How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?

WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:44:02 -0600, Mike Torello
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:13:43 -0600, Mike Torello
wrote:

"Anna" wrote:

However, I have to add that there is no bar to using the Casper 5
disk-cloning program for that purpose as well. The only limitation(s)
is
the total amount of the user's data to be cloned and the disk-space
available on the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the cloned
contents. So, for example, if the user's data contents totaled 50 GB
and
the user's destination drive had a capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10)
"generational" copies of the user's source drive could be maintained
on
the destination HDD.

HOW!?

If Casper's "Copy Drive" is used, it destroys ALL data/partitions on
the destination drive before making the clone.

I thought that was firmly established in the past couple of days!

me too

With Casper you have the option to" Copy an entire hard disk" that
option takes the whole destination drive and makes a clone.

The other option to "Copy a specific drive" will not wipe out the
destination disk and you can keep as many copies as you have room, but
I think on different partitions of the destination disk.

Have you tried that?

The short answer is no.

I clone my c drive to an external enclosure.

I have an internal drive with two partitions.

I copy my main drive to one of the partitions and have some
misc, stuff on the second partition.

Copying the drive (not cloning) doesn't touch my second partition.
Casper just asks me where I want to copy to.

What do you mean by "copying your drive"? You mean just copying the files?
If it's a true *partition* copy operation, it would have to go to
*unallocated space* (not an existing partition) on the destination drive, as
a *partition copy* operation CREATES the new partition when it does its
operation.

I "assume" it would not be a problem if I didn't have anything on the
second partition and made a copy of my drive there, too.

I might just buy Casper and see for myself. I need something new to
play with ;-D

"Bill in Co." wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:44:02 -0600, Mike Torello
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:13:43 -0600, Mike Torello
wrote:

"Anna" wrote:

However, I have to add that there is no bar to using the Casper 5
disk-cloning program for that purpose as well. The only limitation(s)
is
the total amount of the user's data to be cloned and the disk-space
available on the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the cloned
contents. So, for example, if the user's data contents totaled 50 GB
and
the user's destination drive had a capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10)
"generational" copies of the user's source drive could be maintained
on
the destination HDD.

HOW!?

If Casper's "Copy Drive" is used, it destroys ALL data/partitions on
the destination drive before making the clone.

I thought that was firmly established in the past couple of days!

me too

With Casper you have the option to" Copy an entire hard disk" that
option takes the whole destination drive and makes a clone.

The other option to "Copy a specific drive" will not wipe out the
destination disk and you can keep as many copies as you have room, but
I think on different partitions of the destination disk.

Have you tried that?

The short answer is no.

I clone my c drive to an external enclosure.

I have an internal drive with two partitions.

I copy my main drive to one of the partitions and have some
misc, stuff on the second partition.

Copying the drive (not cloning) doesn't touch my second partition.
Casper just asks me where I want to copy to.

What do you mean by "copying your drive"? You mean just copying the files?

Read a few lines up. He answered that before you asked it.

HINT: it appears to be an option in Casper.


If it's a true *partition* copy operation, it would have to go to
*unallocated space* (not an existing partition) on the destination drive, as
a *partition copy* operation CREATES the new partition when it does its
operation.

I "assume" it would not be a problem if I didn't have anything on the
second partition and made a copy of my drive there, too.

I might just buy Casper and see for myself. I need something new to
play with ;-D

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:44:02 -0600, Mike Torello
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:13:43 -0600, Mike Torello

wrote:

"Anna" wrote:

However, I have to add that there is no bar to using the Casper 5
disk-cloning program for that purpose as well. The only
limitation(s)
is
the total amount of the user's data to be cloned and the disk-space
available on the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the cloned
contents. So, for example, if the user's data contents totaled 50 GB
and
the user's destination drive had a capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten
(10)
"generational" copies of the user's source drive could be maintained
on
the destination HDD.

HOW!?

If Casper's "Copy Drive" is used, it destroys ALL data/partitions on
the destination drive before making the clone.

I thought that was firmly established in the past couple of days!

me too

With Casper you have the option to" Copy an entire hard disk" that
option takes the whole destination drive and makes a clone.

