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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
"Anna" wrote in message
... Please keep in mind that the drive letter assignments on the *external* (destination) HDD are of *no* relevance should the time come when the user would want to restore his/her system from the contents of the destination drive. Obviously should the user desire to restore their system to its previous state, they would simply clone the contents of (in our example) the first three partitions on the destination HDD back to their internal (source) HDD. (I mention this because it seems there is some confusion over this point among some users.) We all know this is some kind of sticking point for Bill! So, out of curiosity, if one clones the contents of the clone back to the PC's hard drive, will the drive letter assignments be as they were (I'm talking about how they were on the PC's hard drive originally before *any* cloning took place)? |
Ads |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
"Daave" wrote in message ... (SNIP) I still think that the main appeal of cloning is that one can simply physically place a perfectly cloned drive into the PC that contained the original drive, which for whatever reason can't or won't work anymore. Or if the cloned drive is *already* connected and "in the loop" (as another internal PC hard drive or a connected eSATA drive, which also functions as an internal drive), then it's just a matter of using the boot menu to select it. Cloning a clone back to the original drive (or a replacement drive) -- for instance, the clone resides on an external USB hard drive -- doesn't seem to me to have much of an advantage over restoring an image. Is it quicker, perhaps? Daave: As far as the restoration process goes, for the vast majority of users the amount of time to restore one's system either using the disk-cloning process or a disk-imaging process is really of little consequence. The important thing - or so it seems to me - is *not* the amount of time of time it would take for a user to restore his or her now-dysfunctional system to a bootable, functional state, but only that the program involved (be it a disk-cloning program or a disk-imaging program) is *effective* in restoring the system. The times that a user would be involved in the restoration of his or her system would presumably be a rather rare occasion (hopefully!). One normally doesn't need to restore one's system on a daily, or twice a week, or once a week, or every few weeks basis. Would you not agree? The point I'm trying to make here is that there is probably relatively little difference between a disk-cloning or disk-imaging program such as Acronis True Image and the Casper 5 program when it comes to the *restoration* of a system. If a user's primary or exclusive interest was in the expenditure of time it takes to restore his or her system then there's little difference, if any, to choose from among disk-imaging & disk-cloning programs. As I've tried to emphasize in past posts (which I believe you may be familiar with) describing the Casper 5 program, aside from its simplicity of operation and general effectiveness re the disk-cloning process, its *chief* advantage over every other disk-cloning disk-imaging program I've ever worked with (including the Acronis program) is its significant speed of operation when a user uses the program to back up his/her system when the program is used on a routine systematic basis. As I've indicated a number of times when describing the Casper 5 program, it has a capability unlike any other disk-cloning program I've ever worked with in that it detects only the changes in the system since the previous disk-cloning operation, Because of this capability it can carry out its disk-cloning operations with extroardinary speed as compared with similar disk-cloning or disk-imaging programs. Thus the user is encouraged to *frequently* back up his entire system since he or she knows that it will take only a few minutes to do so. This is not an insignificant capability for the vast majority of PC users in my experience. On the contrary. To my mind the important thing for that body of users is to encourage them to comprehensively back up their system on a frequent basis. And if they know that the expenditure of time in backing up their system will be relatively slight they will be so encouraged. And at the end of that backup operation via the disk-cloning process the user will have a precise copy of his or her HDD with all the data on the cloned disk immediately accessible and potentially bootable. Again, it seems to me that what's important (speed-wise) when comparing these types of programs is *not* the speed of their restoration operations but the speed of their routine backup operations so that the user is able & willing to have a complete & reasonably up-to-date backup of their system. In terms of the restoration process the Casper program is probably no better nor worse then any other disk-cloning disk-imaging program. Anna |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:59:11 -0500, "Daave"
