true image 9

>> I read something on acronis website that seemed to mention that you could
>> only
>> restore an image on hardware that was the same as when you imaged the hd.
>
> You are remembering that wrong.

Not exactly wrong - you can restore an data image to another system usually
without a problem. However, restore an operating system image to alien
hardware is fraught with danger. It should work but do it at your own risk.
Certainly don't try it with anything before Windows XP. Changing the entire
hardware between reboots (which is what you are doing effectively) is
madness

Rob.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

Rob Nicholson <rob.nicholson DeleteThis @nospam_informed-direct.com> wrote:

>>> I read something on acronis website that seemed to mention that you could only
>>> restore an image on hardware that was the same as when you imaged the hd.

>> You are remembering that wrong.

> Not exactly wrong

Yep, its nothing like as black and white as that.

> - you can restore an data image to another system usually without a problem.

So the original is just plain wrong.

> However, restore an operating system image to alien hardware is fraught with danger.

Nope, the worst you have to do is a repair install after the image has been restored to different hardware.

> It should work but do it at your own risk.

There is no risk at all, it just wont boot if the hardware
is different enough and a repair install will fix that.

> Certainly don't try it with anything before Windows XP.

You've got that backwards. Its the NT/2K/XP family that has the problem.
The Win9x/ME family was always much happier to have the hardware
changed behind its back and be able to handle that gracefully.

> Changing the entire hardware between reboots (which is what you are doing effectively) is madness

Nope, trivial to do with the OSs that have a repair install.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

Rob Nicholson wrote in news:eOGdnWH_8Ijfz9DaRVnyvwA@bt.com
> > > I read something on acronis website that seemed to mention that you could
> > > only
> > > restore an image on hardware that was the same as when you imaged the hd.
> >
> > You are remembering that wrong.
>
> Not exactly wrong - you can restore an data image to another system usually
> without a problem. However, restore an operating system image to alien
> hardware is fraught with danger. It should work but do it at your own risk.
> Certainly don't try it with anything before Windows XP. Changing the entire
> hardware between reboots (which is what you are doing effectively) is
> madness

You are a moron, as always.

>
> Rob.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:22:22 -0800 (PST), Chris <chris95008.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>I read something on acronis website that seemed to mention that you
>could only restore an image on hardware that was the same as when you
>imaged the hd. I checked acronis website and couldn't find any
>mention of this so perhaps this was for version 10 and not 11 which is
>whats on the website now. Can anyone confirm if this is true or not,
>I'm still using version 9 and didn't know if it had the same issue.
>
>Thanks,
>Chris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronis_True_Image

"Images of computers running Microsoft Windows cannot simply be
restored to different hardware as the hardware-dependent Microsoft
Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) drivers are embedded within the
image; Linux systems do not have this problem.

Universal Restore is an add-on utility for True Image Enterprise
Windows versions that replaces the HAL drivers embedded within the
image during the recovery process, allowing an image of a machine to
be restored to different hardware."

http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/products/ATISWin/universal-restore.html

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar.TakeThisOut@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:22:22 -0800 (PST), Chris <chris95008.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>>I read something on acronis website that seemed to mention that you
>>could only restore an image on hardware that was the same as when you
>>imaged the hd. I checked acronis website and couldn't find any
>>mention of this so perhaps this was for version 10 and not 11 which is
>>whats on the website now. Can anyone confirm if this is true or not,
>>I'm still using version 9 and didn't know if it had the same issue.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Chris

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronis_True_Image

> "Images of computers running Microsoft Windows cannot simply be
> restored to different hardware as the hardware-dependent Microsoft
> Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) drivers are embedded within the
> image; Linux systems do not have this problem.

Indeed. Or at least if the drivers for the new hardware are
also present or in the Kernel. Still, most Linux installations
will boot and run on completely different hardware, possibly
with some devices not working and others slow.

> Universal Restore is an add-on utility for True Image Enterprise
> Windows versions that replaces the HAL drivers embedded within the
> image during the recovery process, allowing an image of a machine to
> be restored to different hardware."

