External Hard drive

In ,
M.I.5¾ typed on Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:15:37 +0100:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...

In ,
M.I.5¾ typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:57:09 +0100:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
M.I.5¾ typed on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:13:22 +0100:
"Dezza" wrote in message
...
hello all,
i have a windos xp os and i was just wondering what's the best
way to back up my Hard disk on my pc, or the easiest way, I have
a 1TB ex hd, I mostly want to to back up music, movies and I
would like to know
what software is best to back up as well?
Thank you for your answers in advance.

The most respected utility is Acronis True Image.

You can back up the whole disc or just selected parts of it.


http://www.acronis.co.uk/homecomputi...FZkA4wodrEtZaw

Well there are many ways to backup and many great software out
there to do so even for free. Although if you are bent towards
Acronis True Image for some reason, you can get them for free if
you use a WD, Seagate, or Maxtor hard drives.

If you have WD hard drive:

http://support.wdc.com/product/downl...&wdc_lang =en

If you have a Seagate/Maxtor hard drive:
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/sup...ads/discwizard

The version on those sites is sufficiently crippled that in my view,
the paltry sum of £40 is worth it for the fully functional version.

I have the full version and I like what you call the crippled version
far better. As it does cloning, backing, restoring, and verifying.
And what more do you need? I liked it so much, I uninstalled my full
version. ;-)


Your opinion differs to mine. But that is the nature of opinions.

Well you haven't stated one single feature that you liked about the full
version yet. Obviously there must be something. vbg

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
M.I.5¾ typed on Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:15:37 +0100:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...

In ,
M.I.5¾ typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:57:09 +0100:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
M.I.5¾ typed on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:13:22 +0100:
"Dezza" wrote in message
...
hello all,
i have a windos xp os and i was just wondering what's the best
way to back up my Hard disk on my pc, or the easiest way, I have
a 1TB ex hd, I mostly want to to back up music, movies and I
would like to know
what software is best to back up as well?
Thank you for your answers in advance.

The most respected utility is Acronis True Image.

You can back up the whole disc or just selected parts of it.


http://www.acronis.co.uk/homecomputi...FZkA4wodrEtZaw

Well there are many ways to backup and many great software out
there to do so even for free. Although if you are bent towards
Acronis True Image for some reason, you can get them for free if
you use a WD, Seagate, or Maxtor hard drives.

If you have WD hard drive:

http://support.wdc.com/product/downl...&wdc_lang =en

If you have a Seagate/Maxtor hard drive:
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/sup...ads/discwizard

The version on those sites is sufficiently crippled that in my view,
the paltry sum of £40 is worth it for the fully functional version.

I have the full version and I like what you call the crippled version
far better. As it does cloning, backing, restoring, and verifying.
And what more do you need? I liked it so much, I uninstalled my full
version. ;-)


Your opinion differs to mine. But that is the nature of opinions.

Well you haven't stated one single feature that you liked about the full
version yet. Obviously there must be something. vbg


Oh yes I did. The ability to make incremental backups was the one I
actually did mention.

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
M.I.5¾ typed on Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:57:09 +0100:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
M.I.5¾ typed on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:13:22 +0100:
"Dezza" wrote in message
...
hello all,
i have a windos xp os and i was just wondering what's the best way
to back up my Hard disk on my pc, or the easiest way, I have a 1TB
ex hd, I mostly want to to back up music, movies and I would like
to know
what software is best to back up as well?
Thank you for your answers in advance.

The most respected utility is Acronis True Image.

You can back up the whole disc or just selected parts of it.


http://www.acronis.co.uk/homecomputi...FZkA4wodrEtZaw

Well there are many ways to backup and many great software out there
to do so even for free. Although if you are bent towards Acronis
True Image for some reason, you can get them for free if you use a
WD, Seagate, or Maxtor hard drives.

If you have WD hard drive:

http://support.wdc.com/product/downl...&wdc_lang =en

If you have a Seagate/Maxtor hard drive:
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/sup...ads/discwizard

The version on those sites is sufficiently crippled that in my view,
the paltry sum of £40 is worth it for the fully functional version.

