Contradictory sizes for Windows image?

I'm trying to understand contradictory numbers about the size of the image which I've just made with the Win 7 tool.

Win 10 File Explorer nonsensically reports most of the folders associated with the data backup and image as having zero size. So I used TreeSize instead. This says that the image uses 156.2 GB and the data backup 89.3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ep4jhxprw4...ze-1.jpg?raw=1

But this is contradicted here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7g2plni9w...ze-2.jpg?raw=1

Terry, East Grinstead, UK

I suspect that's because Windows Backup has it's own idea of what a "system" file is.

All the more reason to avoid it.

Why mess with something you don't understand that is also cranky and inflexible?

It works well enough if you understand it and can live with it's limitations and idiosyncrasies.

But why bother when there are readily available straightforward substitutes?

Terrypin said:

I'm trying to understand contradictory numbers about the size of the image which I've just made with the Win 7 tool.

Win 10 File Explorer nonsensically reports most of the folders associated with the data backup and image as having zero size...

It's permissions, your system images are being protected.

Although an administrator account has permission to look inside the WindowsImageBackup folder and see that it contains a folder with your PC's name, you don't have the required permissions to look any deeper - hence File Explorer cannot see the size of the files it contains. A standard user can't even look inside WindowsImageBackup.

If you try to look inside your PC's folder you will get a prompt saying...

You don't currently have permission to access this folder.
Click Continue to permanently access this folder.

Click Continue and you will find the folders Backup, Catalog, Logs, and SPPMetadataCache. You don't (yet) have permission to access those either. If you click 'Continue' for each folder and get permanent access, then File Explorer will be able to report sensible sizes.

Of course, you now have to be careful not to damage anything in there, the system image backup is known to be 'fragile' and apparently innocuous changes can break its ability to restore an image.

Thanks Bree, understood.

ignatzatsonic said:

I suspect that's because Windows Backup has it's own idea of what a "system" file is.

All the more reason to avoid it.

Why mess with something you don't understand that is also cranky and inflexible?

You're right, but curiosity can be a powerful motivator!

It works well enough if you understand it and can live with it's limitations and idiosyncrasies.

But why bother when there are readily available straightforward substitutes?

Yep, as mentioned up-thread I'm sold on investing the effort in learning how to use Macrium Free. Doesn't stop me wishing for a neatly integrated no-brainer though.