Acronis True Image 2014 Premium

On 5/20/2014 6:33 PM, ...winston wrote:
AlDrake wrote, On 5/20/2014 2:57 PM:
On 5/20/2014 9:56 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/17/2014 2:56 AM, ...winston wrote:
AlDrake wrote, On 5/16/2014 6:45 PM:
On 5/16/2014 6:07 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 5/16/2014 12:16 AM, ...winston wrote:
Peter Berger wrote, On 5/15/2014 5:31 PM:

The three machine (Family Pack) version when multiple pc's are
involved is the better pricing.

For those with Win8x and a registred ATI13, the upgrade to ATI14 is
free (for the stand-alone and also the Family Pack-3pc version) and
accesible from Win8x.

Also, the Acronis Store icon located on the toolbar in the ATI14
program also provides a link to upgrade to the 'Premium' version
(applicable to the stand-alone and Family Pack) for $19.99.

Here's a pic of the Family Pack offer
http://1drv.ms/1gyRCDf

i.e. if one has the ATI2013 Family Pack (3 pc version) and Win8x they
can upgrade (when accessing with Win8x) to ATI2014 Family Pack and
then update to ATI2014 Premium providing additional tools
(Migration, Dynamic Disk Support, WinPE) for just $19.99
- doing it via the ATI14 Premium product page's upgrade offer
instead of the program is $59.99.

$49.99 now.

Make that 32.49

http://www.acronis.com/en-us/persona...FetlOgodqE8ARQ



Newegg subscriber price $29.99
Acronis True Image 2014 Family Pack - 3 PCs

Newegg recently also had this for $29.99 too.
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium - 1 PC


I wonder why they keep dropping their price. I think it's a pretty
good program although I don't have a use for all of the back up
features. I'm still getting to know it as it wasn't east to start. It
seems to be geared to someone that spends all day at the computer like
maybe a writer or something with the incremental backup feature. I had a
bad install on one system but I think it's all set now.


If all you need to do is backup/restore just create the bootable CD from
the downloadable iso in your product registered Acronis account.

Optionally, one can create a bootable USB thumb drive media in Acronis
after installing the program. (i.e. install, create the usb bootable
drive, close, uninstall).

Doing both - one then has full access to Backup, Restore and other
included utilities from bootable media. Since the bootable media
provides usb support thus multiple options available for image
storage/restoration.

Thanks for the break down Winston. For some time now I have simply
been cloning my main drives (SSDs) and planned on using them if a system
became corrupted. I manually back up photos, videos and documents to
external drives. I guess I purchased ATI to see what I could learn and
gain a different prospective on backup schemes.

I suppose it's better to use ATI but I'm still not sure. It's pretty
quick replacing a drive.

In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/20/2014 6:33 PM, ...winston wrote:
AlDrake wrote, On 5/20/2014 2:57 PM:
On 5/20/2014 9:56 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/17/2014 2:56 AM, ...winston wrote:
AlDrake wrote, On 5/16/2014 6:45 PM:
On 5/16/2014 6:07 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 5/16/2014 12:16 AM, ...winston wrote:
Peter Berger wrote, On 5/15/2014 5:31 PM:

The three machine (Family Pack) version when multiple pc's are
involved is the better pricing.

For those with Win8x and a registred ATI13, the upgrade to ATI14
is free (for the stand-alone and also the Family Pack-3pc
version) and accesible from Win8x.

Also, the Acronis Store icon located on the toolbar in the ATI14
program also provides a link to upgrade to the 'Premium' version
(applicable to the stand-alone and Family Pack) for $19.99.

Here's a pic of the Family Pack offer
http://1drv.ms/1gyRCDf

i.e. if one has the ATI2013 Family Pack (3 pc version) and Win8x
they can upgrade (when accessing with Win8x) to ATI2014 Family
Pack and then update to ATI2014 Premium providing additional
tools (Migration, Dynamic Disk Support, WinPE) for just $19.99
- doing it via the ATI14 Premium product page's upgrade offer
instead of the program is $59.99.