> http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/products/ATISWin/universal-restore.html

Sounds expensive. But at least somebody manages it, MS is
aparently to incompetent for it or does not care at all.
To me thie is one of the indications that Windows is a toy,
since this makes backups chancy. If you are unlucky, you will
loose the installation beacues some hardware component died.
Linux is not the only OS that does not have this limitation.
Restoring to different hardware is generally an expected
feature, only MS gets away with a product that cannot do
this by itself.

Arno
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

Arno Wagner <me DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote:
> Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar DeleteThis @iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:22:22 -0800 (PST), Chris
>> <chris95008 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>> I read something on acronis website that seemed to mention that you
>>> could only restore an image on hardware that was the same as when
>>> you imaged the hd. I checked acronis website and couldn't find any
>>> mention of this so perhaps this was for version 10 and not 11 which
>>> is whats on the website now. Can anyone confirm if this is true or
>>> not, I'm still using version 9 and didn't know if it had the same
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronis_True_Image
>
>> "Images of computers running Microsoft Windows cannot simply be
>> restored to different hardware as the hardware-dependent Microsoft
>> Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) drivers are embedded within the
>> image; Linux systems do not have this problem.
>
> Indeed. Or at least if the drivers for the new hardware are
> also present or in the Kernel. Still, most Linux installations
> will boot and run on completely different hardware, possibly
> with some devices not working and others slow.
>
>> Universal Restore is an add-on utility for True Image Enterprise
>> Windows versions that replaces the HAL drivers embedded within the
>> image during the recovery process, allowing an image of a machine to
>> be restored to different hardware."
>
>> http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/products/ATISWin/universal-restore.html
>
> Sounds expensive. But at least somebody manages it,
> MS is aparently to incompetent for it or does not care at all.

MS has their own mechanism for handling that particular problem.

> To me thie is one of the indications that Windows is a toy,

More fool you.

> since this makes backups chancy.

Nope. You can do a repair install if you ever need to because
you have changed the hardware significantly due to a failure,
and that ONLY applys to the OS anyway, not to the DATA.

> If you are unlucky, you will loose the installation
> beacues some hardware component died.

Nope, a repair install will fix that.

> Linux is not the only OS that does not have this limitation.
> Restoring to different hardware is generally an expected
> feature, only MS gets away with a product that cannot do
> this by itself.

Corse it can. Your ignorance would be amazing if it wasnt so flagrantly flaunted.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

Arno Wagner <me DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote:
>> [previous poster]
>> http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/products/ATISWin/universal-restore.html

> Sounds expensive. But at least somebody manages it, MS is
> aparently to incompetent for it or does not care at all.

MS has never officially supported image restore of a Windows system
disk/partiton to different hardware as that would be counter to their
licensing scheme.

The current OEM licenses for MS Windows die when the system they were
originally installed on die.
As I understand this issue the Windows license enforcement mechanism
inventories the system it is originally installed on and assigns a score
to various components such as the CPU, core logic chipset, disk
host adapter, network and video adapters etc.

If the system is changed beyond a certain point, Product Activation kicks
in and the system owner must re-activate his copy of Windows.

If you bought a PC and later on upgrade your motherboard with a better
processor, onboard video and LAN, you might find
yourself also having to pay another license fee to M$ (assuming the
system image you have can be made to work with the new MB)
as MS will consider this to be a "new system" under the T&C of their
license.


--
The published From: address is a trap.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

RadicalModerate <radicalmoderate.TakeThisOut@attnn.com> wrote
> Arno Wagner <me.TakeThisOut@privacy.net> wrote

>>> http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/products/ATISWin/universal-restore.html

>> Sounds expensive. But at least somebody manages it,
>> MS is aparently to incompetent for it or does not care at all.

Or you dont actually have a clue about the basics.

> MS has never officially supported image restore of
> a Windows system disk/partiton to different hardware

Wrong.