I have the full version and I like what you call the crippled version
far better. As it does cloning, backing, restoring, and verifying. And
what more do you need? I liked it so much, I uninstalled my full
version. ;-)

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC



I concur 100%. I have an external WD I use for backups, and had a real
problem doing a restore from Drive Image XML (the freebie). I downloaded
TrueImage for WD today, created the boot CD, backed up my C: drive, replaced
the C: with another hard drive, and restored it, all in about 2-1/2 hours.
The replacement drive booted up with absolutely no problems. Amazing!
TrueImage is my new best friend, and it's free!! I highly recommend it.

SC Tom

In ,
SC Tom typed on Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:41:53 -0400:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...

I have the full version and I like what you call the crippled version
far better. As it does cloning, backing, restoring, and verifying.
And what more do you need? I liked it so much, I uninstalled my full
version. ;-)

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)

I concur 100%. I have an external WD I use for backups, and had a real
problem doing a restore from Drive Image XML (the freebie). I
downloaded TrueImage for WD today, created the boot CD, backed up my
C: drive, replaced the C: with another hard drive, and restored it,
all in about 2-1/2 hours. The replacement drive booted up with
absolutely no problems. Amazing! TrueImage is my new best friend, and
it's free!! I highly recommend it.
SC Tom

I am glad you like it Tom. It is indeed a jewel out there. vbg

--
Bill
Windows XP SP2 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

On Sep 17, 8:03*am, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:59:02 -0700, Dezza

wrote:
hello all,
i have a windos xp os and i was just wondering what's the best way to back
up my Hard disk on my pc, or the easiest way, I have a 1TB ex hd,
I mostly want to to back up music, movies and I would like to know what
software is best to back up as well?
Thank you for your answers in advance.

I recommend Acronis True Image.

You also might like to read this article on backup I recently wrote:
"Back Up Your Computer Regularly and Reliably" athttp://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=314

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken,

I appreciate your responses in my post, 'Backups versus Images', have
gone the ATI route per your recommendation in this thread and the
reports of others in my post, plus I read your article - good stuff.
However, I still have some confusion.

In this, or another thread, I seem to recall you (perhaps it was
someone else), making an observation that using ATI to back up data
files was a lot of useless bother - overkill. Yet, in reading all of
these threads about backing up stuff, it seems the terms 'Backups' and
'Images' keep getting used interchangeably and have become nearly
synonymous. 'Clones' are still 'Clones' - to most folks.

So, how does a data file 'Backup' produced with Syncback (as an
example) or a simple copy/paste, differ from an 'Image' produced by
ATI or Ghost? And why is one better (or worse) than the other for
backing up data files that only change when new data items are added
to the file, like songs, pictures, etc, and not revisions, like
documents, financial data, spreadsheets, etc.?

Thanks Ken, hate to be a bother.

In
,
Teflon typed on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:31:49 -0700 (PDT):
Ken,

I appreciate your responses in my post, 'Backups versus Images', have
gone the ATI route per your recommendation in this thread and the
reports of others in my post, plus I read your article - good stuff.
However, I still have some confusion.

I am not Ken, but did you get the ATI free versions? Or did you pay for
the paid version?

In this, or another thread, I seem to recall you (perhaps it was
someone else), making an observation that using ATI to back up data
files was a lot of useless bother - overkill. Yet, in reading all of
these threads about backing up stuff, it seems the terms 'Backups' and
'Images' keep getting used interchangeably and have become nearly
synonymous. 'Clones' are still 'Clones' - to most folks.

So, how does a data file 'Backup' produced with Syncback (as an
example) or a simple copy/paste, differ from an 'Image' produced by
ATI or Ghost? And why is one better (or worse) than the other for
backing up data files that only change when new data items are added
to the file, like songs, pictures, etc, and not revisions, like
documents, financial data, spreadsheets, etc.?

Thanks Ken, hate to be a bother.

Here are the answers to some of your questions until Ken response.

ATI backup files are only useful if you have ATI. Otherwise nothing else
can use them. The advantage? It uses less space like about half of the
space then copying the files and folders manually or by SyncBack.
Although a compressed folder (ZIP) can save as much space too.