The other option to "Copy a specific drive" will not wipe out the
destination disk and you can keep as many copies as you have room, but
I think on different partitions of the destination disk.

Have you tried that?

The short answer is no.

I clone my c drive to an external enclosure.

I have an internal drive with two partitions.

I copy my main drive to one of the partitions and have some
misc, stuff on the second partition.

Copying the drive (not cloning) doesn't touch my second partition.
Casper just asks me where I want to copy to.

What do you mean by "copying your drive"? You mean just copying the
files?

Read a few lines up. He answered that before you asked it.

HINT: it appears to be an option in Casper.

OK. That does appear to be a bonafide partition copy operation.

If it's a true *partition* copy operation, it would have to go to
*unallocated space* (not an existing partition) on the destination drive,
as
a *partition copy* operation CREATES the new partition when it does its
operation.

I "assume" it would not be a problem if I didn't have anything on the
second partition and made a copy of my drive there, too.

I might just buy Casper and see for myself. I need something new to
play with ;-D

"Bill in Co."
wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co."
wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Twayne" wrote:

...

However, I have to add that there is no
bar to
using the
Casper 5 disk-cloning program for that
purpose
as well.
The only limitation(s) is the total amount
of
the user's
data to be cloned and the disk-space
available
on the
destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of
the
cloned
contents. So, for example, if the user's
data
contents
totaled 50 GB and the user's destination
drive
had a
capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10)
"generational" copies
of the user's source drive could be
maintained
on the
destination HDD. Anna

I'm curious; I checked out Casper's site
and I
don't see references to things like that.

There's probably good reason for that: they
don't
exist because the capability doesn't exist.
From the
past couple of days there seems to be strong
evidence
that "Anna" hasn't used Casper for anything
other
than cloning disk-to-disk.

Wait a minute. Are you stating that Casper
CANNOT do
just partition copying?
That is, simply backup a partition to
unallocated
space on the other drive?

And that Casper can ONLY clone the entire
source disk
over to a destination
disk, and NOT do multiple, generational,
partition
backups to the destination drive, like
Partition Magic
and Boot IT NG can? (Casper is the
only program of the four we've discussed that
I have
no real experience with).

Someone here did testing trying to clone a
multi-partitioned drive
every-which-way-possible and
said that Casper destroys everything on the
destination
disk when cloning and that there is even a
warning
message to that effect. Right after that
"Anna"
backtracked and said that person was correct.

From that I gathered that yes, it WILL clone a
partition to unallocated space - by making the
entire
drive unallocated space before performing the
clone.

Ahhhh. Now THAT is a key and important
distinction!!
So Casper will ONLY allow the source drive to
be
transferred to the destination drive and
nothing else
can remain on the destination drive? Not
nice. But
ok, IF you SOLELY want a clone of the source
drive.

With Partition Magic and BootIT NG you CAN do
selective,
individual partition copies, but I don't think
you can
simply make a clone of the source drive, per
se, or at
least not in one easy operation. (But I
haven't ever
investigated that possibility, however)

Go for it.


Uhhhh, Did you really mean Partition Magic, the
partition management program, for creating,
deleting, resizing, merging and otherwise managing
partition structures (not the data in them)?

"Mike Torello" wrote in message
...
(SNIP)
I might just buy Casper and see for myself. I need something new to
play with ;-D

Mike later adds...
I never questioned that. What I was questioning when I asked "Have
you ever restored from a clone on an external drive?" was its speed
compared to restoring from an image. I'll bet there is little if any
difference.


Mike:
First of all, before I get to the *real* reason for this post, i.e., Casper
5's process for cloning "generational" clones from one's source HDD to
another HDD (which seemed to be the issue not-too-long-ago!), let me respond
to your statements above...

I really think you would be well-satisfied with the Casper 5 program in
terms of using this program on a routine, frequent basis to comprehensively
back up your system. Virtually without exception, every PC user that I'm
aware of who has used the Casper 5 program on a day-in day-out basis has
been well-satisfied with the program and prefers it to any disk cloning/disk
imaging program they've ever used.

As to your second question re the restoration speed of Casper 5 compared
with either another disk cloning or disk-imaging program...

