Imaging with free Macrium

   Information

This tutorial shows imaging with free Macrium Version 5.0. If you are still using Macrium Version 4.2, go to this Vimeo site where the tutorial of that version is stored.

The Video does not show the recovery part because I have no setup to screen capture it. But Keith (Kado) made this excellent recovery tutorial with text (but no sound) that he captured from a virtual partition.

   Warning

Note that the external disk to which you image must be formatted in NTFS. A disk that is formatted in Fat32 will accept an image, but the recovery programs cannot restore that image. You can, however, mount (open) a Fat32 image as VHD.

   Note

The production of the WinPE recovery CD (which is highly recommended) may take up to 3 hours because Macrium needs to download the 1.7GB WAIK (Windows Application Installation Kit). For your convenience I have uploaded a ready made .iso of the WinPE recovery disc. That can be downloaded in appr. 8 minutes which clearly beats the WAIK download. Once you downloaded and unzipped the folder, you can burn it directly to a CD with e.g. ImgBurn.

Here is the link to my Skydrive site.

Here is an alternate link from FileSwap (courtesy of Gary - Britton30)

I draw your attention to the fact that this WinPE CD can also be used to make images. That may be convenient in case you do not want to install Macrium on your PC.

This video tutorial explains the full cycle of the imaging process which is:

· Initial setups
· Image definition
· Image scheduling
· Image production

The imaging program that was used for this tutorial is free Macrium. But the basic principles are the same for other imaging programs although the user interface will be different.

This video runs for appr. 7 minutes.
There is a related thread on the Vista forum which gives a brief introduction to Macrium followed by a discussion.
You can download the free Macrium edition from here.

Note: If you have a problem with the loudness of the sound output of the video, check the "Loudness Equalization" box in your Playback device. It is under the 'Enhancements' tab.

Related Tutorials

---

• How to Create a System Image Backup in Windows 7
• How to Do a System Image Recovery in Windows 7
• How to Backup User and System Files in Windows 7
• How to Restore Backup User and System Files in Windows 7
• How to Restore your System with a Broken Windows 7 System Image
• How to Create a Bootable Rescue USB Flash Drive for Macrium Reflect

 

[darkhorse]

With ref. to clone, I see no disks to choose to do the clone on.
I have a DVD disk in the tray.

Why can't I see this ?.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Cloning is done from one hard drive to another. If you do not have a second hard drive, you have no destination.

A DVD drive won't do.

Cloning and imaging are 2 different things, typically done for entirely different reasons.

 

[darkhorse]

An external drive will do it ?.

What is the difference ?

 

[kado897]

Cloning creates an exact copy of a partition or drive on another drive.
Imaging creates a file that contains the contents of a partition or drive so that you can restore it either to the original drive or to a new one.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Cloning is normally used when everything is OK with your PC and you just want to move to a new hard drive--usually a larger hard drive. It is not used to recover from a disaster or failed hard drive. Cloning does not make an image file.

Imaging is normally used to recover from a disaster such as a failed hard drive or badly corrupted system. You make the image before the disaster and hope you never have to use it. Imaging can also be used to move from one hard drive to another when there is no disaster, just like cloning.

With imaging, you must restore the image to the new drive. Cloning is a transfer and does not have a "restore" process.

What are you trying to do?

You can store an image on an external, but you would not clone to an external.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Cloning is normally used when everything is OK with your PC and you just want to move to a new hard drive--usually a larger hard drive. It is not used to recover from a disaster or failed hard drive. Cloning does not make an image file.

Imaging is normally used to recover from a disaster such as a failed hard drive or badly corrupted system. You make the image before the disaster and hope you never have to use it. Imaging can also be used to move from one hard drive to another when there is no disaster, just like cloning.

With imaging, you must restore the image to the new drive. Cloning is a transfer and does not have a "restore" process.

What are you trying to do?

You can store an image on an external, but you would not clone to an external.

Iganzatsonic Now I stand to be corrected in any way but I do clone to drives (SATA or IDE) that are external to the machine using a small USB (hook up) gadget and it makes a perfect replica of the drive in the machine or any other drive that is hooked up to the machine.

My tester I did this afternoon using a SSD and HDD both installed on the same machine and just cloned from the HDD to the SSD using EaseUS to do. But I could have just even done that with the SSD outside of the machine using the gadget.

The only problem is one cannot clone from large to small only same size to same size or small to larger with EaseUS . That is what I did - an 80GB HDD to a 120GB M4 and then just use the SSD as the boot drive. The old HDD can just be wiped cleaned whatever and used for the data.

The gadget I also use if / when the optical goes bye byes and you can install software from the external optical drive (SATA or IDE) to your machine - or burn data to disks from your machine using / via the USB gadget that is attached to the external optical.

I have a heap of recycled opticals (SATA & IDE) I use whenever I get caught out with a dud Optical in the machine.

The gadget is very cheap and simple to use and I would be lost without it to be honest. When in use the machine just "sees" the external HDD / SSD or optical as another plug in drive. Sort of like a huge stick I suppose in the case of an HDD / SSD. Of course you can also do diskparting and partitioning for examples of the outside device just as you would one installed inside the machine using the gadget.

