Backup Software rcommendation
PT
I'm looking for backup software that would do several things:
1. Create an "image" backup suitable for completely restoring to a new hard
disk in the event of the original's failure
2. Make quick backups of selected folders of data files, which can be
quickly referenced, opened and/or restored.
I have Norton Ghost 12.0, but find all the Norton products cause too many
other problems, and plan to remove it as soon as I find a substitute.
--
PT
PD43
>For Windows XP Home
>
>I'm looking for backup software that would do several things:
>
>1. Create an "image" backup suitable for completely restoring to a new hard
>disk in the event of the original's failure
>2. Make quick backups of selected folders of data files, which can be
>quickly referenced, opened and/or restored.
Acronis True Image.
$28 at Newegg.com
Best bargain on the Internet
philo
"PT" <x...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:uJE09T4i...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Acronis True Image
they have a 30 day free trial so you can give it a good test before you
opt to purchase it.
Colin Barnhorst
"PT" <x...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:uJE09T4i...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
John
> quickly referenced, opened and/or restored.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302894
William B. Lurie
using Norton Ghost 10 for a couple of years, as part of their
Norton System Works 2006 Premier Edition. I have had NO
problems. I always do the full C: partition.......but I
can visualize that backup copies of smaller 'objects'
should be even easier.
I used to use PowerQuest's Drive Image but Ghost 10
supersedes it and is easier anyway.
Anna
Tell me, PT, is your heart set on a "disk imaging" program or might you
consider a disk-to-disk "cloning" type of program?
And what would be the recipient of your backup? Another internal HDD? A USB
external HDD? An external HDD that has SATA-to-SATA connectivity?
Anna
John Barnett MVP
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
"PT" <x...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:uJE09T4i...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
db ´¯`·.. ><)))º>` .. .
"driveimage xml" to
make the disk image
into cd size files.
you can keep the set
on a spare partition or
drive and also have them
on individual cd's.
further, you can then
incorporate the imaging
program into "barts pe"
via a plug-in.
the two freeware above
create a system in which
you can access a crashed
disk system and repair it
or restore it because you
plugged in the imaging
program.
they are free and i have
proven them to work on
my systems.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
"PT" <x...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:uJE09T4i...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Sue
accomplish this task. Of all the backup programs I have worked with (and I
have evaluated quite a large number of them), I prefer Backup Platinum by
Softlogica.
If you want a program which will enable you to do a rollback, then Rollback
RX Pro is the right choice. It is very fast and lightweight and also enables
you to easily backup your daily image to an external source. I really,
really like this program and their technical support is very good and prompt.
I try to avoid the large, mass-marketed solutions such as the ones already
suggested to you, not just for backup but across the board. I've
consistently discovered superior solutions developed by the "little guys."
I hope this helps!
PD43
>I try to avoid the large, mass-marketed solutions such as the ones already
>suggested to you, not just for backup but across the board. I've
>consistently discovered superior solutions developed by the "little guys."
The programs you've mentioned apparently have somehow been overlooked
by most everyone, including the major reviewers (not a good sign).
Acronis once was one of the "little guys"... it got where it is now by
being a superior product - one which has nudged Symantec's Ghost out
of the way.
To the OP: stick with the majority on this one any buy Acronis TI.
Unknown
Bill in Co.
Just for complete system backups, and only considering that, I wonder how
much practical difference there is in restoring a backup disk image, vs
restoring a backup disk-to-disk clone (and not physically moving any
drives).
IOW, the typical scenario, of having an internal system drive and an
external USB enclosure drive (for system backups, only).
Since I've got Acronis TI installed on here, I can't check out any others
(due to potential low-level conflicts, even if you're not running them)
(such warning advisories have been noted - I didn't make it up)
PD43
>Just for complete system backups, and only considering that, I wonder how
>much practical difference there is in restoring a backup disk image, vs
>restoring a backup disk-to-disk clone (and not physically moving any
>drives).
What does "restoring a backup disk-to-disk clone" mean?
One doesn't [normally] clone a drive to use it as a restoration
source, but to use it either in another computer or to use it in the
current computer as a backup to the system drive (as I have it) or
when one wants to copy everything from a smaller drive or a larger
drive for use in the same computer.
Bill in Co.
I was under the (perhaps false) impression that Anna's Casper program could
do that too.
PD43
You didn't answer the question: What does "restoring a backup
disk-to-disk clone" mean?
Bill in Co.
Are you saying it can't be done?
Bill in Co.
It's slang for transferring what's on the clone back to the source drive.
Get it?
PD43
Still, no answer. All hot air and no substance.
PD43
You might be the only person here who would clone a disk - rather than
image it - so that the cloned disk would be available for restoring.
Buh-bye bucko.
Bill in Co.
Pot, Kettle? If you had waited a bit, you would see what I said in the
follow up. (Old school)
Bill in Co.
Nope. Anna might too, for all you know.
PD43
>> You might be the only person here who would clone a disk - rather than
>> image it - so that the cloned disk would be available for restoring.
>
>Nope. Anna might too, for all you know.
IF that's true, that makes two (Anna and you).
Wow.
I'm impressed.
Bill in Co.
That won't take much, LOL.
ANONYMOUS
You asked for a simple solution and this only produced infighting between PD43,
Bill & Co and others. This says something about how insecure people are or
indeed the nature of these newsgroups! What people forget is that there are
many ways to skin a cat! Some are more efficient than others but all ways can
do the job at hand!
If you want to back up your data (files and folders) then clearly Nero is the
simplest solution. Look here:
http://www.nero.com/eng/backup.html
Hope this helps.
Colin Barnhorst
whenever products are discussed. Folks like to have their own buying
decisions affirmed by others and so they argue on. No big deal and it is
not a sign of immaturity. It is just human nature.
"ANONYMOUS" <ANON...@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message
news:47E431B4...@EXAMPLE.COM...
Anna
>> "PD43" <paul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> You might be the only person here who would clone a disk - rather than
>> image it - so that the cloned disk would be available for restoring.
>> "Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Nope. Anna might too, for all you know.
"PD43" <paul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j7b8u3lrghgvdojp7...@4ax.com...
>> IF that's true, that makes two (Anna and you).
>> Wow.
>> I'm impressed.
Well, since my name has arisen more than once in this rather incredible
exchange of views (if one can call these absurd comments an "exchange of
views"), allow me to insert the following comment...
Actually my comment is really directed at "PT", the OP, who no doubt has
(understandably) long departed this thread. But also to others, like "PT"
who are interested in establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup
system that they can use on a routine basis to effectively (and reasonably
quickly) back up the *entire* contents of their day-to-day working HDD,
including the operating system, all programs & applications, and
user-created data. In short *everything* - repeat, *everything* - that's on
their working HDD. So that they would have at hand a copy of their "source"
HDD, one where all the data on that "destination" drive would be immediately
accessible and potentially bootable.
This can be achieved through the use of a disk-to-disk cloning program such
as the Acronis True Image program that has been mentioned a number of times
during this thread. The ATI program also has "disk imaging" capability as
well. In essence, a disk image is kind of a snapshot of one's system - the
program creates a single file (generally compressed) that ordinarily needs a
restoration process to return the data in that file (or "archive" as ATI
calls it) to a bootable data-accessible state. Generally after the initial
"snapshot" is taken, the user subsequently uses the program to create
incremental or differential "archives" to keep the backups up-to-date.
As "regular" readers of this newsgroup's posts probably know, our preference
for a comprehensive backup program along the lines mentioned above is the
Casper 4 program. The Casper 4 program does *not* have disk-imaging
capability; rather it is strictly a disk-cloning type of program. In our
view it is *substantially* superior to the ATI disk-cloning program for
reasons I've detailed a number of times in previous posts re this subject.
And based upon my experience - for the vast amount of PC users - in most
cases a disk-cloning program rather than a disk-imaging program is the
superior methodology for undertaking comprehensive systematic backups of
one's system.
So should "PT" or for that matter anyone else desire more detailed
information as to why I believe the Casper 4 program is the superior way to
go, I'll provide add'l info on the program.
Anna
Big Al
reload all the appropriate software from original CD's, then drag and
drop in Explorer works too. I backup selected folders with a file
backup utility. I know where the DATA I need is stored.
Daave
> So should "PT" or for that matter anyone else desire more detailed
> information as to why I believe the Casper 4 program is the superior
> way to go, I'll provide add'l info on the program.
I'm all ears.
Bill in Co.
Bill in Co.
> PT,
>
> You asked for a simple solution and this only produced infighting between
> PD43, Bill & Co and others. This says something about how insecure people
> are or indeed the nature of these newsgroups!
Nonsense, grasshopper.
Ahhh, the innocence of youth......
Bill in Co.
>>> "PD43" <paul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> You might be the only person here who would clone a disk - rather than
>>> image it - so that the cloned disk would be available for restoring.
>
>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Nope. Anna might too, for all you know.
>
>
> "PD43" <paul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:j7b8u3lrghgvdojp7...@4ax.com...
>>> IF that's true, that makes two (Anna and you).
>>> Wow.
>>> I'm impressed.
>
>
> Well, since my name has arisen more than once in this rather incredible
> exchange of views (if one can call these absurd comments an "exchange of
> views"), allow me to insert the following comment...
I would say it's more an exchange of "opinions". :-)
> Actually my comment is really directed at "PT", the OP, who no doubt has
> (understandably) long departed this thread. But also to others, like "PT"
> who are interested in establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup
> system that they can use on a routine basis to effectively (and reasonably
> quickly) back up the *entire* contents of their day-to-day working HDD,
> including the operating system, all programs & applications, and
> user-created data. In short *everything* - repeat, *everything* - that's
> on
> their working HDD. So that they would have at hand a copy of their
> "source"
> HDD, one where all the data on that "destination" drive would be
> immediately
> accessible and potentially bootable.
>
> This can be achieved through the use of a disk-to-disk cloning program
> such
> as the Acronis True Image program that has been mentioned a number of
> times
> during this thread. The ATI program also has "disk imaging" capability as
> well. In essence, a disk image is kind of a snapshot of one's system - the
> program creates a single file (generally compressed) that ordinarily needs
> a
> restoration process to return the data in that file (or "archive" as ATI
> calls it) to a bootable data-accessible state.
Except that as I have mentioned before, Anna (at least with Acronis True
Image 11), that data IS accessible in Windows Explorer, in that you can copy
a file from it back to your normal drive. So even though it's an image,
its a bit more than that, in that you can access the individual files within
it. But what you can't do is directly boot up on it - that's true.
However, you can do a very easy restore operation. I'm not sure what you
do in Casper if you want to do THAT, specifically, unless you choose the
image option (presumably that's available in Casper), instead.
Bill in Co.
needs better.
Richard in AZ
http://tinyurl.com/3bnn5e
"Sue" <S...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2349B887-862F-44B8...@microsoft.com...
TaurArian
Acronis for all your backup and data recovery needs - easy to use
http://www.acronis.com.sg/
or
Paragon - For a list of products see:
http://www.paragon-software.com/products.htm
--
TaurArian [MVP] 2005-2008 - Update Services
http://taurarian.mvps.org
======================================
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Computer Maintenance: Acronis / Diskeeper / Paragon / Raxco
"PT" <x...@xyz.com> wrote in message news:uJE09T4i...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Anna
"Daave" <dcwash...@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
news:eMegOf6i...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I'm all ears.