It seems to me that what is *really* important in terms of comparing
operational speed differences between disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs is
*not* how long it takes for one program vs. another to restore one's system
from the clone or the image. What *is* important is the time it takes for
the program to *back up* one's system on a routine basis. Is it not true
that in the ordinary course of events a PC user will be backing up his or
her system *multiple* times before a restoration process is needed? Would
you not say that it would be a relatively rare (or at least infrequent)
event that a user would need to restore his or her system because the system
became dysfunctional for one reason or another. Sure it happens. Why else
would we be employing a disk cloning or disk imaging system? But when one
compares the number of backup operations the user will be undertaking vs.
the number of times he or she will need to employ the restoration process,
would you not say that the former dwarfs the latter for the great bulk of PC
users?

In any event..

Using the Casper 5 program to restore a system from the created clone on an
external HDD will take just about the same time it would take a disk-imaging
program such as Acronis True Image. Maybe a little shorter - maybe a bit
longer. The difference in time would be trifling at least based upon my
experience with both programs.

As I have repeatedly tried to point out in describing the Casper 5 program,
its true worth (aside from its simplicity of operation and general
effectiveness) is primarily due to its so-called "SmartClone" technology. It
is this feature that, for the average PC user, makes the program superior to
any other disk-imaging disk-cloning program I have ever used.

When the Casper program is used - as it *should* be used - to *frequently*
back up (comprehensively) one's system so that the user will always have a
reasonably up-to-date precise copy of their system, the program will do so
with extroardinary speed as compared with other disk-cloning/disk-imaging
programs (at least those that I'm familiar with). I have previously given
examples of this speed. It is this feature that sets the Casper 5 program
apart from other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs and makes the program so
valuable to most users since there's a strong incentive for the user to
undertake frequent backups of his/her system, knowing that the expenditure
of time in doing so will be relatively slight. And what do they have at the
end of the day? A precise copy of their day-to-day working HDD, including
the *entire* contents on that drive. A copy whose contents are *immediately*
accessible and bootable should the recipient of the clone, i.e., the
"destination" drive be another internal HDD.

And should the destination HDD be an external HDD, e.g., a USB external HDD,
it's a simple matter to clone the contents back to the user's source HDD
for restoration purposes. Or, if practical, the user could simply install
the externally-cloned HDD as an internal HDD and immediately have a
bootable, functional system.

Now to this issue of creating "generational" clones...

First of all, let us be clear about what we're discussing...

The objective here is to maintain "generational" clones of one's system,
i.e., maintain complete copies of one's source HDD at various
points-in-time. So that a user could, should he or she find it necessary, be
easily able to access a clone created as of a certain date and use that
clone to restore his or her system as of that specific date.

As I have repeatedly stated, as a general proposition - if a user is
primarily interested in maintaining these generational copies of his or her
system it's usually best to employ a disk-imaging program (such as Acronis
True Image) rather than a disk-cloning program such as the Casper 5 program.
And yes, I do understand that the Acronis program has both a disk-imaging &
disk-cloning capability.

However, depending upon certain circumstances as I will shortly describe, it
may be possible (and even practical) to use the Casper 5 program to maintain
generational clones of one's system.

To begin with...the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the clones, must
contain sufficient unallocated disk space to contain each clone created as
of a certain date.

In the example I gave in a previous post, the user's destination HDD has 500
GB of disk-space and the user's source HDD initially contains 50 GB of data,
understanding that this "data" represents the *entire* contents of the
source HDD.

The first time the user clones the 50 GB contents of his/her source HDD to
the destination drive, Casper will create a 50 GB partition (assuming the
user desires the created partition to be only sufficient in size as to
contain the cloned contents from his/her HDD.)

During the cloning process, the user has an option to clone *only* the total
contents of the source drive. Alternatively the user also has an option to
establish on the destination drive *whatever* partition size he or she
desires (as long, of course, that it's of sufficient size to contain the
cloned contents).

Using this technique the *actual* disk-size of the user's source HDD is
irrelevant in this disk-cloning operation since the user would be cloning
*only* the data contents on the source disk. He or she, for example, could
be using a 320 GB HDD as their source disk but the total data contents of
the source disk comes to 50 GB (as in our example).

