Fab's AutoBackup 7 Pro - a must have tool for techs

[fabs]

Sorry to be blunt, but you're taking a laptop to use in a hotel room while on vacation to work on a problem reported in XP? [emoji33]
Is it a problem? Maybe (it's XP after all), but is the problem's severity high enough to risk the wrath of the wife and family while on vacation? I don't think so!

I could not reproduce the oddness using an XP virtual machine. Everything went fine on my side and I did not get response to my question, so, I do not worry that much about that.
Since it has been reported publicly on the forum, I had to take this seriously but I will not spoil my vacation working all day on this. Today, we will all be out I swear [emoji6]

 

[ChrisTech]

Fabrice - have a great vacation and leave the damn computer at home. Signed - all your fans!

+1

 

[sapphirescales]

You know, if you don't like FABS why don't you quit using it and use the AWESOME Unstoppable Copier. You sure had Fabrice make some pretty petty changes to an already great program! Extra line spaces, align columns - come on.

Well EXCUSE ME for wanting to make the program the best it can be. You know, maybe if you got off your high-horse every once in a while you'd see that what I try to do here on the forums is help and contribute. Didn't know that was such a crime.

I really don't know what you're talking about that FABS is slow to start. We have NEVER experienced any of the FABS versions being slow to launch..

I guess we have different standards. Fabs takes on average 8 seconds to launch. That's an ETERNITY on modern hardware with SSD's. I mean if we were still using Pentium 4's running Windows XP on 5400 rpm hard drives, 8 seconds would be pretty normal - but we're not. It doesn't really matter to me though because we just keep the thing running at all times on our backup and imaging machines. It's MUCH more important to be able to see a live log while data is transferring than to have it start up fast, which is why I haven't mentioned it before now.

Your arrogance and boastfulness has just about driven us over the top. I just wish we all had the brains and wealth that you have. You don't even have the guts to reveal yourself because you say you are such a big player.

Oh, no. Not THIS again. Get over your bad self. What does saying this over and over really accomplish? Do you think you can shame me into revealing my identity online? Only a stupid person reveals their identity online because eventually some wacko like you shows up with a stick up your a$$ and tries to ruin a person's life. I don't reveal my true identity ANYWHERE online. Any and all information tied to my accounts is fake/made up and I use different usernames everywhere. The only way someone is going to figure out who I really am is if I actually tell them and that is NOT going to happen so give it up.

 

[fabs]

Please don't fight. Hug each other and peace guys!

 

[fabs]

Me either...

Re XP

That's your clue right there - "Was running in XP."
I would take the opportunity to end support for XP and move on. My .02

Of course, that would make things easier for me, dropping special XP code but it seems there are still a lot of those old boxes out. Being able to help migrations for those (not so disappeared) dinosaurs is a plus for me

 

[fabs]

Well, I am back from London (and did not touch the laptop except for Netflix while I was there ).
Now, I am back for a few days before taking off again to Chicago ITO Compass.

I have released another update a few minutes ago, blindly fighting a weird issue I do not encounter on my systems: restore or transfer jobs could fail when the target account has been created within the program. It looks like the new user's profile remains locked or at least misses the required read/write permissions to load its registry and copy files to it.

So, Fab's AutoBackup 7 Pro V7.0.6.48 has just been released.

Change log:
Added:
- Instructions to set required permissions to newly created user profiles straight from the program before restore or transfer

Fixed:
- When a copy fails because a file was in use, the program now clearly logs it. For example, when not using VSS snapshot and copying Outlook files while it was open, the target file was there but with a 0 byte size. Now, if this case happens, the program increments the errors count and shows it in live counters and the job log.

Grab it from your orders history's details on the shop's website at https://store.fpnet.fr/account.php?language=en or using the bundled updater tool (click the "Download Fab's AutoBackup 7.X" link within the program and get the updated files).

 

[glennd]

Of course, that would make things easier for me, dropping special XP code but it seems there are still a lot of those old boxes out. Being able to help migrations for those (not so disappeared) dinosaurs is a plus for me

Given that Fabs is often used to migrate from older machines to newer machines, it would be nice to hang on to XP support for as long as possible. I'll forgive you if it doesn't support Windows 2000

 

[sapphirescales]

Given that Fabs is often used to migrate from older machines to newer machines, it would be nice to hang on to XP support for as long as possible. I'll forgive you if it doesn't support Windows 2000

As a technician, you shouldn't be loading Fabs onto client's computers. You should have a dedicated machine that you do this on. Take out the hard drive and back up / transfer data on another machine.