wrote: "Richie Hardwick" wrote in message news when one chooses to clone an entire disk, Casper REQUIRES AN ENTIRE DISK to accomplish that cloning, whether it uses the full disk or not (one can choose to reduce the size of the clone to any size down to one that fits the data on the source disk). Any/all existing partitions on the destination disk are destroyed - there is even a warning message to that effect before one can choose to proceed with the cloning. My testing with my own system last night - at the cost of about 3 hours of sleep - proved that. Interesting. Your experience definitely contradicts what Anna stated! She said that Casper *can* clone an entire disk to a partition on an external hard drive without any effect on the other partitions (if I understood her lengthy explanation). That's what I read as well. My personal experience earlier today show's that it just plain can NOT do what she claims. Richie Hardwick |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:25:08 -0500, WaIIy wrote:
I just finished partitioning my system disk into 3 partitions and I copied some data into each of the extra partitions. I then partitioned one of my other internal disks into 2 partitions. I tried to clone the 3-partition disk to one of the partitions on the other disk - ain't gonna happen. Casper wants the entire drive as I originally thought it would a month or two ago. To keep Casper from using the entire drive, I had to use Casper to reduce the size of each partition on the source disk prior to performing the clone. RESULT? The recipient drive has 3 partitions AND a lot of unallocated space which would be totally useless for holding another Casper clone. WHICH APPEARS TO MEAN (as I've claimed in the past) that one can NOT have multiple complete backups using Casper without having multiple disks to hold them. From what I read (and I read them over and over) of Anna's posts, she said you can clone a multiple partition C drive onto ONE partition of a multiple partition destination drive. Using this method, the other partition(s) on the destination drive would be unaffected. This makes no sense to me, but that seems to be what she said. It makes no sense to me either, given my test earlier today. Casper even WARNS that all partitions/data on the destination drive will be destroyed before it lets you proceed with the cloning. It's interesting that she's not replied to any of this. Richie Hardwick. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
"Anna" wrote in message
... Please keep in mind that the drive letter assignments on the *external* (destination) HDD are of *no* relevance should the time come when the user would want to restore his/her system from the contents of the destination drive. Obviously should the user desire to restore their system to its previous state, they would simply clone the contents of (in our example) the first three partitions on the destination HDD back to their internal (source) HDD. (I mention this because it seems there is some confusion over this point among some users.) We all know this is some kind of sticking point for Bill! So, out of curiosity, if one clones the contents of the clone back to the PC's hard drive, will the drive letter assignments be as they were (I'm talking about how they were on the PC's hard drive originally before *any* cloning took place)? IFF it's a true "clone", then yes. I've seen the definition of the word being rather *******ized, apparently for convenience or hype by the program makers. Or possibly language translations. The word "clone" has suffered some serious dilution in the past decade; in some instances it's turning out to be nothing but a copy which is not the intent of cloning a physical drive. Cloning is to make the cloned disk data be exactly like the original, with NO differences whatsoever other than possible some extra space left over if it's a larger physical drive. The data that was in sector 1 of the original gets put to sector 1 of the clone, 2 to 2, 3 to 3, and so on to the end of the operation and the physical drive. Anything that was NOT on the original can not, by definition, be on the clone, or it would not have made a clone. ALL existying data on the device being cloned TO is gone, period, never to be seen again. Should pre-existing data on the drive being cloned TO still be there after the "clone", then a true "clone" was not accomplished; it was instead an image of the original drive, and entirely different animal. AFAIK anyway; I don't see why a clone couldn't leave data in unneeded areas in tack, if its location didn't ovelap with any locations the cloned data needs, but ... I havent' seen such an animal. Mainly because the actual physical locations of partitions on a drive aren't reliable, I suppose. I don't know whether Acronis does a true clone or not. I know Ghost does, because the MFT, MBR, etc. are all part of the data transfered and of course, must reside in the proper places on the disk drive to be usable. Also AFAIK clones can not be compressed while images of course can be, and there is no such thing as an incremental clone as there is for imaging or other types of backups. Cloning operations go right down to the head/platter/track/sector level where imaging leaves that to the operating system which is why images require VSS in order to image a system drive while the system is running. HTH Twayne |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
