If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
Richie Hardwick wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:10:13 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: ONE MORE TIME: I think Casper is a FINE program, and no other program does what it does better than it does. I LOVE IT. But I ONLY use it to cover me in case a very specific situation arises: if my system drive completely dies and I want to get back up and running in mere seconds. Which (admitedly) is not my principal use for it, and so I'm using ATI. My principal use for it is some of the stuff you already enumerated, chief of which is all the software tests, and messing around with the software that I do. And I need several complete system image backups for that. (I have often restored a specific image to get back to where I was before I tried something out that didn't pan out so well) And - I want to have readily available several different, dated, backups with ready file access if I want to copy or just look at those files for some comparisons, etc. So my backup hard drive has one large partition it it, with multiple backup images of my system in it. Same here. I have no fewer than a dozen "old" backups covering the past 30 days or so. Those "old" backups include 4 complete backups along with their incremental backups (which can also be used to restore to the date of the incremental backup). Those different, dated backups are ALSO very nice to have on hand in case you've inadvertently backed up a hosed system where you haven't discovered that it is hosed until after your most recent backup has been made. Can't do that with Casper, because it only has ONE "backup" to restore from. OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. IOW, if my intenal source drive has a 40 GB system and program partition, and that's the only thing I'm ever backing up and restoring, couldn't Casper save different dated partition type clones of that on the backup drive? I guess they'd all have to have different drive letters though, which may be a bit messy for me. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:59:25 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote: Those different, dated backups are ALSO very nice to have on hand in case you've inadvertently backed up a hosed system where you haven't discovered that it is hosed until after your most recent backup has been made. Can't do that with Casper, because it only has ONE "backup" to restore from. OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. IOW, if my intenal source drive has a 40 GB system and program partition, and that's the only thing I'm ever backing up and restoring, couldn't Casper save different dated partition type clones of that on the backup drive? I guess they'd all have to have different drive letters though, which may be a bit messy for me. NO. A clone is a clone is a clone and is only ONE backup. First operation is to clone the source drive... i.e., make another drive an exact copy of the source drive. One can then make at-will "incremental" clones or updates of the original clone, resulting each time in the other drive being an exact copy of the source drive once again. Incremental clones take far less time to complete, and that's the beauty of them. There is only ONE clone, no matter how many "incremental" clone operations are performed. I hope you understand it now. You have certainly not had a shortage of help trying to bring you up to speed on this. Richie Hardwick |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:59:25 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote: Can't do that with Casper, because it only has ONE "backup" to restore from. OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. More... Your being "confused" seems to be a consistent element in your past discussions involving Casper and ATI. I think part of that confusion is related to your not properly differentiating between the terms "image" and "clone". It's very simple: an "image" is A FILE - a compressed snapshot of whatever has been "imaged". A "clone" is HARD DRIVE or a PARTITION that has been made to be an exact copy of a different hard drive or partition. It is important to use the terms "image" and "clone" properly, and to not use them as interchangeable terms for "copy". |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
Richie Hardwick wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:59:25 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: Those different, dated backups are ALSO very nice to have on hand in case you've inadvertently backed up a hosed system where you haven't discovered that it is hosed until after your most recent backup has been made. Can't do that with Casper, because it only has ONE "backup" to restore from. OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. IOW, if my intenal source drive has a 40 GB system and program partition, and that's the only thing I'm ever backing up and restoring, couldn't Casper save different dated partition type clones of that on the backup drive? I guess they'd all have to have different drive letters though, which may be a bit messy for me. NO. A clone is a clone is a clone and is only ONE backup. First operation is to clone the source drive... i.e., make another drive an exact copy of the source drive. One can then make at-will "incremental" clones or updates of the original clone, resulting each time in the other drive being an exact copy of the source drive once again. Incremental clones take far less time to complete, and that's the beauty of them. There is only ONE clone, no matter how many "incremental" clone operations are performed. I hope you understand it now. You have certainly not had a shortage of help trying to bring you up to speed on this. Richie Hardwick Well, I'm a tad old, so please give me some more allowance here. You are saying then that the backup drive can ONLY store ONE copy of the source partition (or drive), period. One, and only one backup can be stored, no matter what. If you want another, you'll have to delete the first one. IOW, it is impossible to save multiple partition-based clones on ONE backup hard drive (that is, can't save more than ONE of anything on the backup drive, if one uses Casper). But there is another option that some programs like BING (BootIT NG) will allow, however. With BING, you CAN store multiple (different dated) backup partition copies (of the source partition) on ONE single backup drive. These are NOT image backups, they are *partition* backups (I'd almost call them cloned partition backups). So it gets a bit confusing (at least to me). |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
