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.
> 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.
> I checked acronis website and couldn't find any
> mention of this so perhaps this was for version 10
Nope.
> and not 11 which is whats on the website now.
> Can anyone confirm if this is true or not,
Not.
> I'm still using version 9 and didn't know if it had the same issue.
>> 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 Nicholson <rob.nicholson@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.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:22:22 -0800 (PST), Chris <chris95008@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
"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."
Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:22:22 -0800 (PST), Chris <chris95008@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
> "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."
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 Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:22:22 -0800 (PST), Chris
>> <chris95008@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/pr...l-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.
> 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.
>> 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.
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@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).
true image 9 
.
Linear Mode
