Acronis TrueImage 2009
teabag
MVPs and others on this NG speak well of Acronis TrueImage 2009.
Presently all is well.
I run WinXP Pro with SP3 on an ASUS P5VD1 with 3.2GHz Pentium 4 and 2 x
200GB SATA HDDs; 1 GB RAM. Norton AntiVirus and ZoneAlarm firewall always
on; CCleaner, Spybot S&D and HijackThis from time to time. 10% of C: is used
and 90% is free; 5% of D: is used and 95% is free.
If I suffer a catastrophic attack will Acronis (on its own) allow me to wipe
/ reformat the C: drive and reinstall a complete image?
Is it good enough to keep the image on the other HDD (D:)?
What problems may arise if the image is kept on CD - and roughly how many
CDs might this take?
Would a large capacity USB stick be better?
Thanks in advance for any advice
teabag
Mark Adams
"teabag" wrote:
Best to keep the image on an external USB hard drive. You use the Acronis
disk to boot the machine and make the image to the external drive, so Windows
isn't even running. The image saves the condition of your hard drive exactly
as it was when you last shut down the computer. Restoring the image is done
the same way, by booting the Acronis disk. The image is restored to the hard
drive exactly the way it was when it was made; regardless of how messed up
the operating system has gotten-- even if it won't boot anymore.
>
>
Thip
"teabag" <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lvGdnVsdA8zG7W3U...@pipex.net...
I would keep it on an external drive. Booting with the rescue CD and
restoring the image is a breeze. It's saved my sorry butt on more than one
occasion.
Big_Al
Obviously Acronis will not cure any hardware issues. It will rewrite
the HD and restore your software back to the last image.
Mark's thought above about an external USB is good, especially if you
can turn it off when not in use. (or unplug). If you get a good
virus attack, this will provide some protection from your images getting
chewed up.
John Inzer
> If I suffer a catastrophic attack will Acronis (on its own) allow me
> to wipe / reformat the C: drive and reinstall a complete image?
Yes...if you can still access Windows you can
launch your backup from there...if you cannot
access Windows...just boot from the Acronis
Boot Disk that you can create from the Acronis
program...go to...Tools / Create Bootable
Rescue Media...
==============================
> Is it good enough to keep the image on the other HDD (D:)?
I keep my backup on a second hard drive...
it's a good idea to burn it on DVDs and/or
a Flash Drive also
==============================
> What problems may arise if the image is kept on CD - and roughly how
> many CDs might this take?
My current backup is 20GB so it would
take lots of CDs......DVDs or a Flash Drive
would be a better choice.
==============================
> Would a large capacity USB stick be better?
It would save all the disk swapping...and
having more than one backup source is
not a bad idea.
--
John Inzer MS-MVP
Digital Media Experience
Notice
This is not tech support
I am a volunteer
Solutions that work for
me may not work for you
Proceed at your own risk
Martin C
USB drive. The one I use has a power switch on it, so it is effectively
seperate from the PC unless I want to perform a backup. In that way, there
is no possibility of the PC causing a problem with the backup.
Previously I backed up to another HDD inside the PC case, but when my PSU
went, it took out the backup HDD as well as another one. Fortunately my data
HDD was not affected. It could have been a disaster. Glad I now have the
external drive.
If you cannot get one you like which can be turned off, then only plug it in
when you need it.
Martin
"Thip" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:75bcrlF...@mid.individual.net...
Anna
> "teabag" wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> MVPs and others on this NG speak well of Acronis TrueImage 2009.
>>
>> Presently all is well.
>>
>> I run WinXP Pro with SP3 on an ASUS P5VD1 with 3.2GHz Pentium 4 and 2 x
>> 200GB SATA HDDs; 1 GB RAM. Norton AntiVirus and ZoneAlarm firewall
>> always
>> on; CCleaner, Spybot S&D and HijackThis from time to time. 10% of C: is
>> used
>> and 90% is free; 5% of D: is used and 95% is free.
>>
>> If I suffer a catastrophic attack will Acronis (on its own) allow me to
>> wipe
>> / reformat the C: drive and reinstall a complete image?
>> Is it good enough to keep the image on the other HDD (D:)?
>> What problems may arise if the image is kept on CD - and roughly how many
>> CDs might this take?
>> Would a large capacity USB stick be better?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any advice
>>
>> teabag
"Mark Adams" <Mark...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:95BF0A28-E143-4B10...@microsoft.com...
> Best to keep the image on an external USB hard drive. You use the Acronis
> disk to boot the machine and make the image to the external drive, so
> Windows
> isn't even running. The image saves the condition of your hard drive
> exactly
> as it was when you last shut down the computer. Restoring the image is
> done
> the same way, by booting the Acronis disk. The image is restored to the
> hard
> drive exactly the way it was when it was made; regardless of how messed up
> the operating system has gotten-- even if it won't boot anymore.
teabag:
You could, as Mark suggests, save the disk image to a USB external HDD.
Another possibility given your situation would be to save the disk image on
your internal secondary HDD, i.e., your "D:" drive.
You indicate that the contents of your boot HDD - the "C:" HDD - is about 20
GB and the contents of your secondary HDD totals about 10 GB. Given this
amount of data, would it be practical for you to simply move the current
contents from your secondary HDD over to the primary HDD and then just use
the secondary HDD as the "destination" HDD to retain the disk image
containing the total contents of your primary HDD?
Obviously with the relatively small amount of total data you'll be working
with you could still use the secondary HDD for other storage of data
purposes.
I would recommend *against* using a USB flash drive for disk image storage
purposes. For one thing you would need one of substantial capacity. (As a
general proposition you can assume the disk image created by the ATI program
will be compressed around 20% - 25%.). Perhaps more importantly, in our
experience flash drives have simply proven not as reliable as other media
for comprehensive backup purposes. They're fine for "on-the-fly" backups but
I would be hesitant to use them in terms of maintaining a comprehensive
backup of one's total system data.
I really don't think using CD/DVDs as the backup media is practical. By &
large you'll be better served by using another HDD - internal or external -
as the "destination" drive.
Some time ago I prepared step-by-step instructions for using the ATI 9 (and
10) programs. I've previously posted them to this newsgroup. Perhaps you'll
find them of some value, so here they are...
The Acronis True Image program is a decent disk cloning/disk imaging
program. As you have heard, it's a comprehensive backup program that will,
in effect, create a bit-for-bit copy of your day-to-day working HDD,
including the operating system, all programs & applications, and all
user-created data. A most complete backup system.
Just one thing if you use the Acronis program or any other disk cloning/disk
imaging program. My advice would be to forget about using that type of
program for backups to DVDs. It's simply not practical in most cases. You
would be better served by using a USB or Firewire or SATA external HDD as
the recipient of the disk clone or disk images. You could also use another
internal HDD as the "destination" disk.
Step-by-Step Instructions for Using the Acronis True Image Program to Backup
& Restore One's Hard Drive...
Using the Acronis True Image program there are two different approaches one
can take to back up the entire contents of one's day-to-day working HDD,
i.e., the operating system, all programs & applications, and user-created
data - in short, *everything* that's on one's HDD...
1. Direct disk-to-disk cloning, or,
2. Creating disk images
By using either of these strategies the user can restore his or her system
should their day-to-day working HDD become inoperable because of
mechanical/electronic failure of the disk or corruption of the system
resulting in a dysfunctional operating system.
In undertaking either of these two backup & recovery processes you're
dealing with two hard drives - the so-called source & destination disks -
the source disk being the HDD you're backing up and the destination disk
being the HDD that will be the recipient of the cloned contents of the
source disk or the recipient of the disk image you will be creating.
When using either process it's usually best for most users to use an
external HDD as the destination drive, i.e., the recipient of the cloned
contents of the source disk or the recipient of the created disk image. This
can be either a USB or Firewire or SATA external HDD. While another internal
HDD can also serve as the destination disk there's an additional element of
safety in using an external HDD since that drive will be ordinarily
disconnected from the system except during the disk cloning or recovery
process.
One other suggestion. After you install the Acronis program on your computer
it's a good idea to create what Acronis calls their "Bootable Rescue Media"
(CD). In most cases the recovery process (described below) will utilize that
Acronis bootable CD to restore your system. This "rescue" CD is easily
created from the program by clicking on the "Create Bootable Rescue Media"
icon on the opening Acronis screen and simply going through the screens to
create the bootable CD. The following are step-by-step instructions for
using the Acronis True Image 9 program to clone the contents of one HDD to
an external HDD. (The steps are essentially the same using the newer ATI 10
version):
1. With both hard drives (source & destination disks) connected, boot up.
Ensure that no other storage devices, e.g., flash drives, ZIP drives, etc.,
are connected. It's also probably a good idea to shut down any programs you
may have working in the background - including any anti-virus anti-spyware
programs - before undertaking this disk-to-disk cloning operation.
2. Access the Acronis True Image 9 program and under "Pick a Task", click
on "Clone Disk". (In the ATI 10 version click on "Manage Hard Disks" in the
"Pick a Tool" area and on the next screen click on "Clone Disk").
