Differences between D.I.2002 & D.I.XML

Discussion in 'Storage' started by admiral_victory, Feb 17, 2006.

  1. I have recenly changed from using D.I.2002 to D.I. XM

    I was trying to restore the Image of the C: drive to the existing C:
    drive thereby hoping to replace everything on that drive with what
    existed at the time the Image File was taken.

    This is the first time I have used D.I. XML for this purpose.
    Previously I used D.I.2002 but was forced to stop using that when
    problems arose with the operation after I installed XP Pro-SP2.

    When D.I. 2002 worked , I used it many times to restore C: Images over
    existing C: drives . This worked by erasing the existing C drive and
    replacing it with that existing at the time the Image was created .
    This , I have always assumed , was the whole purpose of creating an
    Image File !

    However when I attempted this operation using D.I.XML I got the
    message :-

    "Target partition must not be system drive"

    It has only now occurred to me that the difference between D.I. 2002
    and the XML Application is that the former did the Image File creation
    outside of Windows in an XP version of DOS ( Caldera DOS I think its
    called ) whereas XML works entirely within Windows.

    Is this the reason for XML refusing to write over the existing C:
    drive do you suppose ?

    I realise I should really be addressing these problems and questions
    to the makers of XML but , so far , I have been unable to get a reply
    from them

    B.N.
     
    admiral_victory, Feb 17, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.