> as that would be counter to their licensing scheme.

Wrong. Its perfectly legal to replace the motherboard in a system
when it fails and replace it with a completely different motherboard,
and restore the image to that system with the replacement motherboard.

AND all MS OSs since XP have had a repair install that
handles that significant change to the hardware fine.

There was a previous different approach to that
problem that was officially supported by MS too.

> The current OEM licenses for MS Windows die when
> the system they were originally installed on die.

Completely wrong and the law says nothing like that anyway.

> As I understand this issue the Windows license enforcement
> mechanism inventories the system it is originally installed on and
> assigns a score to various components such as the CPU, core
> logic chipset, disk host adapter, network and video adapters etc.

> If the system is changed beyond a certain point, Product Activation
> kicks in and the system owner must re-activate his copy of Windows.

And since you can reactivate it, you claim that MS doesnt allow that is just plain wrong.

> If you bought a PC and later on upgrade your motherboard
> with a better processor, onboard video and LAN, you might find
> yourself also having to pay another license fee to M$ (assuming the
> system image you have can be made to work with the new MB) as
> MS will consider this to be a "new system" under the T&C of their license.

No they dont. You may well have to ring up MS if it cant be reactivated
using the automatic system but that is ALL you ever have to do and you
will get the new activation as long as you havent done that too often
in the recent past with that particular system, and even then, ALL you
have to do is convince MS that you have had a problem with a series
of different motherboards actually working for very long to get the new
activation code etc. You NEVER have to buy a new license legally.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MS has never officially supported image restore of
>> a Windows system disk/partiton to different hardware

> Wrong.

Would you have a cite to show my error?

>> as that would be counter to their licensing scheme.

> Wrong. Its perfectly legal to replace the motherboard in a system
> when it fails and replace it with a completely different motherboard,
> and restore the image to that system with the replacement motherboard.

It is certainly *legal* (under "Fair Use Doctrine" in the USA) however
software licenses fall into contract law where terms more onerous
than called for in the copyright laws may be applied and enforced.
The MS End User License Agreement for Windows XP and Vista give MS broad
discretion as to re-activations.

> AND all MS OSs since XP have had a repair install that
> handles that significant change to the hardware fine.

So you can do a "preservation" install which re-inventories the hardware
and installs the correct low-level drivers. Great! You could do that 10
years ago on RS/6000s with IBM AIX .

Also keep in mind if you buy a Big Computer Company "SOHO" computer
(HPaq, Dell, Gateway, Lenovo etc) you don't get a "Windows" disk;
you get either a "restore" disk with an image of the factory load
on it or a restore partition (Host Protected Area of HDD).

In that case if you make any big changes from the system as shipped
you'll need another copy of Windows to intall/repair it with especially if
the restore routine starts off with a BIOS check (Dell for ex.) and
you replaced the motherboard with a different mfrs.
I've seen reports of system restores failing on H-Ps because a video card
had been installed and HP's version of the EULA asserted the restore
required a system hardware config "as shipped".


> There was a previous different approach to that
> problem that was officially supported by MS too.

Details please!

>> The current OEM licenses for MS Windows die when
>> the system they were originally installed on die.

> Completely wrong and the law says nothing like that anyway.

Once again, the MS EULA is in effect a (mostly 1-sided) contract between
MS and whoever is the final purchaser of the PC on which an OEM copy of
Windows is installed on.

>> As I understand this issue the Windows license enforcement
>> mechanism inventories the system it is originally installed on and
>> assigns a score to various components such as the CPU, core
>> logic chipset, disk host adapter, network and video adapters etc.

>> If the system is changed beyond a certain point, Product Activation
>> kicks in and the system owner must re-activate his copy of Windows.

> And since you can reactivate it, you claim that MS doesnt allow that
> is just plain wrong.

I have seen anecdotes to the effect that MS has refused activation after
major hardware changes such as a different motherboard; MS policy may
differ by countries, that is countries where there are more pirated copies
than legal copies, they may be more hardasses about enforcing what they
claim are their rights.