So let's say that after that first disk-cloning episode, the user adds a
number of programs to his/her source HDD so that now the total contents on
that drive reach 55 GB. Again, the user could proceed with another
disk-cloning operation using the Casper program to create a 55 GB partition
on the destination HDD to hold the current contents of the source disk. It's
basically a simple one-or-two click operation. The first partition would be
unaffected.

And so on & so on...

Again, the only proviso is that there is sufficient *unallocated* disk space
on the destination HDD to contain the cloned contents of the source drive.

So this would be a way for a user to use a disk-cloning program such as
Casper 5 to maintain "generational" clones of his/her source HDD. Obviously,
as I previously indicated, the number of these generational clones would be
constrained by the amount of data being cloned and the available disk-space
on the destination HDD.

Naturally following each disk-cloning operation it would be wise for the
user to label each partition on the destination drive in such a way so that
he or she could easily identify the contents of this or that partition
originating as of a certain date. So that the first partition might be named
"1-28", the next partition "1-29", the next one "1-31", the next "2-3",
etc., etc., or whatever labeling system the user chooses to
employ. The drive letter assignments for each of those partitions are of no
relevance.

So that when the time comes when the user needs to restore his or her system
as of a particular date they would simply select & clone the desired
partition from the destination drive to their internal (source) HDD.

Now the above system is practical only when the user's source HDD contains a
single-partition containing the entire contents of the user's source drive.
It really doesn't lend itself very well to the situation where the user's
source HDD is multi-partitioned, since in that case it would be necessary
for the user to clone the contents of the source HDD to the destination
drive on a partition-by-partition basis. Thus the sheer number of partitions
on the destination HDD would probably be overwhelming for the user and makes
this technique awkward (to say the least). In that type of situation a
disk-imaging program would surely be more appropriate.
Anna

Hi again WaIIy,

You know, I may have initially jumped to the wrong conclusion about you.
When I first saw your "Pick me, Pick me" I thought you were looking to
place a smart ass remark in where it wasn't necessary.

Since I was more than likely in error, I'd like to apologize to you for
the false assumption.

---==X={}=X==---

Jim Self

AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association #140897
EAA Technical Counselor #4562

"Anna" wrote:

I really think you would be well-satisfied with the Casper 5 program in
terms of using this program on a routine, frequent basis to comprehensively
back up your system. Virtually without exception, every PC user that I'm
aware of who has used the Casper 5 program on a day-in day-out basis has
been well-satisfied with the program and prefers it to any disk cloning/disk
imaging program they've ever used.

I'll pass. I think it's "cripple-ware" compared to Acronis True
Image.

Anna wrote:
"Mike Torello" wrote in message
...
(SNIP)
I might just buy Casper and see for myself. I need something new to
play with ;-D

Mike later adds...
I never questioned that. What I was questioning when I asked "Have
you ever restored from a clone on an external drive?" was its speed
compared to restoring from an image. I'll bet there is little if any
difference.


Mike:
First of all, before I get to the *real* reason for this post, i.e.,
Casper
5's process for cloning "generational" clones from one's source HDD to
another HDD (which seemed to be the issue not-too-long-ago!), let me
respond
to your statements above...

I really think you would be well-satisfied with the Casper 5 program in
terms of using this program on a routine, frequent basis to
comprehensively
back up your system. Virtually without exception, every PC user that I'm
aware of who has used the Casper 5 program on a day-in day-out basis has
been well-satisfied with the program and prefers it to any disk
cloning/disk
imaging program they've ever used.

As to your second question re the restoration speed of Casper 5 compared
with either another disk cloning or disk-imaging program...

It seems to me that what is *really* important in terms of comparing
operational speed differences between disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs
is
*not* how long it takes for one program vs. another to restore one's
system
from the clone or the image. What *is* important is the time it takes for
the program to *back up* one's system on a routine basis. Is it not true
that in the ordinary course of events a PC user will be backing up his or
her system *multiple* times before a restoration process is needed? Would
you not say that it would be a relatively rare (or at least infrequent)
event that a user would need to restore his or her system because the
system
became dysfunctional for one reason or another. Sure it happens. Why else
would we be employing a disk cloning or disk imaging system? But when one
compares the number of backup operations the user will be undertaking vs.
the number of times he or she will need to employ the restoration process,
would you not say that the former dwarfs the latter for the great bulk of
PC
users?

