Best way to migrate sh*t..

[chicago_mike]

Acronis, winclone, etc..etc...

Have a bootcamped macbook pro. Old drive has W7 with all the apps, now I upgraded to a 500 internal.

And of course I dont want to re-install programs for like 2 days. So..anybody do this successfully???

Whats yer poison, er..app?

[5thumbs]

Acronis, winclone, etc..etc...

Have a bootcamped macbook pro. Old drive has W7 with all the apps, now I upgraded to a 500 internal.

And of course I dont want to re-install programs for like 2 days. So..anybody do this successfully???

Whats yer poison, er..app?

So you're running a Mac w/a Windows virtual machine on it? If not, please disregard the following.

Unfortunately, Windows Backup only backs up the OS settings and other user-looking data, not OS or App files. It used to do everything, I think even as recently as XP (not sure about that, but Vista behaves as I'm describing.) I didn't see that as a bad thing because the integrated backup program always did a shitty job of getting the apps and OS back down correctly, IMO. Basically, from my limited understanding on the newest backup program, MS wants you to reinstall your OS, reinstall your apps, then use the Backup/Restore to put the system settings and data back on the drive. That's similar to File and Settings Transfer Wizard (FSTW, XP and earlier) or Windows Easy Transfer (Vista and W7), but those only backup user data/settings, not all the non-OS data/OS settings on the box.

Now there might be a 3rd-party backup app that can do the trick for you. Once upon a time, Microsoft had a license with a 3rd-party backup/storage vendor who wrote/maintained the stripped down backup product in-box, but that 3rd-party also sold a dramatically-enhanced version of that product as an aftermarket up-sell product. The bundled backup gets the basics done and nothing more. For more functionality like you're looking for, you might have to buy something.

Cloning the drive might also work (which seems to be what you're leaning towards), but I don't have any experience with any recent versions of cloning software since my defection from the software biz. I doubt that any of the current disk imaging software uses hard disk block-level copying anymore, but if so, avoid them because your old and new drives will have completely different disk geometries.

If you can install your old drive and new drive into another computer with an OS already on it, you can use ROBOCOPY.EXE (bundled with Vista and W7, free download from MS otherwise) to copy all of the files from old to new. I did that operation recently and it still works like a charm (and the price is right too.) The only barrier to entry is needing to have a functioning computer with OS, beefy-enough power supply to spin up 3 HDs and room to mount 3 HDs in the case. (The last one is optional, but be really freakin' careful if you have live HDs hooked up, but "floating" inside/on top of the case as you do this. Touch the electronics on the bottom and you could fry the drive. Drop the drive into the case and onto the motherboard...good chance of cooking the motherboard. Etc, Etc...just be careful, kemo sabe.

Hopefully that helps...even if the only help given was a temporary cure for insomnia.

[Grendahl]

I personally use Ghost to migrate partitions between drives.

I've also used DriveImage XML with a good deal of success, though it runs slower and can be a bit unpredictable if there are errors on the source drive... (bad sectors, etc) Not to mention, I don't recall if it will do partitions or just entire drives.

5thumbs is right though, a straight up clone can be very unproductive at best, and downright destructive if the software you choose uses block-level copying.

[chicago_mike]

I went with just doing the time consuming re-install and and all that.

THeres lots of clone programs but I could not get any one of them to work.

Its due to the drive being a bootcamp drive. Dual partition, GUID HFS+ and NTFS

Its not my lappy thank god.

When you bouth PATA drives, there used to be a disk that came iwth them with cloning apps, but no more.

[mictester]

I went with just doing the time consuming re-install and and all that.

THeres lots of clone programs but I could not get any one of them to work.

Its due to the drive being a bootcamp drive. Dual partition, GUID HFS+ and NTFS

Its not my lappy thank god.

When you bouth PATA drives, there used to be a disk that came iwth them with cloning apps, but no more.

Watch out for NTFS! No two versions are alike - M$ keep changing its specification to prevent third-party software working with it! (At least that's how it seems). It's also not very stable, and the partition table is fragile. Consider migration to EXT3 or XFS!

[chicago_mike]

Why you always gotta tell me bad news!

Heard of XFS...must investigate.