Daave:
Well, we'll assume you're also all eyes...
The following is predicated on the basis that a user is seeking a reliable
program to backup his or her *entire* day-to-day booting HDD, including the
XP OS, all the user's programs & applications, as well as user-created data,
in short - *everything* that's on one's "source" HDD. And wants an effective
simple-to-use program to do this on a systematic routine basis and do so
reasonably quickly. So that if & when the day comes when the user's primary
HDD fails to boot or otherwise dysfunctions because of a corrupted OS or
becomes physically/electronically defective the user will be able to easily
and reasonably quickly restore his or her system. To that end we've found
this Casper 4.0 program really fills the bill in this regard.
This type of comprehensive backup system can be achieved through the use of
a disk-cloning (or disk-imaging program). A backup program that one could
use on a daily basis should the user want. A program that will create a
precise copy of one's day-to-day HDD so that should that HDD fail or the
system becomes unbootable because of a corrupt OS, the user would have the
wherewithal to restore his/her system to a bootable, functional state with
a minimum of fuss. What better backup system can one have?
The disk-to-disk cloning program we greatly prefer is the Casper 4 program -
see
http://www.fssdev.com
The program is extremely simple to use even for an inexperienced user,
reasonably quick in operation, and quite effective. There's virtually no
learning curve in undertaking the disk cloning process as one navigates
through the few easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the
button on the screen which will trigger the disk-cloning process. After
undertaking one or two disk-cloning operations it should take the user no
more than 20 seconds or so to get to that point.
But the truly significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program
compared with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g.,
Acronis True Image, is its ability to create *incremental* disk clones
following the creation of the original (first) disk clone. Employing what
Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the program can create subsequent
disk clones of the source HDD usually at a fraction of the time it takes to
create a "full" disk clone. This results in a decided incentive for the user
to undertake frequent complete backups of his or her system knowing that
they can create "incremental" disk clones in a relatively short period of
time. Understand that this "incremental disk clone" is a *complete* clone
(copy) of the "source" HDD.
So, as an example...
Let's say the user's interest is in backing up their system on a daily basis
or perhaps every two or three days or so. Following the first time the user
would use the Casper 4 program to clone the contents of their internal
(boot) HDD to another HDD (internal or external), it would probably take no
more than three minutes or so to thereafter perform the disk-cloning
operation. Obviously the amount of time would, of course, be dependent upon
the amount of data being cloned. But because of Casper's "SmartClone"
capability the amount of time to complete the disk-cloning operation is
extremely short in comparison with other disk-cloning programs such as the
Acronis one. Again, bear in mind that the recipient of the clone - the
"destination" HDD (internal or external) - would contain the *complete*
contents of one's internal HDD (presumably the boot drive). Since that
destination drive would be a copy of the source HDD, its contents would be
immediately accessible and potentially bootable. Naturally its contents
could be cloned back to a internal HDD should a restoration of the system be
necessary. Again, what better backup system can one have? And again -
because the Casper 4 disk-cloning operation takes a relatively short period
of time to complete there's a strong incentive for the user to more
frequently keep their backups up-to-date than they might otherwise do.
The Casper 4.0 program is also capable of scheduling the disk-cloning
process on a daily, weekly, or other time period selected by the user so
that should the user prefer he or she could arrange for automatic backups at
pre-determined times.
There's a trial version available (see above link) although it's somewhat
crippled but it should give one a good idea as to how the program works.
The downside to the Casper 4 program as compared with the Acronis and most
other disk-cloning programs is the cost of the program which comes to $49.95
for the program + $9.95 for the "Casper Startup Disk" (the program to create
the bootable CD containing the Casper program - needed to access the program
in the event of a failed HDD). So it's more expensive than the others. But
in our view, 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 ahead. We've introduced the program to many
users and I can't recall a single person who regretted his/her purchase.
AFAIK, the program is available only through download from the developer.
Another possible downside to the Casper 4 program (depending upon one's
interests) is that it's really not designed to create "generational" copies
of one's system. Some users like to maintain complete copies of their system
at various points in time. To that end a disk-imaging program (such as the
Acronis one) is more practical since to accomplish that objective using a
disk-cloning program such as Casper 4 the user would obviously need a fair
number of HDDs to serve as the recipients of the clones at these various
points in time. But based on our experience I would say that the vast number
of users are simply interested in maintaining only a current up-to-date copy
of their system and have little or no interest in maintaining "generational"
copies of such. But that may be a consideration for some users.
So I would recommend that any user who is interested in a comprehensive
backup program should try the Casper 4 program to determine if that program
meets their needs.
Anna
Bill in Co.
mind (in addition to my previous post, which apparently you haven't seen
yet).
Admitedly that IS an advantage. :-)
> Again, bear in mind that the recipient of the clone - the
> "destination" HDD (internal or external) - would contain the *complete*
> contents of one's internal HDD (presumably the boot drive). Since that
> destination drive would be a copy of the source HDD, its contents would be
> immediately accessible and potentially bootable. Naturally its contents
> could be cloned back to a internal HDD should a restoration of the system
> be
> necessary.
That is good, and pretty much a necessity, I feel. Since I can't install
it with Acronis True Image already being installed (w/o the probability of
potential low-level conflicts, according to the PC Magazine article), I am
curious as to what is the restoration procedure? Like in imaging, you
just click on something like "restore clone", and it reboots the system to
complete the cloning of the system drive?)
> Again, what better backup system can one have? And again -
> because the Casper 4 disk-cloning operation takes a relatively short
> period
> of time to complete there's a strong incentive for the user to more
> frequently keep their backups up-to-date than they might otherwise do.
>
> The Casper 4.0 program is also capable of scheduling the disk-cloning
> process on a daily, weekly, or other time period selected by the user so
> that should the user prefer he or she could arrange for automatic backups
> at
> pre-determined times.
>
> There's a trial version available (see above link) although it's somewhat
> crippled but it should give one a good idea as to how the program works.
>
> The downside to the Casper 4 program as compared with the Acronis and
> most
> other disk-cloning programs is the cost of the program which comes to
> $49.95
> for the program + $9.95 for the "Casper Startup Disk" (the program to
> create
> the bootable CD containing the Casper program - needed to access the
> program
> in the event of a failed HDD). So it's more expensive than the others.
I personally feel the costs are comparable enough that that's almost a non
issue. However, it would be NICE if Casper came on a bootable CD itself,
like True Image does. If I read you right, it doesn't.
Big Al
unless you subscribe? No, I'm not being snide, its an honest question.
I need to join to get the remainder of the story. Put ads on the page
to vendors that sell backup, yes, but I don't want to give out personal
info just to see an opinion of backup software. And I'm not pointing
to Richards opinion, the links opinion.
Daave
I always thought the reason to choose cloning was it would give you a
perfect copy of the hard drive on another hard drive that you could
simply swap. If instead one chooses to clone those contents again back
to the original drive, I'm not quite sure how this would be seen as
preferable to restoring an image.
Brian A.
IMO it's a stack of Casper hype. Both Acronis True Image and Norton Ghost can do
the same job and much more for an approximate same cost. Cloned drives are not meant
to be used as restore/recovery disks. They are as stated by many, an "exact" disk
copy of another disk that is interchangeable "of the moment" should the original fail
for any number of reasons. It would be a senseless waste of time to use a cloned
drive for restore.
Images are created for the purpose of restoring a disk volume, partition,
directory, folder or file should the need arise for any number of reasons. One
doesn't need more than a single disk volume/partition with enough space to
accommodate 2 copies of an image while it is being created. One can choose if they
so wish to replace aka overwrite a present image with one they manually start or one
that's scheduled, which brings it to the reason for space accommodation. The
previous image is left untouched until the new image is created, once the new image
is completed the previous copy is deleted to accommodate space for the next
replacement aka overwrite.
--
Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/
Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
jfarrug
> For Windows XP Home
>
> I'm looking for backup software that would do several things:
>
> 1. Create an "image" backup suitable for completely restoring to a new hard
> disk in the event of the original's failure
> 2. Make quick backups of selected folders of data files, which can be
> quickly referenced, opened and/or restored.
>
> I have Norton Ghost 12.0, but find all the Norton products cause too many
> other problems, and plan to remove it as soon as I find a substitute.
>
> --
>
> PT
Joe Farruggio wrote:
Try Dfsee. This program can make images of a partition or a full disk
which can then be stored on suitable media
James Silverton
A> You asked for a simple solution and this only produced
A> infighting between PD43, Bill & Co and others. This says
A> something about how insecure people are or indeed the nature
A> of these newsgroups! What people forget is that there are
A> many ways to skin a cat! Some are more efficient than
A> others but all ways can do the job at hand!
A> If you want to back up your data (files and folders) then
A> clearly Nero is the simplest solution. Look here:
A> http://www.nero.com/eng/backup.html
A> Hope this helps.
A> PT wrote:
??>> For Windows XP Home
??>>
??>> I'm looking for backup software that would do several
things:
??>> ??>> 1. Create an "image" backup suitable for completely
As you observe, there is more than one way to make backups.
Which is best depends on what you need and I have tried two
programs. Symantec used to be faster and have a more
understandable structure for retrieving an accidentally altered
or deleted file than Acronis but doing a total restore did not
work in the one instance that I needed it and I had to pay a
tech to clone the noisy and probably dying hard disc.
My own requirements are:
1. Do a total backup once a week.
2. Do incremental backups daily.
3. Do both of these things without asking questions.
4. Shut down the computer after the backup.
5. Work with a fast USB disc as the backup media.
6. If I lose a file, have a structure or method that makes it
easy and rapid to find the backup of the missing file.
7. Have an easily understandable method for doing a total
restore.
Except for 6 and 7, Acronis does all of these things and
incremental backups usually take 10-15 minutes tho' a total
backup seems considerably slower than Symantec. I have always
been able to find backups of missing files but it took longer
than I would wish. My computer is a working tool so I have not
timed any attempts to do a total restore.
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Anna
>>> Anna wrote:
>>>> So should "PT" or for that matter anyone else desire more detailed
>>>> information as to why I believe the Casper 4 program is the superior
>>>> way to go, I'll provide add'l info on the program.
>> "Daave" <dcwash...@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:eMegOf6i...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> I'm all ears.
"Daave" <dcwash...@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
news:umprgQB...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> I always thought the reason to choose cloning was it would give you a
> perfect copy of the hard drive on another hard drive that you could
> simply swap. If instead one chooses to clone those contents again back
> to the original drive, I'm not quite sure how this would be seen as
> preferable to restoring an image.
Daave:
Because the disk-cloning process results - as you indicate - in a "perfect
copy of the (source) hard drive" all the data on that cloned HDD is
immediately accessible. And if the recipient of the clone is another
internal HDD (or an external HDD having SATA-to-SATA connectivity), the
clone is immediately bootable. No "recovery" process to restore the "image"
is necessary to achieve a bootable state.