"Daave"
wrote in message ... (SNIP) I still think that the main appeal of cloning is that one can simply physically place a perfectly cloned drive into the PC that contained the original drive, which for whatever reason can't or won't work anymore. Or if the cloned drive is *already* connected and "in the loop" (as another internal PC hard drive or a connected eSATA drive, which also functions as an internal drive), then it's just a matter of using the boot menu to select it. Cloning a clone back to the original drive (or a replacement drive) -- for instance, the clone resides on an external USB hard drive -- doesn't seem to me to have much of an advantage over restoring an image. Is it quicker, perhaps? Daave: As far as the restoration process goes, for the vast majority of users the amount of time to restore one's system either using the disk-cloning process or a disk-imaging process is really of little consequence. The Actually, the differences are large. A cloned disk is one you can pick up and install in place of the other disk; it's ready to go. Nothing to restore; it IS a fully functional mirror of the drive used to clone it. You don't save clones as a rule. You clone a drive to have a ready-to-use drive to replace the drive that was cloned as in adding a newer larger drive to a system, or an emergency backup drive in place of a RAID system, etc.. .. Images on the other hand are backup methodologies and their value is in their speed of backups using full/incremental etc. types of backup. While a clone isn't intended to be used for "restore", an image is. You can further clone cloned drives if one wishes, but it's al all or nothign situation where images allow you to mess with a single drive, directory, file, whatever in any manner you wish. You can retrieve a lost file from an image in a few minutes but it's quite a task with a clone and can't really be very cleanly accomplished without hoops. important thing - or so it seems to me - is *not* the amount of time of time it would take for a user to restore his or her now-dysfunctional system to a bootable, functional state, but only that the program involved (be it a disk-cloning program or a disk-imaging program) is *effective* in restoring the system. The times that a user would be involved in the restoration of his or her system would presumably be a rather rare occasion (hopefully!). One normally doesn't need to restore one's system on a daily, or twice a week, or once a week, or every few weeks basis. Would you not agree? The point I'm trying to make here is that there is probably relatively little difference between a disk-cloning or disk-imaging program such as Acronis True Image and the Casper 5 program when it comes to the *restoration* of a system. If a user's primary or exclusive interest was in the expenditure of time it takes to restore his or her system then there's little difference, if any, to choose from among disk-imaging & disk-cloning programs. As I've tried to emphasize in past posts (which I believe you may be familiar with) describing the Casper 5 program, aside from its simplicity of operation and general effectiveness re the disk-cloning process, its *chief* advantage over every other disk-cloning disk-imaging program I've ever worked with (including the Acronis program) is its significant speed of operation when a user uses the program to back up his/her system when the program is used on a routine systematic basis. As I've indicated a number of times when describing the Casper 5 program, it has a capability unlike any other disk-cloning program I've ever worked with in that it detects only the changes in the system since the previous disk-cloning operation, Because of this capability it can carry out its disk-cloning operations with extroardinary speed as compared with similar disk-cloning or disk-imaging programs. Thus the user is encouraged to *frequently* back up his entire system since he or she knows that it will take only a few minutes to do so. This is not an insignificant capability for the vast majority of PC users in my experience. On the contrary. To my mind the important thing for that body of users is to encourage them to comprehensively back up their system on a frequent basis. And if they know that the expenditure of time in backing up their system will be relatively slight they will be so encouraged. And at the end of that backup operation via the disk-cloning process the user will have a precise copy of his or her HDD with all the data on the cloned disk immediately accessible and potentially bootable. For each clone, you need a disk drive. You cannot have more than one clone on a drive because each bootable drive can have only one MBR, one NTFS table, etc., etc., etc.. Doing so will simply result in one clone with a bunch of very large files added to it. Again, it seems to me that what's important (speed-wise) when comparing these types of programs is *not* the speed of their restoration operations but the speed of their routine backup operations