From: "Glenn Meadows" 

Not necessarily.  Many restore programs from a backup, will not overwrite
the newly installed OS files.  It's similar to what PCMover does, in that
it won't move applications that already exist on the new machine, doing
duplicate files.

--

Glenn M.
"Gary Britt"  wrote in
message news:45c6a000$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> If you install an OS on the new machine first and then restore the backup
> won't that corrupt the OS install on the new machine by overwriting the OS
> with the old OS that is tied to a different machine.
>
> Gary
>
> Geo. wrote:
>> It doesn't need to be a direct bare metal restore, you can install the OS
>> and backup software first then do a full restore. The issue is if once
>> you do the full restore, is it functional or does copy protection now
>> kick in and prevent it from functioning.
>>
>> Geo.
>>
>> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
>> news:45c66edf{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> OK I see what you are saying.  Your definition of backup is being able
>>> to do a bare metal restore to a new or replacement machine/hard drive
>>> and that's not possible for lots of reasons.  I agree it would be nice
>>> to have this but anybody without a full retail version of win2k or XP
>>> hasn't had this since Win2K came out.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> Geo. wrote:
>>>> If for example your install is keyed to a cpu serial
number, a backup
>>>> that you restore to a replacement machine with a different serial
>>>> number will not work.
>>>>
>>>> If your disk is encrypted, and the encryption key is
derived from a cpu
>>>> serial number, a restore of a drive image to a replacement
machine will
>>>> not result in the ability to unencrypt the drive. etc. Same goes for
>>>> any drm'd files, if you can't recover them then your
backup has failed.
>>>>
>>>> Backup is not software and it is not the act of making an image of a
>>>> drive, it is a procedure that includes restore. If the
restore fails,
>>>> then the backup has failed.
>>>>
>>>> This is why I keep saying that copy protection and backup are
>>>> incompatible, they work to defeat each other.
>>>>
>>>> Geo.
>>>>
>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>> news:45c57d48$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> We're talking past each other.  All my statements have
been about
>>>>> Acronis TrueImage backup and I assumed your statements
and questions
>>>>> that followed were about or related to products like
Acronis.  So how
>>>>> does, if at all, your statement about copy protected
stuff there is no
>>>>> such thing as a reliable backup.  My Acronis backups
are reliable
>>>>> drive images.  Now if I had any DRM infected files
maybe they couldn't
>>>>> be restored to new hardware, but everything else that
I use could.  Of
>>>>> course I don't use Vista.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>> Geo. wrote:
>>>>>> Read the restore procedure for windows backup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:45c52da9{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> ??   Everything that I backup is copyrighted? 
An image restore is
>>>>>>> an image restore no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Geo. wrote:
>>>>>>>> If the product you are backing up is copy
protected, there is no
>>>>>>>> such thing as a reliable backup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:45c4f19c{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>>> You have to use products like Acronis
TrueImage if you want a
>>>>>>>>> reliable backup.  I've never used an
MS Backup Utility since Dos
>>>>>>>>> 6.2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5