If the disk-imaging process serves the user's needs, then all is well &
good. As I have tried to point out, the main advantage of the Casper 4
program is its rather extroardinary ability to *routinely* clone the
contents of one HDD to another HDD (following the initial disk-cloning
process) in a fraction of the time it generally takes for other disk-cloning
(as well as disk-imaging) programs to complete the process. Again, this is a
strong incentive for the user to back up their systems on a frequent basis -
perhaps once a day or two or three times a week - knowing that the
disk-cloning operation will take only a few short minutes to complete the
disk-cloning process. And at the end of the process the user will have at
hand a "perfect copy" of their day-to-day working HDD. What better backup
can one have? And have it in a relatively short time?
Anna
Anna
Bill:
Please refer to my latest (3/22) post to Daave.
Anna
"Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23uecdy8...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
PD43
>Why do so many people point links to 1/2 articles that you can't read
>unless you subscribe? No, I'm not being snide, its an honest question.
>I need to join to get the remainder of the story. Put ads on the page
>to vendors that sell backup, yes, but I don't want to give out personal
>info just to see an opinion of backup software. And I'm not pointing
>to Richards opinion, the links opinion.
check this out:
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/3-ways-to-access-must-sign-up-to-view-sites/
Big Al
See, there's a web page for everything. Thanks!.
Big Al
process one day if you have a spare drive that is. Leave your main
drive in tact. I also burn a CD with some of the cute little utilities
that you always use. The free stuff you download and install. If you
had a good thumb drive 4 gigs or so, you can drop some daily files
there. I copy my phone book and inbox (all others I can ignore) and an
odd other file or two to the thumb drive. I reload sometimes every 6
months due to just screwing around too much. My desktop I leave alone,
but my laptop I play with just way to much. I can have a working
system, reloaded in a few hours. You just need your files. Knowing
where the files are is your best knowledge. Where are you settings for
IM? Where is your mail? Where is anything? If you know that then an
image of the drive maybe overkill but you won't be crying when you have
it and it saves your life. I do an image so I guarantee all the files,
then I do a backup with just selected. Paranoid, but I want the image
to make sure I get all files just in case. And remember!, make sure y
you have two backups. Like keep last weeks. If this weeks is no
good, at least you are only a week off. At work we rotate 10 copies.
Just ideas.
PD43
>Paranoid, but I want the image
>to make sure I get all files just in case.
I've been a backup freak since the days of tape drives, when my system
drive was only 213mb.
I am SO paranoid that I not only have several full images on an
external drive (including incremental updates to the most current) and
another internal (one of three) drive, that I also have the second of
those three internal drives cloned from my system disk and updated
every two hours using a program called Second Copy (highly
recommended... have been using it for years).
If my main drive bites the dust, a reboot will automatically boot me
using the cloned drive, which will be rarely behind by more than a few
hours (if I install new software and decide to keep it, I do a new
clone).
OH... the third internal drive also has copies of the images that are
on the external drive.
TALK ABOUT PARANOID.
Big Al
working, you'll kiss yourself left and right that you did the labor.
Yes, its time to fix it up, but loss of data is just hard to put a price
on. I wrote software for a database application and clients used to ask
me if they needed to back up. I just respond, how much would it cost
to get 10 temps in here to enter your 5 years of data back into this
computer, and could you even reconstruct the data accurately. It kinda
opened their eyes. Even if it could be typed in, the 2000 hours * 15$
an hour would be gastly. (and 15$ is a off the wall guess).
PD43
>> TALK ABOUT PARANOID.
>>
>We say paranoid, but when you have a failure, and that toy stops
>working, you'll kiss yourself left and right that you did the labor.
For sure. And it's not really "labor" once you have it all setup to
be performed automatically.
Marko Jotic
sounds like all these drives are interconnected and in the same location
what about a fire or direct lightning strike (which can blow through the
average surge protector or even create surges directly in the equipment)
--
Marko Jotic
"Common sense is anything but common".
From the notebooks of Lazarus Long. Robert A. Heinlein.
Handmade knives, antique designs, exotic materials at
http://www.knifeforging.com/
R. McCarty
are "Magnetic" and stored locally with the PC. To be able to assume
100% recovery you need an image on a permanent media, like a CD
or DVD-R disk set. Also, you need to have a copy off-site. I have a
number of customers who create Mini DVD-R disks sets that will fit
in a standard bank lock box. ( Too narrow for standard size disks ).
Or as a minimum -a backup of personal data, especially financial info.
I can't recall the number of customers who reach tax time and cannot
find previous year data that has been lost. ( Not sure why they didn't
print out a paper copy for safekeeping? )
On every machine that I work on, I insist on a image which I keep for
them in a fireproof safe. I used to return the image sets to the customer
but have found over time that they are unable to properly store of find
in case of emergency. For a "Set it & Forget It", an online backup
service might be best. Something like Carbonite or Backup Solutions.
The other issue with Imaging is the lack of a verification pass. This
takes longer to complete but VERIFIES the integrity of an image. 2nd
only to no backups is having one you can't use.
I recently read an article that said that 43% of all personal computer
users have lost irreplaceable data.
"Marko Jotic" <Ma...@mmct.net> wrote in message
news:eUrktJFj...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
PD43
>sounds like all these drives are interconnected and in the same location
>
>what about a fire or direct lightning strike (which can blow through the
>average surge protector or even create surges directly in the equipment)
The USB drive is only powered on and connected when I'm imaging to it.
No... I will not be carrying it to another site. I'm not THAT
paranoid.
PD43
>On every machine that I work on, I insist on a image which I keep for
>them in a fireproof safe
I'm not gonna do that either.
If the place burns down, I'll live with it... and get a new computer
with the insurance payment.
Marko Jotic
I don't get it, you are paranoid about loosing data, and, don't care if
you loose it?
check your office supply, fireproof file boxes aren't that expensive
if you are insured odds are you have a house, where do you keep the deed?
PD43
>I don't get it, you are paranoid about loosing data, and, don't care if
>you loose it?
It's "lose", not "loose".
Get lost.
Bill in Co.
in this or the earlier post, unless I misread. ??
Bill in Co.
Perhaps, but I'm not sure that is necessarily true, is it? It depends on
the time involved in making and restoring the clone back to the source
drive, doesn't it?
OR one could do the same thing (probably more expediently) by just imaging
it instead of cloning it (which is what I've been doing with TI)
I believe Casper can also do an image operation too, like TI can, so in that
one sense, they're comparable.
But I guess one difference might be that Casper allows you to clone the
drive, and very quickly as changes are made on a day to day basis, which I
don't think TI can do.
Again, I only have only been using Acronis True Image 11 up to this point,
and doing the full image/restore bit for my system drive (using an external
USB hard drive enclosure for backup), with good success, although I'm
tempted to consider trying Casper too.
Anna
Bill:
So we don't go 'round & 'round with this...
I've extracted from the previous posts a portion of my comments and your
subsequent response. Is this then what you want me to respond to? It's just
that I feel we're plowing the same ground over & over again.
Anna
"Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23cM9A5F...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> OK, and I did Anna, but I don't think you specifically answered my
> questions in this or the earlier post, unless I misread. ??
Anna writes...
(SNIP)
>>>> Again, bear in mind that the recipient of the clone - the
>>>> "destination" HDD (internal or external) - would contain the *complete*
>>>> contents of one's internal HDD (presumably the boot drive). Since that
>>>> destination drive would be a copy of the source HDD, its contents would
>>>> be immediately accessible and potentially bootable. Naturally its
>>>> contents could be cloned back to a internal HDD should a restoration of
>>>> the system be necessary.
"Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote
Bill in Co.
let it go if you want. (I'm probably a bit too lazy to dig them all out
now).
Well, ok, but here is one: I get that Casper makes fast cloning backups
(you've covered that very well). But if one wanted to use this cloning
like an image operation, and chose to do the restoration routine (just like
in an image operation), could one?
IOW, suppose one chooses your method of fast cloning, and then simply wants
to restore it to the source drive (just like an image operation). Can one
do that too? (not physically swapping drives or anything like that)
Maybe I can actually try installing it (along with True Image, which I'm
already using) to test it, but I'm a bit wary, for the reasons I mentioned
(i.e., the potential low-level program conflicts due to both of their
resident code, disk-monitoring actitivies, as also hinted at by that PC
Magazine article).
It would be nice to know ahead of time if anyone has actually installed both
(True Image and Casper) w/o any such conflicts.
But I do have a restore image to fall back on, worst case, I guess (although
I might have to boot up on the True Image CD to avoid any such conflicts).
Still, I'm a bit reluctant, but time will tell.
Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM
news:li6Fj.124$Oj5.119@trnddc06...
> Richard in AZ wrote:
>
> Why do so many people point links to 1/2 articles that you can't read
> unless you subscribe? No, I'm not being snide, its an honest question.
> I need to join to get the remainder of the story. Put ads on the page to
> vendors that sell backup, yes, but I don't want to give out personal info
> just to see an opinion of backup software. And I'm not pointing to
> Richards opinion, the links opinion.
Who did that? I can't find one.
--
Frank Saunders MS-MVP IE,OE/WM
www.fjsmjs.com
Do not reply with email
Brian A.
>>
>> IMO it's a stack of Casper hype. Both Acronis True Image and Norton Ghost
>> can do the same job and much more for an approximate same cost. Cloned
>> drives are not meant to be used as restore/recovery disks. They are as
>> stated by many, an "exact" disk copy of another disk that is interchangeable
>> "of the moment" should the original fail for any number of reasons. It would
>> be a senseless waste of time to use a cloned drive for restore.
>
> Perhaps, but I'm not sure that is necessarily true, is it? It depends on the
> time involved in making and restoring the clone back to the source drive, doesn't
> it?
Bill, you are truly "discombobulated" (really confused) on the difference between a
Clone and an Image.
When one uses an application such as ATI, Ghost or Casper to "Clone" disk(s), all
data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that are selected to be cloned is
written to the "recipient" disks platters. Depending on the app used, *this has been
a debate drudgery", the "Clone is a Sector x Sector, Byte x Byte replica including
the MBR//MFT of the "Donor" disk.
When the clone is completed, the "recipient" disk has the same data on it that is
on the "donor" disk and it should be stored in a what the user deems a relatively
safe haven. To minorly clarify, a cloned disk is an "exact" replica of a "donor"
disk, if the "donor" fails for any reason all one has to do is shut down the PC, swap
out the disks and reboot to be back up and running again. *Keep in mind that any
cloned disk(s) can be and are prone to conditional issues already present on the
"donor" disk at the point in time the clone is created.
> OR one could do the same thing (probably more expediently) by just imaging it
> instead of cloning it (which is what I've been doing with TI)
Although not scientifically exact in a manner of my wording, an "Image" is an exact
copy of all data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that are selected to be
cloned is written to the "recipient" disks platters. Depending on the app used,
*this has been a debate drudgery", the "Image is a compressed Sector x Sector, Byte
x Byte replica including the MBR//MFT of the "Donor" disk.. Think of an "Image"
being like that of a Zip file.
>
> I believe Casper can also do an image operation too, like TI can, so in that one
> sense, they're comparable.
Not from the information that I've seen.
>
> But I guess one difference might be that Casper allows you to clone the drive, and
> very quickly as changes are made on a day to day basis, which I don't think TI can
> do.
ATI and/or Ghost are no different in that aspect in any way that I have seen as of
yet.
>
> Again, I only have only been using Acronis True Image 11 up to this point, and
> doing the full image/restore bit for my system drive (using an external USB hard
> drive enclosure for backup), with good success, although I'm tempted to consider
> trying Casper too.