In any event..

Using the Casper 5 program to restore a system from the created clone on
an
external HDD will take just about the same time it would take a
disk-imaging
program such as Acronis True Image. Maybe a little shorter - maybe a bit
longer. The difference in time would be trifling at least based upon my
experience with both programs.

As I have repeatedly tried to point out in describing the Casper 5
program,
its true worth (aside from its simplicity of operation and general
effectiveness) is primarily due to its so-called "SmartClone" technology.
It
is this feature that, for the average PC user, makes the program superior
to
any other disk-imaging disk-cloning program I have ever used.

When the Casper program is used - as it *should* be used - to *frequently*
back up (comprehensively) one's system so that the user will always have a
reasonably up-to-date precise copy of their system, the program will do so
with extroardinary speed as compared with other disk-cloning/disk-imaging
programs (at least those that I'm familiar with). I have previously given
examples of this speed. It is this feature that sets the Casper 5 program
apart from other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs and makes the program
so
valuable to most users since there's a strong incentive for the user to
undertake frequent backups of his/her system, knowing that the expenditure
of time in doing so will be relatively slight. And what do they have at
the
end of the day? A precise copy of their day-to-day working HDD, including
the *entire* contents on that drive. A copy whose contents are
*immediately*
accessible and bootable should the recipient of the clone, i.e., the
"destination" drive be another internal HDD.

And should the destination HDD be an external HDD, e.g., a USB external
HDD,
it's a simple matter to clone the contents back to the user's source
HDD
for restoration purposes. Or, if practical, the user could simply install
the externally-cloned HDD as an internal HDD and immediately have a
bootable, functional system.

Now to this issue of creating "generational" clones...

First of all, let us be clear about what we're discussing...

The objective here is to maintain "generational" clones of one's system,
i.e., maintain complete copies of one's source HDD at various
points-in-time. So that a user could, should he or she find it necessary,
be
easily able to access a clone created as of a certain date and use that
clone to restore his or her system as of that specific date.

As I have repeatedly stated, as a general proposition - if a user is
primarily interested in maintaining these generational copies of his or
her
system it's usually best to employ a disk-imaging program (such as Acronis
True Image) rather than a disk-cloning program such as the Casper 5
program.
And yes, I do understand that the Acronis program has both a disk-imaging
&
disk-cloning capability.

However, depending upon certain circumstances as I will shortly describe,
it
may be possible (and even practical) to use the Casper 5 program to
maintain
generational clones of one's system.

To begin with...the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the clones,
must
contain sufficient unallocated disk space to contain each clone created as
of a certain date.

In the example I gave in a previous post, the user's destination HDD has
500
GB of disk-space and the user's source HDD initially contains 50 GB of
data,
understanding that this "data" represents the *entire* contents of the
source HDD.

The first time the user clones the 50 GB contents of his/her source HDD to
the destination drive, Casper will create a 50 GB partition (assuming the
user desires the created partition to be only sufficient in size as to
contain the cloned contents from his/her HDD.)

During the cloning process, the user has an option to clone *only* the
total
contents of the source drive. Alternatively the user also has an option to
establish on the destination drive *whatever* partition size he or she
desires (as long, of course, that it's of sufficient size to contain the
cloned contents).

Using this technique the *actual* disk-size of the user's source HDD is
irrelevant in this disk-cloning operation since the user would be cloning
*only* the data contents on the source disk. He or she, for example, could
be using a 320 GB HDD as their source disk but the total data contents of
the source disk comes to 50 GB (as in our example).

So let's say that after that first disk-cloning episode, the user adds a
number of programs to his/her source HDD so that now the total contents on
that drive reach 55 GB. Again, the user could proceed with another
disk-cloning operation using the Casper program to create a 55 GB
partition
on the destination HDD to hold the current contents of the source disk.
It's
basically a simple one-or-two click operation. The first partition would
be
unaffected.

And so on & so on...

Again, the only proviso is that there is sufficient *unallocated* disk
space
on the destination HDD to contain the cloned contents of the source drive.