 

[kado897]

I agree. You can do this with Macrium as well. I cloned a failing data drive to a new one via a USB link. If I remember correctly you can also re-size the partitions with Macrium.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Iganzatsonic Now I stand to be corrected in any way but I do clone to drives (SATA or IDE) that are external to the machine using a small USB (hook up) gadget and it makes a perfect replica of the drive in the machine or any other drive that is hooked up to the machine.

ICit2lol:

I'm sure you are right.

I should have been clearer.

My point was meant to be that cloning is normally used to replace an internal OS drive with another internal OS drive, as when you run out of space on an existing OS drive.

As opposed to using an external to "store" an image file of some type.

 

[whs]

An external drive will do it ?.

What is the difference ?

An external drive is a disK with 'K', you have a disC with 'C'.

 

[mjf]

I think the term cloning is defined in different ways by some. I think most would agree that it is a bit by bit / sector by sector straight copy.
It may be that cloning can be seen as a simpler way to make a duplicate HDD. For me, I see no purpose in it over imaging. Imaging is more flexible and efficient. Every system image you have can be transferred to an existing or new HDD.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

I think the term cloning is defined in different ways by some. I think most would agree that it is a bit by bit / sector by sector straight copy.
It may be that cloning can be seen as a simpler way to make a duplicate HDD. For me, I see no purpose in it over imaging. Imaging is more flexible and efficient. Every system image you have can be transferred to an existing or new HDD.

Yeah MJ I just clone so that should the internal (original drive) eat the biscuit I can just whip it out and flip in the cloned drive and apart from very recent updates and stuff you have a drive to boot from and just carry on here you left off - its purely a personal preference of mine to do that rather use imaging as my way I have an exact replica of the dead drive.

Alternatively I sometimes have two drives in the machine - both the same size because I do like that EaseUS app - it's just too easy - and just do a regular clone from drive 1 to drive 2 and using drive 2 should drive 1 go belly up by unplugging D1 it goes straight to D2 for the boot and shows up as C:.

In my simple mind it saves a fair bit of work having to use some imaging app to get back what is gone to another drive.

The gadget I mentioned earlier is also useful when you have a drive that is UAC protected and hooking the drive up to the machine via the gadget - the machine "sees" the drive sitting outside as just another drive (like a huge stick for example) and you can access the data on that drive without any UAC login password. I have used this method for copying data for friends who cannot remember the password onto another drive or disk and then they can just carry on as before.
Another alternative I have used is to boot Ubuntu and it can do exactly the same thing accessing the drive outside of the case via the gadget .

 

[darkhorse]

Thanks for the informations

 

[Britton30]

This USB 2.0 to SATA IDE Adapter | StarTech.com is the "gadget" ICit2lol is referring to, or one similar.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

This USB 2.0 to SATA IDE Adapter | StarTech.com is the "gadget" ICit2lol is referring to, or one similar.

Yup the one and only - love it and there is another now that uses 3.0 USB

https://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=16599

& US site Vantec ? NexStar SuperSpeed SATA to USB 3.0 Adapter - CB-SATAU3

Oh only the 3.0 only goes SATA - forgot that the other does IDE and SATA.

 

[mjf]

I think the term cloning is defined in different ways by some. I think most would agree that it is a bit by bit / sector by sector straight copy.
It may be that cloning can be seen as a simpler way to make a duplicate HDD. For me, I see no purpose in it over imaging. Imaging is more flexible and efficient. Every system image you have can be transferred to an existing or new HDD.

Yeah MJ I just clone so that should the internal (original drive) eat the biscuit I can just whip it out and flip in the cloned drive and apart from very recent updates and stuff you have a drive to boot from and just carry on here you left off - its purely a personal preference of mine to do that rather use imaging as my way I have an exact replica of the dead drive.

I have 2 cold standby drives for 2 PCs. They were "made" very simply by imaging. I have never seen the point to clone a drive. Apart from forensic applications, I just can't see a point in cloning.
But, whatever works for you has to be ok.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

I think the term cloning is defined in different ways by some. I think most would agree that it is a bit by bit / sector by sector straight copy.
It may be that cloning can be seen as a simpler way to make a duplicate HDD. For me, I see no purpose in it over imaging. Imaging is more flexible and efficient. Every system image you have can be transferred to an existing or new HDD.

Yeah MJ I just clone so that should the internal (original drive) eat the biscuit I can just whip it out and flip in the cloned drive and apart from very recent updates and stuff you have a drive to boot from and just carry on here you left off - its purely a personal preference of mine to do that rather use imaging as my way I have an exact replica of the dead drive.

I have 2 cold standby drives for 2 PCs. They were "made" very simply by imaging. I have never seen the point to clone a drive. Apart from forensic applications, I just can't see a point in cloning.
But, whatever works for you has to be ok.

Hum MJF I am now a bit confused as to what is the difference in an image and a clone now, so in essence an image is the same as a clone?