3. On the next "Welcome to the Disk Clone Wizard!" window, click Next.
4. On the next "Clone Mode" window select the Automatic option (it should
be the default option selected) and click Next.
5. On the next "Source Hard Disk" window, ensure that the correct source
HDD (the disk you're cloning from) has been selected (click to highlight).
Click Next.
6. On the next "Destination Hard Disk" window, ensure that the correct
destination HDD (the disk you're cloning to) has been selected (again, click
to highlight). Click Next.
7. On the next window, select the option "Delete partitions on the
destination hard disk". Understand that all data presently on the disk that
will be the recipient of the clone will be deleted prior to the disk cloning
operation. Click Next.
8. The next window will reflect the source and destination disks. Again,
confirm that the correct drives have been selected. Click Next.
9. On the next window click on the Proceed button. A message box will
display indicating that a reboot will be required to undertake the disk
cloning operation. Click Reboot.
10. The cloning operation will proceed during the reboot. With modern
components and a medium to high-powered processor, data transfer rate will
be somewhere in the range of about 450 MB/min to 800 MB/min when cloning to
a USB external HDD; considerably faster when cloning to another internal
HDD.
11. When the disk cloning operation has been completed, a message will
(usually) appear indicating the disk cloning process has been successful and
instructs you to shut down the computer by pressing any key. Do so and
disconnect your USB external HDD. If, however, the destination drive (the
recipient of the clone) has been another *internal* HDD, see the NOTE below.
12. Note that the cloned contents now residing on the USB external HDD take
on the file system of the source drive. For example, if prior to the
disk-cloning operation your USB external HDD had been FAT32-formatted and
your XP OS was NTFS-formatted, the cloned contents will be NTFS-formatted.
There is no need to format the USB external HDD prior to the disk-cloning
operation. Similarly, there is no need prior to the disk-cloning operation
to format an internal HDD should you be using an internal HDD as the
destination drive .
13. Restoration of the system can be achieved by cloning the contents of the
data residing on the external HDD to an internal HDD through the normal
disk-cloning process as described above.
NOTE: Just one other point that should be emphasized with respect to the
disk cloning operation should the recipient of the clone be another internal
HDD and not a USB or Firewire external HDD. Immediately following the disk
cloning operation the machine should be shutdown and the source HDD should
be disconnected. Boot ONLY to the newly-cloned drive. DO NOT BOOT
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CLONING OPERATION WITH BOTH DRIVES CONNECTED.
There's a strong possibility that by doing so it is likely to cause future
boot problems with the cloned drive. Obviously there is no problem in this
area should a USB or Firewire EHD be the recipient of the clone since that
device is not ordinarily bootable in an XP environment.
Disk Imaging: The following are step-by-step instructions for using the
Acronis True Image 9 Program to create disk images for backup purposes and
using those disk images for recovery of the system. (The steps are
essentially the same using the newer ATI 10 version):
Note: The recipient of the disk image, presumably a USB external HDD or an
internal HDD, ordinarily must be a formatted drive and have a drive letter
assigned to it. Recall that in the case of a disk-to-disk cloning operation
as previously described, an unformatted or "virgin" HDD can be used as the
destination disk.
Before undertaking this disk imaging process it's probably best to close all
programs running in the background including your anti-virus and other
anti-malware programs.
1. With both your source and destination hard drives connected, access the
Acronis program and click "Backup" on main menu.
2. The "Create Backup Wizard" screen opens. Click Next.
3. The "Select Backup Type" screen opens with two options:
a. The entire disk contents or individual partitions.
b. Files and folders.
Select a. and click Next.
(In the ATI 10 version four options will be listed: My Computer, My Data, My
Application Settings, and My E-mail. Select the My Computer option and click
Next.)
4. The "Partitions Selection" screen opens. Disk 1 and Disk 2 are listed
with their drive letter designations. Check the disk to be backed up -
presumably Disk 1 - and click Next.
5. An informational message appears recommending an incremental or
differential backup if an original full backup had previously been
created.Since this will be the first backup we will be selecting, just click
OK to close the message box. (You can check the box not to show that
informational message in the future).
6. Next screen is the "Backup Archive Location". In the "File name:" text
box, (in ATI 10 version it's the "Folder:" text box) enter your backup drive
letter and enter a file name for the backup file, e.g., "F:\Backup 6-25".
The Acronis program will automatically append the ".tib" file extension to
the filename. Click Next.
7. "Select Backup Mode" screen opens. Select "Create a new full backup
archive" option and click Next.
8. "Choose Backup Options" screen opens with two options:
a. Use default options
b. Set the options manually.
If you select the b. option, you can select various options listed on the
next screen. Two of them are of interest to us:
Compression level - Four options - None, Normal (the default), High,
Maximum.
There's a "Description" area that shows the estimated size of the backup
archive depending upon the option chosen, and the estimated "creation time"
for each option.
Backup priority - Three options - Low, Normal, or High Low - "backup
processed more slowly, but it will not influence other processes running on
computer."
(Default) Normal - "normal speed but backup process will influence other
processes running on computer." High - "normal speed but backup process will
strongly influence other processes running on computer."
With respect to the compression levels, we've found that when using the
Normal option the original data is compressed by about 20% - 25% (and
sometimes much greater) and that the High and Maximum options will result in
a compressed backup file only slightly higher than that. However, the amount
of time to create the backup files when using the High or Maximum
compression level is substantially greater than when using the Normal
compression level. So unless disk space is very tight on the destination
drive, i.e., the drive where the backup file will be saved, we recommend
using the Normal compression level (at least initially).
NOTE: You can set the Compression level and Backup priority defaults from
the Acronis Tools > Options > Default backup options menu items.
9. "Archive comments" screen opens allowing you to add comments to the
backup archive which you can review during the Recovery process. Click Next.
10. The next screen summarizes the backup operation to be performed. Review
the information for correctness and click the Proceed button.
11. The next screen will display status bars reflecting the progress of the
backup operation. After the backup operation finishes, an informational
message will appear indicting the operation was successfully completed.
Incremental Backups (Disk Images)
1. After the initial backup archive has been created you can create
incremental backups reflecting any data changes since the previous backup
operation. This incremental backup process proceeds considerably faster than
the initial backup operation. This, of course, is a major advantage of
creating disk images rather than undertaking the disk-to-disk cloning
process. Then too, since these created disk images are compressed files they
are reasonable in size. And because the incremental disk images can usually
be created very quickly (as compared with the direct disk-to-disk cloning
process), there's an incentive for the user to keep his/her system
up-to-date backup-wise by using this disk imaging process on a more frequent
basis than the disk-cloning process.
Note that you must create the incremental backup files on the same HDD where
you stored the original backup archive and any subsequent incremental backup
files.
2. Access the Acronis program as detailed above and move through the
screens. When you arrive at the "Backup Archive Location" screen, click on
the original backup archive file, or if one or more incremental backup files
were previously created, click on the last incremental backup file and
verify that the correct drive letter and file name are shown in the "File
name:" text box. After clicking Next, the program will automatically create
a file name for the incremental backup archive file, using the original file
name and appending a consecutive number - starting at 2 - at the end of the
file name. For example, say you named the original backup archive file
"Backup 6-25". The first incremental backup file will be automatically named
"Backup 6-252" and the next incremental file "Backup 6-253", etc.
NOTE THAT ALL YOUR INCREMENTAL BACKUP FILES MUST BE PRESENT FOR RECOVERY
PURPOSES. DO NOT DELETE ANY OF YOUR PREVIOUSLY-CREATED INCREMENTAL BACKUP
FILES FOLLOWING THE CREATION OF A CURRENT INCREMENTAL BACKUP FILE. YOU CAN
DELETE THE INCREMENTAL FILES ONLY AFTER CREATING A FULL BACKUP ARCHIVE AS
DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION.
3. On the following "Select Backup Mode" screen, select the "Create
incremental Backup" option, click Next, and proceed through the screens as
you did in creating the initial backup archive.
Recovery Process (Disk images): We'll assume the recovery will be to either
a non-defective HDD that has become unbootable for one reason or another, or
to a new HDD. The HDD to be restored need not be partitioned/formatted since
the recovery process will take care of that function.
Note that in most cases you will be using the Acronis "Bootable Rescue
"Media" (CD) that you created when you originally installed the Acronis
program. If you didn't create that bootable CD at that time, you can create
it now from the Acronis program (assuming You can access the program at this
time) by clicking on the "Create Bootable Rescue Media" icon on the opening
Acronis screen and simply going through the screens to create the bootable
CD.
Note: If the recovery will be made to a HDD that is still bootable and
you're able to access the Acronis program on that drive, then you can
undertake the recovery process without the need for using the "bootable
rescue" CD.
1. With both the drive containing the backup disk images and the drive you
want to restore connected and with the bootable rescue CD inserted, boot up.
2. At the opening screen, click on "Acronis True Image Home (Full Version)".
3. The program will open after some moments. On the "Pick a Task" screen
that opens, click on "Recovery".