$49.99 now.

Make that 32.49

http://www.acronis.com/en-us/persona...FetlOgodqE8ARQ



Newegg subscriber price $29.99
Acronis True Image 2014 Family Pack - 3 PCs

Newegg recently also had this for $29.99 too.
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium - 1 PC


I wonder why they keep dropping their price. I think it's a pretty
good program although I don't have a use for all of the back up
features. I'm still getting to know it as it wasn't east to start.
It seems to be geared to someone that spends all day at the
computer like maybe a writer or something with the incremental
backup feature. I had a bad install on one system but I think it's
all set now.
If all you need to do is backup/restore just create the bootable CD
from the downloadable iso in your product registered Acronis account.

Optionally, one can create a bootable USB thumb drive media in
Acronis after installing the program. (i.e. install, create the usb
bootable drive, close, uninstall).

Doing both - one then has full access to Backup, Restore and other
included utilities from bootable media. Since the bootable media
provides usb support thus multiple options available for image
storage/restoration.

Thanks for the break down Winston. For some time now I have simply
been cloning my main drives (SSDs) and planned on using them if a
system became corrupted. I manually back up photos, videos and
documents to external drives. I guess I purchased ATI to see what I
could learn and gain a different prospective on backup schemes.

I suppose it's better to use ATI but I'm still not sure. It's pretty
quick replacing a drive.

Nope, I am with you. I have done it every way you can think of. I've
bought tons of backup/restore software looking for a better way. And the
bad thing about backup/restore software is you don't know if the restore
will work without testing it. Worse, you don't know unless you test
every single backup. Yes, I have been burned many times by having a
restore fail.

So the best method is simply cloning. As it takes half of the time as
backup/restore and you use the clone to test and you already know your
other drive is a good backup. And yes, swapping drives here takes 5
seconds. I too sync my data and that doesn't have to be cloned, but it
doesn't hurt anything if it is cloned anyway.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 5/21/2014 3:02 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/20/2014 6:33 PM, ...winston wrote:
AlDrake wrote, On 5/20/2014 2:57 PM:
On 5/20/2014 9:56 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/17/2014 2:56 AM, ...winston wrote:
AlDrake wrote, On 5/16/2014 6:45 PM:
On 5/16/2014 6:07 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 5/16/2014 12:16 AM, ...winston wrote:
Peter Berger wrote, On 5/15/2014 5:31 PM:

The three machine (Family Pack) version when multiple pc's are
involved is the better pricing.

For those with Win8x and a registred ATI13, the upgrade to ATI14
is free (for the stand-alone and also the Family Pack-3pc
version) and accesible from Win8x.

Also, the Acronis Store icon located on the toolbar in the ATI14
program also provides a link to upgrade to the 'Premium' version
(applicable to the stand-alone and Family Pack) for $19.99.

Here's a pic of the Family Pack offer
http://1drv.ms/1gyRCDf

i.e. if one has the ATI2013 Family Pack (3 pc version) and Win8x
they can upgrade (when accessing with Win8x) to ATI2014 Family
Pack and then update to ATI2014 Premium providing additional
tools (Migration, Dynamic Disk Support, WinPE) for just $19.99
- doing it via the ATI14 Premium product page's upgrade offer
instead of the program is $59.99.

$49.99 now.

Make that 32.49

http://www.acronis.com/en-us/persona...FetlOgodqE8ARQ



Newegg subscriber price $29.99
Acronis True Image 2014 Family Pack - 3 PCs

Newegg recently also had this for $29.99 too.
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium - 1 PC


I wonder why they keep dropping their price. I think it's a pretty
good program although I don't have a use for all of the back up
features. I'm still getting to know it as it wasn't east to start.
It seems to be geared to someone that spends all day at the
computer like maybe a writer or something with the incremental
backup feature. I had a bad install on one system but I think it's
all set now.
If all you need to do is backup/restore just create the bootable CD
from the downloadable iso in your product registered Acronis account.