Richie Hardwick wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:59:25 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: Can't do that with Casper, because it only has ONE "backup" to restore from. OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. More... Your being "confused" seems to be a consistent element in your past discussions involving Casper and ATI. I think part of that confusion is related to your not properly differentiating between the terms "image" and "clone". It's very simple: an "image" is A FILE - a compressed snapshot of whatever has been "imaged". A "clone" is HARD DRIVE or a PARTITION that has been made to be an exact copy of a different hard drive or partition. It is important to use the terms "image" and "clone" properly, and to not use them as interchangeable terms for "copy". I'm not sure I was. Did you see my last post (the one mentioning BING)? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:08:53 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote: Richie Hardwick wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:59:25 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: Those different, dated backups are ALSO very nice to have on hand in case you've inadvertently backed up a hosed system where you haven't discovered that it is hosed until after your most recent backup has been made. Can't do that with Casper, because it only has ONE "backup" to restore from. OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. IOW, if my intenal source drive has a 40 GB system and program partition, and that's the only thing I'm ever backing up and restoring, couldn't Casper save different dated partition type clones of that on the backup drive? I guess they'd all have to have different drive letters though, which may be a bit messy for me. NO. A clone is a clone is a clone and is only ONE backup. First operation is to clone the source drive... i.e., make another drive an exact copy of the source drive. One can then make at-will "incremental" clones or updates of the original clone, resulting each time in the other drive being an exact copy of the source drive once again. Incremental clones take far less time to complete, and that's the beauty of them. There is only ONE clone, no matter how many "incremental" clone operations are performed. I hope you understand it now. You have certainly not had a shortage of help trying to bring you up to speed on this. Richie Hardwick Well, I'm a tad old, so please give me some more allowance here. I'm a tad old myself: I've been retired for over a year. You are saying then that the backup drive can ONLY store ONE copy of the source partition (or drive), period. One, and only one backup can be stored, no matter what. If you want another, you'll have to delete the first one. Stop thinking "backup" when talking about cloning. A CLONE is a HARD DRIVE OR A PARTITION. It is an exact duplicate of another hard drive or partition. Got that so far???? When you "clone a drive" or "clone a partition" you make a different drive or partition an exact copy of the source drive/partition. If your source drive/partition changes, then you have to clone it again, or with Casper you do an incremental clone. IOW, it is impossible to save multiple partition-based clones on ONE backup hard drive (that is, can't save more than ONE of anything on the backup drive, if one uses Casper). Stop thinking "backup" when talking about Casper and start thinking "duplicate drive/partition". You can have as many cloned drives as you have spare hard drives. You can have as many cloned partitions as you have spare partitions. But there is another option that some programs like BING (BootIT NG) will allow, however. With BING, you CAN store multiple (different dated) backup partition copies (of the source partition) on ONE single backup drive. These are NOT image backups, they are *partition* backups You are responsible for your own confusion here because you won't nail down the proper terms for what you're talking about. You are bouncing around/combining the terms "backup", "image" and "clone". An "image" is a file. A "clone" is a hard drive or a partition. Both can be a "backup". (I'd almost call them cloned partition backups). So it gets a bit confusing (at least to me). Use the word "clone" ONLY when you are talking about making a drive or partition an exact copy of another drive or partition. Do NOT continue to use it interchangeably with "image" or "copy", and don't even use it WITH either of those terms. A disk can be imaged or cloned. ATI can do both. Casper can only clone a disk. A partition can be imaged or cloned. ATI can image a partition, but not clone one. Casper cannot image a partition, but it can clone one. From your description of BING, it is apparent that it images partitions. BECAUSE if it CLONED the partitions, a BUNCH OF PARTITIONS would be the end result, not a bunch of files. That said, I'm not here to discuss BING because I've not used it for maybe 8 or 9 years. If you are still confused, then you'll have to stay confused. I can't make it any simpler for you. Richie Hardwick |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
What is this, pick on Anna week?