So this would be a way for a user to use a disk-cloning program such as
Casper 5 to maintain "generational" clones of his/her source HDD.
Obviously,
as I previously indicated, the number of these generational clones would
be
constrained by the amount of data being cloned and the available
disk-space
on the destination HDD.

Naturally following each disk-cloning operation it would be wise for the
user to label each partition on the destination drive in such a way so
that
he or she could easily identify the contents of this or that partition
originating as of a certain date. So that the first partition might be
named
"1-28", the next partition "1-29", the next one "1-31", the next "2-3",
etc., etc., or whatever labeling system the user chooses to
employ. The drive letter assignments for each of those partitions are of
no
relevance.

That's quite a blanket statement, Anna. They *can* be, for the reasons
I've already stated (assuming the destination drive is always connected,
like a secondary internal drive, for example). To recap, some other
devices currently on the system may be reassigned new drive letters in the
process (to accommodate the additional drive letter assignments created on
those new partitions), which can interfere with their operation, since some
programs may use - and expect - the previous drive letter assignments. (I'm
thinking right now of CD/DVD drives, for example). And of course flash
drives, but that reassignment may be of less importance.

So that when the time comes when the user needs to restore his or her
system
as of a particular date they would simply select & clone the desired
partition from the destination drive to their internal (source) HDD.

Now the above system is practical only when the user's source HDD contains
a
single-partition containing the entire contents of the user's source
drive.
It really doesn't lend itself very well to the situation where the user's
source HDD is multi-partitioned, since in that case it would be necessary
for the user to clone the contents of the source HDD to the destination
drive on a partition-by-partition basis. Thus the sheer number of
partitions
on the destination HDD would probably be overwhelming for the user and
makes this technique awkward (to say the least). In that type of situation
a
disk-imaging program would surely be more appropriate.
Anna

WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:06:48 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:44:02 -0600, Mike Torello
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:13:43 -0600, Mike Torello

wrote:

"Anna" wrote:

However, I have to add that there is no bar to using the Casper 5
disk-cloning program for that purpose as well. The only
limitation(s)
is
the total amount of the user's data to be cloned and the disk-space
available on the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the cloned
contents. So, for example, if the user's data contents totaled 50 GB
and
the user's destination drive had a capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten
(10)
"generational" copies of the user's source drive could be maintained
on
the destination HDD.

HOW!?

If Casper's "Copy Drive" is used, it destroys ALL data/partitions on
the destination drive before making the clone.

I thought that was firmly established in the past couple of days!

me too

With Casper you have the option to" Copy an entire hard disk" that
option takes the whole destination drive and makes a clone.

The other option to "Copy a specific drive" will not wipe out the
destination disk and you can keep as many copies as you have room, but
I think on different partitions of the destination disk.

Have you tried that?

The short answer is no.

I clone my c drive to an external enclosure.

I have an internal drive with two partitions.

I copy my main drive to one of the partitions and have some
misc, stuff on the second partition.

Copying the drive (not cloning) doesn't touch my second partition.
Casper just asks me where I want to copy to.

What do you mean by "copying your drive"? You mean just copying the
files?
If it's a true *partition* copy operation, it would have to go to
*unallocated space* (not an existing partition) on the destination drive,
as
a *partition copy* operation CREATES the new partition when it does its
operation.

I have the option to clone the drive or copy it. I copied it to an
existing partition on my second internal drive.

I think the message for copying reads something like "copy a partition"
so I just copied the whole C drive which is one partition to
an existing partition on my second drive (which has 2 partitions).

OK, then presumably Casper handles it behind the scenes by first deleting
that partition and then creating it WHEN it copies the source drive
partition to the destination drive. (In contrast, using Boot It NG, which
does less hand holding, *you* must FIRST mark that space as "Unallocated" on
the destination drive (or delete the partition there), and only THEN will it
do the partition copy operation.

The existing partition I copied to was and is 37 gigs, the copy takes up
27 gigs

That's because the pre-existing partition there was deleted in the copy
partition operation (and effectively recreated as this new and smaller one).

The copy isn't bootable, but I "think" it can be made to boot.

Anna might know that one.


I "assume" it would not be a problem if I didn't have anything on the
second partition and made a copy of my drive there, too.

I might just buy Casper and see for myself. I need something new to
play with ;-D

Twayne wrote:
"Bill in Co."
wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Bill in Co."
wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Twayne" wrote:

...

However, I have to add that there is no
bar to
using the
Casper 5 disk-cloning program for that
purpose
as well.
The only limitation(s) is the total amount
of
the user's
data to be cloned and the disk-space
available
on the
destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of
the
cloned
contents. So, for example, if the user's
data
contents
totaled 50 GB and the user's destination
drive
had a
capacity of 500 GB, nearly ten (10)
"generational" copies
of the user's source drive could be
maintained
on the
destination HDD. Anna

I'm curious; I checked out Casper's site
and I
don't see references to things like that.

There's probably good reason for that: they
don't
exist because the capability doesn't exist.
From the
past couple of days there seems to be strong
evidence
that "Anna" hasn't used Casper for anything
other
than cloning disk-to-disk.

Wait a minute. Are you stating that Casper
CANNOT do
just partition copying?
That is, simply backup a partition to
unallocated
space on the other drive?

And that Casper can ONLY clone the entire
source disk
over to a destination
disk, and NOT do multiple, generational,
partition
backups to the destination drive, like
Partition Magic
and Boot IT NG can? (Casper is the
only program of the four we've discussed that
I have
no real experience with).

Someone here did testing trying to clone a
multi-partitioned drive
every-which-way-possible and
said that Casper destroys everything on the
destination
disk when cloning and that there is even a
warning
message to that effect. Right after that
"Anna"
backtracked and said that person was correct.

From that I gathered that yes, it WILL clone a
partition to unallocated space - by making the
entire
drive unallocated space before performing the
clone.

Ahhhh. Now THAT is a key and important
distinction!!
So Casper will ONLY allow the source drive to
be
transferred to the destination drive and
nothing else
can remain on the destination drive? Not
nice. But
ok, IF you SOLELY want a clone of the source
drive.

With Partition Magic and BootIT NG you CAN do
selective,
individual partition copies, but I don't think
you can
simply make a clone of the source drive, per
se, or at
least not in one easy operation. (But I
haven't ever
investigated that possibility, however)

Go for it.


Uhhhh, Did you really mean Partition Magic, the
partition management program, for creating,
deleting, resizing, merging and otherwise managing
partition structures (not the data in them)?

Partition Magic can copy partitions. That INCLUDES the data within in
them, obviously. Partition copying is NOT the same thing as a simple file
or data copying operation (say like using xcopy or whatever)

WaIIy wrote:

The existing partition I copied to was and is 37 gigs, the copy takes up
27 gigs

That's because the pre-existing partition there was deleted in the copy
partition operation (and effectively recreated as this new and smaller one).

"Was and is" The destination drive had partition D of 37 gigs. The
copy was 27 gigs. The partition is still 37 gigs.
Casper didn't touch it.

Maybe that will quiet "Bill" and his repetitive assertion that Casper
is deleting a partition before it accomplishes its task.

He can't shake it from his mind that Casper and BING are not the same
nor do they work the same.

WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:35:38 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

I have the option to clone the drive or copy it. I copied it to an
existing partition on my second internal drive.

I think the message for copying reads something like "copy a partition"
so I just copied the whole C drive which is one partition to
an existing partition on my second drive (which has 2 partitions).

OK, then presumably Casper handles it behind the scenes by first deleting
that partition and then creating it WHEN it copies the source drive
partition to the destination drive. (In contrast, using Boot It NG,
which
does less hand holding, *you* must FIRST mark that space as "Unallocated"
on the destination drive (or delete the partition there), and only THEN
will it
do the partition copy operation.

In my case, I copied (not cloned) the C drive to a partition (D) on my
destination drive. I have D and E on my destination drive.


The existing partition I copied to was and is 37 gigs, the copy takes up
27 gigs

That's because the pre-existing partition there was deleted in the copy
partition operation (and effectively recreated as this new and smaller
one).

"Was and is" The destination drive had partition D of 37 gigs. The
copy was 27 gigs. The partition is still 37 gigs.
Casper didn't touch it.