so that the user is able & willing to have a complete & reasonably up-to-date backup of their system. In terms of the restoration process the Casper program is probably no better nor worse then any other disk-cloning disk-imaging program. Anna Imaging and incremental backups takes a LOT less space on a drive and can be compressed to boot. You can squeeze several weeks worth of backups into the space of one cloned drive. I think the syntax and meanings of the terms has been sort of lost in this thread. They are two entirely different animals with entirely different mechanisms and purposes for uses. As I already mentioned, you need a drive per clone but you can fit several instances of backups into images. In a nutshell. HTH \ Twayne |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:21:34 -0500, WaIIy wrote:
Casper does what it calls a "differential" clone. The correct term is "incremental" clone. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
WaIIy wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:41:34 -0600, Richie Hardwick wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:49:52 -0700, "Bill in Co." wrote: OK, I think this is the point of confusion. If one uses Casper to clone a source drive with say 3 partitions over to a destination drive, it is a bit inaccurate to say "you can clone those three INTO an existing partition on the destination drive". Because what is really happening must be this: when Casper (or any such program) starts cloning TO the currently existing partition on the destination drive, that existing partition is destroyed (marked as unallocated, behind the scenes), in preparation for the cloning of the 3 partitions. I apologize. You are 100% correct. I am SO embarrassed! Let me backup... As I've said in previous posts, I use Casper on a daily basis to clone disk-to-disk so that I have a bootable backup for my system disk. I have ONLY used it that way. I've relied on what Anna has said - or what I *thought* she said - to talk about other uses. I shouldn't have talked about something I wasn't completely sure about. Either I read wrong (she is so damned verbose that she's hard to follow) or she posted bad info. Whatever. I ended up propagating bad info: that the 3-partition disk could be cloned INTO a preset partition on another disk. IT CAN'T BE. I just finished partitioning my system disk into 3 partitions and I copied some data into each of the extra partitions. I then partitioned one of my other internal disks into 2 partitions. I tried to clone the 3-partition disk to one of the partitions on the other disk - ain't gonna happen. Casper wants the entire drive as I originally thought it would a month or two ago. To keep Casper from using the entire drive, I had to use Casper to reduce the size of each partition on the source disk prior to performing the clone. RESULT? The recipient drive has 3 partitions AND a lot of unallocated space which would be totally useless for holding another Casper clone. WHICH APPEARS TO MEAN (as I've claimed in the past) that one can NOT have multiple complete backups using Casper without having multiple disks to hold them. From what I read (and I read them over and over) of Anna's posts, she said you can clone a multiple partition C drive onto ONE partition of a multiple partition destination drive. Using this method, the other partition(s) on the destination drive would be unaffected. This makes no sense to me, but that seems to be what she said. Let's be clear here, and Anna can correct me if I mistated what she said: Anna said (using Casper) that you CAN clone a source drive partition into a destination drive partition *without destroying the other pre-existing partitions on the destination drive*. OK, that is ONE issue. The OTHER issue, which is a different one, is this: If you could "clone" a source drive partition to a destination drive partition, then the previously existing partition on the destination drive will be removed and replaced with the clone partition(s). Thus it would be impossible to literally clone, say, 3 source drive partitions INTO one destination drive partition such that you would still have that one partition ENCLOSING the 3 cloned partitions from the source drive. Instead, there would now be 3 partitions in the place of the previously existing ONE (which was removed) At least as I see it, based on my experiences with BING (which is somewhat similar) If one wants multiple backups - and most everyone here except Anna seems to feel that's desirable - an imaging program such as Acronis True Image would be required. If one is merely cloning a partition, then that limitation doesn't apply. I hope I didn't miss anything, because I'm gonna crash for the night. Again... Bill, I apologize. Richie |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:58:11 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote: Let's be clear here, and Anna can correct me if I mistated what she said: Anna said (using Casper) that you CAN clone a source drive partition into a destination drive partition *without destroying the other pre-existing partitions on the destination drive*. OK, that is ONE issue. The OTHER issue, which is a different one, is this: If you could "clone" a source drive partition to a destination drive partition, then the previously existing partition on the destination drive will be removed and replaced with the clone partition(s). Thus it would be impossible to literally clone, say, 3 source drive partitions INTO one destination drive partition such that you would still have that one partition ENCLOSING the 3 cloned partitions from the source drive. Instead, there would now be 3 partitions in the place of the previously existing ONE (which was removed) At least as I see it, based on my experiences with BING (which is somewhat similar) BING doesn't even belong in this discussion. I know from what I did last night that Casper can NOT clone a multi-partition disk to a single partition on another disk. It either fills the destination disk, or it takes whatever space you specify (limited on the low end only by the data that the source partitions contain) and leaves the remaining space unallocated. That is no different from how it handles a source disk with only one partition. I'm satisfied at this point that I know what Casper can and cannot do and that the info from Anna on this subject is flawed at best, completely wrong at worst. You guys have fun with Bill (and Anna). The two of them have been back and forth on this since last Spring. I'm outta here. Richie Hardwick |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
"Richie Hardwick" wrote in message
news On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:25:08 -0500, WaIIy wrote: I just finished partitioning my system disk into 3 partitions and I copied some data into each of the extra partitions. I then partitioned one of my other internal disks into 2 partitions. I tried to clone the 3-partition disk to one of the partitions on the other disk - ain't gonna happen. Casper wants the entire drive as I originally thought it would a month or two ago. To keep Casper from using the entire drive, I had to use Casper to reduce the size of each partition on the source disk prior to performing the clone. RESULT? The recipient drive has 3 partitions AND a lot of unallocated space which would be totally useless for holding another Casper clone. WHICH APPEARS TO MEAN (as I've claimed in the past) that one can NOT have multiple complete backups using Casper without having multiple disks to hold them. From what I read (and I read them over and over) of Anna's posts, she said you can clone a multiple partition C drive onto ONE partition of a multiple partition destination drive. Using this method, the other partition(s) on the destination drive would be unaffected. This makes no sense to me, but that seems to be what she said. It makes no sense to me either, given my test earlier today. Casper even WARNS that all partitions/data on the destination drive will be destroyed before it lets you proceed with the cloning. It's interesting that she's not replied to any of this. She will. :-) |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
I wrote:
You guys have fun with Bill (and Anna). The two of them have been back and forth on this since last Spring. Actually, since last February 18th when it all began between the two of them. In one of his posts, Bill replied to "Kenneth"... ============== Kenneth wrote: SNIP Hi Anna, I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming majority" who understands nothing about the difference between "cloning" and "imaging." Can you describe that to me? Sincere thanks, -- Kenneth In a nutshell, how about this synopsis: Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source partition(s). Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original source partition(s). ============== I think Bill has learned something about cloning since he posted that. Richie Hardwick |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
Richie Hardwick wrote:
I wrote: You guys have fun with Bill (and Anna). The two of them have been back and forth on this since last Spring. Actually, since last February 18th when it all began between the two of them. In one of his posts, Bill replied to "Kenneth"... ============== Kenneth wrote: SNIP Hi Anna, I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming majority" who understands nothing about the difference between "cloning" and "imaging." Can you describe that to me? Sincere thanks, -- Kenneth In a nutshell, how about this synopsis: Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source partition(s). Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original source partition(s). ============== Except that your "synopsis" is incorrect - and inadequate in detail. And imaging is not the same thing as partition copying (if so implied). I think Bill has learned something about cloning since he posted that. It seems you haven't, if you believe your synopsis. IF you really want to learn what's going on in some detail, use something like Boot It NG (on it's bootup floppy/flash disk), because unless you know exactly what you're doing, it won't do anything. It's not a "let me hold your hand and guide you, and hide all the details behind the scenes" type of thing. UNLIKE Casper and ATI, which hide the real details of what's going on, you will know (or have to learn) what explicitly is being done, down at the partition level (underneath windows). |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