Windows XP has been out of mainstream support since 2006. Extended support ended in 2009. Extended extended support ended in 2014. It's 2018. The number of Windows XP boxes I see in a month has averaged about 1/2 in 2018. Even in 2015 that number was probably 2 or 3. But it's 2018. It's time to let it go. NO modern software should support XP anymore. And like I said, even if you saw 100 XP boxes a month, you shouldn't be loading up Fabs on some nearly 20 year old hard drive and transferring data over USB 1.1 or 2.0 to some external hard drive you plugged into your client's machine.

I use Fabs on client machines, but ONLY in a dedicated portable version of Windows 10 that I have installed on an external SSD. And I only do this when the hard drive/SSD is an absolute b*tch to get to and I'm not replacing it as part of the service. In other words, almost never.

 

[GTP]

I don't "load Fabs onto client machines."
I have it on USB and IODD and run it from there. 99.9% of the time I run it from the Custom Tools section of WRT, so that I can do other things as well.
I also have Fabs in Gandalf's PE so I can run it from WRT there as well.
I also have Fabs Autobackup PE that allows me to run Fabs on unbootable machines.
There is no reason for Fabs to be on a clients HDD at all.

 

[GTP]

So, Fab's AutoBackup 7 Pro V7.0.6.48 has just been released.

Thanks @fabs I grabbed an updated copy to store, but I'll keep using version 7.0.4.32756 for the moment.

 

[fabs]

Thanks @fabs I grabbed an updated copy to store, but I'll keep using version 7.0.4.32756 for the moment.

Do you still have issues?
If you prefer to keep an old release, I must have screwed up something. I want to know what's the problem because if everyone wants to keep using an old release as well, it means it does not fit my customers needs anymore and then, my business is toasted.

 

[GTP]

No, not having issues per se, but just don't like the direction fabs autobackup is going.
IMHO, It's just becoming too complicated and getting away from what it was originally intended to do.
I'm sure plenty of others will embrace the new version and ask for more options to be added - but for me it just complicates a simple process.

 

[fabs]

No, not having issues per se, but just don't like the direction fabs autobackup is going.
IMHO, It's just becoming too complicated and getting away from what it was originally intended to do.
I'm sure plenty of others will embrace the new version and ask for more options to be added - but for me it just complicates a simple process.

One of Fab's AutoBackup main aspects is its ease of use. If you feel like it is too complicated now, then I crossed a red line and it is a big fail to my eyes.
I do my best to keep it like people wants it to be and now, whatever I do, it feels like I am never on the right path. You must not be the only one thinking this way, so , yes, that worries me.

Now, let's see what changed from 7.0.4.32756

Added:
- Waterfox profiles support (just a browser box, nothing more, I do not think this is a disturbance)
- Remembers the backup subfolder pattern : useful for those who use something else but #DATE#\#COMPUTERNAME% for example. If you do not, nothing changes for you here.
- Informative boxes about the current copy job. I guess the problem is here. Since this is just on-screen information, the program still works the way it did before that, so, this is just look and feel issue. Perhaps I could hide most of this information by default and show it with a "show details" button?
- Instructions to set required permissions to newly created user profiles straight from the program before restore or transfer : this one is a user transparent feature to (try to) prevent an issue with data that sometimes does not restore to user profiles created within the app.

Fixed:
- Dropbox and hubiC contents were copied to their old paths when performing a direct transfer job.
- The program does not try anymore to get system serial number when the source drive is not the current system drive.
- When a copy fails because a file was in use, the program now clearly logs it.

Except these information boxes on the job's page, I do not understand where there could be a simplicity loss issue.

 

[Porthos]

What happend to the show backup amount with the yes button or dod I miss it today.

 

[fabs]

What happend to the show backup amount with the yes button or dod I miss it today.

It is still there:

 

[sapphirescales]

One of Fab's AutoBackup main aspects is its ease of use. If you feel like it is too complicated now, then I crossed a red line and it is a big fail to my eyes.
I do my best to keep it like people wants it to be and now, whatever I do, it feels like I am never on the right path. You must not be the only one thinking this way, so , yes, that worries me.

