Windows Vista Tips

Windows Vista Tips > Newsgroups > Windows Vista General Discussion > The stupidest backup feature in history

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

The stupidest backup feature in history

 
 
gladiator180@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      10-15-2007
I was at first impressed with the built-in backup/restore feature in
Windows Vista. That was until I needed it when my hard disk crashed.
There are two major flaws.

1. If you try to make a complete PC restore in the Windows Recovery
Environment, and try to restore the boot disk onto a new disk, the
boot record will NOT be restored, even if you select to let the
program reformat the drive. This means that if you need to recreate
your boot disk, you first have to make a new install of Vista (and
thus create a boot record) and then restore the drive using WRE.
Otherwise your restored drive will not boot. The "system repair"
feature in WRE does not fix the boot record either.

2. After you have restored a complete PC backup and want to restore
your backed up files up to a later point, you will find out that this
is not possible. The "restore files" feature will only show backed up
files up to the point when you made the complete PC backup. The only
way to restore files from a later point in time is to manually open
the zip files on your backup drive, and copy them.

I am seriously wondering how drunk the developers where when they
wrote this backup program. The idea to store complete copies of your
hard drives as VHD-files and letting the setup program om the Vista
DVD be able to completely restore these, is smart in theory. It could
have been very neat... if it worked.

Another interesteing question is why it is not possible to restore
individual secondary drives. The only options are to either restore
only the boot drive or all drives. I guess you could mount the VHD-
files in a Virtual PC and then manually copy the files, but why do
they have this limitation?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jimmy fallon
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      10-15-2007
Microsoft reminds me of my father, he was the smartest dumbest guy I ever met.
Amazing the software GIANT is a moron when it comes to this stuff. Why don't
they go buy Acronis...
jf



"" wrote:

> I was at first impressed with the built-in backup/restore feature in
> Windows Vista. That was until I needed it when my hard disk crashed.
> There are two major flaws.
>
> 1. If you try to make a complete PC restore in the Windows Recovery
> Environment, and try to restore the boot disk onto a new disk, the
> boot record will NOT be restored, even if you select to let the
> program reformat the drive. This means that if you need to recreate
> your boot disk, you first have to make a new install of Vista (and
> thus create a boot record) and then restore the drive using WRE.
> Otherwise your restored drive will not boot. The "system repair"
> feature in WRE does not fix the boot record either.
>
> 2. After you have restored a complete PC backup and want to restore
> your backed up files up to a later point, you will find out that this
> is not possible. The "restore files" feature will only show backed up
> files up to the point when you made the complete PC backup. The only
> way to restore files from a later point in time is to manually open
> the zip files on your backup drive, and copy them.
>
> I am seriously wondering how drunk the developers where when they
> wrote this backup program. The idea to store complete copies of your
> hard drives as VHD-files and letting the setup program om the Vista
> DVD be able to completely restore these, is smart in theory. It could
> have been very neat... if it worked.
>
> Another interesteing question is why it is not possible to restore
> individual secondary drives. The only options are to either restore
> only the boot drive or all drives. I guess you could mount the VHD-
> files in a Virtual PC and then manually copy the files, but why do
> they have this limitation?
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Adam Albright
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      10-15-2007
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:19:04 -0700, wrote:

>I was at first impressed with the built-in backup/restore feature in
>Windows Vista. That was until I needed it when my hard disk crashed.
>There are two major flaws.


Yep, that's the problem with backup applications. If you can't restore
from the 'backup' then all the time you invested in backing up was
wasted. That's why I don't backup system wide. I prefer to backup only
my data files. That's all that is not replaceable if something
happened to the originals.

I haven't tried the included backup program that comes with Vista. If
it is typical of backup applications it creates ONE monster file. If
something happens to it, then whatever you're trying to restore from
whatever point the corruption is, lots of luck, you probably won't be
able to.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chad Harris
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      10-15-2007
My view is that if you seriously care about your computer and software,
you'll buy Acronis because MSFT won't be doing that. Do you have a
situation where you can't boot and need to fix Vista? Tell us what it is,
and we can probably help you.

Acronis is a much better backup situation. MSFT is not going to build in
ancillary apps like a first rate defrag and a backup that does the things
the $50 buck third parties do. Too much federal litigation on a litigation
plate already signing settlement agreements like they're goin' outta style.

CH

I'd like to salute apathetic America wasting lives and billions like they're
goin' outta style as well.