Optionally, one can create a bootable USB thumb drive media in
Acronis after installing the program. (i.e. install, create the usb
bootable drive, close, uninstall).

Doing both - one then has full access to Backup, Restore and other
included utilities from bootable media. Since the bootable media
provides usb support thus multiple options available for image
storage/restoration.

Thanks for the break down Winston. For some time now I have simply
been cloning my main drives (SSDs) and planned on using them if a
system became corrupted. I manually back up photos, videos and
documents to external drives. I guess I purchased ATI to see what I
could learn and gain a different prospective on backup schemes.

I suppose it's better to use ATI but I'm still not sure. It's pretty
quick replacing a drive.

Nope, I am with you. I have done it every way you can think of. I've
bought tons of backup/restore software looking for a better way. And the
bad thing about backup/restore software is you don't know if the restore
will work without testing it. Worse, you don't know unless you test
every single backup. Yes, I have been burned many times by having a
restore fail.

So the best method is simply cloning. As it takes half of the time as
backup/restore and you use the clone to test and you already know your
other drive is a good backup. And yes, swapping drives here takes 5
seconds. I too sync my data and that doesn't have to be cloned, but it
doesn't hurt anything if it is cloned anyway.

I'm glad that you agree with me so at least I haven't been doing it
wrong through the years. I usually install the clone at the time of
making the copy so I'm sure from the start I have a fail safe method.

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth
the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I
have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 3:02 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/20/2014 6:33 PM, ...winston wrote:
AlDrake wrote, On 5/20/2014 2:57 PM:
On 5/20/2014 9:56 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/17/2014 2:56 AM, ...winston wrote:
AlDrake wrote, On 5/16/2014 6:45 PM:
On 5/16/2014 6:07 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 5/16/2014 12:16 AM, ...winston wrote:
Peter Berger wrote, On 5/15/2014 5:31 PM:

The three machine (Family Pack) version when multiple pc's are
involved is the better pricing.

For those with Win8x and a registred ATI13, the upgrade to
ATI14 is free (for the stand-alone and also the Family Pack-3pc
version) and accesible from Win8x.

Also, the Acronis Store icon located on the toolbar in the
ATI14 program also provides a link to upgrade to the 'Premium'
version (applicable to the stand-alone and Family Pack) for
$19.99. Here's a pic of the Family Pack offer
http://1drv.ms/1gyRCDf

i.e. if one has the ATI2013 Family Pack (3 pc version) and
Win8x they can upgrade (when accessing with Win8x) to ATI2014
Family Pack and then update to ATI2014 Premium providing
additional tools (Migration, Dynamic Disk Support, WinPE) for
just $19.99 - doing it via the ATI14 Premium product
page's upgrade offer instead of the program is $59.99.

$49.99 now.

Make that 32.49

http://www.acronis.com/en-us/persona...FetlOgodqE8ARQ



Newegg subscriber price $29.99
Acronis True Image 2014 Family Pack - 3 PCs

Newegg recently also had this for $29.99 too.
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium - 1 PC


I wonder why they keep dropping their price. I think it's a
pretty good program although I don't have a use for all of the
back up features. I'm still getting to know it as it wasn't east
to start. It seems to be geared to someone that spends all day at
the computer like maybe a writer or something with the incremental
backup feature. I had a bad install on one system but I think it's
all set now.
If all you need to do is backup/restore just create the bootable CD
from the downloadable iso in your product registered Acronis
account. Optionally, one can create a bootable USB thumb drive
media in
Acronis after installing the program. (i.e. install, create the usb
bootable drive, close, uninstall).

Doing both - one then has full access to Backup, Restore and other
included utilities from bootable media. Since the bootable media
provides usb support thus multiple options available for image
storage/restoration.