By the way, this method doesn't normally work for files that are in use.
Most data files are not, but most of the system files are. So bad choice
if you want to backup system files. A boot CD can copy them all though.
Well some boot CDs can anyway.

Ghost files is the same deal as ATI files. Smaller foot print and only
useful with Ghost up and running. Do you have Ghost? If so, you really
don't need ATI. Does basically the same thing, but a different company
and not compatible with one another.

--
Bill
Windows XP SP2 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:31:49 -0700 (PDT), Teflon
wrote:

On Sep 17, 8:03*am, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:59:02 -0700, Dezza

wrote:
hello all,
i have a windos xp os and i was just wondering what's the best way to back
up my Hard disk on my pc, or the easiest way, I have a 1TB ex hd,
I mostly want to to back up music, movies and I would like to know what
software is best to back up as well?
Thank you for your answers in advance.

I recommend Acronis True Image.

You also might like to read this article on backup I recently wrote:
"Back Up Your Computer Regularly and Reliably" athttp://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=314

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken,

I appreciate your responses in my post, 'Backups versus Images', have
gone the ATI route per your recommendation in this thread and the
reports of others in my post, plus I read your article - good stuff.
However, I still have some confusion.

In this, or another thread, I seem to recall you (perhaps it was
someone else), making an observation that using ATI to back up data
files was a lot of useless bother - overkill.


It wasn't me. I like Acronis True Image better than any other such
program I've trued, and I recommend it.


Yet, in reading all of
these threads about backing up stuff, it seems the terms 'Backups' and
'Images' keep getting used interchangeably and have become nearly
synonymous. 'Clones' are still 'Clones' - to most folks.


You're likely get different opinions from different folks, but here's
mine: images and clones are both *types* of backups.




So, how does a data file 'Backup' produced with Syncback (as an
example) or a simple copy/paste, differ from an 'Image' produced by
ATI or Ghost? And why is one better (or worse) than the other for
backing up data files that only change when new data items are added
to the file, like songs, pictures, etc, and not revisions, like
documents, financial data, spreadsheets, etc.?

Thanks Ken, hate to be a bother.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sep 24, 2:52*pm, "BillW50" wrote:
,
Teflon typed on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:31:49 -0700 (PDT):

Ken,

I appreciate your responses in my post, 'Backups versus Images', have
gone the ATI route per your recommendation in this thread and the
reports of others in my post, plus I read your article - good stuff.
However, I still have some confusion.

I am not Ken, but did you get the ATI free versions? Or did you pay for
the paid version?

Since I have a WD External HDD, I got the WD Edition. Funny, I have
an older 'FREE' version of ATI - V7.0, and the size of the downloaded
install package for it is 22MB. The download for the WD Edition was
123GB. And it is a 'stripped-down' version? Wonder how big the 'full-
boat' version is? Unfortunately, was not able to get the V7.0 edition
to run on XP, but hoping to use it on a 98SE machine to first create a
backup image, then a clone when I free up a HD so I can upgrade the
98SE HD.

Here are the answers to some of your questions until Ken response.

ATI backup files are only useful if you have ATI. Otherwise nothing else
can use them. The advantage? It uses less space like about half of the
space then copying the files and folders manually or by SyncBack.
Although a compressed folder (ZIP) can save as much space too.


Thanks, I decided to use ATI to make an image of the C: drive and an
associated service partion. That went well. Verified the image.
Will repeat after each major update, install or addition to the C:
drive.

Will use ATI to create an image of the external HDD that holds all app
data on a periodic basis. Maybe once a month.

Will use SyncBack to back up the media HD's, which I keep adding items
to. SyncBack seems to have the ability to insert new items in the
exisitng backup, versus creating a series of intermediate backups.

By the way, this method doesn't normally work for files that are in use.
Most data files are not, but most of the system files are. So bad choice
if you want to backup system files. A boot CD can copy them all though.
Well some boot CDs can anyway.


Which method are you talking about in the above comments?