October 14, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The 'Good Germans' Among Us
By FRANK RICH NY TIMES
"BUSH lies" doesn't cut it anymore. It's time to confront the darker reality
that we are lying to ourselves.

Ten days ago The Times unearthed yet another round of secret Department of
Justice memos countenancing torture. President Bush gave his standard
response: "This government does not torture people." Of course, it all
depends on what the meaning of "torture" is. The whole point of these memos
is to repeatedly recalibrate the definition so Mr. Bush can keep pleading
innocent.

By any legal standards except those rubber-stamped by Alberto Gonzales, we
are practicing torture, and we have known we are doing so ever since
photographic proof emerged from Abu Ghraib more than three years ago. As
Andrew Sullivan, once a Bush cheerleader, observed last weekend in The
Sunday Times of London, America's "enhanced interrogation" techniques have a
grotesque provenance: "Verschärfte Vernehmung, enhanced or intensified
interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what
became known as the 'third degree.' It left no marks. It included
hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation."

Still, the drill remains the same. The administration gives its alibi (Abu
Ghraib was just a few bad apples). A few members of Congress squawk. The
debate is labeled "politics." We turn the page.

There has been scarcely more response to the similarly recurrent story of
apparent war crimes committed by our contractors in Iraq. Call me cynical,
but when Laura Bush spoke up last week about the human rights atrocities in
Burma, it seemed less an act of selfless humanitarianism than another
administration maneuver to change the subject from its own abuses.

As Mrs. Bush spoke, two women, both Armenian Christians, were gunned down in
Baghdad by contractors underwritten by American taxpayers. On this matter,
the White House has been silent. That incident followed the Sept. 16
massacre in Baghdad's Nisour Square, where 17 Iraqis were killed by security
forces from Blackwater USA, which had already been implicated in nearly 200
other shooting incidents since 2005. There has been no accountability. The
State Department, Blackwater's sugar daddy for most of its billion dollars
in contracts, won't even share its investigative findings with the United
States military and the Iraqi government, both of which have deemed the
killings criminal.

The gunmen who mowed down the two Christian women worked for a Dubai-based
company managed by Australians, registered in Singapore and enlisted as a
subcontractor by an American contractor headquartered in North Carolina.
This is a plot out of "Syriana" by way of "Chinatown." There will be no
trial. We will never find out what happened. A new bill passed by the House
to regulate contractor behavior will have little effect, even if it becomes
law in its current form.

We can continue to blame the Bush administration for the horrors of Iraq -
and should. Paul Bremer, our post-invasion viceroy and the recipient of a
Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts, issued the order that allows
contractors to elude Iraqi law, a folly second only to his disbanding of the
Iraqi Army. But we must also examine our own responsibility for the hideous
acts committed in our name in a war where we have now fought longer than we
did in the one that put Verschärfte Vernehmung on the map.

I have always maintained that the American public was the least culpable of
the players during the run-up to Iraq. The war was sold by a brilliant and
fear-fueled White House propaganda campaign designed to stampede a nation
still shellshocked by 9/11. Both Congress and the press - the powerful
institutions that should have provided the checks, balances and due
diligence of the administration's case - failed to do their job. Had they
done so, more Americans might have raised more objections. This perfect
storm of democratic failure began at the top.

As the war has dragged on, it is hard to give Americans en masse a pass. We
are too slow to notice, let alone protest, the calamities that have followed
the original sin.

In April 2004, Stars and Stripes first reported that our troops were using
makeshift vehicle armor fashioned out of sandbags, yet when a soldier
complained to Donald Rumsfeld at a town meeting in Kuwait eight months
later, he was successfully pilloried by the right. Proper armor procurement
lagged for months more to come. Not until early this year, four years after
the war's first casualties, did a Washington Post investigation finally
focus the country's attention on the shoddy treatment of veterans, many of
them victims of inadequate armor, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and
other military hospitals.

We first learned of the use of contractors as mercenaries when four
Blackwater employees were strung up in Falluja in March 2004, just weeks
before the first torture photos emerged from Abu Ghraib. We asked few
questions. When reports surfaced early this summer that our contractors in
Iraq (180,000, of whom some 48,000 are believed to be security personnel)
now outnumber our postsurge troop strength, we yawned. Contractor casualties
and contractor-inflicted casualties are kept off the books.