That's your choice as well as any others who wish to IMO take the bait, we all live
in a "free" world from what I've been told.
PD43
>> Perhaps, but I'm not sure that is necessarily true, is it? It depends on the
>> time involved in making and restoring the clone back to the source drive, doesn't
>> it?
>
> Bill, you are truly "discombobulated" (really confused) on the difference between a
> Clone and an Image.
That he is.
Bill in Co.
> "Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OsPn8$FjIHA...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> IMO it's a stack of Casper hype. Both Acronis True Image and Norton
>>> Ghost
>>> can do the same job and much more for an approximate same cost. Cloned
>>> drives are not meant to be used as restore/recovery disks. They are as
>>> stated by many, an "exact" disk copy of another disk that is
>>> interchangeable
>>> "of the moment" should the original fail for any number of reasons. It
>>> would be a senseless waste of time to use a cloned drive for restore.
>>
>> Perhaps, but I'm not sure that is necessarily true, is it? It depends
>> on
>> the time involved in making and restoring the clone back to the source
>> drive, doesn't it?
>
> Bill, you are truly "discombobulated" (really confused) on the difference
> between a Clone and an Image.
No, what I said above was that one *could* choose to do this, if one wanted
to. Not that one normally makes a clone TO do this! BUT it IS an option
IF one so chooses, or at least it can be, right? Well, more on that
below..
> When one uses an application such as ATI, Ghost or Casper to "Clone"
> disk(s), all data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that are
> selected
> to be cloned is written to the "recipient" disks platters. Depending on
> the
> app used, *this has been a debate drudgery", the "Clone is a Sector x
> Sector,
> Byte x Byte replica including the MBR//MFT of the "Donor" disk.
> When the clone is completed, the "recipient" disk has the same data on it
> that is on the "donor" disk and it should be stored in a what the user
> deems
> a relatively safe haven. To minorly clarify, a cloned disk is an "exact"
> replica of a "donor" disk, if the "donor" fails for any reason all one has
> to
> do is shut down the PC, swap out the disks and reboot to be back up and
> running again. *Keep in mind that any cloned disk(s) can be and are prone
> to
> conditional issues already present on the "donor" disk at the point in
> time
> the clone is created.
Yes, but I know this already - unless you are stating that the clone disk
must be exactly the same size as (identical to) the source disk.
But if that is not the case, then again I ask: but this does not
necessarily preclude one from doing the reverse operation, does it? That
was my point. IOW, one could use a cloned disk to (in effect) restore the
source disk. If not, why not?
Heck, I *know* I can do that - by booting up on a floppy in BootitNG (BING),
which does a low level, partition copy, between two disks of any size (but
NOT in windows). So is that an image copy or a clone copy? Somewhat
ambiguous. What is NOT ambiguous is that it does a disk partition copy
operation.
>> OR one could do the same thing (probably more expediently) by just
>> imaging it
>> instead of cloning it (which is what I've been doing with TI)
>
> Although not scientifically exact in a manner of my wording, an "Image" is
> an exact copy of all data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that are
> selected to be cloned is written to the "recipient" disks platters.
> Depending on the app used, *this has been a debate drudgery", the "Image
> is
> a compressed Sector x Sector, Byte x Byte replica including the MBR//MFT
> of
> the "Donor" disk.. Think of an "Image" being like that of a Zip file.
(But (in some cases) still accessible, in that the files inside can be
accessed, as I mentioned before). But yeah, in a sense it is like a zip
file.
>> I believe Casper can also do an image operation too, like TI can, so in
>> that
>> one sense, they're comparable.
>
> Not from the information that I've seen.
I had thought Anna had said it could *also* do imaging operations, too (as
another option). But maybe I misremembered (at this point, it wouldn't
really surprise me)
Maybe it ONLY does cloning.
>> But I guess one difference might be that Casper allows you to clone the
>> drive, and very quickly as changes are made on a day to day basis, which
>> I
>> don't think TI can do.
>
> ATI and/or Ghost are no different in that aspect in any way that I have
> seen
> as of yet.
>>
>> Again, I only have only been using Acronis True Image 11 up to this
>> point,
>> and doing the full image/restore bit for my system drive (using an
>> external
>> USB hard drive enclosure for backup), with good success, although I'm
>> tempted to consider trying Casper too.
>
> That's your choice as well as any others who wish to IMO take the bait,
> we
> all live in a "free" world from what I've been told.
Well, not exactly! (I can name some parts of the world which are NOT free
by any stretch of the imagination, unfortunately). And who knows, maybe
some are in here.
Brian A.
> Brian A. wrote:
>> "Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:OsPn8$FjIHA...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> IMO it's a stack of Casper hype. Both Acronis True Image and Norton Ghost
>>>> can do the same job and much more for an approximate same cost. Cloned
>>>> drives are not meant to be used as restore/recovery disks. They are as
>>>> stated by many, an "exact" disk copy of another disk that is interchangeable
>>>> "of the moment" should the original fail for any number of reasons. It
>>>> would be a senseless waste of time to use a cloned drive for restore.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but I'm not sure that is necessarily true, is it? It depends on
>>> the time involved in making and restoring the clone back to the source
>>> drive, doesn't it?
>>
>> Bill, you are truly "discombobulated" (really confused) on the difference
>> between a Clone and an Image.
>
> No, what I said above was that one *could* choose to do this, if one wanted to.
> Not that one normally makes a clone TO do this! BUT it IS an option IF one so
> chooses, or at least it can be, right? Well, more on that below..
Before getting to the below, Yes, one could use a Cloned disk to Clone another
disk, yet I don't see any reason to do that to a failed disk.
>
>> When one uses an application such as ATI, Ghost or Casper to "Clone"
>> disk(s), all data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that are selected
>> to be cloned is written to the "recipient" disks platters. Depending on the
>> app used, *this has been a debate drudgery", the "Clone is a Sector x Sector,
>> Byte x Byte replica including the MBR//MFT of the "Donor" disk.
>> When the clone is completed, the "recipient" disk has the same data on it
>> that is on the "donor" disk and it should be stored in a what the user deems
>> a relatively safe haven. To minorly clarify, a cloned disk is an "exact"
>> replica of a "donor" disk, if the "donor" fails for any reason all one has to
>> do is shut down the PC, swap out the disks and reboot to be back up and
>> running again. *Keep in mind that any cloned disk(s) can be and are prone to
>> conditional issues already present on the "donor" disk at the point in time
>> the clone is created.
>
> Yes, but I know this already - unless you are stating that the clone disk must be
> exactly the same size as (identical to) the source disk.
Not at all, it makes what-so-ever no difference whether one clones a disk or
creates an image of the disk. Depending on the application used and the knowledge on
use of such application by the user, one can use a clone to clone another disk or
"Restore" an image to a disk\volume\partition which has less free space then the
clone/image, as long as there is enough free space on that drive\volume to expand the
volume\partition. I'm sure I have some type of error in the use of terms
drive\volume\partiton for this particular post, but I'd rather swap out a cloned disk
as apposed to waiting for an image restore to complete so I could have at it.
>
> But if that is not the case, then again I ask: but this does not necessarily
> preclude one from doing the reverse operation, does it? That was my point.
> IOW, one could use a cloned disk to (in effect) restore the source disk. If not,
> why not?
The only way I see it is to swap out the the failed disk with the clone to expedite
user production, otherwise it's senseless. You mentioned you use ATI, check into
Acronis Snap Deploy. Although I believe it would be an extra cost at the moment, in
the long run it could/would be a godsend to some. Ooops, sorry, they now call it
Snap Restore:
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/tour/6/
>
> Heck, I *know* I can do that - by booting up on a floppy in BootitNG (BING), which
> does a low level, partition copy, between two disks of any size (but NOT in
> windows). So is that an image copy or a clone copy? Somewhat ambiguous.
> What is NOT ambiguous is that it does a disk partition copy operation.
From what I've read by others BING creates an "Image", not a clone, in the way you
mention. As I mentioned before, a clone is a sector x sector/byte x byte transfer
from one disk to another without compression, I did however fail to mention about the
compression. An image is created where the user chooses to place it and it is
compressed.
>
>>> OR one could do the same thing (probably more expediently) by just imaging it
>>> instead of cloning it (which is what I've been doing with TI)
Expedience all depends on how and\or when the "clone\image" is created.
>>
>> Although not scientifically exact in a manner of my wording, an "Image" is
>> an exact copy of all data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that are
>> selected to be cloned is written to the "recipient" disks platters. Depending on
>> the app used, *this has been a debate drudgery", the "Image is
>> a compressed Sector x Sector, Byte x Byte replica including the MBR//MFT of
>> the "Donor" disk.. Think of an "Image" being like that of a Zip file.
>
> (But (in some cases) still accessible, in that the files inside can be accessed, as
> I mentioned before). But yeah, in a sense it is like a zip file.
>
The files of a cloned disk can be accessed at the point it is connected and the OS
is up and running, whether it be connected as a Master or Slave drive. An image can
only be accessed via the software which created it unless it's not proprietory.
>>> I believe Casper can also do an image operation too, like TI can, so in that
>>> one sense, they're comparable.
>>
>> Not from the information that I've seen.
>
> I had thought Anna had said it could *also* do imaging operations, too (as another
> option). But maybe I misremembered (at this point, it wouldn't really surprise
> me)
> Maybe it ONLY does cloning.
>
Imaging was mentioned inline as a sidekick, not as an included operation.
<quote>This type of comprehensive backup system can be achieved through the use of
a disk-cloning (or disk-imaging program).
</quote>
I also found this "exclusive" to be quite misleading to the everyday average user,
take notice of the used word "proprietory" and piece it together with the rest:
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/
Bill in Co.
>> one so chooses, or at least it can be, right? Well, more on that
>> below..
>
> Before getting to the below, Yes, one could use a Cloned disk to Clone
> another disk, yet I don't see any reason to do that to a failed disk.
Failed disk? No, not to a failed disk, but to a good backup HD, which
could then be "restored" to the source drive (note: I am *not* talking
about hardware disk failures here, just restoration for software failures).
Obviously if there were a hardware-failed disk, that disk would be junk, and
the whole concept I'm talking about here makes no sense. In that case, a
cloned disk would be the right option (pull it out afterwards, and put it in
the failed drive's place).
>>> When one uses an application such as ATI, Ghost or Casper to "Clone"
>>> disk(s), all data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that are
>>> selected
>>> to be cloned is written to the "recipient" disks platters. Depending on
>>> the
>>> app used, *this has been a debate drudgery", the "Clone is a Sector x
>>> Sector, Byte x Byte replica including the MBR//MFT of the "Donor" disk.
>>> When the clone is completed, the "recipient" disk has the same data on
>>> it
>>> that is on the "donor" disk and it should be stored in a what the user
>>> deems
>>> a relatively safe haven. To minorly clarify, a cloned disk is an
>>> "exact"
>>> replica of a "donor" disk, if the "donor" fails for any reason all one
>>> has
>>> to do is shut down the PC, swap out the disks and reboot to be back up
>>> and
>>> running again. *Keep in mind that any cloned disk(s) can be and are
>>> prone
>>> to conditional issues already present on the "donor" disk at the point
>>> in
>>> time the clone is created.
