From: Gary Britt 

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...

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