in
Support Center

x64 yet?

Last post 06-08-2008 7:31 PM by Mr_Obvioso. 9 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (10 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 03-30-2008 2:27 AM

    • f4te
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-30-2008
    • Posts 5

    x64 yet?

    Hi everyone, just grabbed this product after a raving review i read on pc mag (plus acronis seems to lock up my computer whenever i try to backup..) i was very disappointed to see that it doesn't yet support vista x64, when it has been around for 2 years, and a fix to the snapshot driver was promised for december of '07. Anyone know whats going on here?
    Filed under:
  • 03-30-2008 9:59 PM In reply to

    Re: x64 yet?

    Nate said version 3.2 is supposed to be 64 bit compatible.

    To answer your next question, "No."

    (We don't know when it's coming.)

  • 03-31-2008 2:16 AM In reply to

    • f4te
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-30-2008
    • Posts 5

    Re: x64 yet?

    http://forum.storagecraft.com/Community/forums/p/215/733.aspx#733 he says there was supposed to be a release in december of 07. we can't get a more up to date timeframe to work with?
  • 04-01-2008 11:05 AM In reply to

    Re: x64 yet?

    We are day to day right now on this.  Just waiting for all final tests to pass.

    STC

  • 04-02-2008 12:11 PM In reply to

    • f4te
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-30-2008
    • Posts 5

    Re: x64 yet?

    great. i'll hold off for 1 week on getting a different backup solution, but i'm going to need one before april 20th.
  • 04-05-2008 10:43 AM In reply to

    Re: x64 yet?

    Check the 64-bit tags in this forum.  There is a beta of SD you can install now.  You need to send an email request to get it.  It has been working flawlessly on my system.  (Intel DG965GW, Core2 Quad, 4gb, dual SATA raid volumes, and multiple OS partitions (using Vista Ultimate SP1 with the beta). I don't know if it has any issues with other users.  Frankly, from my experience I'm surprised it hasn't been released yet!  Perhaps they were waiting for any Vista SP1 repercussions.

  • 05-21-2008 7:11 PM In reply to

    • f4te
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-30-2008
    • Posts 5

    Re: x64 yet?

    Ok so i've installed 3.2 (finally), and now when i try to backup to an external harddrive (via eSata) i get this error: 21-May-2008 18:00:21 service 100 service (build 42) started job manually as full 21-May-2008 18:00:21 service 300 trial period has 30 days left 21-May-2008 18:00:21 service 104 3.2.0.2 2A04-752A 657E-3371 21-May-2008 18:00:21 service 100 backup volume C:\ (NTFS) 21-May-2008 18:00:21 service 509 Cannot get access to destination object 21-May-2008 18:00:21 service 101 Cannot execute job (The system cannot find the file specified. 0x80070002(2147942402)) any ideas?
    Filed under: , ,
  • 05-22-2008 3:31 PM In reply to

    Re: x64 yet?

    We have occasionally seem some strange issues with eSATA drives.  Do you have an alternate destination you can try as a test (like a USB hard disk or network share)?
  • 06-07-2008 4:41 PM In reply to

    • wfo
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 05-21-2008
    • Posts 5

    Re: x64 yet?

     I'm using ShadowProtect 3.2.0.2 in Vista64 without issues. I'm backing up to an internal Raid 0 array though.

  • 06-08-2008 7:31 PM In reply to

    Re: x64 yet?

    Can confirm this works.  Used v3.2.0.2 for a hard disk changeover on my Vista x64 Ultimate PC this weekend.  No problems backing up and/or restoring the image.  Used my v3.0.0.4 recovery media for the restore process and experienced no boot up problems either (WD -> Samsung HDD change out).

    Interestingly (and I didn't realise this before) the Complete PC Backup software in Vista requires that the destination drive capacity be at least the same TOTAL size as the original. I was initially going to use the Vista imaging function as it was only my OS partition (100GB) that I was being reimaged - was downgrading from 750GB to 500GB.   The Vista Complete PC restore process would not all this to happen because a smaller sized destination drive was present even though the partiion was 20% of the new drive's capacity.  Hmmmm.... I wonder what would happen if drive geometry was taken into account between different manufacturers of the same unformatted capacity drive?  Maybe a gotcha in there somewhere.

Page 1 of 1 (10 items)
(c) StorageCraft Technology Corporation 2008