A System Image V Clean Install

[richc46]

I think most members will agree that a Clean install is the best way to go, but now I have a question.
About 2 weeks ago, I was forced replace my clean install with an image from Macrium Reflect. First time I had such a problem and was both very surprised and concered as I tried to replace my OS with an image; to my surprise everything went without any sort of problem.

My question, Is an image of a clean install as good as an actual clean install? It seems to me that an image, at best is the same as an upgrade. The image goes on top of the prior OS.

 

[Golden]

Hi Rich,

Mmm...thats a good question. I think they are of equal quality, but of course its far, far quicker to restore an image of clean install, then to perform the clean install itself.

Personally, I always feel better doing a clean install....it gives me a feeling of being in control, although I admit I've never had to restore an image before

Regards,
Golden

 

[OldMX]

My question, Is an image of a clean install as good as an actual clean install? It seems to me that an image, at best is the same as an upgrade. The image goes on top of the prior OS.

Yes it is, the system will be restored to be as good as it was at the moment you backed it up.

 

[BugOutMachine]

I always like to do a clean install twice a year but during my last install I used a system image with all of my updated drivers and service tweaks and it was much less time consuming.

 

[ignatzatsonic]

My question, Is an image of a clean install as good as an actual clean install

No, not even close.

An image of a clean install is just a file, not a working installed OS.

An image is utterly useless if you can't restore it successfully.

Who is to say you can restore it successfully? There are dozens of posts on this forum from people who cannot.

A successfully restored image of a clean install may be another story, but there is always nagging doubt. If you had no nagging doubt, you probably wouldn't have started this thread.

If the time required to do a clean install was irrelevant, who would still restore an image?

 

[richc46]

Thanks for the response ignaztatsonic, but I have already restored with the image and want to know if its as good as a clean install.

 

[F5ing]

Although I don't use Macrium (I rely on Clonezilla), you should not be able to find any difference between what you imaged and what you restored. It ought to appear as if there was no change.

If you liked what you imaged, then you should like what you restored.

 

[writhziden]

My two cents: It depends on where you store the system images. I keep mine on external hard drives that I only use for backups and nothing else. When I am not backing up or restoring my computer, they sit in a drawer and are not touched. When I am done with backups or restores, I shut down my computer and remove them with the computer powered off because that is the safest method to remove them and prevent any corruption from occurring. I have re-imaged multiple times with successful results, and my systems still run blazing fast with only minor/insignificant errors showing up here and there (let's face it, no system is absolutely perfect; I mean, do I care that bowser is telling my computer that another computer on the network is top dog and my computer disagrees?)

Anyway, I think if you are careful with the backups and they do not become corrupted over time, then the backup system image should be as good as a clean install, or even better without the system restore points, and there should be nothing to be concerned with.

 

[A Guy]

For Rich's question. IMHO the restored image is exactly the same as a clean install. As it is an exact image. Is it byte for byte exact? I can't say, but I have only done a clean install once, and that was only because the original install was bad. Every other time I have used an image, and have never had an issue with a successfully installed image.

Whether an image will restore is another question. I make 2 at a time, and have the previous 3 pairs saved. And I have images made with another program as well. I have never had an image (Acronis) that didn't restore.

A Guy

 

[pincushion]

Here is my experience of imaging.

I have restored images using Acronis (on my XP system) and now with Macrium Reflect 4.2 free edition probably about 20 - 30 times. In all cases they have been successful and behave exactly as they should i.e. in the state they were imaged. Not one has failed. To try to solve one particular issue I tried to restore back through about four or five images and all restored correctly but failed to sort that issue. All my images if I recall correctly were restored from the second HDD from where they were originally imaged. After having restored a few I ceased bothering to verify any images as I do currently. My experience has been that the two programs have 100% reliability but although I trust Macrium to restore I can't vouch for new versions of Acronis as my version was quite old so I don't know about current versions. If I understand the programs correctly they will essentially format and replace the MFT and files with those of the image so there will be existing deleted stuff just as there is constantly while operating but this will have no affect on the system. If a restored image cannot be any different than how it was then I fail to see if this will have any affect on the system. Of course a clean install will be different than a restored image but I do not think it has any more merit for this. If the system was fine prior to restoring then it should behave the same after restoring. Restoring has the benefit of having your system back to normal without having to do any reinstalls of any software or having to restore any tweaked settings. I should say that I have used this approach for at least a decade and have had not one single problem related to restoring an image and have never had to do a clean install or repair install other than one or two times when I messed up and a restore would not solve the issue.

My experience might differ from some but I have found that if you find a reliable method and stick to it then you will not be disappointed. Some will suggest to have two methods of restoring an image and this is prudent but my experiences have shown this is not necessary - for me at least.

:shock: :huh:

 

[gregrocker]

Either/or.

A reimage is no more likely to cause problems than a reinstall.

What's important is to get a good install to begin with. Then the captured image is worth preserving indefinitely. The fundamentals are here and apply to retail as well: Clean Reinstall - Factory OEM Windows 7

 

[wanchoo]

Once an image is in place it is best to restore it from there. Most good imaging programs do a sector by sector imaging. At least Acronis TrueImage does. Therefore you exactly restore what you had backed. and the restoration is done in less than half the time.

I think most members will agree that a Clean install is the best way to go, but now I have a question.
About 2 weeks ago, I was forced replace my clean install with an image from Macrium Reflect. First time I had such a problem and was both very surprised and concered as I tried to replace my OS with an image; to my surprise everything went without any sort of problem.

My question, Is an image of a clean install as good as an actual clean install? It seems to me that an image, at best is the same as an upgrade. The image goes on top of the prior OS.

 

[jumanji]

My question, Is an image of a clean install as good as an actual clean install

........An image is utterly useless if you can't restore it successfully.

Who is to say you can restore it successfully? There are dozens of posts on this forum from people who cannot.......

After creating an image, I immediately do a restore and check that it works.

All images are saved to an external drive which is not moved even an mm on my desk. ( a little exaggeration here but the fact is it is never moved unnecessarily - only when I clean my desk, which I never do.)

The external drive is connected only when backing up and restoring thus ensuring its longevity. ( It never keeps spinning constantly)

I always take and restore my images with the WinPE recovery modules run from my multiboot pendrive and never from within the running Windows. ( As a policy and practice I do not install the imaging software on my machines)

In more than 10 years of my imaging practice, no restore failed todate - Acronis,ShadowProtect Desktop, Paragon,MacriumReflect ( yep, for a longtime I was always imaging wih two different software - redundancy but with the confidence gained over the years, now I use Paragon exclusively.)

A copy of the latest image is always kept in one partition of the internal drive apart from the external drive. ( If the external drive fails for any reason, I will still have the latest image)

Practice makes one perfect.

 

[gregrocker]

With reference to your question about having a cleaner slate:

The disk is not at all like recording tape, so applying an image or reinstalling onto the code which is already there has no effect on performance. There will always be a 1 or 0 being overwritten and the code being laid down has no cognizance of which it is replacing.

Awhile back we had a roiling debate about whether writing the HD with zeros gave a cleaner slate. It was agreed by most that Diskpart Clean All (writing all zeroes) was useful for nothing more than making data unrecoverable by most methods. The only "wiping" that can affect performance is when old code in the boot sector has somehow corrupted the install as seen often with GRUB. Then Diskpart Clean Command is sufficient to clean the boot sector.

 

[richc46]

I want to thank all the members who have posted, for their time and efforts, they are truly appreciated.