And by the way, my name is Mickey not Merlin In anycase, ABRAKADABRA to you to! "Randall Flagg" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:54:18 GMT, "Mickey Mouse" wrote: Hey Anna,thanks for the reply First of all may I ask you to keep your replies short and to the point. I'm asking in the nicest possibly way. If your request is successful, you're a magician ;-) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
Mickey: Let me try to answer your questions point-by-point... As to my "long-windedness". It is not the first-time (nor do I believe it will be the *last* time!) that I have been accused of verbosity - particularly with respect to my technical writing of one sort or another, including my posts to this and similar newsgroups. While I do not resent your request to keep my replies "short and to the point", I can only promise to *try* to be on-point, but I make no promises now or in the future to keep them "short". *** Hey Anna, They sure are picking on you, but what the hey, they even think I'm some kind of magician. I couldn't pull a rabbit out of my hat even if bulwinckles life depended on it! I have though mastered the 3x3 and 4x4 Rubiks cube. Beat that one guys! You say that "I have a slight handicap which inhibits my learning capacity (shortterm) when given too much information." Judging from your previous posts it's hard for me to believe you have any problem in that area. All I can suggest, should you have the desire, interest, and inclination to do so, is to read my posts on a "chunk-by-chunk" basis. *** Unfortunately I'm out of the next Olympics. Two strokes and a heart attack will do that everytime. I am though considering taking some magician classes, how do thay do that rabbit in a hat trick? Enough of that, there's plenty little kids worse off than me. BTW, the likely reason your OE spell-check is in French is because you've probably installed MS Office 2007. There's an absurd glitch in that program that installs the spell checker in French and carries over to OE. (Some English-speaking users have also reported the spell checker in German!). In any event, the common workaround that many, if not most users have found is to use a (free) third-party spell checking program (in English!) - Spell Checker for OE 2.1. (There are others). It seems to work fine based on the experience I & others have had with it. A fair number of websites carry the program for download - one of them being... http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=2952 which seems to be a reliable source. *** MS Office 2007, yep you've nailed it on the head there. At least I'll be able to look up the French words for hat, magician and rabbit. 1. As to my comment that the demo version of the Casper 5 program is "slightly crippled"... While the trial version is basically operational in that it will "clone" the contents of one HDD to another HDD, the "destination" HDD, i.e., the recipient of the clone, will be resized only to the extent of the disk size of the "source" HDD, i.e., the HDD that is being cloned. *** So what your saying is the the recipient HDD is created by Casper and is also dynamic? For example, say you're using the program to clone the contents of your 40 GB HDD to a 320 GB HDD. After the disk-cloning operation is completed the 320 GB HDD will contain the contents of the 40 GB HDD, however, only a 40 GB partition will be created on the 320 GB HDD; the remaining disk space on that "destination" drive will constitute "unallocated" disk space - disk space that can later be partitioned/formatted. *** Yes, I understand. In fact it sounds exactly like what XR2 does. The difference here is that you've previouly created the 320gb hd and you have told Casper to put the Clone there. Further, if I understand correctly and using the above analogy. It created a 40gb dynamic partition on that 320gb drive and converted the remaining part of the 320gb drive to unallocated space which would be aquired if the next backup was larger than 40gb. This limitation is not present using the licensed version of Casper. The full disk space of the destination HDD would be utilized to contain the cloned contents of the source HDD so that there would be no "unallocated" disk space on the destination HDD (unless of course the user desired to have unallocated disk space on the destination drive). *** So, if say I have a 500gb HD and partition it to C:200gb (system drive), D: 200gb and E: 100gb I can tell Casper to use E: for it's own use where it would create a dynamic partition on E: for say a 40gb backup and turn the rest of E: into unallocated. When it needed more space for the next backup, say 45gb it would allocate some of the unallocate space to accomodate the extra 5gb leaving C: and D: at there original size. In short, Casper here has only the E:100gb to play with. 2. As to the additional cost of the "Startup Disk" download to create that bootable CD, I agree with your comment that the developer should not charge an additional $9.95 for that program. As I stated in my previous post, we have complained to the developer about that charge, but (at least till now) to no avail. *** Sounds like trying to make the illusion that Casper cheaper than it really is. By the way, the french word for rabbit is Lapin! Not at all cool sounding. But then, a rabbit by any other name............ 5. You say that you are not interested in "incremental backups". Let me tell you frankly if that is indeed