Ghost files is the same deal as ATI files. Smaller foot print and only
useful with Ghost up and running. Do you have Ghost? If so, you really
don't need ATI. Does basically the same thing, but a different company
and not compatible with one another.


I have Ghost 10.0. May fire it up just to see how it differs from
ATI. I would suspect for my minimal needs, they are about the same.

Anyway, I am now backed up and totally recoverable (hopefully).

--
Bill
Windows XP SP2 (5.1.2600)
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC

Bill, thanks for your comments.

On Sep 24, 7:25*pm, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

In this, or another thread, I seem to recall you (perhaps it was
someone else), making an observation that using ATI to back up data
files was a lot of useless bother - overkill.

It wasn't me. I like Acronis True Image better than any other such
program I've trued, and I recommend it.

You're likely get different opinions from different folks, but here's
mine: images and clones are both *types* of backups.

Thanks for clearing that up Ken - "What did he say, Ollie?"
JK, Thanks.

Did you spend your entire IBM career in San Francisco?
"Teflon" wrote in message
...
On Sep 24, 7:25 pm, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

In this, or another thread, I seem to recall you (perhaps it was
someone else), making an observation that using ATI to back up data
files was a lot of useless bother - overkill.

It wasn't me. I like Acronis True Image better than any other such
program I've trued, and I recommend it.

You're likely get different opinions from different folks, but here's
mine: images and clones are both *types* of backups.

Thanks for clearing that up Ken - "What did he say, Ollie?"
JK, Thanks.

In
,
Teflon typed on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:40:29 -0700 (PDT):
On Sep 24, 2:52 pm, "BillW50" wrote:


,
Teflon typed on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:31:49 -0700 (PDT):

Ken,

I appreciate your responses in my post, 'Backups versus Images',
have gone the ATI route per your recommendation in this thread and
the reports of others in my post, plus I read your article - good
stuff. However, I still have some confusion.

I am not Ken, but did you get the ATI free versions? Or did you pay
for the paid version?

Since I have a WD External HDD, I got the WD Edition. Funny, I have
an older 'FREE' version of ATI - V7.0, and the size of the downloaded
install package for it is 22MB. The download for the WD Edition was
123GB. And it is a 'stripped-down' version? Wonder how big the
'full- boat' version is?

Believe it or not, it is about the same size with more features. lol

Unfortunately, was not able to get the V7.0
edition to run on XP, but hoping to use it on a 98SE machine to first
create a backup image, then a clone when I free up a HD so I can
upgrade the 98SE HD.

Sounds good to me.

Here are the answers to some of your questions until Ken response.

ATI backup files are only useful if you have ATI. Otherwise nothing
else can use them. The advantage? It uses less space like about half
of the space then copying the files and folders manually or by
SyncBack. Although a compressed folder (ZIP) can save as much space
too.

Thanks, I decided to use ATI to make an image of the C: drive and an
associated service partion. That went well. Verified the image.
Will repeat after each major update, install or addition to the C:
drive.

Will use ATI to create an image of the external HDD that holds all app
data on a periodic basis. Maybe once a month.

Will use SyncBack to back up the media HD's, which I keep adding items
to. SyncBack seems to have the ability to insert new items in the
exisitng backup, versus creating a series of intermediate backups.

Yes true.

By the way, this method doesn't normally work for files that are in
use. Most data files are not, but most of the system files are. So
bad choice if you want to backup system files. A boot CD can copy
them all though. Well some boot CDs can anyway.

Which method are you talking about in the above comments?

Backup programs like Acronis True Image, Paragon, Ghost, etc. can backup
everything. Explorer (file manager), SyncBack (free version), etc. can't
backup files that something like the OS or applications are using at the
time.

Ghost files is the same deal as ATI files. Smaller foot print and
only useful with Ghost up and running. Do you have Ghost? If so, you
really don't need ATI. Does basically the same thing, but a
different company and not compatible with one another.

I have Ghost 10.0. May fire it up just to see how it differs from
ATI. I would suspect for my minimal needs, they are about the same.

Anyway, I am now backed up and totally recoverable (hopefully).

Good deal!

Bill, thanks for your comments.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC