I know that I'm probably wanting a too great change in the way Reflect handles restore operations involving backup drive/partition images, but I really do wish there were some possibility of improving the ability to recover files and folders selectively without requiring all of that mount and copy stuff.  Some competitors (I won't name names) make it much easier.  And that even includes the ability to recover files and folders selectively from ext4 partition images which is increasingly important to me for reasons that I won't bother to elaborate here ... unless someone is really curious, that is.

Regards, Richard V. ("Arvy")

Hello Arvy,

I have passed on your feature request to the development team for evaluation.

And that even includes the ability to recover files and folders selectively from ext4 partition images which is increasingly important to me for reasons that I won't bother to elaborate here ... unless someone is really curious, that is 

Yes I'm interested in finding out what you are doing with ext4. If you wouldn't mind opening a thread in the water cooler for a "nerdy" discussion. 

Kind Regards

Stephen

See our reviews on

Okay, thanks for passing it along, Stephen.  I've explained my ext4 usage and my underlying reasons for this suggestion more fully in a "water cooler" topic as you asked and I'd be happy to discuss it further with you or anyone else who may be interested.  Frankly, however, I'm not really expecting my wish to be fulfilled anytime soon, if ever.  I suppose it was more like an old geezer's pipe dream hoping to avoid a more painful and reluctant decision that appears increasingly inevitable in the circumstances.

Regards, Richard V. ("Arvy")

Just to make sure I stay out of the "nerdy" discussion thread , I see Arvy's (the ORIGINAL Macrium "old geezer") request for EXT4 file and folder recovery capability improvement as very reasonable.  Reflect's RECOVERY MEDIA is, indeed, supposed to be exactly that... a tool for support of recovery efforts associated with Reflect's imageable (this is a word?) partitions.  Especially in recovery terms, anything that can be done (with or without external support <ext2fsd> ) under LIVE Windows should definitely be supported under the applications's main recovery media.  I can see where the imaging/scheduling capability might be dumbed down in the recovery media but not its recovery capability.  Macrium has chosen to support EXT4 imaging and recovery under LIVE Windows, albeit with the help of ext2fsd.  That same recovery capability should exist in Reflect's primary recovery media as well.

After all... it IS primarily a recovery media, is it not?

I would encourage Macrium to look seriously at adding this additional EXT4 recovery capability to their primary Recovery Media... it would be extremely useful.  If this is more easily done under WinPE or a version of the Linux Recovery Media (which used to exist) is clearly a development decision for Macrium, but the added recovery capability should be seriously considered.

Thanks, Froggie.  I suppose it's fairly obvious that I too thought that, since basic ext4 backup support already exists, better Reflect "rescue" environment support was a reasonable suggestion or I wouldn't have made it.  It was actually just intended as incidental to my more general suggestion about possibly improving selective file and folder restore capabilities for backup drive/partition images overall.  I certainly wasn't looking to impose my own ext4 partition usage, admittedly exploratory at present, on anyone else.  In the case of WinPE building, if that were the chosen approach, ext4 support inclusion could be a selectable option just like several other parts of the build package that Reflect's "wizard" offers to users themselves.  I know it can be done, not only 'cuz others do it, but I've already tried it myself, although I'm sure the Macrium developers could do an infinitely better job and I certainly wouldn't recommend my awkward "customized workaround" as a finely tuned solution for anyone else.

As an aside, I can't help wondering also what future implications Microsoft's recent love affair with Ubuntu, Canonical, et al may have in this context.  Probably none.  But one can speculate positively never the less.


Regards, Richard V. ("Arvy")

It's not just an "aside."  On the 2nd day of the Microsloth Build Conference 2016 (early April), Microsloth announced the acquisition of Canonical and the official shutdown of the Ubuntu Linux OS forever.  A team of sharp developers at Microsoft has been hard at work adapting some Microsoft research technology to basically perform real time translation of Linux syscalls into Windows OS syscalls.  Microsoft calls it their “Windows Subsystem for Linux.”

Benchmarks have shown it to be exactly the same as Ubuntu running on its own... no VMs, no containers, just bit-for-bit, checksum-for-checksum Ubuntu ELF binaries running directly in Windows.

Yep... I was shocked as well, and it's not an April Fools joke either.  I think it's being targeted, primarily, towards Linux developers rather than Linux general desktop users.

Yikes!!!  I was kinda hoping that some influence might spread in the other direction, but I suppose age should have brought a little more cynicism by now.  I think I'll go for a stiff drink.  The sun is "over the yardarm" in my locale.


Regards, Richard V. ("Arvy")

...but MINT is still available 

True, but even Mint's own "upstream" sources would become more than a little worrisome in those circumstances.  In fact, it makes me wonder if dear old Microsoft might also have had that in mind considering Mint's growing popularity with some frustrated old-time Windows users.  But I guess I really shouldn't lead us any further off the track and I apologise for my "aside" comment here.  Maybe one of us should open a "Water Cooler" thread on that topic.  Seems like you probably know more about it than I do.

Regards, Richard V. ("Arvy")

Stephen embarrased me and caught me with my April Fools REPLICATION... sorry all, just trying to lift the Forum a bit.