>>
>> Yes, but I know this already - (UNLESS you are stating that the clone
>> disk
>> must be exactly the same size as (identical to) the source disk).
>
> Not at all, it makes what-so-ever no difference whether one clones a disk
> or
> creates an image of the disk. Depending on the application used and the
> knowledge on use of such application by the user, one can use a clone to
> clone another disk or "Restore" an image to a disk\volume\partition which
> has
> less free space then the clone/image, as long as there is enough free
> space
> on that drive\volume to expand the volume\partition.
OR one could choose to "restore" the source drive (which had some software
failure) by "restoring" the clone back to the source drive - that is, by
cloning FROM the backup drive TO the source drive (the opposite direction,
in other words) - if one so desired.
Actually, someone may WANT to do that, if the cloned backup drive is in an
USB external enclosure (it can be a pain to swap it out!), and all they have
is a cloned backup (because they didn't use imaging for their backups, in
other words)
> I'm sure I have some
> type of error in the use of terms drive\volume\partiton for this
> particular
> post, but I'd rather swap out a cloned disk as apposed to waiting for an
> image restore to complete so I could have at it.
Right, except that if we're just making system backups, and one of the
drives (the backup drive) is in an USB enclosure, it's more convenient to
leave it there.
>> But if that is not the case, then again I ask: but this does not
>> necessarily
>> preclude one from doing the reverse operation, does it? That was my
>> point.
>> IOW, one could use a cloned disk to (in effect) restore the source disk.
>> If not, why not?
>
> The only way I see it is to swap out the the failed disk with the clone
> to
> expedite user production, otherwise it's senseless.
Wait - to "expedite user production" you say. What I see is a reverse
operation being employed, and yeah, ok, perhaps that takes more time than
simply doing a backup image restoration, but I don't see how it's so
difficult. Granted, it may take longer - I don't know. However, there
is ONE advantage (to the cloning backup approach), in that you have a
bootable clone disk right there at your fingertips, IF the need arises -
like a hardware disk failure of the source drive).
> You mentioned you use
> ATI, check into Acronis Snap Deploy. Although I believe it would be an
> extra
> cost at the moment, in the long run it could/would be a godsend to some.
> Ooops, sorry, they now call it Snap Restore:
> http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/tour/6/
>
>>
>> Heck, I *know* I can do that - by booting up on a floppy in BootitNG
>> (BING),
>> which does a low level, partition copy, between two disks of any size
>> (but
>> NOT in windows). So is that an image copy or a clone copy?
>> Somewhat
>> ambiguous. What is NOT ambiguous is that it does a disk partition copy
>> operation.
>
> From what I've read by others BING creates an "Image", not a clone, in
> the
> way you mention. As I mentioned before, a clone is a sector x sector/byte
> x
> byte transfer from one disk to another without compression, I did however
> fail to mention about the compression. An image is created where the user
> chooses to place it and it is compressed.
I think the terms are still a bit confusing here, but to clarify, what BING
does do is a *partition to partition* copy. There is no ambiguity of terms
at this level. (And there is no compression). It's just a fundamental,
sector-to-sector, copy of any partition you choose. (If you want to copy
two partitions, you'll have to run it a second time for the second one, and
so on). And of course, when you are in BING, you can't see anything
(except at the sector level) - files, per se, are not defined at this level.
>>
>>>> OR one could do the same thing (probably more expediently) by just
>>>> imaging
>>>> it instead of cloning it (which is what I've been doing with TI)
>
> Expedience all depends on how and\or when the "clone\image" is created.
>
>>>
>>> Although not scientifically exact in a manner of my wording, an "Image"
>>> is
>>> an exact copy of all data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that
>>> are
>>> selected to be cloned is written to the "recipient" disks platters.
>>> Depending on the app used, *this has been a debate drudgery", the
>>> "Image is
>>> a compressed Sector x Sector, Byte x Byte replica including the
>>> MBR//MFT of
>>> the "Donor" disk.. Think of an "Image" being like that of a Zip file.
>>
>> (But (in some cases) still accessible, in that the files inside can be
>> accessed, as I mentioned before). But yeah, in a sense it is like a
>> zip file.
>
> The files of a cloned disk can be accessed at the point it is connected
> and
> the OS is up and running, whether it be connected as a Master or Slave
> drive.
> An image can only be accessed via the software which created it unless
> it's
> not proprietory.
Yup. The True Image disk image is indeed accessible (to a limited extent)
in Windows Explorer, but only through a low level running background service
provided by True Image. I say to a limited extent, because while you can
copy from it, you can't copy to it (which seems expectable).
>>>> I believe Casper can also do an image operation too, like TI can, so in
>>>> that one sense, they're comparable.
>>>
>>> Not from the information that I've seen.
>>
>> I had thought Anna had said it could *also* do imaging operations too (as
>> another option). But maybe I misremembered (at this point, it wouldn't
>> really surprise me!) Maybe it ONLY does cloning.
OK, I probably remembered wrong then.
> Imaging was mentioned inline as a sidekick, not as an included operation.
> <quote>This type of comprehensive backup system can be achieved through
> the
> use of a disk-cloning (or disk-imaging program).
> </quote>
>
> I also found this "exclusive" to be quite misleading to the everyday
> average
> user, take notice of the used word "proprietory" and piece it together
> with
> the rest: http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/
>
PD43
wrote:
> Actually, someone may WANT to do that, if the cloned backup drive is in an
> USB external enclosure (it can be a pain to swap it out!), and all they have
> is a cloned backup (because they didn't use imaging for their backups, in
> other words)
Cloning to a USB drive is really foolish. It makes NO sense.
The normal purpose of CLONE is to create a disk that is ready for
installation or use. The cloned disk is usually installed as a
primary disk in a computer (might be the same one, might be a
different one) after the cloning process. In my case, the cloned disk
is my secondary boot disk - in case the primary boot disk fails for
some reason.
The purpose of an IMAGE is to create a backup in case of system disk
failure or a scrambling of the system disk. THAT can be accomplished
using a USB drive.
Daave
> I had thought Anna had said it could *also* do imaging operations,
> too (as another option).
On the contrary, Anna said the exact opposite!
"The Casper 4 program does not have disk-imaging
capability; rather it is strictly a disk-cloning type of program."
From:
news:elt4bK6i...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl
Perhaps your confusion stems from Anna's statement that a user could
re-clone the cloned drive. IMO, if one is going to do that, one might as
well make an image of the hard drive (which Casper can't do) and simply
restore the image. Cloning is best used (IMO) to make an identical twin
HDD, which can be easily *physically* swapped if the need ever arises.
I suppose for people only interested in making clones, Casper would be
preferable since it has the ability to clone incrementally. That is, say
you clone your drive every day and not much has happened in the last
twenty-four hours. When you use Casper to clone the drive today, it
won't take that long since you won't be cloning from scratch if you use
the incremental mode.
Still, for my money, I'm most interested in preserving data, so imaging
makes more sense. And if my PC's hard drive ever craps out, it's no big
deal. I'll purchase another drive and I can still restore the old
drive's image onto it.
For those who want the ability to *both* clone and image, ATI fits the
bill. The only advantage Casper's cloning has over ATI is the ability to
clone incrementally. So, if cloning is *all* you're interested in, I
guess it makes sense to go with Casper. Otherwise, I believe it's wasted
money.
Anna
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
>> I had thought Anna had said it could *also* do imaging operations,
>> too (as another option).
"Daave" <dcwash...@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
news:OqmYnuOj...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Daave:
Your comments above are quite accurate as they refer to the disk-cloning
capability of the Casper 4 program. As I have repeatedly stated - what seems
like ad infinitum - the program does not have disk-imaging capability.
But when you dismiss Casper's *incremental* disk-cloning capability as
apparently some minor advantage over Acronis True Image (as well as other
disk-cloning disk-imaging programs), you're overlooking a truly tremendous
advantage for most users of the Casper 4 program in comparison with other
similar types of programs designed to provide a comprehensive & timely
backup system that can be employed by a user on a routine systematic basis.
An advantage of such significance that (in my view) recommends the program
over all other disk-cloning disk-imaging programs with which I've had
experience.
Again - for the benefit of others coming upon this thread - Casper 4 has the
unique ability (at least unique in my experience with other disk-cloning
programs) to create what we might call "incremental" clones following the
initial disk-cloning operation. To cite an example...
Let's say the user desires to establish & maintain a comprehensive backup
system. A backup system that will clone the contents of their day-to-day
working HDD to another HDD (internal or external). So that the resulting
"clone", i.e,, the recipient of these contents, will be (for all practical
purposes) a copy of the "source" drive, including the operating system, all
programs & applications, and of course, all user-created data. In short,
*everything* that's on the user's boot drive.
Using the Casper 4 program, the initial disk-cloning operation undertaken by
the user will probably make little or no difference in comparison with any
other disk-cloning program in terms of the time expended in performing this
first disk-cloning operation. As an example, let's say the user is cloning
45 GB of data from the "source" drive to the "destination" drive. It will
probably take about 45 minutes to 1 hour (more or less) to complete the
disk-cloning operation. As I've indicated there probably won't be much
difference time-wise among other disk-cloning or disk-imaging programs in
completing this process.
However, and it's a big "however"...
Subsequent disk-cloning operations (designed, of course, to maintain a
comprehensive timely backup of one's system) using the Casper 4 program will
take only a *fraction* of the time to complete the disk-cloning operations.
Let's say, using the above example, that the user desires to backup their
system three or four days following the initial disk-cloning operation. In
that situation it will probably take well under five minutes to complete the
disk-cloning operation because of Casper's "SmartClone" technology. PLEASE
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS "INCREMENTAL" CLONE IS A *COMPLETE* CLONE - AGAIN, A
COPY OF THE SOURCE HDD. Compared side-by-side with the source HDD, the
recipient (destination) HDD will be a precise copy of the source HDD. As
such, all the data on the cloned HDD is immediately accessible and should
that drive be another internal HDD it will be bootable. Should the recipient
drive of the clone be an external HDD, e.g., a USB external HDD, the
contents of that drive would be cloned back to the user's internal HDD for
restoration purposes should that be necessary. No special recovery process
would be needed other than a straightforward re:cloning process should the
need arise.
So...
Is it not clear that this "incremental" disk-cloning process of the Casper 4
program is a tremendous incentive for most users to keep their systems
completely backed up on a reasonably current basis, knowing that the
disk-cloning process they will be undertaking each time will take only a few
short minutes to complete in most cases? And, as a consequence, have at hand
a precise copy of their day-to-day working HDD that's up-to-date. What
better backup system can one have?
Anna
PD43
>Daave:
>Your comments above are quite accurate as they refer to the disk-cloning
>capability of the Casper 4 program. As I have repeatedly stated - what seems
>like ad infinitum - the program does not have disk-imaging capability.
I think "Bill in Co." has dyslexia, or Alzheimer's, or...
He repeatedly misses what people are trying to tell him.
Brian A.
>>>
>>> No, what I said above was that one *could* choose to do this, if one wanted
>>> to. NOT that one normally makes a clone TO do this!! BUT it IS an option IF
>>> one so chooses, or at least it can be, right? Well, more on that below..
>>
>> Before getting to the below, Yes, one could use a Cloned disk to Clone
>> another disk, yet I don't see any reason to do that to a failed disk.
>
> Failed disk? No, not to a failed disk, but to a good backup HD, which could then
> be "restored" to the source drive (note: I am *not* talking about hardware disk
> failures here, just restoration for software failures).
As I mentioned previously, disk failure can be caused by any number of reasons,
that would include software corruption. Perhaps I should have used: a disk that
fails to properly boot the system which could be caused by any number of reasons. I
still see no purpose, reason or otherwise to create a clone disk as a restore disk,
that's what images are for, not clones, especially if the clone is an external USB
drive. IMO external USB drives are problematic at best as backup media when it comes
to crunch time in get a system back up and running.
I wish anyone that chooses to do so good luck, it's still senseless IMO to use a
clone as a restore disk in that manner.
>> I'm sure I have some
>> type of error in the use of terms drive\volume\partiton for this particular
>> post, but I'd rather swap out a cloned disk as apposed to waiting for an
>> image restore to complete so I could have at it.
>
> Right, except that if we're just making system backups, and one of the drives (the
> backup drive) is in an USB enclosure, it's more convenient to leave it there.
>
>>> But if that is not the case, then again I ask: but this does not necessarily
>>> preclude one from doing the reverse operation, does it? That was my point.
>>> IOW, one could use a cloned disk to (in effect) restore the source disk. If not,
>>> why not?
>>
>> The only way I see it is to swap out the the failed disk with the clone to
>> expedite user production, otherwise it's senseless.
>
> Wait - to "expedite user production" you say. What I see is a reverse operation
> being employed, and yeah, ok, perhaps that takes more time than simply doing a
> backup image restoration, but I don't see how it's so difficult. Granted, it may
> take longer - I don't know. However, there is ONE advantage (to the cloning
> backup approach), in that you have a bootable clone disk right there at your
> fingertips, IF the need arises - like a hardware disk failure of the source drive).
How is the user going to get that external USB so called "bootable disk" to boot if
the OS itself won't boot? Are they going to boot with a type of recovery disk for
the backup application with hopes of USB support working?
>
>> You mentioned you use
>> ATI, check into Acronis Snap Deploy. Although I believe it would be an extra
>> cost at the moment, in the long run it could/would be a godsend to some. Ooops,
>> sorry, they now call it Snap Restore:
>> http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/tour/6/
>>
>>>
>>> Heck, I *know* I can do that - by booting up on a floppy in BootitNG (BING),
>>> which does a low level, partition copy, between two disks of any size (but
>>> NOT in windows). So is that an image copy or a clone copy? Somewhat
>>> ambiguous. What is NOT ambiguous is that it does a disk partition copy
>>> operation.
>>
>> From what I've read by others BING creates an "Image", not a clone, in the
>> way you mention. As I mentioned before, a clone is a sector x sector/byte x
>> byte transfer from one disk to another without compression, I did however
>> fail to mention about the compression. An image is created where the user
>> chooses to place it and it is compressed.
>
> I think the terms are still a bit confusing here, but to clarify, what BING does do
> is a *partition to partition* copy. There is no ambiguity of terms at this level.
> (And there is no compression). It's just a fundamental, sector-to-sector, copy of
> any partition you choose. (If you want to copy two partitions, you'll have to run
> it a second time for the second one, and so on). And of course, when you are in
> BING, you can't see anything (except at the sector level) - files, per se, are not
> defined at this level.
>
I'll take your word on that sincer I don't and never have used BING to create a
backup.
>>>>
>>>> Although not scientifically exact in a manner of my wording, an "Image" is
>>>> an exact copy of all data ("information") on the disk(s) platters that are
>>>> selected to be cloned is written to the "recipient" disks platters.
>>>> Depending on the app used, *this has been a debate drudgery", the "Image is
>>>> a compressed Sector x Sector, Byte x Byte replica including the MBR//MFT of
>>>> the "Donor" disk.. Think of an "Image" being like that of a Zip file.
>>>
>>> (But (in some cases) still accessible, in that the files inside can be
>>> accessed, as I mentioned before). But yeah, in a sense it is like a zip file.
>>
>> The files of a cloned disk can be accessed at the point it is connected and
>> the OS is up and running, whether it be connected as a Master or Slave drive.
>> An image can only be accessed via the software which created it unless it's
>> not proprietory.
>
> Yup. The True Image disk image is indeed accessible (to a limited extent) in
> Windows Explorer, but only through a low level running background service provided
> by True Image. I say to a limited extent, because while you can copy from it,
> you can't copy to it (which seems expectable).
>
I'd have to look into that for ATI, yet I know Ghost, at least 2003 and ver. 9 can
do exactly that.
--
PD43
>> Actually, someone may WANT to do that, if the cloned backup drive is in an USB
>> external enclosure (it can be a pain to swap it out!), and all they have is a
>> cloned backup (because they didn't use imaging for their backups, in other words)
>>
>
> I wish anyone that chooses to do so good luck, it's still senseless IMO to use a
>clone as a restore disk in that manner.
In most cases it is *senseless* to clone to an external USB drive.
Imagine cloning an internal 80 gig drive that maybe has 60 gigs used
to a 250 gig external USB drive so that you can use that clone as a
backup.
That 250 gig drive is now sitting there with 190 gigs unusable for
other purposes.
PT
"disaster" backup, permitting me to throw out a failed hard drive, install a
replacement, and then reload the entire old drive, without having to go
through a nightmare of reinstallation and reactivation. I'd do this type of
major backup monthly. Then on a weekly or less basis I like to back up my
data files, unencrypted, either a full backup, or some sort of incremental
backup into a separate set of folders, but on the same external hard drive.
--
PT
"Anna" <myn...@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:%23GJp1k4...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "PT" <x...@xyz.com> wrote in message
> news:uJE09T4i...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> For Windows XP Home
>>
>> I'm looking for backup software that would do several things:
>>
>> 1. Create an "image" backup suitable for completely restoring to a new
>> hard disk in the event of the original's failure
>> 2. Make quick backups of selected folders of data files, which can be
>> quickly referenced, opened and/or restored.
>>
>> I have Norton Ghost 12.0, but find all the Norton products cause too many
>> other problems, and plan to remove it as soon as I find a substitute.
>>
>> --
>>
>> PT
>
>
> Tell me, PT, is your heart set on a "disk imaging" program or might you
> consider a disk-to-disk "cloning" type of program?
>
> And what would be the recipient of your backup? Another internal HDD? A
> USB external HDD? An external HDD that has SATA-to-SATA connectivity?
> Anna
>
Bill in Co.
But this is the point that still seems to be missed here (IMHO): Yes, on
the surface it normally doesn't seem to make much sense to clone the source
drive to the backup and then reverse the operation (like when some software
installation has screwed up the source drive) - EXCEPT that Casper may have
a significant total time advantage, in that instead of making those daily,
complete images (like in TI) to overwrite the previous day's complete image,
it has this fast Smart Clone operation, which might only take a minute each
day to incorporate all the daily changes made on the source drive for that
day's work.
So, if one religiously makes these "smart clone" backups every day, it takes
very little time; and when and if one wants to "restore" the source drive
(due to some software mal-installation problem on it), one CAN simply clone
the backup clone back to the source drive. (And I'm assuming that
operation takes about as long as doing a image restore operation in True
Image).
The total time invested for doing all this might well be less than using
True Image each day to completely overwrite the previous day's image (and
then later restore it back).
And trying to use TI's "Incremental" feature seems a pain, as you have to
keep track (and use) ALL of the increments accumulated when the time comes
due - a real PIA, I think.
PD43
>So, if one religiously makes these "smart clone" backups every day, it takes
>very little time; and when and if one wants to "restore" the source drive
>(due to some software mal-installation problem on it), one CAN simply clone
>the backup clone back to the source drive. (And I'm assuming that
>operation takes about as long as doing a image restore operation in True
>Image).
I hope you read my post as to why using clone and a USB drive is
totally stupid, dumb, moronic.
Bill in Co.
Yes, *normally* clones are used just for the purpose you said. BUT (see
below)
Let me repeat what I just said in response to Daave, and see if makes more
sense:
But this is the point that still seems to be missed here (IMHO): Yes, on
the surface it normally doesn't seem to make much sense to clone the source
drive to the backup and then reverse the operation (like when some software
installation has screwed up the source drive) - EXCEPT that Casper may have
a significant total time advantage, in that instead of making those daily,
complete images (like in TI) to overwrite the previous day's complete image,
it has this fast Smart Clone operation, which might only take a minute each
day to incorporate all the daily changes made on the source drive for that
day's work.
So, if one religiously makes these "smart clone" backups every day, it takes
very little time; and when and if one wants to "restore" the source drive
(due to some software mal-installation problem on it), one CAN simply clone
the backup clone back to the source drive. (And I'm assuming that
operation takes about as long as doing a image restore operation in True
Image).
The total time invested for doing all this might well be less than using
True Image each day to completely overwrite the previous day's image (and
then later restore it back).
And trying to use TI's "Incremental" feature seems a pain, as you have to
keep track (and use) ALL of the increments accumulated when the time comes
due - a real PIA, I think.
>>
I hope I explained it above (re: some potential *overall* time savings
involved, due to Casper's Smart Clone capability), even if using it for
"restoration" purposes (like in imaging) (which, as you said, is not it's
normal intent)
>>> I'm sure I have some
>>> type of error in the use of terms drive\volume\partiton for this
>>> particular
>>> post, but I'd rather swap out a cloned disk as apposed to waiting for an
>>> image restore to complete so I could have at it.
>>
>> Right, except that if we're just making system backups, and one of the
>> drives (the backup drive) is in an USB enclosure, it's more convenient to
>> leave it there.
As a side note, I can't overestimate this one. Some of these USB
enclosures are a bit of a pain to work with in terms of extracting the
drive. :-)
>>>> But if that is not the case, then again I ask: but this does not
>>>> necessarily preclude one from doing the reverse operation, does it?
>>>> That was my point. IOW, one could use a cloned disk to (in effect)
>>>> restore
>>>> the source disk. If not, why not?
>>>
>>> The only way I see it is to swap out the the failed disk with the clone
>>> to
>>> expedite user production, otherwise it's senseless.
>>
>> Wait - to "expedite user production" you say. What I see is a reverse
>> operation being employed, and yeah, ok, perhaps that takes more time than
>> simply doing a backup image restoration, but I don't see how it's so
>> difficult. Granted, it may take longer - I don't know. However,
>> there
>> is ONE advantage (to the cloning backup approach), in that you have a
>> bootable clone disk right there at your fingertips, IF the need arises -
>> like a hardware disk failure of the source drive).
>
> How is the user going to get that external USB so called "bootable disk"
> to
> boot if the OS itself won't boot?
(But where did this case come up here? that's even another issue).
> I'll take your word on that since I don't and never have used BING to
> create a backup.
I've used it occasionally with my WinXP computer (and its external USB
enclosure drive), but even much more for my Win98SE computer (and its
external USB enclosure drive).
Do check it out. But I have rarely had the need to use that feature.
Ron Rosenfeld
> I like to have a "disaster" backup, permitting me to throw out a failed hard drive, install a
>replacement, and then reload the entire old drive, without having to go
>through a nightmare of reinstallation and reactivation.