Thanks for the break down Winston. For some time now I have simply
been cloning my main drives (SSDs) and planned on using them if a
system became corrupted. I manually back up photos, videos and
documents to external drives. I guess I purchased ATI to see what I
could learn and gain a different prospective on backup schemes.

I suppose it's better to use ATI but I'm still not sure. It's
pretty quick replacing a drive.

Nope, I am with you. I have done it every way you can think of. I've
bought tons of backup/restore software looking for a better way. And
the bad thing about backup/restore software is you don't know if the
restore will work without testing it. Worse, you don't know unless
you test every single backup. Yes, I have been burned many times by
having a restore fail.

So the best method is simply cloning. As it takes half of the time as
backup/restore and you use the clone to test and you already know
your other drive is a good backup. And yes, swapping drives here
takes 5 seconds. I too sync my data and that doesn't have to be
cloned, but it doesn't hurt anything if it is cloned anyway.

I'm glad that you agree with me so at least I haven't been doing it
wrong through the years. I usually install the clone at the time of
making the copy so I'm sure from the start I have a fail safe method.

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth
the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I
have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I
didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what was
new in these versions. As things generally work out with me, they will
probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break the seal on
the boxes.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 5/21/2014 4:34 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 3:02 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/20/2014 6:33 PM, ...winston wrote:
AlDrake wrote, On 5/20/2014 2:57 PM:
On 5/20/2014 9:56 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/17/2014 2:56 AM, ...winston wrote:
AlDrake wrote, On 5/16/2014 6:45 PM:
On 5/16/2014 6:07 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 5/16/2014 12:16 AM, ...winston wrote:
Peter Berger wrote, On 5/15/2014 5:31 PM:

The three machine (Family Pack) version when multiple pc's are
involved is the better pricing.

For those with Win8x and a registred ATI13, the upgrade to
ATI14 is free (for the stand-alone and also the Family Pack-3pc
version) and accesible from Win8x.

Also, the Acronis Store icon located on the toolbar in the
ATI14 program also provides a link to upgrade to the 'Premium'
version (applicable to the stand-alone and Family Pack) for
$19.99. Here's a pic of the Family Pack offer
http://1drv.ms/1gyRCDf

i.e. if one has the ATI2013 Family Pack (3 pc version) and
Win8x they can upgrade (when accessing with Win8x) to ATI2014
Family Pack and then update to ATI2014 Premium providing
additional tools (Migration, Dynamic Disk Support, WinPE) for
just $19.99 - doing it via the ATI14 Premium product
page's upgrade offer instead of the program is $59.99.

$49.99 now.

Make that 32.49

http://www.acronis.com/en-us/persona...FetlOgodqE8ARQ



Newegg subscriber price $29.99
Acronis True Image 2014 Family Pack - 3 PCs

Newegg recently also had this for $29.99 too.
Acronis True Image 2014 Premium - 1 PC


I wonder why they keep dropping their price. I think it's a
pretty good program although I don't have a use for all of the
back up features. I'm still getting to know it as it wasn't east
to start. It seems to be geared to someone that spends all day at
the computer like maybe a writer or something with the incremental
backup feature. I had a bad install on one system but I think it's
all set now.
If all you need to do is backup/restore just create the bootable CD
from the downloadable iso in your product registered Acronis
account. Optionally, one can create a bootable USB thumb drive
media in
Acronis after installing the program. (i.e. install, create the usb
bootable drive, close, uninstall).

Doing both - one then has full access to Backup, Restore and other
included utilities from bootable media. Since the bootable media
provides usb support thus multiple options available for image
storage/restoration.

Thanks for the break down Winston. For some time now I have simply
been cloning my main drives (SSDs) and planned on using them if a
system became corrupted. I manually back up photos, videos and
documents to external drives. I guess I purchased ATI to see what I
could learn and gain a different prospective on backup schemes.

I suppose it's better to use ATI but I'm still not sure. It's
pretty quick replacing a drive.