4. The "Welcome to the Restore Data Wizard!" screen opens. Click on Next.
5. The "Archive Selection" screen opens. Navigate to the drive containing
the backup archive file(s) and select the last incremental backup file or
the original full backup file if no incremental backup files were
subsequently created. Ensure that the correct drive letter and filename are
entered in the "File name:" text box. Click Next.
6. In the Acronis version 9 program, the "Archive Date Selection" screen
opens. Select (highlight) the last incremental backup file from the listing
and click Next. This screen does not appear in version 10.
7. The "Restoration Type Selection" screen opens. Select the option,
"Restore disks or partitions" and click Next.
8. The "Partition or Disk to Restore" will open. Click on "Disk 1" and click
Next.
9. After some moments the "Restored Hard Disk Drive Location" screen opens.
Select (highlight) the HDD to be restored and click Next.
10. On the next screen select the "Yes" option to delete all current
partitions on the destination HDD. Click Next.
11. On the next screen select the "No" option and click Next.
12. On the next screen you have the option to validate the backup archive
before restoration. Click Next.
13. The final screen before the restoration operation begins will open.
Confirm that the information as shown is correct. Click Proceed.
14. Click OK when following completion of the recovery operation a message
appears indicating a successful recovery operation.
15. Remove the Acronis bootable rescue CD and close the Acronis program. The
system will reboot. A Windows "Found New Hardware" message followed by the
"System Settings Change" message box may appear on the Desktop. If they do,
click Yes for a reboot.
Unknown
> If I suffer a catastrophic attack will Acronis (on its own) allow me to
> wipe
> / reformat the C: drive and reinstall a complete image?
Acronis does not wipe and reformat a hard drive. What is does is restore
the "Image Backup" you made to an existing partition, which in most cases
is the C: or Windows partition on your hard drive.
> Is it good enough to keep the image on the other HDD (D:)?
It will create and store your image file on a second internal hard drive
but using this method is not 100% bullit proof.
> What problems may arise if the image is kept on CD - and roughly how many
> CDs might this take?
Don't know about CDs but even with DVD media it would take one
or more DVDs even on a clean install so over time you may
find yourself getting tired of inserting DVD after DVD in order to
complete the backup. But if you have a "Clean Install"
of Windows it will work.
> Would a large capacity USB stick be better?
USB Stick may work if it's an 8 or 16GB unit but I never tried it.
See if the Acronis User's manual even mentions it. Also Sticks
have been know to fail when you need them the most.
Better to use an external USB hard drive.
Mark Adams
"Anna" wrote:
> snipped
This brings up the question of what happens when a lightning strike fries my
6 year old mainboard and hard drive? The image restored to new hardware
likely won't boot. Now what do you do? I've never had to do this, but I
wonder if anyone else has experience with this.
Unknown
from one computer to another. It has worked
two of three times.
After the move you made need to do a "Repair Install".
See my articles on just this subject:
"Windows XP Repair Install - How extreme can you go:"
http://www.pagestart.com/repairinstall.html
"Image Backup - When a Restored Image fails to Boot"
http://www.pagestart.com/imagebackupfails.html
The third time I moved Windows XP from a Gigabyte motherboard
to a SuperMicro motherboard, did the "Repair Install" and was good
to go, nothing was lost.
"Mark Adams" <Mark...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DAAB4DB1-F743-4F27...@microsoft.com...
Mark Adams
"JS" wrote:
> No lightning strike, but I have tried moving
> from one computer to another. It has worked
> two of three times.
>
> After the move you made need to do a "Repair Install".
>
> See my articles on just this subject:
> "Windows XP Repair Install - How extreme can you go:"
> http://www.pagestart.com/repairinstall.html
>
> "Image Backup - When a Restored Image fails to Boot"
> http://www.pagestart.com/imagebackupfails.html
>
> The third time I moved Windows XP from a Gigabyte motherboard
> to a SuperMicro motherboard, did the "Repair Install" and was good
> to go, nothing was lost.
>
> --
> JS
> http://www.pagestart.com
>
Thanks for the links, I'll check it out.
Je...@unknown.com
news:95BF0A28-E143-4B10...@microsoft.com...
>
>
I can confirm the above from personal experience. I keep my backup images
on an external USB hard drive and have restored the operating system more
than once. (I do a lot of testing).
Jeff
Anna
"Mark Adams" <Mark...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DAAB4DB1-F743-4F27...@microsoft.com...
> This brings up the question of what happens when a lightning strike fries
> my
> 6 year old mainboard and hard drive? The image restored to new hardware
> likely won't boot. Now what do you do? I've never had to do this, but I
> wonder if anyone else has experience with this.
Mark:
Over the years, using various disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs - not just
the ATI one - we've been directly or indirectly involved with thousands of
these operations where the "destination" HDD, i.e., the recipient of the
cloned contents or disk image, was another internal HDD. It's been an
extremely rare event - extremely rare - where both the source & destination
HDDs were lost as a result of a lightning strike, power surge, etc. or some
other such "electrical" event involving the PC other than actual physical
destruction or theft of the PC, the latter items accounting for virtually
every case where we've experienced loss/destruction of both disks.
This is not to say that some electrical malfunction of one sort or another
could not damage or destroy both disks so that they would be completely
defective. It *could* happen, so no one can give you absolute assurance
against that possibility. But in our rather extensive experience it's been
such a rare event as mentioned above that in most cases we discount the
possibility.
On the other hand, if data on the user's source HDD is "mission-critical" in
that the user could not tolerate its loss under any circumstances, e.g., a
business whose very existence depends upon its data, then we will always
recommend backing up data to an external source - physically removed from
the PC. Possibly in *addition* to using an internal HDD as well as the
destination HDD. Or frequently an external HDD that will ordinarily be
removed from the premises.
I do not wish to dissuade you from using a USB external HDD as the
destination drive. If you're more comfortable with that methodology rather
than using an internal HDD, by all means do so. The important thing is to
establish & maintain a comprehensive backup system - one way or another.
Anna
Mark Adams
"Anna" wrote:
I'm sorry for the confusion; "JS" got the gist of my question. If the
original computer is lost by "fried board" or as you suggest, by theft; if
the image is restored from a USB hard drive that was not lost, will the image
boot on new hardware? This also brings up a licensing issue for the OS. OEM
install goes when the hardware goes. How is this handled when the entire
machine is replaced as in a theft?
Mike Torello
>Greetings,
>
>MVPs and others on this NG speak well of Acronis TrueImage 2009.
999 out of 1000 people here will recommend ATI. ONE (Anna - who can't
say anything in 25 lines or less when there's the possibility of using
300 lines) will recommend Casper.
>Presently all is well.
>
>I run WinXP Pro with SP3 on an ASUS P5VD1 with 3.2GHz Pentium 4 and 2 x
>200GB SATA HDDs; 1 GB RAM. Norton AntiVirus and ZoneAlarm firewall always
>on; CCleaner, Spybot S&D and HijackThis from time to time. 10% of C: is used
>and 90% is free; 5% of D: is used and 95% is free.
>
>If I suffer a catastrophic attack will Acronis (on its own) allow me to wipe
>/ reformat the C: drive and reinstall a complete image?
Yes.
>Is it good enough to keep the image on the other HDD (D:)?
That's the preferred method.
>What problems may arise if the image is kept on CD - and roughly how many
>CDs might this take?
Forget about optical media... slow. VERY slow.
>Would a large capacity USB stick be better?
Not a stick, a hard drive. Cheap. Reliable.
Mike Torello
[snipping 44 lines of quoted material and 359 lines of new material]
Over 300 lines again. You're consistent, I'll say that!
If you had to print and mail all of that, I bet you could do some
drastic trimming.
Oh... and it was nice of you to say that ATI is "decent".
Once again... you are the ONLY person in all of the Windows groups who
pushes Casper exclusively.
Virtually everyone else uses/recommends ATI.
George
"Mike Torello" <tore...@chicoplt.com> wrote in message
news:6td1v4peggpk2liqm...@4ax.com...
> "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote:
>
> [snipping 44 lines of quoted material and 359 lines of new material]
>
> Over 300 lines again. You're consistent, I'll say that!
It is a windy little thing isn't it :-)
Unknown
I'm a long time Ghost user but also have recently
tried and purchased Acronis True Image 2009.
ATI has a different user interface but it's easy to learn and
does the job
For people who need help and post to this or other newsgroups
ATI has one major advantage with their "Trial Version" over
the trial version of Ghost.
ATI allows user's of the trial version to create "Rescue/Recovery"
bootable CD media, Ghost does not and therefore for a person
who needs to move their OS from one hard drive to another and
nothing more ATI wins. In the long run I'll bet once a user tries ATI
they may end up buying it, so Ghost ends up on the losing end.
"Mike Torello" <tore...@chicoplt.com> wrote in message
news:h5d1v413el9pbp2la...@4ax.com...
me
I've used Acronis for years without any problems. You can specify the
split size of the back-up to fit multiple CD's or DVD's if needed. I
usually split to DVD size and store on an external USB hard drive. One
caution: many USB hard drives come formatted FAT32, you should either
convert or format it to NTFS.
Anna
>> "Mark Adams" <Mark...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:DAAB4DB1-F743-4F27...@microsoft.com...
>> > This brings up the question of what happens when a lightning strike
>> > fries
>> > my
>> > 6 year old mainboard and hard drive? The image restored to new hardware
>> > likely won't boot. Now what do you do? I've never had to do this, but I
>> > wonder if anyone else has experience with this.
"Mark Adams" <Mark...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1AB8F050-610E-4901...@microsoft.com...
> I'm sorry for the confusion; "JS" got the gist of my question. If the
> original computer is lost by "fried board" or as you suggest, by theft; if
> the image is restored from a USB hard drive that was not lost, will the
> image
> boot on new hardware? This also brings up a licensing issue for the OS.
> OEM
> install goes when the hardware goes. How is this handled when the entire
> machine is replaced as in a theft?
Mark:
With respect to this specific issue, i.e., the theft of the PC or its
physical destruction, the few times (possibly less than 1/2 dozen cases)
that I was directly involved with ATI users, they had been using the
disk-cloning capability of the ATI program - not the disk-imaging process.
In at least one of these cases as I recall the user's destination HDD (the
recipient of the clone) was a SATA external HDD (having SATA-to-SATA
connectivity). In that case (again, as I recall) the user was able to boot
from that drive after connecting it to the user's new PC via one of the
motherboard's SATA connectors or through the PC's eSATA port - (I can't
remember which).
In the other cases where the clone resided on a USBEHD, the HDD was removed
from the external enclosure and installed as an internal HDD in the new
desktop PC. Either the boot proceeded straightaway or a Repair install of
the OS had to be performed. And, of course, in either case the motherboard's
drivers had to be subsequently installed. In any event the result was a
bootable functional machine with all data (from the clone) intact.
In two or three cases where the theft involved a laptop/notebook - obviously
OEM machines. Again, as I recall, the clones resided on USBEHD devices,
however, the drives were of the 3 1/2" desktop variety and not the 2 1/2"
laptop/notebook kind. So obviously they couldn't be directly installed in
the new laptop/notebooks. Where the new laptop/notebook was the identical
model of the lost one we simply cloned the contents of the USBEHD to the
internal HDD of the machine. (I'm pretty sure we used the Acronis "Bootable
Rescue Media" CD to undertake the disk-cloning process in those cases). I
can't remember whether there was any need to install any revised drivers re
the new laptop/notebook. In any event we wound up with a working machine
with all programs & user data intact.
In the one or two cases where a completely different make/model was the
replacement laptop/notebook, we were unable to effect a bootable machine via
the disk clone. The best we could do was salvage the user's personal data
and some add'l data from the clone as I recall.
As I've indicated I haven't had any experience (that I can recall) with the
ATI disk-imaging process as it involved these specific types of situations.
Perhaps someone who has had experience re this specific issue can comment on
such.
Anna
Daave
Although Acronis is my first choice, I appreciate Anna's posts about
Casper. Cloning has its place. And for people who have a need for
constant cloning (not many that I know personally, but they do exist), I
would imagine Casper would fit the bill.
Mike Torello
I own BOTH Acronis AND Casper. And I USE both DAILY.
Anna only uses Casper, and presents an extremely biased view of Casper
to people who have no clue.
For 95% of the users here, ATI not only will fulfill their needs, but
will do it BETTER than Casper will.
For the few of us who want/need to do daily cloning, Casper is better.
Mike Torello
>Make that 998.5 Mike.
>
>I'm a long time Ghost user but also have recently
>tried and purchased Acronis True Image 2009.
>ATI has a different user interface but it's easy to learn and
>does the job
>
>For people who need help and post to this or other newsgroups
>ATI has one major advantage with their "Trial Version" over
>the trial version of Ghost.
>
>ATI allows user's of the trial version to create "Rescue/Recovery"
>bootable CD media, Ghost does not and therefore for a person
>who needs to move their OS from one hard drive to another and
>nothing more ATI wins. In the long run I'll bet once a user tries ATI
>they may end up buying it, so Ghost ends up on the losing end.
Ghost was my backup program of choice. I briefly tried Image for DOS
and Image for Windows while using Ghost, but stuck with Ghost. Ran
across ATI ver. 8.0 at some point. Tried it, liked it, have never
looked back.
Mike Torello
I can't recall ever - EVER - running across any one who is more windy
in my 18-20 years on Usenet.
If that woman is married or has a room mate, whoever it is must have
nerves if steel... or drinks a lot.
Ken Blake, MVP
> Make that 998.5 Mike.
>
> I'm a long time Ghost user but also have recently
> tried and purchased Acronis True Image 2009.
> ATI has a different user interface but it's easy to learn and
> does the job
>
> For people who need help and post to this or other newsgroups
> ATI has one major advantage with their "Trial Version" over
> the trial version of Ghost.
Can I make this suggestion, which I've made here before, once again,
to you and the others in this thread? Please do not call "Acronis True
Image" ATI. The reason I say that is because doing do is very
confusing, since ATI is a well-known manufacturer of video cards.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Unknown
I Googled "ATI", "ATIH" and "ATI Home 2009"
Top search results did not return any "Acronis True Image Home 2009" links.
But this did:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Acronis+True+Image+Home+2009&btnG=Search
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:v1v1v4di7siat6k34...@4ax.com...
Randall Flagg
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:31:48 -0400, "JS" <@> wrote:
>
>> Make that 998.5 Mike.
>>
>> I'm a long time Ghost user but also have recently
>> tried and purchased Acronis True Image 2009.
>> ATI has a different user interface but it's easy to learn and
>> does the job
>>
>> For people who need help and post to this or other newsgroups
>> ATI has one major advantage with their "Trial Version" over
>> the trial version of Ghost.
>
>
>Can I make this suggestion, which I've made here before, once again,
>to you and the others in this thread? Please do not call "Acronis True
>Image" ATI. The reason I say that is because doing do is very
>confusing, since ATI is a well-known manufacturer of video cards.
Umm... but we're not talking about video cards here.
We should probably not use "MS" in place of Microsoft, either, since
"MS" is a well known term referring to Multiple Sclerosis.
Terry R.
whim, Randall Flagg pounded out on the keyboard:
Or use BS, as we don't want anyone to believe we're thinking they're
smarter than they are. ;-)
Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Bill in Co.
JC
wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>MVPs and others on this NG speak well of Acronis TrueImage 2009.
>
>Presently all is well.
>
>I run WinXP Pro with SP3 on an ASUS P5VD1 with 3.2GHz Pentium 4 and 2 x
>200GB SATA HDDs; 1 GB RAM. Norton AntiVirus and ZoneAlarm firewall always
>on; CCleaner, Spybot S&D and HijackThis from time to time. 10% of C: is used
>and 90% is free; 5% of D: is used and 95% is free.
>
>If I suffer a catastrophic attack will Acronis (on its own) allow me to wipe
>/ reformat the C: drive and reinstall a complete image?
>Is it good enough to keep the image on the other HDD (D:)?
>What problems may arise if the image is kept on CD - and roughly how many
>CDs might this take?
>Would a large capacity USB stick be better?
>
>Thanks in advance for any advice
>
Hi teabag,
I have a similar setup to you with drive C: holding the operating
system and drive D: the data.
The backup strategy that I use is that each Sunday I backup drive
C: to an external SATA drive K: and drive D: to an external SATA
drive L: using Norton Ghost images. That takes care of the bulk
of the backing up. The external SATA drives are turned off after
the backups have been completed.
To cover failure of the data drive D: the last thing each night I
do is a backup of drive D: to drive C: using Norton Ghost image.
The theory in this strategy is that the operating system drive
doesn't change much each day so a weekly backup should suffice.
However, the data drive does change a lot and so daily backups
are required. I figured that it was unlikely that BOTH drives
C: and D: would fail simultaneously.
To cover simultaneous failures of drives C: and D: you could do a
nightly backup of drive D: to the external drive.
--
Cheers . . . JC
teabag
I recognise that theft would, and gross electrical failure could, result in
the loss of both internal HDDs.
I am still not sure if the data / image /clone kept on the (connected)
internal D: drive would or could be deranged by a virus coming down the
internet and onto the C: drive (and it would not suit me to isolate the D:
drive).
I shall buy Acronis True Image 2009 (unabbreviated), rather than Ghost or
Casper, and an external USB HDD, with its own separate power supply.
I'll make a clone of my C: drive (on the USBEHD) and subsequently repeat the
process perhaps once a year.
I'll continue to use my D: drive for backup of C: drive data (but not the
OS or applications).
Thanks again.
teabag
PS In retirement I find I have time to read the longest responses ;)
"teabag" <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lvGdnVsdA8zG7W3U...@pipex.net...
> Greetings,
>
> MVPs and others on this NG speak well of Acronis TrueImage 2009.
>
> Presently all is well.
>
> I run WinXP Pro with SP3 on an ASUS P5VD1 with 3.2GHz Pentium 4 and 2 x
> 200GB SATA HDDs; 1 GB RAM. Norton AntiVirus and ZoneAlarm firewall always
> on; CCleaner, Spybot S&D and HijackThis from time to time. 10% of C: is
> used
> and 90% is free; 5% of D: is used and 95% is free.
>
> If I suffer a catastrophic attack will Acronis (on its own) allow me to
> wipe
> / reformat the C: drive and reinstall a complete image?
> Is it good enough to keep the image on the other HDD (D:)?
> What problems may arise if the image is kept on CD - and roughly how many
> CDs might this take?
> Would a large capacity USB stick be better?
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice
>
> teabag
>
>
>
spamlet
recommend backing up data to an external source - physically removed from
the PC."
Have any of you looked at backing up via wireless?
Is there an external HDD with wireless built in that could be used from a
location reasonably hidden from thieves for example?
Cheers,
S
Anna
> My thanks to everyone who has replied to my first post.
>
> I recognise that theft would, and gross electrical failure could, result
> in the loss of both internal HDDs.
> I am still not sure if the data / image /clone kept on the (connected)
> internal D: drive would or could be deranged by a virus coming down the
> internet and onto the C: drive (and it would not suit me to isolate the D:
> drive).
>
> I shall buy Acronis True Image 2009 (unabbreviated), rather than Ghost or
> Casper, and an external USB HDD, with its own separate power supply.
> I'll make a clone of my C: drive (on the USBEHD) and subsequently repeat
> the process perhaps once a year.
> I'll continue to use my D: drive for backup of C: drive data (but not the
> OS or applications).
>
> Thanks again.
>
> teabag
>
> PS In retirement I find I have time to read the longest responses ;)
teabag:
Obviously, in terms of determining which comprehensive backup program to
employ you are the one to finally decide what is best for you based on your
specific situation & needs. So if you decide that the ATI 2009 program best
serves those needs, so be it.
I would hope, however, that whatever choice you (or anyone else) makes in
this regard is based on an informed choice in that wherever possible you've
had an opportunity to work with the various programs and based upon your
personal experience with this or that program you're able to make that
"informed" choice. I trust that you would not be *solely* guided by the
recommendations of this or that person, especially emanating from this (and
similar) newsgroups. And that includes my recommendation(s) as well.
Similarly it's fine to solicit opinions from others as to how one should
consider setting up one's HDDs and/or other media to effect one's backup
system. But again, your specific circumstances and (hopefully) "hands-on"
experience will ultimately dictate the choice.
I fully realize that while there's a multitude of disk-cloning/disk-imaging
programs "out there", not all of them have available trial or demo versions.
So given their sheer number and the financial burden a user would have to
incur in "testing" these various programs, it's unreasonable to assume a
potential user would be able to experience most of these various programs on
a first-hand basis. So it's understandable that one will solicit the views
of others and weigh these views in his or her own mind.
But where the commercial program does have a trial or demo version available
it seems to me sensible for the potential user to try out the program and
compare it with other programs. I assume that's the version you've worked
with before deciding to purchase the program. You also mentioned the Casper
program in your current post. Let me say a few words about that program...
During the course of this thread in responding to your query (and I believe
one other poster), I posted three responses. All of my responses dealt with
the issue at hand, i.e., the ATI program, since you had indicated that
program was either the program you were working with or planning to work
with. More specifically you were interested in what approach you should take
in setting up your "destination" media in terms of their serving as
recipients of the "source" HDD's disk images. I also provided you (and
hopefully others who might be interested in the ATI program) detailed
step-by-step instructions for using the ATI program both with respect to its
disk-cloning as well as its disk-imaging capabilities. Not knowing the level
of your experience with the program I thought it might be of some benefit to
you (and others as well) even though those instructions dealt with earlier
versions of the ATI program.
All of my responses (posts) dealt with this issue re the ATI program since
it was apparent that was your program of choice. Not once did I mention the
Casper 5 program. But during the course of this thread there was one or more
posts by a responder who mentioned the Casper program and indicated (in a
negative way) that program was my program of choice re a comprehensive
backup program. I note that you have also mentioned the Casper program in
your present post. So I'm not aware as to whether you've worked with that
program but found the ATI program superior for your needs. Again, if that be
so, so be it.
It is true that I greatly prefer the Casper 5 disk-cloning program over the
ATI program and it's the backup program we recommend for most PC users. I
believe that as a comprehensive backup program it is substantially superior
to the ATI program for the vast majority of PC users. While I fully
recognize it does not meet the needs of *all* PC users, I reiterate that in
my opinion the Casper 5 program is better-suited as a comprehensive backup
program for most PC users.
As you may know I have previously posted to this newsgroup and related
newsgroups detailed reasons as to why I prefer the Casper 5 program for
general backup purposes. I'll do so again should anyone be interested in
such. I might also mention that Casper also has a trial version available
for download at http://www.fssdev.com. Although somewhat crippled it should
give potential users a good idea of its capabilities and whether that
program would meet their needs in terms of a comprehensive backup program.
Anna
Big_Al
> How is Casper different than the free cloning software that is available from
> hard drive manufacturers in what it does (not in the ease of use). True Image
> dose imaging and Casper dose cloning. You cant realy compare the two unless I'm
> not fully informed about Casper. If Casper can put a number of backups on one
> drive, then I'm wrong about Casper.
> | __\_\_o____/_|
> <[___\_\_-----<------------------<No Spam Please><
> | o'
Acronis does both images and clone.
Anna
"John" <seeth...@my.sig> wrote in message
news:33r3v45mq6vkti6q8...@4ax.com...
How is Casper different than the free cloning software that is available
from
hard drive manufacturers in what it does (not in the ease of use). True
Image
dose imaging and Casper dose cloning. You cant realy compare the two unless
I'm
not fully informed about Casper. If Casper can put a number of backups on
one
drive, then I'm wrong about Casper.
John:
Let me make it clear at the outset that "ease of use" is of paramount
importance insofar as I'm concerned when I make recommendations involving
this or that program, but particularly when it comes to a user selecting a
comprehensive backup program. I've dealt with thousands of PC home &
small-business users over the years and have learned in no uncertain terms
that "ease of use" is *vital* for a large percentage of these users. I
realize "ease of use" is a relative term; what's easy for you may be
difficult for others. In any event we seek programs that are obviously
effective in what they're supposed to do, however, we attach great
importance to the design of the program in that the program contains a
no-nonsense straightforward design (user interface) that makes it easy for
even an inexperienced person to learn & effectively use the program within a
short period of time and *continue* to use the program on a routine frequent
basis. While the foregoing may not be of any significant importance to you
or others, it *is* to us. So I just wanted to make that clear at the outset.
But setting aside this "ease of use" issue, the chief reason we prefer the
Casper 5 program over all other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs we've
worked with is the speed of the backup operation when the program is used on
a routine & frequent basis. Casper has a rather extroardinary ability to
create "incremental clones", using what Casper refers to as its "SmartClone"
technology. Understand that the "incremental clone" is a complete clone of
the source disk (HDD). The result of this incremental clone process is that
it takes the user only a fraction of the time to create subsequent clones of
the source HDD than it would otherwise take using the typical disk-cloning
or disk-imaging methodology.
As an example...
When a typical disk-cloning program undertakes its disk-to-disk cloning
process it does so without regard that the "source" and "destination" HDDs
involved in the disk-cloning operation are the *identical* drives that had
been involved when a prior disk-cloning operation had been undertaken. It
doesn't matter to the disk-cloning program whether the HDD now being cloned
was cloned an hour ago, or a day ago, or whenever. The "now" disk-cloning
operation will proceed as if the HDD recipient of the clone, i.e., the
destination HDD is bare of data, even if that same destination HDD was the
recipient of a prior clone from the same source HDD 10 minutes ago.
As a result...
The disk-cloning operation will take a substantial amount of time to "do its
work" each time the disk-cloning operation is undertaken, without regard to
the fact that perhaps only a relatively few changes involving the source
HDD's data has changed since the last disk-cloning operation. So, as an
example, let's say it takes about 45 minutes or so to clone the contents of
a HDD containing 40 GB of data to another HDD. Two days later the user
decides to again back up his or her system by undertaking another
disk-cloning operation. Presumably the data changes over those two days
haven't been especially large. But with the typical disk-cloning program,
e.g., Acronis True Image, it will take the disk-cloning program just about
the *same* period of time to perform current the disk-cloning operation as
it did originally, i.e., 30 minutes in the preceding example. And so on and
so on in the following days.
But with the Casper 5 program, the program has the capability of recognizing
*only* the change in data that has occurred from its last disk-cloning
operation and will proceed to "do its work" on that basis. Thus, given the
example above it will probably take less than 3 or 4 minutes to complete the
disk-cloning operation. THREE OR FOUR MINUTES! And so on and so forth.