You could set up a RAID1 (or other mirrored RAID) array for this part of your
problem.
I have a RAID 10 array and did have a hard drive failure. My computer
continued to function; I replaced the failed hard drive (took a few days to get
a replacement) -- unplugged the old one and plugged in a new one -- and I did
nothing else. The controller rebuilt the array over a few hours. Painless and
simple.
--ron
Meebers
Removable drive enclosure for my backups, else it remains OFF until such
time as I make an updated backup(clone). The main drive has on occasion
become unstable, I turn the backup drive ON, boot to it and Iam up in
running in less than 5 minutes, I then re-clone the main drive, usually
takes 15 minutes and am back in business. This I have done twice in the
last year without incident. I also have Vista on a removable drive
enclosure that I slip in there when I want to run that OS. I don't think
this qualifies as a dual boot system but a selectable OS selection setup.
One current OS system cannot effect the other because they are not
physically in the machine at the same time. I have tried Linux this way,
but not getting much use out of that OS. Not trying to put ACRONIS down, but
have tried their trial versions 9,10 and 11 on both my XP box and Vista and
simply could not get them to work, I wish it would have since a lot of
responders here seem to recommend it. MTCW.
"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronros...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:jfjdu3pmcssklenq5...@4ax.com...
Ron Rosenfeld
>I have used Casper now for several years, I write to an IDE drive in a
>Removable drive enclosure for my backups, else it remains OFF until such
>time as I make an updated backup(clone). The main drive has on occasion
>become unstable, I turn the backup drive ON, boot to it and Iam up in
>running in less than 5 minutes, I then re-clone the main drive, usually
>takes 15 minutes and am back in business. This I have done twice in the
>last year without incident. I also have Vista on a removable drive
>enclosure that I slip in there when I want to run that OS. I don't think
>this qualifies as a dual boot system but a selectable OS selection setup.
>One current OS system cannot effect the other because they are not
>physically in the machine at the same time. I have tried Linux this way,
>but not getting much use out of that OS. Not trying to put ACRONIS down, but
>have tried their trial versions 9,10 and 11 on both my XP box and Vista and
>simply could not get them to work, I wish it would have since a lot of
>responders here seem to recommend it. MTCW.
I've never used Acronis either. For me, I use my RAID 10 against a
catastrophic HD failure, and I find Windows Backup to be adequate for my
regular data backup.
--ron
Brian A.
>>
>> As I mentioned previously, disk failure can be caused by any number of
>> reasons, that would include software corruption. Perhaps I should have used:
>> a disk that fails to properly boot the system which could be caused by any
>> number of reasons. I still see no purpose, reason or otherwise to create a
>> clone disk as a restore disk, that's what images are for, not clones,
>> especially if the clone is an external USB drive. IMO external USB drives
>> are problematic at best as backup media when it comes to crunch time in get a
>> system back up and running.
>
> Yes, *normally* clones are used just for the purpose you said. BUT (see below)
> Let me repeat what I just said in response to Daave, and see if makes more sense:
>
> But this is the point that still seems to be missed here (IMHO): Yes, on the
> surface it normally doesn't seem to make much sense to clone the source drive to
> the backup and then reverse the operation (like when some software installation has
> screwed up the source drive) - EXCEPT that Casper may have a significant total time
> advantage, in that instead of making those daily, complete images (like in TI) to
> overwrite the previous day's complete image, it has this fast Smart Clone
> operation, which might only take a minute each day to incorporate all the daily
> changes made on the source drive for that day's work.
Acronis Snap Restore works in the same or similar way. What it does is first is
copy the entire image to the disk that is being restored, then it restores within
minutes the essential files needed for the OS to get up and running. Once the OS is
up the user can start using the machine and can see/use everything that was present
prior to disk failure. This is accomplished through the image, when the user opens
any application or otherwise that have not yet been restored, Sanp Restore drops the
restore task it is presently doing and moves to restoring the files from the image
that are needed for the user to continue working. This is all done in a very short
time, although I can't say, but it doesn't appear to be any much different than
Casper.
>
> And trying to use TI's "Incremental" feature seems a pain, as you have to keep
> track (and use) ALL of the increments accumulated when the time comes due - a real
> PIA, I think.
>
You don't have to have an ungodly amount of incremental backups, you can set the
amount allowed in ATI. Once it the backup hits the allowed amount a new image is
created, then the previous image is deleted and increments will be added again until
the allowed amount is reached, and the process continues.
>
> I hope I explained it above (re: some potential *overall* time savings involved,
> due to Casper's Smart Clone capability), even if using it for "restoration"
> purposes (like in imaging) (which, as you said, is not it's normal intent)
>
I hope I did as well for Snap Restore.
>
> As a side note, I can't overestimate this one. Some of these USB enclosures are a
> bit of a pain to work with in terms of extracting the drive. :-)
>
So I've heard.
>>>
>>> Wait - to "expedite user production" you say. What I see is a reverse
>>> operation being employed, and yeah, ok, perhaps that takes more time than
>>> simply doing a backup image restoration, but I don't see how it's so
>>> difficult. Granted, it may take longer - I don't know. However, there
>>> is ONE advantage (to the cloning backup approach), in that you have a
>>> bootable clone disk right there at your fingertips, IF the need arises -
>>> like a hardware disk failure of the source drive).
>>
>> How is the user going to get that external USB so called "bootable disk" to
>> boot if the OS itself won't boot?
>
> (But where did this case come up here? that's even another issue).
Your the one that introduced an external USB drive into this earlier, correct me if
I'm wrong or misunderstood. A clone "IS" a bootable disk.
>>>
>>> Yup. The True Image disk image is indeed accessible (to a limited extent)
>>> in Windows Explorer, but only through a low level running background service
>>> provided by True Image. I say to a limited extent, because while you can
>>> copy from it, you can't copy to it (which seems expectable).
>>>
>>
>> I'd have to look into that for ATI, yet I know Ghost, at least 2003 and ver.
>> 9 can do exactly that.
>
> Do check it out. But I have rarely had the need to use that feature.
I have no purpose at all anymore to use that feature since I have backups created
nightly. In-between, if I plan on doing anything that might be considered a major
change, I'll either create a restore point or wait until the next day to do it before
doing anything else. That way there is nothing changed since the backup and what I
do.
Brian A.
news:k7rau3ha65lij2vj3...@4ax.com...
If it's loose, one could lose it. <s>
Anna
"Brian A." <gonefish'n@afarawaylake> wrote in message
news:uiJoDrRj...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> As I mentioned previously, disk failure can be caused by any number of
> reasons, that would include software corruption. Perhaps I should have
> used: a disk that fails to properly boot the system which could be caused
> by any number of reasons. I still see no purpose, reason or otherwise to
> create a clone disk as a restore disk, that's what images are for, not
> clones, especially if the clone is an external USB drive. IMO external
> USB drives are problematic at best as backup media when it comes to crunch
> time in get a system back up and running.
> I wish anyone that chooses to do so good luck, it's still senseless IMO
> to use a clone as a restore disk in that manner.
> How is the user going to get that external USB so called "bootable disk"
> to boot if the OS itself won't boot? Are they going to boot with a type
> of recovery disk for the backup application with hopes of USB support
> working?
> Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }
> Conflicts start where information lacks.
> http://basconotw.mvps.org/
Brian:
Over the years, using one or another disk-cloning program, primarily
Symantec's Ghost 2003, Acronis True Image, and more recently the Casper 4
program, I've probably undertaken or participated in thousands of
disk-cloning operations using those programs. I've done this, of course, for
personal use but more importantly for thousands of individual PC users and
hundreds of small to medium-sized businesses.
In countless instances the recipient of the clone, i.e., the "destination"
HDD, was a USB external HDD. (As an aside I might mention that we prefer to
work with removable HDDs and have encouraged desktop PC users to use that
hardware configuration whenever possible. But that's another subject that we
can leave for a later time.)
When the time came where the system needed to be restored because the user's
day-to-day working HDD became unbootable because of a corrupted OS or was
otherwise dysfunctional because of other reasons, and restoration of the
system was needed because there was no other viable means to correct the
situation, then the disk-cloning process was undertaken cloning the contents
of the USBEHD back to the internal HDD. Thus, the user would now have a
bootable functioning HDD once again.
When the time came that the system needed to be restored because the user's
day-to-day working HDD became defective and needed replacement, the same
disk-cloning operation was undertaken, but this time to an internal
replacement HDD. No need to partition and/or format the new HDD, no "setup"
in any way needed of the new HDD. Just a simple disk-cloning operation
involving cloning the contents of the USBEHD to the new HDD.
In more than a few cases the cloned HDD was removed from its USB enclosure
and installed as the new internal HDD. Voila! The user now had a bootable
functioning HDD once again.
Were there times when this neat scenario didn't "work" because of some
failure with the USBEHD? Or with a "bad" clone? Sure there were. But looking
back on the hundreds of disk-cloning operations involving restoring the
system using the cloned contents of a USBEHD, I can only conclude that the
"rate of failure" was small indeed, really insignificant in the scheme of
things. In short, the process worked and worked well.
I would add that where "mission-critical" data was involved, particularly in
the case of a business, we always encouraged the user(s) to create multiple
backups (easily done, BTW, through the use of removable HDDs).
I might also add that what makes the disk-cloning process to an external HDD
even more attractive nowadays is the advent of SATA-to-SATA connectivity.
Now the user can use an external enclosure housing a SATA HDD that has this
connectivity as the recipient of the cloned contents of his/her internal HDD
and that external SATA HDD will be bootable because the system treats the
disk as an *internal* HDD. This is of particular import for users of
SATA-capable laptops/notebooks since they can use an ExpressCard having an
eSATA port with an external enclosure containing a SATA HDD and through the
disk-cloning process also have a bootable HDD at their disposal.
Anna
Daave
> But this is the point that still seems to be missed here (IMHO):
> Yes, on the surface it normally doesn't seem to make much sense to
> clone the source drive to the backup and then reverse the operation
> (like when some software installation has screwed up the source
> drive) - EXCEPT that Casper may have a significant total time
> advantage, in that instead of making those daily, complete images
> (like in TI) to overwrite the previous day's complete image, it has
> this fast Smart Clone operation, which might only take a minute each
> day to incorporate all the daily changes made on the source drive for
> that day's work.
But there's another point:
Yes, if you *only* use Ghost's or ATI's clone function, then Casper has
them both beat. I won't dispute that. However, if you compare the time
to incrementally clone a drive using Casper to the time to incrementally
image a drive using ATI, they would be similar. The cloning makes sense
in this case if you wish to physically swap the drives. But restoring
the image makes more sense (to me) if the alternative is to re-clone the
clone. YMMV.
Bill in Co.
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
>> But this is the point that still seems to be missed here (IMHO):
>> Yes, on the surface it normally doesn't seem to make much sense to
>> clone the source drive to the backup and then reverse the operation
>> (like when some software installation has screwed up the source
>> drive) - EXCEPT that Casper may have a significant total time
>> advantage, in that instead of making those daily, complete images
>> (like in TI) to overwrite the previous day's complete image, it has
>> this fast Smart Clone operation, which might only take a minute each
>> day to incorporate all the daily changes made on the source drive for
>> that day's work.