It was always the White House's plan to coax us into a blissful ignorance
about the war. Part of this was achieved with the usual Bush-Cheney
secretiveness, from the torture memos to the prohibition of photos of
military coffins. But the administration also invited our passive complicity
by requiring no shared sacrifice. A country that knows there's no such thing
as a free lunch was all too easily persuaded there could be a free war.

Instead of taxing us for Iraq, the White House bought us off with tax cuts.
Instead of mobilizing the needed troops, it kept a draft off the table by
quietly purchasing its auxiliary army of contractors to finesse the
overstretched military's holes. With the war's entire weight falling on a
small voluntary force, amounting to less than 1 percent of the population,
the rest of us were free to look the other way at whatever went down in
Iraq.

We ignored the contractor scandal to our own peril. Ever since Falluja this
auxiliary army has been a leading indicator of every element of the war's
failure: not only our inadequate troop strength but also our alienation of
Iraqi hearts and minds and our rampant outsourcing to contractors rife with
Bush-Cheney cronies and campaign contributors. Contractors remain a
bellwether of the war's progress today. When Blackwater was briefly
suspended after the Nisour Square catastrophe, American diplomats were
flatly forbidden from leaving the fortified Green Zone. So much for the
surge's great "success" in bringing security to Baghdad.

Last week Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq war combat veteran who directs Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America, sketched for me the apocalypse to come.
Should Baghdad implode, our contractors, not having to answer to the
military chain of command, can simply "drop their guns and go home."
Vulnerable American troops could be deserted by those "who deliver their
bullets and beans."

This potential scenario is just one example of why it's in our national
self-interest to attend to Iraq policy the White House counts on us to
ignore. Our national character is on the line too. The extralegal
contractors are both a slap at the sovereignty of the self-governing Iraq we
supposedly support and an insult to those in uniform receiving as little as
one-sixth the pay. Yet it took mass death in Nisour Square to fix even our
fleeting attention on this long-metastasizing cancer in our battle plan.

Similarly, it took until December 2005, two and a half years after "Mission
Accomplished," for Mr. Bush to feel sufficient public pressure to
acknowledge the large number of Iraqi casualties in the war. Even now,
despite his repeated declaration that "America will not abandon the Iraqi
people," he has yet to address or intervene decisively in the tragedy of
four million-plus Iraqi refugees, a disproportionate number of them
children. He feels no pressure from the American public to do so, but hey,
he pays lip service to Darfur.

Our moral trajectory over the Bush years could not be better dramatized than
it was by a reunion of an elite group of two dozen World War II veterans in
Washington this month. They were participants in a top-secret operation to
interrogate some 4,000 Nazi prisoners of war. Until now, they have kept
silent, but America's recent record prompted them to talk to The Washington
Post.

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or
Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an
M.I.T. physicist whose interrogation of Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy, took
place over a chessboard. George Frenkel, 87, recalled that he "never laid
hands on anyone" in his many interrogations, adding, "I'm proud to say I
never compromised my humanity."

Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our
war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble
those "good Germans" who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It's up
to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration
policy every day. Let the war's last supporters filibuster all night if they
want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our
country's good name.




<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>I was at first impressed with the built-in backup/restore feature in
> Windows Vista. That was until I needed it when my hard disk crashed.
> There are two major flaws.
>
> 1. If you try to make a complete PC restore in the Windows Recovery
> Environment, and try to restore the boot disk onto a new disk, the
> boot record will NOT be restored, even if you select to let the
> program reformat the drive. This means that if you need to recreate
> your boot disk, you first have to make a new install of Vista (and
> thus create a boot record) and then restore the drive using WRE.
> Otherwise your restored drive will not boot. The "system repair"
> feature in WRE does not fix the boot record either.
>
> 2. After you have restored a complete PC backup and want to restore
> your backed up files up to a later point, you will find out that this
> is not possible. The "restore files" feature will only show backed up
> files up to the point when you made the complete PC backup. The only
> way to restore files from a later point in time is to manually open
> the zip files on your backup drive, and copy them.
>
> I am seriously wondering how drunk the developers where when they
> wrote this backup program. The idea to store complete copies of your
> hard drives as VHD-files and letting the setup program om the Vista
> DVD be able to completely restore these, is smart in theory. It could
> have been very neat... if it worked.
>
> Another interesteing question is why it is not possible to restore
> individual secondary drives. The only options are to either restore
> only the boot drive or all drives. I guess you could mount the VHD-
> files in a Virtual PC and then manually copy the files, but why do
> they have this limitation?
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
NoStop
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      10-15-2007
wrote:

> I was at first impressed with the built-in backup/restore feature in
> Windows Vista. That was until I needed it when my hard disk crashed.
> There are two major flaws.
>
> 1. If you try to make a complete PC restore in the Windows Recovery
> Environment, and try to restore the boot disk onto a new disk, the
> boot record will NOT be restored, even if you select to let the
> program reformat the drive. This means that if you need to recreate
> your boot disk, you first have to make a new install of Vista (and
> thus create a boot record) and then restore the drive using WRE.
> Otherwise your restored drive will not boot. The "system repair"
> feature in WRE does not fix the boot record either.
>
> 2. After you have restored a complete PC backup and want to restore
> your backed up files up to a later point, you will find out that this
> is not possible. The "restore files" feature will only show backed up
> files up to the point when you made the complete PC backup. The only
> way to restore files from a later point in time is to manually open
> the zip files on your backup drive, and copy them.
>
> I am seriously wondering how drunk the developers where when they
> wrote this backup program. The idea to store complete copies of your
> hard drives as VHD-files and letting the setup program om the Vista
> DVD be able to completely restore these, is smart in theory. It could
> have been very neat... if it worked.
>
> Another interesteing question is why it is not possible to restore
> individual secondary drives. The only options are to either restore
> only the boot drive or all drives. I guess you could mount the VHD-
> files in a Virtual PC and then manually copy the files, but why do
> they have this limitation?


This seems typical of Microsoft's included programs. They're all pretty much
half baked forcing one to look to spending money on a third party solution.
One would think that for the money they charge for this p.o.s. "operating
system" they'd do better than that. But, unfortunately they're either
unable or unwilling to be considerate of their customers.

Cheers.

--
Remove Vista Activation Completely ...
http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo

Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.

Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:
http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gi...-features.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
Computer & Sound System Tech
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      10-15-2007
by the way the link in your sig doesn't work anymore.

--
Licensed Boating Capt. Jonathan Perreault
http://www.AllAboutGames.BraveHost.com
- note: click continue, when it ask about security certificate -

Best Comments From Users:
Vista is satan's way to bring hell to earth. -Me

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely
foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Web

No Matter The Problem Even With Linux, It's Microsoft's And Windows's
Faults -Everyone
"NoStop" <> wrote in message
news:iQSQi.66547$1y4.37008@pd7urf2no...
> wrote:
>
>> I was at first impressed with the built-in backup/restore feature in
>> Windows Vista. That was until I needed it when my hard disk crashed.
>> There are two major flaws.
>>
>> 1. If you try to make a complete PC restore in the Windows Recovery
>> Environment, and try to restore the boot disk onto a new disk, the
>> boot record will NOT be restored, even if you select to let the
>> program reformat the drive. This means that if you need to recreate
>> your boot disk, you first have to make a new install of Vista (and
>> thus create a boot record) and then restore the drive using WRE.
>> Otherwise your restored drive will not boot. The "system repair"
>> feature in WRE does not fix the boot record either.
>>
>> 2. After you have restored a complete PC backup and want to restore
>> your backed up files up to a later point, you will find out that this
>> is not possible. The "restore files" feature will only show backed up
>> files up to the point when you made the complete PC backup. The only
>> way to restore files from a later point in time is to manually open
>> the zip files on your backup drive, and copy them.
>>
>> I am seriously wondering how drunk the developers where when they
>> wrote this backup program. The idea to store complete copies of your
>> hard drives as VHD-files and letting the setup program om the Vista
>> DVD be able to completely restore these, is smart in theory. It could
>> have been very neat... if it worked.
>>
>> Another interesteing question is why it is not possible to restore
>> individual secondary drives. The only options are to either restore
>> only the boot drive or all drives. I guess you could mount the VHD-
>> files in a Virtual PC and then manually copy the files, but why do
>> they have this limitation?

>
> This seems typical of Microsoft's included programs. They're all pretty
> much
> half baked forcing one to look to spending money on a third party
> solution.
> One would think that for the money they charge for this p.o.s. "operating
> system" they'd do better than that. But, unfortunately they're either
> unable or unwilling to be considerate of their customers.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Remove Vista Activation Completely ...
> http://tinyurl.com/2w8qqo
>
> Do you use Linux? Everytime you "google", you're using Linux.
>
> Coming Soon! Ubuntu 7.10 ... New Features:
> http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gi...-features.html
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      10-16-2007
Computer & Sound System Tech wrote:
> by the way the link in your sig doesn't work anymore.
>



Yeah, just like doris's little pea brain.
Frank
 
Reply With Quote
 
Taibear ios
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      10-16-2007
stupidest backup on the stupidest OS in history..

I have not seen one vista feature that is NOT stupid...



<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>I was at first impressed with the built-in backup/restore feature in
> Windows Vista. That was until I needed it when my hard disk crashed.
> There are two major flaws.
>
> 1. If you try to make a complete PC restore in the Windows Recovery
> Environment, and try to restore the boot disk onto a new disk, the
> boot record will NOT be restored, even if you select to let the
> program reformat the drive. This means that if you need to recreate
> your boot disk, you first have to make a new install of Vista (and
> thus create a boot record) and then restore the drive using WRE.
> Otherwise your restored drive will not boot. The "system repair"
> feature in WRE does not fix the boot record either.
>
> 2. After you have restored a complete PC backup and want to restore
> your backed up files up to a later point, you will find out that this
> is not possible. The "restore files" feature will only show backed up
> files up to the point when you made the complete PC backup. The only
> way to restore files from a later point in time is to manually open
> the zip files on your backup drive, and copy them.
>
> I am seriously wondering how drunk the developers where when they
> wrote this backup program. The idea to store complete copies of your
> hard drives as VHD-files and letting the setup program om the Vista
> DVD be able to completely restore these, is smart in theory. It could
> have been very neat... if it worked.
>
> Another interesteing question is why it is not possible to restore
> individual secondary drives. The only options are to either restore
> only the boot drive or all drives. I guess you could mount the VHD-
> files in a Virtual PC and then manually copy the files, but why do
> they have this limitation?
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Taibear ios
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      10-16-2007
a pea would be an improvement for you...

your single neuron cell is trying to cope with your constant unhelpful
stupid posts....





 
Reply With Quote
 
Rick Ross
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      10-16-2007


<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> I was at first impressed with the built-in backup/restore feature in
> Windows Vista. That was until I needed it when my hard disk crashed.
> There are two major flaws.
>
> 1. If you try to make a complete PC restore in the Windows Recovery
> Environment, and try to restore the boot disk onto a new disk, the
> boot record will NOT be restored, even if you select to let the
> program reformat the drive. This means that if you need to recreate
> your boot disk, you first have to make a new install of Vista (and
> thus create a boot record) and then restore the drive using WRE.
> Otherwise your restored drive will not boot. The "system repair"
> feature in WRE does not fix the boot record either.
>
> 2. After you have restored a complete PC backup and want to restore
> your backed up files up to a later point, you will find out that this
> is not possible. The "restore files" feature will only show backed up
> files up to the point when you made the complete PC backup. The only
> way to restore files from a later point in time is to manually open
> the zip files on your backup drive, and copy them.
>
> I am seriously wondering how drunk the developers where when they
> wrote this backup program. The idea to store complete copies of your
> hard drives as VHD-files and letting the setup program om the Vista
> DVD be able to completely restore these, is smart in theory. It could
> have been very neat... if it worked.
>
> Another interesteing question is why it is not possible to restore
> individual secondary drives. The only options are to either restore
> only the boot drive or all drives. I guess you could mount the VHD-
> files in a Virtual PC and then manually copy the files, but why do
> they have this limitation?
>

not that this directly addresses your issue but, why not stop killing
yourself and just backup online..
I use Carbonite:
www.carbonite.com
for $50 and it's a no brainer...all automatic and if your pc meets its
maker...you can easily restore all your files...
disclaimer: I have zero commercial interest in carbonite...:0)



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Backup and restore feature Markus Windows Vista General Discussion 3 08-19-2007 06:23 AM
requirements for Complete PC Backup feature? jdfagan Windows Vista Performance 0 08-19-2007 03:36 AM
Backup: THE most useless feature in Windows to date... Christopher Windows Vista Performance 0 03-08-2007 01:32 AM
Vista Ultimate's Complete Backup feature FAILS denb45 Windows Vista Performance 4 03-07-2007 09:38 PM
History? Nigel Molesworth Windows Vista General Discussion 3 02-13-2007 10:39 AM



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59