[5thumbs]

Watch out for NTFS! No two versions are alike - M$ keep changing its specification to prevent third-party software working with it! (At least that's how it seems). It's also not very stable, and the partition table is fragile. Consider migration to EXT3 or XFS!

I think it's fair to request proof from you that Microsoft is purposely changing the NTFS specification to hamper 3rd-party Independent Software Vendor (ISV) development of file system utilities. If you have it, please reply with a link in this thread.

For every version of the Windows OS (which is about the only time the file system versions are changed), Microsoft releases a Software Development Kit (SDK) and a Device Driver Development Kit (DDK). If you want to address the file system using application programming interfaces, use the SDK. If you want to develop a filter driver to manipulate the file system (actually, the disk-level objects below the file system as well), use the DDK.

Both the SDK and DDK are available free-of-charge to anyone who wants them. In addition, Microsoft also has numerous partner programs that ISVs can take advantage of to better interoperate with Microsoft.

Microsoft might be a lot of things (e.g., bloated, bureaucratic, stagnant, dominant[?], etc), but I never saw or heard of specific behavior as you allege. I worked in the storage development groups in Base OS, so I do have first-hand knowledge on this matter.

Often times, when a program of this sort doesn't work well, it's often due to lack of interop between Microsoft and the ISV. Many ISVs don't always reach out and take full advantage of the services Microsoft offers to assist them when developing their products, but are quick to allege that Microsoft purposely breaks their code when it doesn't work after release. What is more likely the case is that they did not engage Microsoft during development (so Microsoft had no idea the 3rd-party even existed), but then claim Microsoft-misconduct after their application fails to interop as designed.

So anyhow, Microsoft screws up all the time, trust me. That's part of the reason I retired from there years ago. However, unless there has been a radical change in the philosophy and marching orders in the Base OS group, they do not willfully engage in the aforementioned alleged practices. (And, based upon my experience with the fearsome Microsoft Legal department, they would not allow that practice to persist. The potential liability for the company, in addition to the spectre of unwanted DOJ attention, makes this alleged behavior a ludicrous business practice at best.)

[JiM]

MacOS X is an Unix, insn't it ?
Then i would have used dd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dd_(Unix)

[mictester]

I think it's fair to request proof from you that Microsoft is purposely changing the NTFS specification to hamper 3rd-party Independent Software Vendor (ISV) development of file system utilities. If you have it, please reply with a link in this thread.

It's MS' declared intention to "screw third party developers" (quoting Ballmer at a meeting I attended in 2005). MS are in deep trouble, with products that don't ever work properly (and can't) based on an undocumented binary blob of a kernel that was never meant for release. Their only option is "security through obscurity" because their decisions early in the design of the NT line of products were so fundamentally flawed in pursuit of "ease of use" and failure to recognise the importance of networking means that they now are holding back software development throughout the world.

All the smart money has gone to Open Source. If the OS vendors can stop squabbling long enough to get some ratified standards out there, MS are doomed.

For every version of the Windows OS (which is about the only time the file system versions are changed), Microsoft releases a Software Development Kit (SDK) and a Device Driver Development Kit (DDK). If you want to address the file system using application programming interfaces, use the SDK. If you want to develop a filter driver to manipulate the file system (actually, the disk-level objects below the file system as well), use the DDK.

I worked on the Win 2000 SDK, and can tell you that it was deliberately flawed in an effort to disguise some of the functionality that was "borrowed" from other, non-MS products ("If they sue, we'll buy the bastards" - Ballmer). Even low-level stuff like the TCP/IP stack was "borrowed" from BSD. The funniest thing is that the version Dave Cutler "borrowed" was a broken, development version, which is why Windows networking still doesn't work properly.

Both the SDK and DDK are available free-of-charge to anyone who wants them. In addition, Microsoft also has numerous partner programs that ISVs can take advantage of to better interoperate with Microsoft.

Both are virtually useless - particularly today - as the declared and the released versions of the code differ radically, mostly due to last minute patches to get things "sort of working" for release day.

Microsoft might be a lot of things (e.g., bloated, bureaucratic, stagnant, dominant[?], etc), but I never saw or heard of specific behavior as you allege. I worked in the storage development groups in Base OS, so I do have first-hand knowledge on this matter.

