|
Home > Archive > Backup Software > August 2006 > Acronis Restore Question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Acronis Restore Question
|
|
|
| I replaced a 40GB Western Digital Drive with an 80GB drive, and then
restored the 40GB drive image to the 80GB drive, using Acronis 8.0
on Win98. Everything went fine, except the 80GB drive now shows up
as a 40GB. How can I reclaim the other 40GB of drive space?
Second question...after restoring, Acronis' "snaphlp.vxd" drive takes
51-seconds to load on bootup. Acronis suggested reinstalling, which I
did, but no change. Next, they suggested upgrading to Acronis 9. Is
there any reason why this drive takes to long to load? On the same
brand and model of Win98 machine in the house, there is no delay in
loading the driver.
Thanks!
Scott
| |
| Admin@info.edu 2006-08-22, 7:17 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:21:34 -0500, Scott <golden@uslink.net> wrote:
>I replaced a 40GB Western Digital Drive with an 80GB drive, and then
>restored the 40GB drive image to the 80GB drive, using Acronis 8.0
>on Win98. Everything went fine, except the 80GB drive now shows up
>as a 40GB. How can I reclaim the other 40GB of drive space?
I use Partition Magic which does magic with partitions. I'd try it in
your situation to add the 40 gb of unused spave to your c: drive.
Be sure your bios sees the whole drive.
| |
|
|
Admin@info.edu wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:21:34 -0500, Scott <golden@uslink.net> wrote:
>
>
> I use Partition Magic which does magic with partitions. I'd try it in
> your situation to add the 40 gb of unused spave to your c: drive.
> Be sure your bios sees the whole drive.
Hi,
When I use a boot floppy and fdisk, it shows one partition...with a total
space of 37GB. I suspect that Acronis assumes the new drive is the same
size as the old one. Do you still think Partition Magic will work, or will
I need to save the drive image to a 40GB drive and then partition a formatted
80GB back into two partitions and restore the drive image back to it?
Scott
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-08-22, 7:17 pm |
| "Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:44EB3D1E.A7386111@uslink.net...
> I replaced a 40GB Western Digital Drive with an 80GB drive, and then
> restored the 40GB drive image to the 80GB drive, using Acronis 8.0
> on Win98. Everything went fine, except the 80GB drive now shows up
> as a 40GB. How can I reclaim the other 40GB of drive space?
When you RESTORE a partition with an image based backup, the partition gets
resized to the original size, and the format is set to whatever it was
before. You can resize using Partition Magic.
True Image 9 does have an option to resize the partition and to change the
file system used.
> Second question...after restoring, Acronis' "snaphlp.vxd" drive takes
> 51-seconds to load on bootup. Acronis suggested reinstalling, which I
> did, but no change. Next, they suggested upgrading to Acronis 9. Is
> there any reason why this drive takes to long to load? On the same
> brand and model of Win98 machine in the house, there is no delay in
> loading the driver.
There is no snaphlp.vxd in TI 9, so I do not know what the file is for.
It is not unusual for driver files to not play nice with other driver files,
so such a delay would depend on
what other software is installed.
P.S. If you intend to keep the computers in service for any significant
period of time, you should upgrade to either windoze 2000
or windoze XP. Both are faster and more reliable that windoze 98, and you
will find othe rsoftware will work better in windoze 200 or
windoze xp than in win 98.
>
> Thanks!
--
http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
| |
|
|
Howard Kaikow wrote:
>
> "Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
> news:44EB3D1E.A7386111@uslink.net...
>
> When you RESTORE a partition with an image based backup, the partition gets
> resized to the original size, and the format is set to whatever it was
> before. You can resize using Partition Magic.
>
> True Image 9 does have an option to resize the partition and to change the
> file system used.
>
>
> There is no snaphlp.vxd in TI 9, so I do not know what the file is for.
> It is not unusual for driver files to not play nice with other driver files,
> so such a delay would depend on
> what other software is installed.
>
> P.S. If you intend to keep the computers in service for any significant
> period of time, you should upgrade to either windoze 2000
> or windoze XP. Both are faster and more reliable that windoze 98, and you
> will find othe rsoftware will work better in windoze 200 or
> windoze xp than in win 98.
>
>
> --
> http://www.standards.com/; See Howard Kaikow's web site.
Howard,
OK, I'll try Partition Magic. And, the upgrade to True Image 9 sounds worthwhile.
My system is a 500 MHz Gateway corporate desktop with 384MB RAM and Win98 First
Edition. I have access to a copy of Windows 2000. Is it a painless upgrade path
from 98 to 2000?
Thanks!
Scott
| |
|
| On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:19:44 -0500, Scott <golden@uslink.net> wrote:
>
>OK, I'll try Partition Magic. And, the upgrade to True Image 9 sounds worthwhile.
>My system is a 500 MHz Gateway corporate desktop with 384MB RAM and Win98 First
>Edition. I have access to a copy of Windows 2000. Is it a painless upgrade path
>from 98 to 2000?
>
>Thanks!
>Scott
What have you got to lose? It seems that your backup works. 2000 is
more light weight than XP and your system meets min specs. I would.
Just watch what security you use. Some can be real resource hogs.
-- Zadok
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-08-23, 7:16 am |
| "Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:44EB8300.21030C86@uslink.net...
> OK, I'll try Partition Magic. And, the upgrade to True Image 9 sounds
worthwhile.
> My system is a 500 MHz Gateway corporate desktop with 384MB RAM and Win98
First
> Edition. I have access to a copy of Windows 2000. Is it a painless
upgrade path
> from 98 to 2000?
First, you should get more memory.
I started with 128MB, increased it to 384MB, then to 768MB, max the mobo
will accept.
Added memory makes a significant difference and Win 2000 deals with added
memory better than Win 98.
The clean way is to do a clean install of Win 2000, not to overwrite Win 98.
There are three choices:
1. You can create another partition and install Win 2000 into that
partition. In this case, you will have to re-install all your apps. This
creates a dual boot Win 2000/Win 98 system.
2. You can be courageous, reformat the C dreive and installl Win 200 as if
Win 98 never existed. Again, you would have to re-install all your apps.
3. The worst choice is to install Win 2000 over Win 98. This leads to
issues. I would not recommend this alternative.
Note that some win 98 apps might not work (well. if at all) in Win 2000 and
you might need to get Win 2000 versions.
2.
| |
|
|
Scott wrote:
>
> I replaced a 40GB Western Digital Drive with an 80GB drive, and then
> restored the 40GB drive image to the 80GB drive, using Acronis 8.0
> on Win98. Everything went fine, except the 80GB drive now shows up
> as a 40GB. How can I reclaim the other 40GB of drive space?
>
> Second question...after restoring, Acronis' "snaphlp.vxd" drive takes
> 51-seconds to load on bootup. Acronis suggested reinstalling, which I
> did, but no change. Next, they suggested upgrading to Acronis 9. Is
> there any reason why this drive takes to long to load? On the same
> brand and model of Win98 machine in the house, there is no delay in
> loading the driver.
>
> Thanks!
> Scott
Update,
At Acronis' request, I downloaded their trial version of Acronis True
Image Home 9.0. I uninstalled Acronis 8 on my Win 98 machine, and installed
version 9. After a normal installation, when I clicked twice on the
desktop icon, the program would not open at all. Same thing when I went
into Program Files/Acronis and double-clicked on the program. I uninstalled
and reinstalled again, but no change.
Anyone else had any trouble getting Acronis 9.0 to run on a Win98 machine?
Thanks!
Scott
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-08-24, 7:13 pm |
| "Scott" <golden@uslink.net> wrote in message
news:44ED4311.88624B3D@uslink.net...
> Anyone else had any trouble getting Acronis 9.0 to run on a Win98 machine?
Folkes have reported such prohlems in the Acronis forum, depends on
devices/drivers installed.
Best to retire Win 98 and upfrade to win 2000 or win xp,
| |
| Chuck U. Farley 2006-08-25, 1:13 pm |
| > > Anyone else had any trouble getting Acronis 9.0 to run on a Win98
machine?
>
> Folkes have reported such prohlems in the Acronis forum, depends on
> devices/drivers installed.
> Best to retire Win 98 and upfrade to win 2000 or win xp,
Or use Ghost 2003, which would also solve the OP's original problem as well.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-08-25, 1:13 pm |
| "Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:_GCHg.2806$C6.190@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> machine?
>
> Or use Ghost 2003, which would also solve the OP's original problem as
well.
If OP plans on continuing to use 'puter, best to retire Win 98.
| |
| Chuck U. Farley 2006-08-25, 1:13 pm |
| > If OP plans on continuing to use 'puter, best to retire Win 98.
For gaming, video editing, complex spreadsheets and similar apps, I'd agree
with you. But Win 2000 certainly wouldn't be any better and would probably
be more trouble than it'd be worth. For word processing, web surfing, email
and the things 90% of users do on a computer, Win 98 is still quite usable,
especially given his system.
To the OP:
Intel never made a 500 MHz processor. I have a Dell 400MHz box my wife uses
that I upgraded with an Evergreen 1.2 gig Cely and it displays a 500 MHz
processor during BIOS load. Is it possible someone did this to your system
before you got it? If so, XP would be far superior to Win 2000 if you're
thinking of upgrading the OS.
Also, if it is a 400 MHz system it's possible your motherboard doesn't
support 80 gig drives without a bios extension. That may be why 98 is only
recognizing 37 gigs.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2006-08-25, 7:14 pm |
| "Chuck U. Farley" <chuckufarley@dyslexia.com> wrote in message
news:R6GHg.2882$C6.2293@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> For gaming, video editing, complex spreadsheets and similar apps, I'd
agree
> with you. But Win 2000 certainly wouldn't be any better and would probably
> be more trouble than it'd be worth. For word processing, web surfing,
email
> and the things 90% of users do on a computer, Win 98 is still quite
usable,
> especially given his system.
Win 2000 performs better and is more reliable, and is no more difficult to
deal with.
Alsom if the OP intends to keep using the computer, there atr going to be
continuing problemds upgrading apps.
| |
|
|
"Chuck U. Farley" wrote:
>
>
> For gaming, video editing, complex spreadsheets and similar apps, I'd agree
> with you. But Win 2000 certainly wouldn't be any better and would probably
> be more trouble than it'd be worth. For word processing, web surfing, email
> and the things 90% of users do on a computer, Win 98 is still quite usable,
> especially given his system.
>
> To the OP:
>
> Intel never made a 500 MHz processor. I have a Dell 400MHz box my wife uses
> that I upgraded with an Evergreen 1.2 gig Cely and it displays a 500 MHz
> processor during BIOS load. Is it possible someone did this to your system
> before you got it? If so, XP would be far superior to Win 2000 if you're
> thinking of upgrading the OS.
>
> Also, if it is a 400 MHz system it's possible your motherboard doesn't
> support 80 gig drives without a bios extension. That may be why 98 is only
> recognizing 37 gigs.
Chuck,
Actually, my system is a used corporate computer--Gateway E-3200 that I got from
eBay (in fact, I have several). It was most likely upgraded before I got it.
When I fdisked and formatted the drive before the Acronis Restore, it showed the
full 80GB. Apparently, Acronis assumes you're restoring to the same size hard drive
and sets it up accordingly. I supp0ose I could wipe the drive, divide it into two
partitions, then restore via Acronis onto the 40GB partition, leaving the other
one untouched.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|