>> If you bought a PC and later on upgrade your motherboard
>> with a better processor, onboard video and LAN, you might find
>> yourself also having to pay another license fee to M$ (assuming the
>> system image you have can be made to work with the new MB) as
>> MS will consider this to be a "new system" under the T&C of their license.

> No they dont. You may well have to ring up MS if it cant be reactivated
> using the automatic system but that is ALL you ever have to do and you
> will get the new activation as long as you havent done that too often
> in the recent past with that particular system, and even then, ALL you
> have to do is convince MS that you have had a problem with a series
> of different motherboards actually working for very long to get the new
> activation code etc. You NEVER have to buy a new license legally.

Microsoft may well be over-reaching here - but if someone has a system
they need up and running what are they going to do - file a Consumer
Protection action ... or just sigh and give M$ their blood money (or go
out and buy a new PC)?

As M$ contines to segment the Windows product line into more and more
"packings" watch the EULA become more and more restrictive especially for
the lower end offerings (such as no RAID or SCSI, restrictions on total
system storage capacity etc etc).

--
The published From: address is a trap.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

RadicalModerate <radicalmoderate RemoveThis @attnn.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote

>>> MS has never officially supported image restore of a
>>> Windows system disk/partiton to different hardware

>> Wrong.

> Would you have a cite to show my error?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=XP+%22repair+install%22

>>> as that would be counter to their licensing scheme.

>> Wrong. Its perfectly legal to replace the motherboard in a system when
>> it fails and replace it with a completely different motherboard, and restore
>> the image to that system with the replacement motherboard.

> It is certainly *legal* (under "Fair Use Doctrine" in the USA)
> however software licenses fall into contract law

No they dont. That isnt technically a contract.

> where terms more onerous than called for in the
> copyright laws may be applied and enforced.

Pity even those still allow you to do a repair install when you change the
hardware significantly, like when the motherboard dies and is replaced.

> The MS End User License Agreement for Windows XP
> and Vista give MS broad discretion as to re-activations.

Doesnt matter what they say, the law that those purported 'agreements'
very explicitly say overrides anything in the purported 'agreement' ensure
that its perfectly legal to continue to use the copy of XP and Vista that you
paid for when you change the motherboard on a system when that fails.

>> AND all MS OSs since XP have had a repair install that
>> handles that significant change to the hardware fine.

> So you can do a "preservation" install which re-inventories
> the hardware and installs the correct low-level drivers. Great!
> You could do that 10 years ago on RS/6000s with IBM AIX .

Irrelevant to your claim at the top that MS has never officially supported doing that.

And it aint the only officially supported mechanism that MS has available either.

> Also keep in mind if you buy a Big Computer Company "SOHO" computer
> (HPaq, Dell, Gateway, Lenovo etc) you don't get a "Windows" disk;
> you get either a "restore" disk with an image of the factory load
> on it or a restore partition (Host Protected Area of HDD).

Irrelevant to your claim at the top that MS has never officially supported doing that.

> In that case if you make any big changes from the system as
> shipped you'll need another copy of Windows to intall/repair it with
> especially if the restore routine starts off with a BIOS check (Dell
> for ex.) and you replaced the motherboard with a different mfrs.

Irrelevant to your claim at the top that MS has never officially supported doing that.

Thats an issue you are free to take up with the manufacturers
of those systems, its nothing to do with MS.

> I've seen reports of system restores failing on H-Ps because a video
> card had been installed and HP's version of the EULA asserted the
> restore required a system hardware config "as shipped".

Irrelevant to your claim at the top that MS has never officially supported doing that.

Thats an issue you are free to take up with the manufacturers
of those systems, its nothing to do with MS.

>> There was a previous different approach to that
>> problem that was officially supported by MS too.

> Details please!

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/299340

>>> The current OEM licenses for MS Windows die when
>>> the system they were originally installed on die.

>> Completely wrong and the law says nothing like that anyway.