>
> But there's another point:
>
> Yes, if you *only* use Ghost's or ATI's clone function, then Casper has
> them both beat. I won't dispute that. However, if you compare the time
> to incrementally clone a drive using Casper to the time to incrementally
> image a drive using ATI, they would be similar.
But that's not the whole picture, though. See, there is a big difference
here: With True Image's incremental feature, you have to keep track of all
the successive increments and collect them all together when, and if, the
time comes to make the full restoration. And that would not be true for
Casper and its Smart Cloning, as I understand it. See what I mean?
Bill in Co.
> "Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uEPG1nSj...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> As I mentioned previously, disk failure can be caused by any number of
>>> reasons, that would include software corruption. Perhaps I should have
>>> used: a disk that fails to properly boot the system which could be
>>> caused
>>> by any number of reasons. I still see no purpose, reason or otherwise
>>> to
>>> create a clone disk as a restore disk, that's what images are for, not
>>> clones, especially if the clone is an external USB drive. IMO external
>>> USB
>>> drives are problematic at best as backup media when it comes to crunch
>>> time
>>> in get a system back up and running.
>>
>> Yes, *normally* clones are used just for the purpose you said. BUT
>> (see
But the Snap Restore feature is also a bit limited; first, it can only
store its image in the so called Secure Zone (*on an Internal Disk*), which
in itself, is somewhat limiting. And it can be potentially problematic, in
that it needs to modify the boot sector to be used, at least as I recall.
And right now, with this Dell, I really don't want that (since Dell is
already using some of the boot sector for its own backup and utility stuff,
which is confusing enough).
>> And trying to use TI's "Incremental" feature seems a pain, as you have to
>> keep track (and use) ALL of the increments accumulated when the time
>> comes
>> due - a real PIA, I think.
>>
>
> You don't have to have an ungodly amount of incremental backups, you can
> set
> the amount allowed in ATI. Once it the backup hits the allowed amount a
> new
> image is created, then the previous image is deleted and increments will
> be
> added again until the allowed amount is reached, and the process
> continues.
But I expect this basic process takes considerably longer than the Smart
Cloning feature (plus what I said in the post I just now posted).
>> I hope I explained it above (re: some potential *overall* time savings
>> involved, due to Casper's Smart Clone capability), even if using it for
>> "restoration" purposes (like in imaging) (which, as you said, is not it's
>> normal intent)
>
> I hope I did as well for Snap Restore.
Well, except for the limitations I mentioned above. Which are significant.
>> As a side note, I can't overestimate this one. Some of these USB
>> enclosures are a bit of a pain to work with in terms of extracting the
>> drive. :-)
>
> So I've heard.
>
>>>>
>>>> Wait - to "expedite user production" you say. What I see is a
>>>> reverse
>>>> operation being employed, and yeah, ok, perhaps that takes more time
>>>> than
>>>> simply doing a backup image restoration, but I don't see how it's so
>>>> difficult. Granted, it may take longer - I don't know. However,
>>>> there
>>>> is ONE advantage (to the cloning backup approach), in that you have a
>>>> bootable clone disk right there at your fingertips, IF the need
>>>> arises -
>>>> like a hardware disk failure of the source drive).
>>>
>>> How is the user going to get that external USB so called "bootable disk"
>>> to
>>> boot if the OS itself won't boot?
>>
>> (But where did this case come up here? that's even another issue).
>
> Your the one that introduced an external USB drive into this earlier,
> correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstood. A clone "IS" a bootable disk.
Yes, I am using an external USB drive enclosure. And yes, I could pull it
out, and it can be bootable, if I so chose (or maybe it can be directly
bootable as a USB drive, but I haven't gone that route, nor do I intend to).
But it's kind of irrelevant that it's in an external enclosure, for the sake
of this particular discussion, I think.
Bill in Co.
That was one of my points, too. Wasn't it? (rhetorical)
Daave
If "keep[ing] track of all the successive increments" is something you
would rather not do, then I can see how Casper's incremental cloning
would be attractive.
Bill in Co.
But who would want to have to keep track of these successive increments?
That's a bit of a pain (IMO).
N.B: I'm not trying to push Casper here, I'm trying to somewhat
objectively note some of the advantages and disadvantages of each program
for backup purposes, and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except
for the potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).
I'm already using Acronis True Image 11 like many here for backups, and it
works great, with the possible exception of the time it takes to overwrite a
complete image typically each day. I typically make new (full) images
each day, IF I have made some significant changes on the drive.
PD43
>If "keep[ing] track of all the successive increments" is something you
>would rather not do, then I can see how Casper's incremental cloning
>would be attractive.
ATI also does differential additions to an image... taking all that
hard work "Bill in Co." fears.
Daave
> and perhaps even consider giving Casper a try (except for the
> potential low level conflict problem I've already covered here).
As long as you're not running these programs simultaneouly, I'm pretty
sure there won't be any conflict.
Bill in Co.
Nope, that's not it. See, both programs will have low-level, in the
background, disk access concurrently running tasks to continuously monitor
and access the drives, and a PC Magazine article cautioned against such
potential conflicts (but not singling out any particular cloning or
imagining program) - all of which makes sense. That doesn't necessarily
mean there will (for a certainty) be conflicts, but it does seem likely.
Bill in Co.
Still, if I find the time and inclination this week, I might tempt fate -
and try it. :-)
Brian A.
IIRC according to one of your responses to me, no. You mentioned it was
another issue unless I'm agin mistaken.
--
Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/
Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
Brian A.
>
> Brian:
> Over the years, using one or another disk-cloning program, primarily
> Symantec's Ghost 2003, Acronis True Image, and more recently the Casper 4
> program, I've probably undertaken or participated in thousands of disk-cloning
> operations using those programs. I've done this, of course, for personal use
> but more importantly for thousands of individual PC users and hundreds of
> small to medium-sized businesses.
>
That's all moot IMO. I've used, undertaken and participated with many backup
apps myself and it all boils down to user/recommender opinion. I'm not in any
way trying to imply an discredit, I just find it to be moot to the discussion.
> In countless instances the recipient of the clone, i.e., the "destination"
> HDD, was a USB external HDD. (As an aside I might mention that we prefer to
> work with removable HDDs and have encouraged desktop PC users to use that
> hardware configuration whenever possible. But that's another subject that we
> can leave for a later time.)
>
IMO your "as an aside" is at this point in time the only way to go for
cloning.
> When the time came where the system needed to be restored because the user's
> day-to-day working HDD became unbootable because of a corrupted OS or was
> otherwise dysfunctional because of other reasons, and restoration of the
> system was needed because there was no other viable means to correct the
> situation, then the disk-cloning process was undertaken cloning the contents
> of the USBEHD back to the internal HDD. Thus, the user would now have a
> bootable functioning HDD once again.
>
I won't argue with that if there was no other viable way to resolve the issue.
> When the time came that the system needed to be restored because the user's
> day-to-day working HDD became defective and needed replacement, the same
> disk-cloning operation was undertaken, but this time to an internal
> replacement HDD. No need to partition and/or format the new HDD, no "setup" in
> any way needed of the new HDD. Just a simple disk-cloning operation involving
> cloning the contents of the USBEHD to the new HDD.
>
And as I understand from another response of yours, that would take time to
clone the new replacement disk, not mere minutes.
> In more than a few cases the cloned HDD was removed from its USB enclosure and
> installed as the new internal HDD. Voila! The user now had a bootable
> functioning HDD once again.
>
My point on why not to use an external disk.
> Were there times when this neat scenario didn't "work" because of some failure
> with the USBEHD? Or with a "bad" clone? Sure there were. But looking back on
> the hundreds of disk-cloning operations involving restoring the system using
> the cloned contents of a USBEHD, I can only conclude that the "rate of
> failure" was small indeed, really insignificant in the scheme of things. In
> short, the process worked and worked well.
>
> I would add that where "mission-critical" data was involved, particularly in
> the case of a business, we always encouraged the user(s) to create multiple
> backups (easily done, BTW, through the use of removable HDDs).
As it should be along with storing them in separate locations offsite.
>
> I might also add that what makes the disk-cloning process to an external HDD
> even more attractive nowadays is the advent of SATA-to-SATA connectivity. Now
> the user can use an external enclosure housing a SATA HDD that has this
> connectivity as the recipient of the cloned contents of his/her internal HDD
> and that external SATA HDD will be bootable because the system treats the disk
> as an *internal* HDD. This is of particular import for users of SATA-capable
> laptops/notebooks since they can use an ExpressCard having an eSATA port with
> an external enclosure containing a SATA HDD and through the disk-cloning
> process also have a bootable HDD at their disposal.
Of course the system will treat a SATA disk as you say "an internal HDD",
that's because the BIOS default setting in modern boards is set to "treat" SATA
as IDE by default. Unless a user changes the setting, that's how it will
remain, SATA will be "detected"/used as IDE and IDE will be detected/used as
IDE.
--
Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/
Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
Bill in Co.
I think what Anna was getting at above was that the cloned drive could be
cloned back to the source drive to "restore" it. It's somewhat analogous
to (i.e., gets the same result) "restoring" the source drive by using a
backup image (if you were doing an image backup operation instead). Either
way, the source drive is restored (I'm talking about potential software
problems on the source drive, not failed hardware)
Bill in Co.
I'd like to add a comment here.
Yes, but OTOH, the Smart Cloning to keep the backup up-to-date only takes a
short amount of time, and would be very easy to do (unlike the Incrementals
that need to be kept track of in True Image, if you go that incremental
route), so there could be a significant *overall* time savings.
Brian A.
I understood fully well what Anna typed as well as your clone intentions.
--
Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/
Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
Brian A.
>
> I'd like to add a comment here.
> Yes, but OTOH, the Smart Cloning to keep the backup up-to-date only takes a
> short amount of time, and would be very easy to do (unlike the Incrementals
> that need to be kept track of in True Image, if you go that incremental
> route), so there could be a significant *overall* time savings.
>
I am truly miffed as to why you continually think anyone needs to keep track
of backup/image increments. They are created in the same disk/partition that
the related image was created, and as I stated previously you can set the total
amount of increments allowed per each backup/image.
PD43
> I am truly miffed as to why you continually think anyone needs to keep track
>of backup/image increments. They are created in the same disk/partition that
>the related image was created, and as I stated previously you can set the total
>amount of increments allowed per each backup/image.
Not to mention that all backups can be scheduled to go during a time
when you're not using the computer so there's really no time factor to
be concerned about.
Billy doesn't like to be wrong.
Daave
> "Bill in Co." <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23k43ICZ...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>> I'd like to add a comment here.
>> Yes, but OTOH, the Smart Cloning to keep the backup up-to-date only
>> takes a short amount of time, and would be very easy to do (unlike
>> the Incrementals that need to be kept track of in True Image, if you
>> go that incremental route), so there could be a significant
>> *overall* time savings.
>>
>
> I am truly miffed as to why you continually think anyone needs to
> keep track of backup/image increments. They are created in the same
> disk/partition that the related image was created, and as I stated
> previously you can set the total amount of increments allowed per
> each backup/image.
This is important.
If Bill says that "keeping track" of the increments is a "pain in the
ass," then I can understand why the incremental cloning process would
seem attractive to him.
But still, I really can't see why he thinks this way in the first place,
either.