the case, there is really no special need for you to purchase the Casper 5 program. If all you're interested in is some "one-shot deal" where you will clone the contents of your day-to-day working HDD to another HDD and nevermore use the program for routine systematic backups to keep your system reasonably up-to-date, then *any* disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) program would probably suffice for your needs. **** Please let me clarify my stand on incremental backups. Yes, I'm not in my situation concerned with incremental backups as I myself have no need for them. Having said that I do however acknowledge the need for incremental backups and their importance for certain situations. For example; A clerk, updating his/her system with daily sales figures with perhaps a view to forcasting monthly, yearly company forcasts. A taxation accountant keep up to date yearly records of his/her clients In both of these cases and cases similar important data is added to important data, an incremental backup would be essential. In my case however, my only concern is the integrety of my installed applications and the registry. The number of times my system has crashed for one reason or another you wouldn't believe. In my case each time I've only had to reinstall the OS, updates and applications. I'm just looking for a quicker way to do it. Let me finally say - hopefully for the last time - that I have no connection, either personal or commercial, with the developer of the Casper program. Anna Anna, I couldn't care less who you work for be it Casper, Snow White or even Shrek! I do care and hope you are happy in your work. Thanks for the correspondance and I'll certainly ask if I have anymore questions. By me at least, you are appreciated. Mickey |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
"Richie Hardwick" wrote in message
... On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:59:25 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: Can't do that with Casper, because it only has ONE "backup" to restore from. OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. More... Your being "confused" seems to be a consistent element in your past discussions involving Casper and ATI. I think part of that confusion is related to your not properly differentiating between the terms "image" and "clone". It's very simple: an "image" is A FILE - a compressed snapshot of whatever has been "imaged". A "clone" is HARD DRIVE or a PARTITION that has been made to be an exact copy of a different hard drive or partition. One way for Bill to hopefully better grok this concept is to recall the replicator from Star Trek TNG. Just imagine replicating the hard drive. (For now, let's keep it simple: just one physical hard drive.) You start off with one hard drive. Now, after the replicating, you have two hard drives: the original and its clone, which is *an exact copy.* If you remove the orginal hard drive and replace it with the clone, for all intents and purposes, the system is exactly the same. Another way: You purchased a CD. You can make a "clone" of it. That is, you can create another CD, which is an exact copy. If someone else were to place the copy in your CD player, you wouldn't be able to tell if it was the original or the copy. You can also make an "image" of this CD. (Actually, you can; it's called an .iso file.) This is only a file. You cannot place the file into a CD player! But it still serves the purpose of completely backing up everything you need from this CD if you want to *eventually* create a CD with the same songs in the same order with the same spacing (or perhaps place certain tracks on an iPod or file-share, etc. -- with some manipulaiton). You can make images of many CDs and store all these files wherever you like. You may even store them all in the same location (e.g., an external hard drive). Getting back to hard drives... Unless you need to boot up from a cloned hard drive *immediately*, there is no advantage to using the cloning method. Imaging a hard drive (or partitions) -- if done regularly -- is fine to recover from a disaster. Just restore the image and all is well. Sure, if you decide to clone your hard drive to an eSATA drive (or to another hard drive in your PC), as long as it is physically connected and you configured your PC to easily boot off of the clone, you will be up and running much quicker than if you restore an image. But seriously, for the average user, we're just talking about recovering from a disaster, which is very rare. For people who frequently test programs or work with viruses, etc., I can see the appeal. Or for people who are day traders or for whatever reason *must* be up in running within seconds, yes it would make sense. But not for the average user. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
"Mickey Mouse" wrote in message