So you can see what a valuable incentive this is for users to systematically
& routinely backup their systems with the Casper 5 program - knowing that
the expenditure of time to complete the disk-cloning operation will be
relatively slight. Surely this is a strong incentive for a user to maintain
his/her complete system in a reasonably up-to-date fashion. Obviously the
amount of time it will take to complete this "incremental" disk-cloning
operation with Casper will be dependent upon the total volume of data being
cloned as well as the additions, deletions, configuration changes, etc. that
had been made since the previous disk-cloning operation. So the user is
encouraged to perform these disk-cloning operations on a relatively frequent
basis since he/she knows that the expenditure of time in completing the
operation will be relatively trifling. We have found this to be a very
strong incentive for the user to undertake frequent disk-cloning operations
with the Casper 5 program and by so doing keep their backup system as
current as possible.
And keep in mind that the recipient of the clone - the destination HDD -
will be a precise copy of the source HDD with all its data immediately
accessible in exactly the same way one would access data from their source
HDD - their day-to-day working HDD in most cases. And the destination HDD,
should it be an internal HDD or installed as an internal HDD from an
exterior enclosure will be *immediately* bootable & functional without the
need of any recovery process.
It's hard to imagine a better backup system for most users.
Using the OP's situation as an example...
The user indicated that he/she was working with two HDDs - a primary (boot)
200 GB HDD containing about 20 GB of data, and another 200 GB secondary HDD
that contained about 10 GB of data. I suggested that he/she consider moving
the 10 GB of data from the secondary HDD to the primary HDD and use the
secondary HDD as the "destination" HDD, i.e., the recipient of the
disk-image (the OP was using, or intended to use the Acronis True Image
program's disk-imaging capability).
The OP later said (after considering the responses he rec'd to his/her
query) that he/she now planned to
"make a clone of my C: drive (on the USBEHD) and subsequently repeat the
process perhaps once a year." Once a year.
He/she went on to say that "I'll continue to use my D: drive for backup of
C: drive data (but not the
OS or applications)".
Let's assume for a moment that the OP used the Casper 5 program to
comprehensively back up his/her system, i.e., the *entire* contents of the
system on a routine basis.
If, as I had recommended, the OP moved the present 10 GB of data on his/her
secondary HDD over to the primary (boot) HDD he/she would be working with
about 30 GB of total data contents of his/her system, all of which would be
contained on the primary HDD. The other 200 GB HDD installed in a USB
external enclosure could then be used as the "destination" HDD, i.e., the
recipient of the cloned contents of the primary HDD.
By using the Casper 5 program to routinely clone those contents - perhaps
once or twice a week - it would probably take him/her (or more precisely,
take the Casper 5 program) about 2 or 3 minutes to complete the disk-cloning
operation. TWO OR THREE MINUTES.
And what would he/she have following each disk-cloning operation? A precise
copy of his/her day-to-day working HDD. Virtually completely up-to-date. All
data on the destination HDD would be immediately accessible with no
"restore" process necessary to access the data. If the user's primary HDD
had failed, the cloned HDD could be removed from its enclosure and installed
in place of the defective HDD. Or, if the user replaced the defective drive
with a new one the contents of the USBEHD would be cloned back to the new
HDD. The system would then be *immediately* bootable & functional. Or, if
the primary HDD, while not defective, had a corrupted OS resulting in an
unbootable/dysfunctional system then it would again be a simple matter to
clone the contents of the USBEHD to the primary HDD and easily and
relatively quickly return the system to a bootable functional system once
again.
You state "If Casper can put a number of backups on one drive, then I'm
wrong about Casper." I'm not clear as to the meaning of your statement. If,
as I suspect, you're referring to "generational" copies of one's system, it
is true that is one area where a disk-imaging program such as the ATI one
would probably be more suitable for a user who was primarily or exclusively
interested in maintaining copies of his/her system at various points in
time. In our experience relatively few PC users (excepting commercial
enteritis) are interested in that capability to any degree. Most users
primary, if not sole, interest is in maintaining a current backup of their
system.
Anna
Mike Torello
>How is Casper different than the free cloning software that is available from
>hard drive manufacturers in what it does (not in the ease of use). True Image
>dose imaging and Casper dose cloning. You cant realy compare the two unless I'm
>not fully informed about Casper. If Casper can put a number of backups on one
>drive, then I'm wrong about Casper.
Both Acronis and Casper can clone - Casper does it easier, but that is
ALL that it can do (I own it).
Acronis can ALSO clone... AND MUCH MORE (I own it too).
It can do a full system clone or image.
It can do a data-only image (you choose which data)
It can image a single file is that's what you want it to do.
And images - as opposed to clones - can be more easily stored and kept
so that you can have backups of your system at several (as many as you
like) points in time... just in CASE your most recent backup contains
garbage is of a troubled system that you were unaware of at the time
of making the backup.
I use Casper to keep a second internal drive ready in case my main
drive completely fails (dies, quits). I update the clone daily - and
that's where Casper shines.
However, few people keep an entire disk at the ready like I do.
For the majority of users, an imaging program is all that is needed.
The freebie that came with your drive is probably a partial version of
Acronis True Image. It will do you nicely.
Should you prefer to buy a full-strength program, I would suggest
Acronis. One: it is more versatile than Casper, and 2) it will cost
you a lot less - and you won't have to pay extra for what you need to
create a bootable CD with the software on it in case you need one (and
you no doubt WILL).
Mike Torello
[snip]
Take notice that if Anna had tried to convey exactly what I conveyed
(she couldn't, because she only thinks Acronis is a "decent" program),
it would have taken her over 300 lines rather than the 40 or so that I
used.
Daave
> John <seeth...@my.sig> wrote:
>
>> How is Casper different than the free cloning software that is
>> available from hard drive manufacturers in what it does (not in the
>> ease of use). True Image dose imaging and Casper dose cloning. You
>> cant realy compare the two unless I'm not fully informed about
>> Casper. If Casper can put a number of backups on one drive, then I'm
>> wrong about Casper.
>
> Both Acronis and Casper can clone - Casper does it easier, but that is
> ALL that it can do (I own it).
Casper allows quicker cloning if one uses the incremental mode. Acronis
can't do that.
> Acronis can ALSO clone... AND MUCH MORE (I own it too).
Since I have no need to constantly clone my hard drive, I am happy with
Acronis.
> It can do a full system clone or image.
>
> It can do a data-only image (you choose which data)
>
> It can image a single file is that's what you want it to do.
>
> And images - as opposed to clones - can be more easily stored and kept
> so that you can have backups of your system at several (as many as you
> like) points in time... just in CASE your most recent backup contains
> garbage is of a troubled system that you were unaware of at the time
> of making the backup.
That is the clear advantage of Acronis. Unless you have six or seven
cloned hard drives lying around, it's impossible to go that far back in
time using Casper (or any other cloning program).
> I use Casper to keep a second internal drive ready in case my main
> drive completely fails (dies, quits). I update the clone daily - and
> that's where Casper shines.
>
> However, few people keep an entire disk at the ready like I do.
That is why I agree with you that for most people, Acronis is a better
product.
Bill in Co.
Except I believe Anna pointed out that one could store several cloned
partition backups on the backup drive (if one wanted to), and choose to
reclone any one of them back to the source drive, with Casper. (Just like
one could do with BootItNG, or any other *partition cloning* program that
allows for partition cloning and not only cloning the entire hard disk.
But imaging still seems more appropriate for this use, as she also agreed
with (for maintaining generational copies).
Bill in Co.
Maybe you need to enroll in a speed reading course, and stop being so lazy?
If it's too long for you to read, then don't "strain yourself" trying to
read it (cough).
I can "understand" a newager youngin' whining about that, but not someone
older. Or - maybe you aren't.
Danny Williams
She's a great example of the truth in the statement "less is more".
Thanks for your brevity.
teabag
Years ago, on a Pentium II system with twin 8GB HDDs, I found I could
restore a clone more quickly than I could wipe C: and reinstall (a full
retail version of) Win98SE, modem drivers and everything else. But I don't
know much about NTFS or WinXP Pro yet.
Making the image or clone (I recognise these words are not synonyms), whilst
my 3.2GHz system is in perfect health, doesn't worry me at all. Changing the
boot sequence in BIOS does not faze me either, but I do want to be sure I
can restore an image or clone, when the C: drive is infected, when Windows
is not running, and when I have no internet access to help.
As I see it, Casper with the start-up disk, will cost U$60 whereas Acronis
True Image will cost £25.
Acronis can do more than Casper but on common ground Casper is more
convenient than Acronis.
I note that if a USBEHD is not running when I boot with its start-up CD,
Casper will not see that drive; maybe the same would happen with Acronis?
I shall stick with my plan to buy Acronis software but I won't buy a USBEHD;
instead I shall get a 3rd Seagate internal HDD similar to the ones I've
already got. By swapping the drives about, I will be able to practice a
'restore' and convince myself that I, and the software, can do it.
Subsequently a drive bearing the clone will be kept remote and recreated
irregularly.
