UFS Explorer and R-Explorer - what's the difference?

[lcoughey]

Originally, I had a copy of UFS Explorer for the odd case that wasn't supported by R-Studio. Then it looked like UFS Explorer development stopped and all focus was on R-Explorer which was adding new features not supported by UFS Explorer. However, this past week, I noticed new features rolling out for UFS Explorer again, not supported in R-Explorer. I then found this link, which was also shared with me by one of their CTO, providing a comparison of the two programs side-by-side.

https://www.r-explorer.com/compare-prof ... itions.php

So, moving forward, I guess it is time to walk away from R-Explorer and go to UFS Explorer, particularly because of the new Drobo BeyondRAID support and the connection with PC3000, which I still have to find out what it really does. Here is their description:

Defining damaged regions using bad sector maps created by ACE Lab software

Edit: I just found this description on their site (https://www.ufsexplorer.com/ufs-explore ... covery.php)

Retrieve files from disks or RAID with bad sectors
The application gives the possibility to recover data from storages which contain damaged sectors with maximum efficiency by reading bad sectors maps generated by ACE Lab software. The user can analyze the information and get a report on files damage in the process of copying files. Both stand-alone storages and ones combined into a RAID system are supported.

[pclab]

So, R-studio works with DDI and UFS works with ACE.

[lcoughey]

So, R-studio works with DDI and UFS works with ACE.

If UFS actually allows good/damaged file reporting based on the PC3K map, they are well ahead of R-Studio, as they still haven't added that functionality.

[Iurii]

One of the most important difference is target audience.
Recovery Explorer products will be more simple products, but UFS Explorer products became more technician.
For now difference not so big.
UFS Explorer Professional Recovery version 7 do not licensed fro Personal use. For Personal purpose may be used Recovery Explorer Professional.
Also there are price difference. Recovery Explorer product cheaper than UFS Explorer.

[Iurii]

In version 7.5 functionality difference increase:

UFS Explorer get next updates:

* Added support of SCSI drives with non-standard sector size (like 520 bytes etc.);
* Added "dynamic" map of bad blocks (by pattern recognition);
* Added bad blocks definition directly to RAID Builder;

[Iurii]

In version 7.8 UFS Explorer Professional Recovery get new function:
* Added virtual sector size transform function (for SATA drives and disk image files);

[nissimezra]

That's what I was looking for.
They all have very similar result I've used cheaper option and had same result.

[Iurii]

Couple more difference:
UFS Explorer Professional Recovery unique updates:

in version 7.9:
* Added support of DeepSpar image file format (DDI, including defect block maps);

in version 7.10:
* Support of 'long' deduplication reparse points on NTFS (Windows Server 2019);
* Fixed bug reading files from Microsoft Deduplication Database in some scenarios;

[Iurii]

In version 7.11 will be add support of DDI in 2 products: UFS Explorer Professional Recovery and UFS Explorer Network RAID

[Iurii]

in version 7.12 UFS Explorer Professional Recovery get updates:
* Added support of WD Cloud file system:
- Translation of Cloud database to file system structure;
- Support of main database or backup copy (on choice).