... In my case however, my only concern is the integrety of my installed applications and the registry. The number of times my system has crashed for one reason or another you wouldn't believe. In my case each time I've only had to reinstall the OS, updates and applications. I'm just looking for a quicker way to do it. The let's cut to the chase. If you're not concerned with backing up data (you might want to reconsider that, you know!) and just want an easy way of getting back to a pristine operating system plus programs, all you need to do is make an image one time. So, after you perform the clean install, install the drivers, install the updates, install the programs, configure all the settings to your preference, make your image. That way, if disaster strikes, all you need to do is restore the image and you will have your system the exact way it was at the time you made the image. You can do this for free. Just use DriveImageXML: http://www.runtime.org/driveimage-xml.htm The advantage of using a program like Acronis True Image is you can make incremental images, which is useful if you don't regularly independently back up your data. It also comes in handy when you install new programs over time. But if we're just talking a one-shot deal, incremental imaging isn't what you're looking for, so at the very least, just give DriveImageXML a shot. It sounds like that's all you need. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
"Bill in Co." wrote in message ... OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. IOW, if my intenal source drive has a 40 GB system and program partition, and that's the only thing I'm ever backing up and restoring, couldn't Casper save different dated partition type clones of that on the backup drive? I guess they'd all have to have different drive letters though, which may be a bit messy for me. Bill: I know we've have some detailed discussions about the issue you're now raising and I thought I had clarified this issue, but let me try once again. First of all - as I think we both recognize - Casper 5 has the capability of cloning on a partition-to-partition basis as well as on a disk-to-disk basis. The process for each is simple & direct. Usually this issue arises when a user is interested (for whatever reason) in maintaining "generational" backups of his or her system, i.e., individual comprehensive backups of the system at various points in time. So, for example, a user may be interested in a backup of his/her system as it existed on Jan. 15, and on Jan 20, and on Jan 25, and on Jan 30, etc., etc. So that at some later date the user has a precise copy of his/her system at some particular point-in-time. Now since Casper has this capability of cloning on a partition-by-partition basis a user could use this facility for maintaining a number of "generational" clones of his/her system at different points-in-time. Here's an example. 1. Let's say the user can make a reasonable assumption that his/her source HDD contains at most no more than 50 GB of total data at any given point in time between now and within the near future - perhaps over the next month or so. 2. The *total* disk-space capacity of the source HDD is unimportant. All that is relevant is the amount of data currently on the disk and what can be considered over the near future in terms of anticipated maximum amount of data - keeping in mind that when we speak of *total* data on the disk this includes the OS, all programs & applications, all personal data - in short, *everything* that's on the source HDD. 3. Assume that the user is using (or can use) a 500 GB USB external HDD as the "destination" drive, i.e., the recipient of the cloned contents of the source disk. 4. The user could first create as many 50 GB partitions that the destination drive could contain - in this example roughly 9 or 10 partitions. 5. Thus the user could - at various points of time - clone the contents of his/her source HDD roughly 9 or 10 times, i.e, have available backed-up 9 or 10 "generations" of his/her system over that span of time. Obviously the larger the disk-capacity of the destination HDD (or conversely a smaller amount of data to be cloned) the more "generations" could be stored on the destination HDD should the number of partitions be increased. Notwithstanding the above, by & large we have taken the position that if the user is primarily or exclusively concerned with maintaining generational copies of his/her system over a fair period of time, then a disk-imaging program such as the Acronis one is generally more practical in that situation. But we have found that the overwhelming number of users are uninterested in keeping generational copies of their systems. The great majority of users simply want to have a backup that is an up-to-date clone of their system. So that if their system becomes dysfunctional for any reason it can be restored with a minimum of effort and expenditure of time. Setting aside this "generational" issue... Many users, yourself included I believe, multi-partition their source HDD for various reasons. There's no problem using the Casper 5 program to clone the contents of this or that partition from the source HDD to the destination drive. Naturally the user will have set up his or her destination HDD with sufficient partitions to receive the contents of the cloned partition. A final note... Since (as I recall) this was a source of confusion re our previous exchange of posts, let me make it as clear as I can that it makes absolutely no difference what drive letters have been assigned to the *destination* HDD (the recipient of the clones) in terms of the recovery/restore process. An example... Let's say the user clones the contents of his/her source HDD to a specific partition of a USB external HDD. We'll designate that USBEHD partition as "E". Some days later another source HDD clone is created and those contents are cloned to partition "F" on the USBEHD. Still another clone created a few days later is created on the "G" partition of the USBEHD. Etc., Etc. So each of those partitions - E, F, & G - now contain the cloned contents (at various points-in-time) of the source HDD. There's no problem re drive letter assignments should *any* of the contents of those partitions be cloned back to the source HDD (including a brand-new source HDD). The source HDD will retain the C: drive letter assignment - period. I'm emphasizing all of this because I seem to recall we previously had some confusion over that issue. Anna |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:16:57 -0500, Daave wrote:
"Richie Hardwick" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:59:25 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: Can't do that with Casper, because it only has ONE "backup" to restore from. OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. More... Your being "confused" seems to be a consistent element in your past discussions involving Casper and ATI. I think part of that confusion is related to your not properly differentiating between the terms "image" and "clone". It's very simple: an "image" is A FILE - a compressed snapshot of whatever has been "imaged". A "clone" is HARD DRIVE or a PARTITION that has been made to be an exact copy of a different hard drive or partition. One way for Bill to hopefully better grok this concept is to recall the replicator from Star Trek TNG. Just imagine replicating the hard drive. (For now, let's keep it simple: just one physical hard drive.) You start off with one hard drive. Now, after the replicating, you have two hard drives: the original and its clone, which is *an exact copy.* If you remove the orginal hard drive and replace it with the clone, for all intents and purposes, the system is exactly the same. Another way: You purchased a CD. You can make a "clone" of it. That is, you can create another CD, which is an exact copy. If someone else were to place the copy in your CD player, you wouldn't be able to tell if it was the original or the copy. You can also make an "image" of this CD. (Actually, you can; it's called an .iso file.) This is only a file. You cannot place the file into a CD player! But it still serves the purpose of completely backing up everything you need from this CD if you want to *eventually* create a CD with the same songs in the same order with the same spacing (or perhaps place certain tracks on an iPod or file-share, etc. -- with some manipulaiton). You can make images of many CDs and store all these files wherever you like. You may even store them all in the same location (e.g., an external hard drive). Getting back to hard drives... Unless you need to boot up from a cloned hard drive *immediately*, there is no advantage to using the cloning method. Imaging a hard drive (or partitions) -- if done regularly -- is fine to recover from a disaster. Just restore the image and all is well. Sure, if you decide to clone your hard drive to an eSATA drive (or to another hard drive in your PC), as long as it is physically connected and you configured your PC to easily boot off of the clone, you will be up and running much quicker than if you restore an image. But seriously, for the average user, we're just talking about recovering from a disaster, which is very rare. For people who frequently test programs or work with viruses, etc., I can see the appeal. Or for people who are day traders or for whatever reason *must* be up in running within seconds, yes it would make sense. But not for the average user. Except if your HD goes kaput. Then an image is of no value. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:35:13 GMT, Mickey Mouse wrote:
Hi Anna, You've got me interested in Casper 5. I'm on a pension so it's pretty pricey for me in Australian dollars. Anyway I think you suggested offering some assitance re Casper 5. So I'll and take you up on it if you don't mind. I've downloaded but not yet installed the trial version. Is there anything you can tell me about it? Does it backup a partitioned system drive? By that I mean if my drive is partitioned C: and D: will it backup my C:system drive together with the registry or only the installed files? What does it backup exactly? I am interested in your advice and what you might have to say. Mickey The question that I have is why are we talking about these programs at all? Free programs such as XXClone and HDClone (at least) will clone a system drive. Data recovery is a separate issue. There are a number of free programs which will allow you to back up and recover data. With a clone drive and backed up data you are good to go under any circumstance. I would rather put the $50 cost of these programs toward the purchase of a HDD. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
Richie Hardwick wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:08:53 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: Richie Hardwick wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:59:25 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: Those different, dated backups are ALSO very nice to have on hand in case you've inadvertently backed up a hosed system where you haven't discovered that it is hosed until after your most recent backup has been made. Can't do that with Casper, because it only has ONE "backup" to restore from. OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. IOW, if my intenal source drive has a 40 GB system and program partition, and that's the only thing I'm ever backing up and restoring, couldn't Casper save different dated partition type clones of that on the backup drive? I guess they'd all have to have different drive letters though, which may be a bit messy for me. NO. A clone is a clone is a clone and is only ONE backup. First operation is to clone the source drive... i.e., make another drive an exact copy of the source drive. One can then make at-will "incremental" clones or updates of the original clone, resulting each time in the other drive being an exact copy of the source drive once again. Incremental clones take far less time to complete, and that's the beauty of them. There is only ONE clone, no matter how many "incremental" clone operations are performed. I hope you understand it now. You have certainly not had a shortage of help trying to bring you up to speed on this. Richie Hardwick Well, I'm a tad old, so please give me some more allowance here. I'm a tad old myself: I've been retired for over a year. You are saying then that the backup drive can ONLY store ONE copy of the source partition (or drive), period. One, and only one backup can be stored, no matter what. If you want another, you'll have to delete the first one. Stop thinking "backup" when talking about cloning. A CLONE is a HARD DRIVE OR A PARTITION. It is an exact duplicate of another hard drive or partition. Got that so far???? That was never in doubt Richie. The point you seem to be confusing is thinking that I think that a backup is simply copying a bunch of files. I never said that. I use the term creating a backup much more broadly - to me it includes cloning and imaging. I do NOT mean just the copying of files over to a destination drive. When you "clone a drive" or "clone a partition" you make a different drive or partition an exact copy of the source drive/partition. If your source drive/partition changes, then you have to clone it again, or with Casper you do an incremental clone. IOW, it is impossible to save multiple partition-based clones on ONE backup hard drive (that is, can't save more than ONE of anything on the backup drive, if one uses Casper). Stop thinking "backup" when talking about Casper and start thinking "duplicate drive/partition". You can have as many cloned drives as you have spare hard drives. You can have as many cloned partitions as you have spare partitions. OK. I gather you don't like my choice of the word backup in this context. I call it a backup. But there is another option that some programs like BING (BootIT NG) will allow, however. With BING, you CAN store multiple (different dated) backup partition copies (of the source partition) on ONE single backup drive. These are NOT image backups, they are *partition* backups You are responsible for your own confusion here because you won't nail down the proper terms for what you're talking about. You are bouncing around/combining the terms "backup", "image" and "clone". An "image" is a file. A "clone" is a hard drive or a partition. Both can be a "backup". Exactly!! (that was never in dispute!) (I'd almost call them cloned partition backups). So it gets a bit confusing (at least to me). Use the word "clone" ONLY when you are talking about making a drive or partition an exact copy of another drive or partition. Do NOT continue to use it interchangeably with "image" or "copy", and don't even use it WITH either of those terms. A disk can be imaged or cloned. ATI can do both. Casper can only clone a disk. A partition can be imaged or cloned. ATI can image a partition, but not clone one. Casper cannot image a partition, but it can clone one. Right. From your description of BING, it is apparent that it images partitions. BECAUSE if it CLONED the partitions, a BUNCH OF PARTITIONS would be the end result, not a bunch of files. THAT is exactly what happens, Richie (and I *have* used BING). That's my point, and in part why this whole discussion has been somewhat confusing. Using BING, the backup drive is containing several partition clones of the source drive's system partition. So it is NOT really accurate to simply state "a clone is a duplicate of the source drive". THAT is much too ambiguous. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Casper 5 - One for Anna
see below
--- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Bill in Co. wrote: Richie Hardwick wrote: On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:08:53 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: Richie Hardwick wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:59:25 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: Those different, dated backups are ALSO very nice to have on hand in case you've inadvertently backed up a hosed system where you haven't discovered that it is hosed until after your most recent backup has been made. Can't do that with Casper, because it only has ONE "backup" to restore from. OK, I'm STILL confused about some of this, even after all the discussions we've had here before on this, including some with Anna. You say Casper has only ONE backup to restore from, but I thought with Casper you could also make multiple, partition type clone backups to the backup drive, storing several different partition copies over there, so that you could choose which one (somewhat analogous to which image) to restore from. IOW, if my intenal source drive has a 40 GB system and program partition, and that's the only thing I'm ever backing up and restoring, couldn't Casper save different dated