I worked at a much higher level, and can assure you that the big thing that scares the living daylights out of the board and the major shareholders is the emergence of a credible FOSS alternative for business. MS tried to buy the FOSS developers off (that's what happened to me - they paid me an insane amount of money for almost five years - until they'd paid for my house - and then I left to do real engineering back at home).

Often times, when a program of this sort doesn't work well, it's often due to lack of interop between Microsoft and the ISV. Many ISVs don't always reach out and take full advantage of the services Microsoft offers to assist them when developing their products, but are quick to allege that Microsoft purposely breaks their code when it doesn't work after release. What is more likely the case is that they did not engage Microsoft during development (so Microsoft had no idea the 3rd-party even existed), but then claim Microsoft-misconduct after their application fails to interop as designed.

It's funny to see you quote the company line. That's almost exactly what ballmer says when quizzed on the topic! Think for yourself!

So anyhow, Microsoft screws up all the time, trust me. That's part of the reason I retired from there years ago. However, unless there has been a radical change in the philosophy and marching orders in the Base OS group, they do not willfully engage in the aforementioned alleged practices. (And, based upon my experience with the fearsome Microsoft Legal department, they would not allow that practice to persist. The potential liability for the company, in addition to the spectre of unwanted DOJ attention, makes this alleged behavior a ludicrous business practice at best.)

It's not ludicrous at all. It's just their way of doing business.

I used to own a technology company that developed (along with a couple of Israeli guys called Lempel and Ziv) a piece of software that crammed data on to discs, with a compression ratio of roughly 2:1. MS "borrowed" this technology - without asking us - and included it in their "operating systems" and called it "Doublespace". We sued, as we thought we had Patent protection globally. In each of the three court cases, we won, but each time MS would just extend the case so that it cost us ever more money to continue. Eventually, we gave up. We'd won the first two cases, but the third (which we also eventually won) lasted for almost 10 years, by which time the software concept was largely worthless because of the availability of large, cheap drives. We never recovered the money that was found to be owed to us.

My point is: you can't ever really beat them - they're just too big. They can throw unlimited amounts of money at people (like Gates buying Tony Blair a house - we're still suffering the consequences of that deal), and can sue, buy or otherwise get rid of anything or anyone they want.

If this forum is truly Freestompboxes, we should ban the use of MS operating systems and software!

I haven't used MS-ware in over nine years (though I still keep a fairly up-to-date install of Windows here for development testing and migration testing purposes). I don't miss the viruses and the trojans and other malware, and the bloated, slow, incompetent software. I'm now running an OS that was built three months ago, and has code that's about 10 years ahead of anything MS have produced, and about 8 years ahead of Apple. It's small, fast, secure and stable, and best of all, costs nothing (apart from a little time and effort for the MS-centric people to get their heads around).

[mictester]

MacOS X is an Unix, insn't it ?
Then i would have used dd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dd_(Unix)

Sort of - it's actually based on BSD.

[JiM]

Sort of - it's actually based on BSD.

Yeah, i know : Darwin, based on BSD with a Mach kernel. But i just meant unix-like, and having the usual shell utilities.
The last Mac i had was unable to run OS X (old world) and it ended with LinuxPPC on it.

I'm now running an OS that was built three months ago, and has code that's about 10 years ahead of anything MS have produced, and about 8 years ahead of Apple. It's small, fast, secure and stable, and best of all, costs nothing

I wonder which distro you're talking about.
Is it a GNU/linux variant, or a *BSD ? OpenSolaris ? Something else ? The Hurd ?

[5thumbs]

...MS are in deep trouble, with products that don't ever work properly (and can't) based on an undocumented binary blob of a kernel that was never meant for release. Their only option is "security through obscurity" because their decisions early in the design of the NT line of products were so fundamentally flawed in pursuit of "ease of use" and failure to recognise the importance of networking means that they now are holding back software development throughout the world.

All the smart money has gone to Open Source. If the OS vendors can stop squabbling long enough to get some ratified standards out there, MS are doomed.

Agreed. MS is not a juggernaut any longer. But there are substantial "what-ifs" that Open Source will have to overcome if they are to fulfill all the good-intentioned hubris that often is in greater abundance than coordinated engineering, unfortunately.