Option 1
Say for example I have an image of the HDD in the machine and it (the current drive) suddenly lets go - do I just stick another drive into the machine and copy the image to the new drive and just carry on using the machine, use the image drive itself in the machine , or reinstall the OS and then get back the image from the saved one to the new drive for saved data purposes and then start using the machine?.

Option 2
I am terribly simple when it comes to this stuff and it would be like me having a favourite photo printed twice have one on the wall in a frame and one in a drawer. Now the photo on the wall for whatever reason gets damaged lost etc I would just take the damaged photo out of the frame get the duplicate photo from the drawer put it back in the frame and put the framed photo back on the wall where the original photo in the frame hung.

Now Option 2 seems to me is far less complicated than Option 1.

I have probably got something very wrong here or over simplified but I find doing an image or a clone takes about the same time and I have on quite few occasions used a clone from one machine in another machine just to test out if it works in another machine as per the machine I have just cloned the drive from.
Plus when the original machine completely croaks on me I just clean up (literally) another machine (preferably similar to the croaked one) and install the cloned drive into it and carry on as if nothing had happened. Now of course there will not be the very latest updates or other data on that cloned drive but at least I don't have to start from scratch again.
Does that make sense?

 

[mjf]

John,
I'm not the font of all knowledge unfortunately but I think I'm pretty right on this score. If cloning works for you then stick with.

Early on I was quite confused about the utility of cloning versus imaging a new HDD. I've used Windows inbuilt and Macrium to reimaging to a new HDD. The first time I did it, it went like this:
1) I wanted a backup 1TB for my old Acer in case the installed drive died and I wanted to be up an running very quickly.
2) Made a system image to an external HDD.
3) Took the installed HDD out.
4) Took the new Seagate 1TB out of it's plastic bag and fitted it in place.
5) Run the System Repair, restore an image to the new HDD.
6) Windows formated the new HDD with the partition structure of the old. Booted up straight way.

I could have carried that out with any system image I had stashed away. How easy is that.

 

[Britton30]

I think one advantage to imaging is one can store several on an external drive whereas a clone will occupy an entire drive. I think, think, Macrium will allow an incremental back up too. That is it will update an existing image with changes since it was first made. It may be possible to image a single partition as well, but I'm not full of knowledge on this either.

Yeah, I'm full of something though.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

John,
I'm not the font of all knowledge unfortunately but I think I'm pretty right on this score. If cloning works for you then stick with.

Early on I was quite confused about the utility of cloning versus imaging a new HDD. I've used Windows inbuilt and Macrium to reimaging to a new HDD. The first time I did it, it went like this:
1) I wanted a backup 1TB for my old Acer in case the installed drive died and I wanted to be up an running very quickly.
2) Made a system image to an external HDD.
3) Took the installed HDD out.
4) Took the new Seagate 1TB out of it's plastic bag and fitted it in place.
5) Run the System Repair, restore an image to the new HDD.
6) Windows formated the new HDD with the partition structure of the old. Booted up straight way.

I could have carried that out with any system image I had stashed away. How easy is that.

As you say MJF each to his own I suppose I just find my way does away with imaging and any imaging device having to be hooked up after a repair install.

I just install the cloned drive no repair job to do but I have to concede that it is is not up to date with data as say your imaging would provide and I only do this as a hobby / getting ready for retirement interest really and have to admit that I am not very good at computing full stop / period.

However I sincerely do appreciate your taking time to explain things to me to give me yet another perspective on how one works with our machines because it is obvious that you have been doing computing for some considerable time and I find your knowledge comes through in your posts and in a very nice way I might add.

Because I have had some very unpleasant experiences on one of the local forums where I have been made to feel and look like a fool - which after 40+ years of being a Registered Nurse I don't consider myself to be. That is what is so nice about this forum I find, and where I have made some very good friends. It is that we can share different ideas and maybe improve on or even change the way we conceive or do things, that I come here so often.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

Option 1

Say for example I have an image of the HDD in the machine and it (the current drive) suddenly lets go - do I just stick another drive into the machine and copy the image to the new drive and just carry on using the machine, use the image drive itself in the machine , or reinstall the OS and then get back the image from the saved one to the new drive for saved data purposes and then start using the machine?.

John:

I am confused by your wording in option 1 and not sure what you mean by those choices.

Can you rewrite it?

Wouldn't either cloning or imaging work as follows:

If you choose cloning: you make the clone in advance of a failure and put the cloned drive in the closet until the working drive fails--at which time you swap it in, boot up, and keep going. Ideally, you would test the clone before putting it in the closet.

If you choose imaging: you make an image file of the working drive A and store it on drive B. When drive A fails, you replace it with Drive C and restore the image file from drive B to drive C, boot up, and keep going.

Neither method would be up to date and both may fail to boot due to hardware changes or for unknown reasons.

I've never done a clone, but that is how I would assume it works.

I'm wondering about the failure rate of clones versus imaging---the chances of disappointment for whatever reason.