Nope, I am with you. I have done it every way you can think of. I've
bought tons of backup/restore software looking for a better way. And
the bad thing about backup/restore software is you don't know if the
restore will work without testing it. Worse, you don't know unless
you test every single backup. Yes, I have been burned many times by
having a restore fail.

So the best method is simply cloning. As it takes half of the time as
backup/restore and you use the clone to test and you already know
your other drive is a good backup. And yes, swapping drives here
takes 5 seconds. I too sync my data and that doesn't have to be
cloned, but it doesn't hurt anything if it is cloned anyway.

I'm glad that you agree with me so at least I haven't been doing it
wrong through the years. I usually install the clone at the time of
making the copy so I'm sure from the start I have a fail safe method.

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth
the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I
have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I
didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what was
new in these versions. As things generally work out with me, they will
probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break the seal on
the boxes.


I have a unopened still wrapped in plastic Win7 OS I'll probably never
use. Actually I have a whole system I need to through together. I just
don't have the space to put another desktop. One funny part is my wife
wouldn't even notice if I did build again, there so must stuff around my
computer room. All I'd have to do is rearrange some stuff and she'd be
none the wiser. What's one more system give or take?

On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake wrote:

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth
the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I
have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every drive
you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every clone you wish to
make. For many people, that gets expensive. When you create a backup, you
can typically put multiple backups on a single drive.

So it's a trade-off, as are many things in life. If cost isn't an issue, go
ahead and clone. If the budget is tight, get a big drive and put multiple
backups/images on it, with the knowledge that you've saved a chunk of cash
but if it ever comes down to having to use one of those backups, you'll have
to restore it first. The trade-off is time versus money.

--

Char Jackson

On 5/21/2014 3:29 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake wrote:

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth
the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I
have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every drive
you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every clone you wish to
make. For many people, that gets expensive. When you create a backup, you
can typically put multiple backups on a single drive.

So it's a trade-off, as are many things in life. If cost isn't an issue, go
ahead and clone. If the budget is tight, get a big drive and put multiple
backups/images on it, with the knowledge that you've saved a chunk of cash
but if it ever comes down to having to use one of those backups, you'll have
to restore it first. The trade-off is time versus money.


I have so many drives that are smaller than the ones I use at any
given moment. They used to get moved to the second drive for "whatever".
Since I switched over to SSDs I have gone from 128G to 256G and now I'm
at Crucial M550 512G so I can use an older one to clone to. I lost count
of all the drives with somewhere over a dozen SSDs alone. I have 1,2,3
and 4 TB external drives. I keep several SSDs in USB3 external cases. I
can keep one with me as it's smaller than my wallet which has been
getting smaller also.

In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 4:34 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
I'm glad that you agree with me so at least I haven't been doing
it wrong through the years. I usually install the clone at the time
of making the copy so I'm sure from the start I have a fail safe
method. So in the long run none of these backup applications are
even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who
I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I
didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what
was new in these versions. As things generally work out with me,
they will probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break
the seal on the boxes.

I have a unopened still wrapped in plastic Win7 OS I'll probably
never use. Actually I have a whole system I need to through together.
I just don't have the space to put another desktop. One funny part is
my wife wouldn't even notice if I did build again, there so must
stuff around my computer room. All I'd have to do is rearrange some
stuff and she'd be none the wiser. What's one more system give or
take?

Yes same here. I too still have sealed Windows 7 OS that I was going to
use on a bunch of XP laptops (like this one). I did upgrade one of them
and that worked fine. I never upgraded the others yet. Although I did
move away from desktops in 2005 and went all laptops. Although I do use
docks, external monitors, etc. with them too. As you can store a lot of
laptops in a wall cabinet like you wouldn't believe.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth
the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I
have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every
drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every
clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When
you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a
single drive.

Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup drive
will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you might as well
clone). So it has to be larger than the original drive and that costs
more. Sure the three drives you clone you might be breaking even vs. a
one backup drive.

So it's a trade-off, as are many things in life. If cost isn't an
issue, go ahead and clone. If the budget is tight, get a big drive
and put multiple backups/images on it, with the knowledge that you've
saved a chunk of cash but if it ever comes down to having to use one
of those backups, you'll have to restore it first. The trade-off is
time versus money.

Not really. It depends on how many backups you plan to keep. Three
clones probably cost about the same as a backup drive to hold say 5 or
so backups. But you are depending on the backup drive to never fail. If
it does and when you need it you find out its dead, all that money and
time spent was for nothing. Or even if the restore fails, yes that
happens a lot.

With cloning, any drive can fail and you are still in good shape. Nor do
you have to worry if restore will work or not this time around. Plus
drives gets cheaper every year. You will probably want to upgrade to a
larger drive next year anyway. Heck this year I am slowly upgrading many
of my older machines over to SSD anyway. So each one that gets cloned is
going on a new SSD like this machine.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 3:29 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:
So in the long run none of these backup applications are even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who
I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every
drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every
clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When
you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a
single drive. So it's a trade-off, as are many things in life. If
cost isn't an
issue, go ahead and clone. If the budget is tight, get a big drive
and put multiple backups/images on it, with the knowledge that
you've saved a chunk of cash but if it ever comes down to having to
use one of those backups, you'll have to restore it first. The
trade-off is time versus money.

I have so many drives that are smaller than the ones I use at any
given moment. They used to get moved to the second drive for
"whatever". Since I switched over to SSDs I have gone from 128G to
256G and now I'm at Crucial M550 512G so I can use an older one to
clone to. I lost count of all the drives with somewhere over a dozen
SSDs alone. I have 1,2,3 and 4 TB external drives. I keep several
SSDs in USB3 external cases. I can keep one with me as it's smaller
than my wallet which has been getting smaller also.

Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed longer
on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And they are
going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit concern about
an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also has a TV tuner
connected and does a far amount of TV recording sometimes. Although
monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think I'll hit the limit for at
least 10 years. Plus it won't be long before this one is cloned and
replaced with another SSD anyway. Maybe 256GB next time around.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even worth
the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who I am. I
have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every
drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every
clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When
you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a
single drive.

Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup drive
will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you might as well
clone). So it has to be larger than the original drive and that costs
more. Sure the three drives you clone you might be breaking even vs. a
one backup drive.

Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller than the
used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use compression.

SNIP since I have no further comments.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of
who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping
them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every
drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every
clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When
you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a
single drive.

Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup
drive will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you might
as well clone). So it has to be larger than the original drive and
that costs more. Sure the three drives you clone you might be
breaking even vs. a one backup drive.

Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller than
the used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use compression.

SNIP since I have no further comments.

True, but even if you take a 120GB drive and backup to an external and
say you get a 60GB saved compressed backup. Which is probably very
typical. Now how do you know you can restore? Are you going to test it?
Or are you going to hope it works? If you test it, are you going to use
the original drive? If so and it fails to boot, now what? Bad idea eh?
So you really need a spare drive to test it, don't you? So if you need a
spare drive to test, you could have saved lots of time, money and
trouble just cloning to the spare drive anyway.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:07:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of
who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping
them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every
drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every
clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When
you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a
single drive.

Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup
drive will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you might
as well clone). So it has to be larger than the original drive and
that costs more. Sure the three drives you clone you might be
breaking even vs. a one backup drive.

Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller than
the used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use compression.

SNIP since I have no further comments.

True, but even if you take a 120GB drive and backup to an external and
say you get a 60GB saved compressed backup. Which is probably very
typical. Now how do you know you can restore? Are you going to test it?
Or are you going to hope it works? If you test it, are you going to use
the original drive? If so and it fails to boot, now what? Bad idea eh?
So you really need a spare drive to test it, don't you? So if you need a
spare drive to test, you could have saved lots of time, money and
trouble just cloning to the spare drive anyway.