> Once again, the MS EULA is in effect a (mostly 1-sided)
> contract between MS and whoever is the final purchaser of
> the PC on which an OEM copy of Windows is installed on.

Wrong again. The end user signed no contract and whatever
MS claims, clicking on some icon doesnt constitute a legally
binding agreement between MS and the end user either.

AND the MS EOM EULA does NOT say anything like your silly claim
that if say the motherboard dies, that you have done your dough that
you paid for the purported 'license' and that you have to buy another
one. You are welcome to replace the motherboard with a new one and
carry on regardless with the original copy of the OS that you paid for.

>>> As I understand this issue the Windows license enforcement
>>> mechanism inventories the system it is originally installed on and
>>> assigns a score to various components such as the CPU, core
>>> logic chipset, disk host adapter, network and video adapters etc.

>>> If the system is changed beyond a certain point, Product Activation
>>> kicks in and the system owner must re-activate his copy of Windows.

>> And since you can reactivate it, your claim that
>> MS doesnt allow that is just plain wrong.

> I have seen anecdotes to the effect that MS has refused activation
> after major hardware changes such as a different motherboard;

Only the fools that dont have enough of a clue to rub MS's nose in the law
on that if some stupid phone answering monkey tries to pull that stunt.

> MS policy may differ by countries, that is countries where there
> are more pirated copies than legal copies, they may be more
> hardasses about enforcing what they claim are their rights.

Your claim is just plain wrong.

>>> If you bought a PC and later on upgrade your motherboard with
>>> a better processor, onboard video and LAN, you might find yourself
>>> also having to pay another license fee to M$ (assuming the system
>>> image you have can be made to work with the new MB) as MS will
>>> consider this to be a "new system" under the T&C of their license.

>> No they dont. You may well have to ring up MS if it cant be reactivated
>> using the automatic system but that is ALL you ever have to do and you
>> will get the new activation as long as you havent done that too often in
>> the recent past with that particular system, and even then, ALL you have
>> to do is convince MS that you have had a problem with a series of
>> different motherboards actually working for very long to get the new
>> activation code etc. You NEVER have to buy a new license legally.

> Microsoft may well be over-reaching here - but if someone
> has a system they need up and running what are they going
> to do - file a Consumer Protection action ... or just sigh and
> give M$ their blood money (or go out and buy a new PC)?

Or just make it clear to MS that you know what the law has to say about
that and watch them cave in and give you the new activation code for free.

> As M$ contines to segment the Windows product line into more and
> more "packings" watch the EULA become more and more restrictive
> especially for the lower end offerings (such as no RAID or SCSI,
> restrictions on total system storage capacity etc etc).

Taint gunna happen, you watch.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

Everything you point to is geared to "in place" repair of a XP
installation which no longer boots or works properly.
Restoring a True Image (or Ghost) image backup to different hardware
is going to be very difficult for the typical PC user;
this is more of a "technician" or " systems administrator" operation
even at that there's no guarantee of success.


--
The published From: address is a trap.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9 

RadicalModerate <radicalmoderate.TakeThisOut@attnn.com> wrote:

> Everything you point to is geared to "in place" repair of
> a XP installation which no longer boots or works properly.

Pity thats the official approach when your motherboard has died
and you replace it with another thats quite different to the original,
in contrast to your pig ignorant claim that MS has never officially
supported that. It isnt the only mechanism officially supported by
MS for moving an image to significantly different hardware either.

> Restoring a True Image (or Ghost) image backup to different
> hardware is going to be very difficult for the typical PC user;

Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that
MS has never officially supported doing that.

> this is more of a "technician" or " systems administrator" operation

Wrong, its an identical operation to an initial install. The ONLY
difference is that at the last minute the install will say that its
discovered an existing install and offer to repair that.

> even at that there's no guarantee of success.

Wrong again, its identical to an install except that the settings and
installed apps are preserved and it essentially just redoes the scan
for hardware and loading of the drivers for the hardware its found.
 >> Stay informed about: true image 9