Then it's not a true "partition copy" in the normal usage of the term, since
the source and destination partitions are NOT identical. If what you said
is true, then apparently it's only copying the data contents of what's
inside the partition, and is NOT making identical partitions. (I'm talking
about the size of the partition here, NOT the total size of the data
inside!. For example, my main C: partition is 40 GB in size, but only
half of it is in use at this point (about 20 GB of data).

Mike Torello wrote:
WaIIy wrote:

The existing partition I copied to was and is 37 gigs, the copy takes
up
27 gigs

That's because the pre-existing partition there was deleted in the copy
partition operation (and effectively recreated as this new and smaller
one).

"Was and is" The destination drive had partition D of 37 gigs. The
copy was 27 gigs. The partition is still 37 gigs.
Casper didn't touch it.

Maybe that will quiet "Bill" and his repetitive assertion that Casper
is deleting a partition before it accomplishes its task.

IF it is making a bonafide *partition copy*. That means the source and
destination partitions are *identical*, in all respects. (I'm not just
talking about transferring the data within one partition over to another
one).

"Bill in Co." wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
WaIIy wrote:

The existing partition I copied to was and is 37 gigs, the copy takes
up
27 gigs

That's because the pre-existing partition there was deleted in the copy
partition operation (and effectively recreated as this new and smaller
one).

"Was and is" The destination drive had partition D of 37 gigs. The
copy was 27 gigs. The partition is still 37 gigs.
Casper didn't touch it.

Maybe that will quiet "Bill" and his repetitive assertion that Casper
is deleting a partition before it accomplishes its task.

IF it is making a bonafide *partition copy*. That means the source and
destination partitions are *identical*, in all respects. (I'm not just
talking about transferring the data within one partition over to another
one).

Everything on one's system disk is "data"... all the files, the
registry, etc.

You really need to download and LOOK at the Casper 5.0 user guide.
What isn't in the text, is easily found in the graphics.

Casper has two cloning/copying methods:

1) Copy an entire hard disk - one partition or many. The result is
that everything on the destination drive is destroyed before the task
is accomplished.

2) Copy a specific drive - which can be the entire system disk if it
has only one partition, or all the partitions on the disk. This
method is used IF/WHEN one wants to preserve the partition makeup of
the destination drive or doesn't want to use the entire drive.

Again... download and take the time to digest the material in the user
guide. It is quite simple to follow - easier than one of Anna's
treatises... and might even include less text.

WaIIy wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:41:49 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:35:38 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

I have the option to clone the drive or copy it. I copied it to an
existing partition on my second internal drive.

I think the message for copying reads something like "copy a partition"
so I just copied the whole C drive which is one partition to
an existing partition on my second drive (which has 2 partitions).

OK, then presumably Casper handles it behind the scenes by first deleting
that partition and then creating it WHEN it copies the source drive
partition to the destination drive. (In contrast, using Boot It NG,
which
does less hand holding, *you* must FIRST mark that space as "Unallocated"
on the destination drive (or delete the partition there), and only THEN
will it
do the partition copy operation.

In my case, I copied (not cloned) the C drive to a partition (D) on my
destination drive. I have D and E on my destination drive.


The existing partition I copied to was and is 37 gigs, the copy takes up
27 gigs

That's because the pre-existing partition there was deleted in the copy
partition operation (and effectively recreated as this new and smaller
one).

"Was and is" The destination drive had partition D of 37 gigs. The
copy was 27 gigs. The partition is still 37 gigs.
Casper didn't touch it.

Then it's not a true "partition copy" in the normal usage of the term, since
the source and destination partitions are NOT identical. If what you said
is true, then apparently it's only copying the data contents of what's
inside the partition, and is NOT making identical partitions. (I'm talking
about the size of the partition here, NOT the total size of the data
inside!. For example, my main C: partition is 40 GB in size, but only
half of it is in use at this point (about 20 GB of data).


I agree, the partitions are not identical.

The stuff in them seems to be, although my copy is not bootable from the
outset.

I "think" "possibly" it can be made bootable, but not quite sure.

It's gotta be. What about when you copy a single-partitioned system
disk to a partition on a second drive.

It's not an image. If it ain't bootable, what good is it as a
backup!?