Obviously you could test dozens of different images on one and the same
spare drive, if all you're doing is making sure they are in fact
restorable.

You only need to devote a drive to a single image if you are in fact
restoring the image to that drive because the original drive is defunct.
But that's the way it would be under any plan, no?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In ,

Gene E. Bloch typed:

On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:07:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote:



In ,

Gene E. Bloch typed:

On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote:



In ,

Char Jackson typed:

On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake

wrote:



So in the long run none of these backup applications are even

worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of

who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping

them.



When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for

every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for

every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets

expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put

multiple backups on a single drive.



Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup

drive will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you might

as well clone). So it has to be larger than the original drive and

that costs more. Sure the three drives you clone you might be

breaking even vs. a one backup drive.



Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller than

the used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use compression.



SNIP since I have no further comments.



True, but even if you take a 120GB drive and backup to an external

and say you get a 60GB saved compressed backup. Which is probably

very typical. Now how do you know you can restore? Are you going to

test it? Or are you going to hope it works? If you test it, are you

going to use the original drive? If so and it fails to boot, now

what? Bad idea eh? So you really need a spare drive to test it,

don't you? So if you need a spare drive to test, you could have

saved lots of time, money and trouble just cloning to the spare

drive anyway.



Obviously you could test dozens of different images on one and the

same spare drive, if all you're doing is making sure they are in fact

restorable.



You only need to devote a drive to a single image if you are in fact

restoring the image to that drive because the original drive is

defunct. But that's the way it would be under any plan, no?



Yes absolutely! Although are you going to test every single backup? If
so, that is twice the work than cloning. If you test less, well then it
is less work for sure. You still have the problem that you are trusting
one backup drive to stay working and not ever corrupting anything. For
me, that is a big if!



I do have some machines that it isn't practical to swap drives. One of
them has a 4GB SSD soldered on the motherboard. So I am stuck using
backup/restore. But guess what? I can't trust one backup/restore
program, I use three different backup programs using three different
backup drives. I can't throw in a spare SSD to test, so I have to
restore to the original. So maybe one might fail to restore, maybe the
second might fail, but I hope the third will never fail. Otherwise that
one gets a factory reset.



--

Bill

Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

Sorry about the double spacing in the previous post, reposted.

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:07:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of
who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping
them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for
every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for
every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets
expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put
multiple backups on a single drive.

Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup
drive will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you might
as well clone). So it has to be larger than the original drive and
that costs more. Sure the three drives you clone you might be
breaking even vs. a one backup drive.

Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller than
the used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use compression.

SNIP since I have no further comments.

True, but even if you take a 120GB drive and backup to an external
and say you get a 60GB saved compressed backup. Which is probably
very typical. Now how do you know you can restore? Are you going to
test it? Or are you going to hope it works? If you test it, are you
going to use the original drive? If so and it fails to boot, now
what? Bad idea eh? So you really need a spare drive to test it,
don't you? So if you need a spare drive to test, you could have
saved lots of time, money and trouble just cloning to the spare
drive anyway.

Obviously you could test dozens of different images on one and the
same spare drive, if all you're doing is making sure they are in fact
restorable.

You only need to devote a drive to a single image if you are in fact
restoring the image to that drive because the original drive is
defunct. But that's the way it would be under any plan, no?

Yes absolutely! Although are you going to test every single backup? If
so, that is twice the work than cloning. If you test less, well then it
is less work for sure. You still have the problem that you are trusting
one backup drive to stay working and not ever corrupting anything. For
me, that is a big if!

I do have some machines that it isn't practical to swap drives. One of
them has a 4GB SSD soldered on the motherboard. So I am stuck using
backup/restore. But guess what? I can't trust one backup/restore
program, I use three different backup programs using three different
backup drives. I can't throw in a spare SSD, so I have to restore to the
original. So maybe one might fail to restore, maybe the second might
fail, but I hope the third will never fail. Otherwise that one gets a
factory reset.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2