I should have made clear I do use USB sticks to hold, conveniently
accessible, backups (simple copies) of all my correspondence and accounting
data. Incremental cloning is not an essential feature so far as I am
concerned.
Thank you for your 3 responses to my original post, your advice has been
most helpful.
teabag
"Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:eDm$4YRxJH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Unknown
So as long as you where in DOS even
a utility know as xxcopy would clone
a drive as Windows was not running.
"teabag" <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:YZGdnTyrZrt9RG_U...@pipex.net...
teabag
I rather liked Norton Commander but when pushed I could use many
instructions on the command line.
Is there a Norton Commander equivalent for NTFS?
teabag
"JS" <@> wrote in message news:OD5wooax...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Anna
teabag:
First, let me make it clear (as I hope I have done so throughout this
thread) that I am not in any way trying to dissuade you (or anyone else)
from using the Acronis program rather than the Casper 5 program if that be
your choice. My only objective was (and is) - as this thread evolved - to
explain why I preferred the Casper 5 program as a comprehensive backup
program for the vast majority of PC users in comparison with other
disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs, including the Acronis program. Again, I
fully recognize (as I have previously pointed out) that many users have
specialized needs/objectives that can be better met with the Acronis program
for reasons we have already discussed, however, I maintain that for the vast
majority of PC users the Casper 5 program is the better choice as a routine
comprehensive backup program.
So now that we've got that out-of-the-way...
1. If the cost of the program is of *paramount* importance to the PC user,
then it's "no contest". Obviously the Acronis program (or some other
less-expensive program) would be the way to go. You're correct that the cost
of the Casper 5 program is $59.90 (to be precise) - considerably more
expensive than the Acronis as well as other disk-cloning/disk-imaging
programs. We've never been thrilled with that aspect of Casper, especially
since that cost includes an additional $9.95 for the bootable "Casper
Startup Disk" (CD), an obviously essential component of the program, and to
our way of thinking should be included in the basic $49.95 cost for the
program. We have expressed our dismay to the developer over this and we're
hopeful that at the least the program to create the "Startup Disk" will be
included in the basic price of the program in the not-too-distant future.
However...
While the cost of the program is significantly more expensive than most
other comprehensive backup programs, in our view it's still well worth the
additional cost considering its overall effectiveness and the fact that one
will be using the program many, many times over the weeks, months, and years
ahead. We've introduced the program to many users (including former ATI
users) and I can't recall a single person who regretted his/her purchase.
But like most other things in this world, "yer pays yer money and yer makes
yer cherce".
2. I'm not entirely clear on the info you provided in your first paragraph.
There are really no terribly significant differences between the pre-XP OSs
and the current XP OS in terms of the basic disk-cloning/disk-imaging
processes. The fact that you "don't know much about NTFS or WinXP Pro yet"
is not of any major import re the topic we're discussing.
3. As to your comment that "I do want to be sure I can restore an image or
clone, when the C: drive is infected, when Windows is not running, and when
I have no internet access to help.", this should not be a problem with
either the Acronis or Casper (of for that matter, any other
disk-cloning/disk-imaging) program. That's what these programs are designed
to do. It has nothing to do with "internet access".
4. You say "I note that if a USBEHD is not running when I boot with its
start-up CD, Casper will not see that drive; maybe the same would happen
with Acronis?". I'm at a loss to understand that comment. Can I assume
you're referring to a situation where (using Casper as the example) you've
previously cloned the contents of your "source" HDD to your USBEHD which is
serving as the "destination" drive for the contents of your system? And now
(for one reason or another) your source HDD has failed and you're attempting
to restore the system by cloning the contents of the USBEHD back to the
internal source HDD (assuming the latter is non-defective), or a new
internal HDD that you installed in the event of the original HDD becoming
defective? Is that the situation you're referring to?
Assuming it is, there should be no problem using Casper's bootable "Startup
Disk" CD to access the Casper program and simply undertake the disk-cloning
process through that means. Is that not clear to you? Obviously you would
power-on the USBEHD during the process. How else could the system recognize
the USBEHD if it was "not running"? But perhaps I misunderstand your
comment.
5. As to your proposal to install three internal HDDs and use some technique
involving "swapping the drives about", frankly I find that methodology
rather awkward & unduly complicated in terms of establishing & maintaining a
comprehensive backup system, but if you feel comfortable with that approach,
that's all that counts. Again, when all is said & done, the objective is to
maintain as up-to-date backup of one's system as is practicable. Our goal is
to accomplish this in as simple, direct, & straightforward manner as
possible - and to do so reasonably quickly. It's for those reasons that we
prefer the Casper 5 program.
6. There's no question that those ubiquitous flash (pen, thumb) drives are
handy devices for "on-the-fly" backups, so I think you're wise to use them
for that purpose. They are not, however, the most reliable of devices in our
experience and should not be used (in our opinion) to serve as the *sole*
backup device for "mission-critical" data. Just peruse this newsgroup and
similar ones dealing with XP-Vista issues and you'll see what I mean.
Anyway, good luck with your approach(es) re maintaining comprehensive
backups of your system. As a general proposition you've made a wise decision
to do so; so whatever approach(es) best meet your individual needs should
surely suffice.
Anna
Unknown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Commander
The days of Peter are over :-(
"teabag" <nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ts-dnSIjeZIai27U...@pipex.net...
Je...@unknown.com
handy. Not sure where you can still find it.
Jeff
Anna
> <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>Except I believe Anna pointed out that one could store several cloned
>>partition backups on the backup drive (if one wanted to), and choose to
>>reclone any one of them back to the source drive, with Casper. (Just like
>>one could do with BootItNG, or any other *partition cloning* program that
>>allows for partition cloning and not only cloning the entire hard disk.
"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
news:ocg6v4hov11aimrpg...@4ax.com...
> You can NOT store several bootable clones on a destination drive with
> Casper.
> You Can store copies, not clones.
>
> Casper is the easiest backup software I have run across.
>
> It's very fast, also.
"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
news:nkg6v491mi833ipvq...@4ax.com...
> I've personally found no need for the Casper startup disk.
>
> I have an external drive inside an enclosure I purchased.
>
> The enclosure can use a SATA or USB connection.
>
> I backup using USB. If I want to restore, I can hook it up via SATA
> and rather than take the drive out of my enclosure, I clone the external
> back to my internal and I'm good to go.
>
> Probably the lazy way, as I should just take the cloned drive and
> physically install it into my tower.
Wally...
As to your first comment...
Actually, using the Casper 5 program one can store clones of different
systems onto a single destination HDD, say a USB external HDD. (I'm not
clear on your comment that Casper "can store copies, not clones.")
An example...
Say a user is working with two different PCs - one his/her desktop PC, the
other a laptop/notebook. Obviously two different systems. We'll assume (for
simplicity's sake) that each system is single-partitioned.
The user could create two partitions on his/her USBEHD so that each
partition so created will receive the cloned contents of whichever system
(the desktop machine or the notebook) the user chooses to clone. The only
proviso, of course, is that each partition so created is sufficient in size
to contain the cloned data contents of whatever system is being cloned.
Thus, for example, if the user's notebook system later needs to be restored
it would be a simple matter to clone the contents of the partition on the
USBEHD containing the notebook's cloned data back to the notebook. Ditto for
the desktop machine.
It does, however, get a bit more complicated when the user is working with
different systems and their source HDDs are multi-partitioned. Then it
becomes necessary to clone the contents of the drives to the destination
drive on a partition-by-partition basis. And this can become unwieldy
particularly if both machines' systems are multi-partitioned. It can be
done, but it can be awkward depending upon the sheer number of partitions
involved. So, as a general proposition, where the user is dealing with a
number of different multi-partitioned systems (PCs) and desires to use a
single destination HDD to contain the backed-up contents of those systems,
he or she would most likely be better off with using a disk-imaging type of
program such as the Acronis one we've been discussing. In our experience,
however, we find that many, if not most, PC users having different systems
prefer to back up those systems on an individual basis using separate backup
drives - either internal or external.
As to your second comment about never finding (so far) a need for the Casper
(bootable) Startup Disk (CD). Count yourself lucky. Many users certainly
find a need for using the Startup Disk. How else can they access the Casper
program if their source HDD containing the Casper program has failed?
It's good that your external enclosure has both USB & SATA-to-SATA
connectivity. We highly recommend that type of device for users in the
market for an external enclosure (assuming their PC has SATA capability).
I assume you use the USB connection in backing up your system because your
desktop PC does not contain a SATA or eSATA external port. Are you aware
that there are simple eSATA adapters (usually in the $10 or so range) that
you can easily install on the backplane of your desktop's computer case?
This would give you SATA-to-SATA connectivity resulting in (usually) faster
data transfer during the disk-cloning operation. Another advantage would be
that now your external SATA HDD is *bootable* without further ado - the
system treating the external SATA HDD as an *internal* HDD.
Anna
Bill in Co.