Jesus @fabs take a chill pill. Do you think Microsoft worries about stubborn holdouts that are still using Windows XP? Not everyone is going to like every change or new feature added to software. Newer versions seeming over complicated is a common complaint. And it's true. Isn't Word 2016 more complicated than Word '97? But where would we be if we were all still using Word '97? You need to add new features and fixes to your software so people will want to buy the new versions. But there will always be some that prefer an old version, and there's nothing wrong with that.

And yes, I'm sure there are still people using Word '97 and swear up and down that they're not going to change. Don't worry about people like that.

Oh, and @Barcelona I'm not saying that you're like an old stubborn holdout here. The version you're using isn't very old and I'm sure you'll update eventually because of the new fixes (not necessarily the new features).

Adding new features does complicate software. It's just the way it is. But new features are important, regardless whether you use them or not.

But to be perfectly honest, it takes a matter of seconds to set up a backup procedure with Fabs. I don't see the complication that @Barcelona is talking about. If you're talking about the feature to add "other" folders, that was a completely necessary addition. Not everyone stores their stuff in the normal places.

 

[fincoder]

I don't see the complication that @Barcelona is talking about

I can't see any unnecessary complication either.The only obvious new feature is the information displayed during the backup.

@Barcelona How is more visibility about a running backup over-complicating the app? I suspect you've been spooked by the discussion about possible new features that aren't even implemented yet or may never be. Rest assured the latest version doesn't include any of that.

I also think some of the new features that have been discussed for future releases could be implemented in such a way as to not complicate the app, or to minimise any complication.

For instance, the proposed 'Other user profile files/folders' option could simply be a single checkbox on the 'Extra files and folders' tab. Additionally it could open the filesystem tree and select these folders to visually show what extra folders are to be backed up, but if too hard to implement or people think it's 'too complicated' this additional part of the feature is not as important.

 

[GTP]

How is more visibility about a running backup over-complicating the app? I suspect you've been spooked by the discussion about possible new features that aren't even implemented yet or may never be. Rest assured the latest version doesn't include any of that.

You may be right. I was "spooked" as you put it when I discovered that a folder I had manually chosen to backup was in fact not backed up as I expected it to be. Thinking I had done something wrong, I used an earlier version. That version worked perfectly and as expected.
This - and all the talk about adding this and that - left me wondering if Fabs Autobackup was straying too far from the path.
I have the latest version and a job for it later today so I'll test it out and see what transpires.

 

[sapphirescales]

You may be right. I was "spooked" as you put it when I discovered that a folder I had manually chosen to backup was in fact not backed up as I expected it to be. Thinking I had done something wrong, I used an earlier version. That version worked perfectly and as expected.
This - and all the talk about adding this and that - left me wondering if Fabs Autobackup was straying too far from the path.
I have the latest version and a job for it later today so I'll test it out and see what transpires.

Sounds like a bug to be reported. Bugs and problems are bound to crop up with newer versions of the software. I'm planning on staying with the version I'm currently on for the foreseeable future, updating it maybe once a year or whatnot until @fabs introduces a new feature I'm dying to try. I generally don't update my software in the field for months/years at a time. I want to make sure that bugs and problems are kept to a minimum. For example, the version of Parted Magic that I keep on my main flash drive is still from 2015. It's about time I updated that, but I'm too lazy and no new killer features have been released so I'm not too eager to go and pay for it again when all it has is newer versions of the same software that works just fine.

 

[fabs]

I have finally been able to reproduce that odd issue when restoring to new user accounts created from the program and finally fixed it (HALLELUJAH!). So, Fab's AutoBackup 7 Pro V7.0.6.84 is online now.

Change log:
Removed:
- Instructions to set additional read/write permissions to newly created user profiles straight from the program before restore or transfer jobs. This was added to solve an issue at restore to such new user profiles but it was not the cure. Since it slows down the job, it has been removed.

Fixed:
- Restore to a newly created user profile from the app was not working. It required to restart the program or reboot the computer then restore the files.
- Better form resize handling for the live job information boxes and labels.
- When using VSS snapshots, the source folder looked like "C:Fabs_X_ShadowCopy" and could appear on job reports. The "Fabs" word has been replaced with "VSS" since this could be disturbing for branded software.

Grab it from your orders history's details on the shop's website at https://store.fpnet.fr/account.php?language=en or using the bundled updater tool (click the "Download Fab's AutoBackup 7.X" link within the program and get the updated files).