I worked on the Win 2000 SDK, and can tell you that it was deliberately flawed in an effort to disguise some of the functionality that was "borrowed" from other, non-MS products ("If they sue, we'll buy the bastards" - Ballmer). Even low-level stuff like the TCP/IP stack was "borrowed" from BSD. The funniest thing is that the version Dave Cutler "borrowed" was a broken, development version, which is why Windows networking still doesn't work properly.

That may be, but if those allegations are not publicly-verifiable, it's just speculative in terms of proof. I don't doubt the veracity of your claim here, but I never saw it. (And I'm not saying that there aren't a LOT of dirtbag managers at Microsoft. But you'll never see me name them publicly.) I also know a number of other PMs who were as annoyed as I at the claims of purposeful "crippling" of 3rd-party software. I didn't allow it in my features and I honestly did not work closely with anyone who did. Perhaps I didn't pay enough attention to everyone else's skeletons, but then again, who has the time for that sleuth shit when you're working in damn Windows Dev?

Lots of people get hurt by just the awkward/bureaucratic bulk of MS. They are a dinosaur that is no longer able to keep up, but they still have a lot of $$$ to sling around as they slowly rot. But that doesn't mean they're ALL (or even a majority) EVIL underminers of the "virtuous" 3rd-party developer's work. That's a stereotype that is just about as accurate to reality as most other stereotypes. Evil by apathy and disrepair, not evil by conscious thought (which also represents organization and execution that might be beyond them at this point.)

Both are virtually useless - particularly today - as the declared and the released versions of the code differ radically, mostly due to last minute patches to get things "sort of working" for release day.

BS. That may be true of some areas in every release, but not the majority of the product. Just because you had a bad experience in a section of the SDK or DDK (like we've all had) does not invalidate the overall utility and purpose of the products.

I worked at a much higher level, and can assure you that the big thing that scares the living daylights out of the board and the major shareholders is the emergence of a credible FOSS alternative for business. MS tried to buy the FOSS developers off (that's what happened to me - they paid me an insane amount of money for almost five years - until they'd paid for my house - and then I left to do real engineering back at home).

OK, but does that represent a conscious will to disable innovation in all software sectors by 3rd parties (the original claim, or at least what my weary mind recalls.) Back room buyouts/buyoffs like what you just described happen in large corporations everyday everywhere. Welcome to the machine...check your soul at the door. MS did nothing that other corporations don't legally and ethically do all the time...you and I just didn't work in the inner-circles of those other corps and see the sick shit they're pulling.

It's funny to see you quote the company line. That's almost exactly what ballmer says when quizzed on the topic! Think for yourself!

I do think for myself, so mind your manners, please. I worked on a NUMBER of pissing matches with just about every vendor and OEM over in my sector issues like this. The companies that put in the time, invested in the facilities and testing staff to meet the requirements of the programs did not have the problems that you describe. (Yes, they did have problems, but usually those emergencies were getting in a kludged patch in software to cover for a hardware problem for a product that was shipping tomorrow. That happens to just about everyone sooner or later.) But a lot of the folks who howled the loudest about how badly we partnered with 3rd-parties were often people I'd never heard of AND/OR folks who blew off our overtures during the pre-beta and beta timeframes, only to sling shit once it was past the point that option could be exercised.

Just because I did not have the same experience as you doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong here. I'm just asking you to not overgeneralize your experience, because a lot of us dumb sonofabitches worked our asses off, trying to make the shit work. Did my best, only made a dent while I was there, I'm sure. But then again, it funded the rest of my life and I'm proud of the work I did while there.

And I'm out... I don't have energy to respond to the rest (but I did read it), but I'll summarize my responses by saying I think we agree more than we disagree. That's why I'm going to politely fall on my sword and say that Microsoft is a lot of things, but one of the unfortunate things they are is a scapegoat for a lot of bad engineering and excuses by a number of 3rd-parties. For most 3rd-party ISVs/IHVs wrt MS, there are some happy endings and a lot of shitty ones, but that's pretty much the ratio for life as we know it, IMO.

G'night, MC.

[deadllama]

I'm a Mac technician by day, superhero by night (technically it's "Apple-Certified Macintosh Technician"). I always use Winclone, and I haven't had any trouble yet. I highly recommend it. Just make sure the volume you're cloning is NTFS and not FAT or else you won't be able to clone to differently-sized partitions.