"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Bill Blanton wrote in
g.com:

I doubt it too. Windows would probably stop DOS6.2 in its tracks. As
far as running the 98 version,, even if you could get it to run, I
wouldn't trust it. It doesn't use the Windows API, and has no concept
of "open" files in that environment.


That's true too, but there is technically a possibility that something
could
use.

But would you really be willing to risk it, given what Bill said?
Nothing like playing with fire, lol. I think I'd pass on this one.
:-)



Well, I would, but the real question is: would anyone who hasn't got a
redundant copy risk it? I was looking at ddrescue just now (Franc Zabkar's
suggestion), and even that can't work magic. However we slice it, once
something breaks down, even then two compies that broke down might be better
than one, if they break in different ways. (ddrescue might find bad blocks in
different places, but enough good ones to get a complete image from two or
more decaying CD's or floppies, for example...)

So whatever we do, a copy in advance is best, for every reason we can throw
at it. Even when things are great all round, it lets people like me say 'yes'
to your question.


I was going to suggest clonign a disk as Franc said, btu all I could think of
was Ghost, which isn't free, and maybe isn't all that good for all I know.

ddrescue is at 1.12 in a Win32 version that needs cygwin, and you have to
access devices as WD0 or whatever. (WDn is a BSD naming, but it's the same
idea, Unix style device names and paths...)

I also saw a forceful recommendation for this:
http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/v3/drdd.htm
....but I have no situation that can let me judge how good it is when it
really matters.