partition type clones of that on the backup drive? I guess they'd all have to have different drive letters though, which may be a bit messy for me. NO. A clone is a clone is a clone and is only ONE backup. First operation is to clone the source drive... i.e., make another drive an exact copy of the source drive. One can then make at-will "incremental" clones or updates of the original clone, resulting each time in the other drive being an exact copy of the source drive once again. Incremental clones take far less time to complete, and that's the beauty of them. There is only ONE clone, no matter how many "incremental" clone operations are performed. I hope you understand it now. You have certainly not had a shortage of help trying to bring you up to speed on this. Richie Hardwick Well, I'm a tad old, so please give me some more allowance here. I'm a tad old myself: I've been retired for over a year. You are saying then that the backup drive can ONLY store ONE copy of the source partition (or drive), period. One, and only one backup can be stored, no matter what. If you want another, you'll have to delete the first one. Stop thinking "backup" when talking about cloning. A CLONE is a HARD DRIVE OR A PARTITION. It is an exact duplicate of another hard drive or partition. Got that so far???? That was never in doubt Richie. The point you seem to be confusing is thinking that I think that a backup is simply copying a bunch of files. I never said that. I use the term creating a backup much more broadly - to me it includes cloning and imaging. I do NOT mean just the copying of files over to a destination drive. When you "clone a drive" or "clone a partition" you make a different drive or partition an exact copy of the source drive/partition. If your source drive/partition changes, then you have to clone it again, or with Casper you do an incremental clone. IOW, it is impossible to save multiple partition-based clones on ONE backup hard drive (that is, can't save more than ONE of anything on the backup drive, if one uses Casper). Stop thinking "backup" when talking about Casper and start thinking "duplicate drive/partition". You can have as many cloned drives as you have spare hard drives. You can have as many cloned partitions as you have spare partitions. OK. I gather you don't like my choice of the word backup in this context. I call it a backup. But there is another option that some programs like BING (BootIT NG) will allow, however. With BING, you CAN store multiple (different dated) backup partition copies (of the source partition) on ONE single backup drive. These are NOT image backups, they are *partition* backups You are responsible for your own confusion here because you won't nail down the proper terms for what you're talking about. You are bouncing around/combining the terms "backup", "image" and "clone". An "image" is a file. A "clone" is a hard drive or a partition. Both can be a "backup". Exactly!! (that was never in dispute!) (I'd almost call them cloned partition backups). So it gets a bit confusing (at least to me). Use the word "clone" ONLY when you are talking about making a drive or partition an exact copy of another drive or partition. Do NOT continue to use it interchangeably with "image" or "copy", and don't even use it WITH either of those terms. A disk can be imaged or cloned. ATI can do both. Casper can only clone a disk. A partition can be imaged or cloned. ATI can image a partition, but not clone one. Casper cannot image a partition, but it can clone one. Right. From your description of BING, it is apparent that it images partitions. BECAUSE if it CLONED the partitions, a BUNCH OF PARTITIONS would be the end result, not a bunch of files. THAT is exactly what happens, Richie (and I *have* used BING). That's my point, and in part why this whole discussion has been somewhat confusing. Using BING, the backup drive is containing several partition clones of the source drive's system partition. So it is NOT really accurate to simply state "a clone is a duplicate of the source drive". THAT is much too ambiguous. I'll stick my unwanted nose in he Not that it matters a whole lot, but there is a small difference between a clone and an image, as these terms are commonly used. An image excludes unused space on the disk, and most imaging applications also exclude certain files that don't need backing up, such as the page file and the hibernation file. A clone, on the other hand, is an exact duplicate, including everything. If backing up is your goal, all you need is an image. Clones are used for forensic purposes, as in a criminal investigation. "Ghosting" and variations of that term were coined by Binary Research for their disk imaging program (later purchased by Symantec) called Ghost. In other words, it's a marketing term. Strictly speaking, you image or clone an entire disk. But since a disk partition is the functional equivalent of a complete disk, it's easy to confuse disk imaging and partition imaging. It would be better to use the generic term "volume". Some imaging programs can backup multiple partitions into one image file, while others put only one partition into an image file, so if your physical hard disk is partitioned you will make several image files to backup the complete disk. There's no practical difference, but many people find it conceptually easier to deal with one image file for a partitioned disk. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|