Actually, I was just talking about cloning the same system partition, but
made at different times, so that the destination drive stored all of them,
and you could selectively choose which one you wished to reclone back to the
source drive, as desired (the kind of thing imaging is more appropriate for,
as we've agreed).
Meebers
containing the Casper program has failed?.." My method is: I use removable
HDD enclosures. The "cloned" HDD enclosure key is turned on, (perminent
connection via IDE) it boots from that disk, I re-clone the Main disk. No
need for CD. 2nd comment, the initial price $60 is paid once, and just like
Acronic, there is a discount for previous owners when you change to the
lastest edition.
Alan Biddle
Take a look at Free Commander: http://www.freecommander.com/
I never used the original NC so I cannot comment on the fidelity of
emulation, but it has become my standard file manager. Works fine on
XP and Vista.
--
Alan
teabag
Re para 2.
Because I was comfortable in DOS I could do things with my PC before Windows
98SE was restored. If a bad virus knocks out my Windows XP system I know I
need to get through a critical stage - booting from a CD through to clone
restoration. I suppose you have done that; but I haven't yet. Please recall
that NTFS was new to you once upon a time.
Re para 3.
Nothing should be a problem. I'll settle for certainty now so that I don't
need to call for help later (when the line is down).
Re para 4.
fss_casper_50_userguide.pdf - page 29 - foot note. You may know, but I don't
know, if a external USB HDD dependent on power from the PC will get the
power it needs before boot. If the USB device is not recognised until the
end of the boot sequence (it seems to me) this Casper warning MAY be
relevant.
Re para 5.
I can avoid the need for USB dependency, during a Windows OFF restoration
phase, by using an internal HDD. Such a device will also be cheaper than an
external HDD. Moreover, I can minimise risk (fire, theft etc) to the clone
by keeping it physically separate from the PC most of the time. However, I
accept that many of your clients would not wish to be bothered with
screwdrivers.
teabag
"Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:Op417Lbx...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Anna
"Meebers" <Jus...@Idontknow.com> wrote in message
news:%2318zfvd...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Meebers:
I most certainly agree that installing one or more removable HDDs ("mobile
racks") in one's desktop PC is an ideal hardware configuration. We've been
working with that kind of hardware arrangement for over a dozen years now
and we heartily endorse it for PC desktop users. We've installed or helped
install a few thousand of these devices over the years. They're simple to
install - no more difficult than installing an optical drive. As we've said
time & time again - once you work with removable HDDs you'll never want to
return to the "old way". They're that good.
As I'm sure you know, removable HDDs have another significant advantage.
While the system treats a removable HDD in the identical fashion as an
internally-installed HDD, the removable HDD can be easily uninstalled
(physically & electronically) from the system - either by a simple turn of
its keylock (as you have indicated) and simply disengaging its removable
tray (caddy) containing the HDD from the machine by an easy pull (as easy as
opening a small desk drawer). So as a consequence of all this the user is
gaining another significant advantage in that the same device is at once an
internal HDD with all those inherent advantages and yet easily serves
"double-duty" as an *external* device. In other words, the best of all
worlds.
However, the truth of the matter is that sadly only a small percentage of PC
users have installed removable HDDs on their desktop machines. And only an
insignificant number of OEM machines are equipped with removable HDDs. And,
of course, it's still rather rare that a laptop/notebook will be equipped
with these devices although many notebooks are now coming equipped with an
eSATA port so at least a user can employ an external enclosure having
SATA-to-SATA connectivity when utilizing a disk-cloning or disk-imaging
program. (Preferably the former in our opinion since now that SATA HDD is a
*bootable* device.)
But it's clear that (based upon my experience) most PC users still employ a
USB external HDD as the "destination" drive to contain the cloned contents
of their source HDD (or the disk-image of such should they be using that
type of program).
And, of course, the user always has an option of using another
internally-installed HDD in their system to serve as the "destination" HDD
for the cloned or imaged data contents (as we have discussed).
As to the cost of the Casper 5 program. Unfortunately for many users its
initial cost of $59.90 is simply too costly for many of them, particularly
when they compare its cost with programs like the Acronis one which can
frequently be purchased for $30 or so. It's a pity because I believe the
Casper 5 program is significantly superior for the vast majority of PC users
as a comprehensive backup program that will be routinely used as compared to
Acronis and other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs I've had experience
with. And all-in-all I believe the Casper program, as costly as it is, is
still well worth its price.
For most potential buyers, the "discount for previous owners" as you refer
to it is, I believe, really insignificant in terms of whether they purchase
the current program. The present Casper 5 program (with its completely
free-of-charge revisions of which there have been quite a few since its
original release) replaced the previous Casper 4 program about slightly less
than 2 years ago as I recall. The upgrade price to version 5 for Casper 4
owners is $24.95 + $4.95 for the "Startup Disk" CD, although the upgrade is
free if the 4 version was purchased on or after 2/15/08. So maybe the 5
version is newer than I had thought.
Anna
Meebers
in the event of emergency and take your data with you. Also, keeping one at
another location and swaping them out every couple of months makes me feel
comfortable. I was told by Casper (Jim??)that you can use the ver 4
startup disk if you upgraded to Casper 5, no need to buy another startup
disk.
"Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:uISxwOex...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Anna
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:42:40 -0400, "Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote:
(SNIP)
>>It's good that your external enclosure has both USB & SATA-to-SATA
>>connectivity. We highly recommend that type of device for users in the
>>market for an external enclosure (assuming their PC has SATA capability).
>>
>>I assume you use the USB connection in backing up your system because your
>>desktop PC does not contain a SATA or eSATA external port. Are you aware
>>that there are simple eSATA adapters (usually in the $10 or so range) that
>>you can easily install on the backplane of your desktop's computer case?
>>This would give you SATA-to-SATA connectivity resulting in (usually)
>>faster
>>data transfer during the disk-cloning operation. Another advantage would
>>be
>>that now your external SATA HDD is *bootable* without further ado - the
>>system treating the external SATA HDD as an *internal* HDD.
>>Anna
"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
news:ag29v4psuk8798rei...@4ax.com...
(SNIP)
> My computer is SATA capable. I find it easier to use the USB option.
> I also have the adapter you're talking about. I can run my system from
> the external SATA/USB combo, but if my primary drive poops out,
> I will just physically put the external drive into my tower.
>
> Well in reality, I screwed up my internal drive, swapped some cables
> and cloned the external to the internal. I was too lazy to take the
> external apart. That's a little risky and I might not do it next time.
>
> I just remembered why I do the USB. I get an error on boot if the
> external (SATA) is turned off. I just can click through the error, but
> it's irritating.
>
> The USB connection takes 6 minutes to update 40 gigs. Pretty fast.
Wally:
As long as you're satisfied with the backup speed of the Casper 5 program
using USB connectivity, that's fine.
As a general proposition, we prefer (and recommend) a SATA-to-SATA
connection be used wherever it's practical for the user to do so, i.e.,
their external enclosure is so equipped with a SATA or eSATA port and their
PC is similarly equipped. If a laptop/notebook is the machine in play and
it has an ExpressCard slot, then it's a fine idea to use an EC with an eSATA
port.
In a later post, you stated...
"This debate is always fun to read. I figure it's worth the extra money
because my data is worth it.
Casper and Acronis both have their strong points. I use Casper because it's
easier, reliable and easy to use."
Those are darn fine reasons to prefer one program over another.
Anna
Lil' Dave
> Greetings,
>
> MVPs and others on this NG speak well of Acronis TrueImage 2009.
>
> Presently all is well.
>
> I run WinXP Pro with SP3 on an ASUS P5VD1 with 3.2GHz Pentium 4 and 2 x
> 200GB SATA HDDs; 1 GB RAM. Norton AntiVirus and ZoneAlarm firewall always
> on; CCleaner, Spybot S&D and HijackThis from time to time. 10% of C: is
> used
> and 90% is free; 5% of D: is used and 95% is free.
>
> If I suffer a catastrophic attack will Acronis (on its own) allow me to
> wipe
> / reformat the C: drive and reinstall a complete image?
You don't do anything. The restore software wipes the original partition,
and creates a new partition and puts the filesystem, files etc. on that new
partition.
> Is it good enough to keep the image on the other HDD (D:)?
Only for convenience sake. For safety sake, no.
> What problems may arise if the image is kept on CD - and roughly how many
> CDs might this take?
Problems common to all CDs, scratching and reading for instance, marking
order of the CDs. Spanning multiple CDs can be a problem during
restoration, sometimes not properly recognized. Been this way since time of
the floppy spanning. You don't want to buy that many CDs and spend the
inordinate amount of time needed to burn all those either.
> Would a large capacity USB stick be better?
>
They are not reliable enough for more than a few imaging sessions.
--
Dave
teabag
I have bought another Seagate HDD, same size as the original pair, and may
buy a caddy to make it easy to 'front load'. I do realise that the 'recovery
clone' should be kept separate from the PC after it has been created.
teabag
"Lil' Dave" <spamyo...@virus.net> wrote in message
news:eUBettyx...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...