin

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

It was Windows 7 I was particularly interested in. Not too bothered about Windows 10 (yet!)

 

Any ideas re Windows 7?

 

Thanks

 

Alex