Bill
Thu May 15 00:44:11 PDT 2008
Anonymous wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23XTU4SltIHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Anonymous wrote:
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:O9JD4IktIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Teneo wrote:
>>>>> If you want to backup small <=4Gb then a DVD with relevant software is
>>>>> ok.
>>>>> If want to backup up whole system then external USB hard drive is
>>>>> advisable... make sure you format it with NTFS as by default they are
>>>>> usually FAT32 and this will not allow backup file above 4GB
>>>>
>>>> WHO has a FILE > 4 GB? (ok, perhaps a few video camera geeks).
>>>> As for the partition size, even with FAT32 it certainly CAN be much
>>>> larger than 4 GB.
>>>
>>> It's not that anyone has a single >4GB file, it's the technique
>>> that the backup uses to store the backup image.
>>>
>>> As example, ntbackup stores the backup image as one large
>>> single file, where the components comprising the backup are
>>> combined. Try running this on a fat architecture and it won't
>>> be long before you'll see the 4GB limitation.
>>
>> Good catch. It would be interesting to see just how TI manages to
>> backup an image on Win98SE (FAT32) systems.
>>
>> One possibility is that TI breaks the image up into smaller segments,
>> just
>> as some video programs have to do IF they can run on FAT32 (meaning Win9x
>> apps), since no single file using FAT32 can ever be larger than 4 GB....
>>
>> UNLESS it is possible by some other proprietary means, as you seem to be
>> suggesting below. But THAT would require a special NON FAT32 partition
>> on the HD,that would be invisible and unaccessible to Win9x).
>>
>
> I really don't know how/if TI, Ghost, et al handles such a
> limitation that's present in a fat architecture system. I sus-
> pect(aka guess) they're really not designed for use on
> those systems at all.
Some of them will work with these systems.
> I don't really see much reason for a vendor to consider
> an operational compatability on an "out of service" system.
Well, but it's not really "out of service", in that there are plenty of
people still using such systems. And fortunately some of these programs
still work for those users. And since someone made a comment on a 4 GB
size limitation, I wanted to clarify that.
> See my last(5/15) post in:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/99e22a784daf187b?hl=en#
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>>> Conversely, CMS' Bounce Back backup software stores the
>>> backup image in native file format, meaning that the backup
>>> is an exact image of the backed up components. No doubt
>>> this technique is retained just to avoid limitations on fat arch-
>>> itected systems.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> "PD43" <pauld1943@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:p9nm24dnuv9ko21kjeh5u7oje6g73n30jc@4ax.com...
>>>>>> "Patrick Keenan" <test@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ed H" <w.whatkey@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uD0mzWgtIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Regarding Win XP Back-up Utility.
>>>>>>>> It is it a reliable backup? Is my data safe to be recovered
>>>>>>>> (assuming I back up to a safe place?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some people find it reliable, others do not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the file is too big, will the utility span multiple DVD's?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it can't write to DVD or CDs at all, let alone span them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are better backup apps available. many in the $50 range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acronis True Image Home: $35 at Newegg.