"Richie Hardwick" wrote in message It's interesting that she's not replied to any of this. "Daave" wrote in message ... She will. :-) Daave, Wally, Richie, et al... And so I am... And humbly too. I was apparently mistaken re my last post to "Daave" re the cloning of a source HDD containing multiple partitions - in Daave's example, three partitions. I used as an example that the C: partition was 50 GB, a second D: partition of 125 GB, and a third E: partition of 75 GB. The example assumed a 500 GB external HDD was to be used as the destination drive and had been set up with two partitions of 200 GB and 300 GB. The 200 GB partition was destined to be the recipient of the contents of the source HDD; presumably the 300 GB partition contained user data. I stated (mistakenly) that one could clone the entire contents of the source HDD to *one* of the two partitions on the destination drive (in the example, the 200 GB partition) and the Casper 5 program would proportionally allocate disk-space for each of those source drive's three partitions on that single 200 GB partition of the destination drive. So that the former 200 GB partition on the destination HDD would, in effect, be split up (proportionally) with three separate partitions mirroring the source HDD's partitions. Mistakenly, and this is the important part, I indicated that the second 300 GB partition presumably containing user data would remain untouched. The information I provided was wrong. While it is indeed possible for the user to easily clone the contents of the source drive's three partitions (in our example) to the destination HDD and, using the Casper program, set up the size of each of those three partitions on the destination drive, any remaining disk space would be considered "unallocated". That second partition (in our example) that previously existed on the destination HDD would disappear (along with its data, of course!) and become part of the "unallocated" disk space. Richie correctly pointed out my mistake in this regard. My only excuse (as flimsy as it might be!) is that the scenario I described *did* exist at one time in the Casper program. I can't recall whether it was part of the predecessor Casper 4 program or, more likely, a beta version of one of the Casper versions I worked with in the past. It might even have existed in an earlier "build" of Casper 5. I just can't remember. But in any event that capability I described does not exist in the Casper 5 program. Obviously I hadn't used the current 5 version in the manner I had described. I should have tested it out to make certain the info I was providing was correct, but I didn't. So my apologies to all of you for the misinformation. In any event, here's (I hope & trust!) the *real* story... In the example given above involving a source HDD with three partitions, the user would have the following options re cloning the contents of that source HDD (the three partitions) to the destination drive, a 500 GB HDD... 1. He or she could allow the Casper program to proportionally create the three partitions on the 500 GB destination drive (466 GB binary). So that in the example given the first partition on the destination HDD would be (approx) 102 GB, the second partition 248 GB, and the third partition 116 GB. So that the entire disk space of the destination drive would be used to hold the contents of the source disk.(Again, all figures approximate); or, 2. The user could perform a disk-to-disk clone in which case the three partitions created on the destination drive would mirror the disk-space of each of the three source drive's partitions (and of course, contain their contents). The remaining disk space would be unallocated. 3. The user could specify how the disk space is to be allotted, in effect resizing the three destination drive partitions to whatever size he or she desires, naturally assuming the individual partition size would be sufficient to contain the contents of the source drive's partition. Again, the remaining disk space would be unallocated. Again, my apologies to all for the misinformation I previously provided and for any inconvenience it may have caused anyone. Anna |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:14:40 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote: Richie Hardwick wrote: I wrote: You guys have fun with Bill (and Anna). The two of them have been back and forth on this since last Spring. Actually, since last February 18th when it all began between the two of them. In one of his posts, Bill replied to "Kenneth"... ============== Kenneth wrote: SNIP Hi Anna, I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming majority" who understands nothing about the difference between "cloning" and "imaging." Can you describe that to me? Sincere thanks, -- Kenneth In a nutshell, how about this synopsis: Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source partition(s). Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original source partition(s). ============== Except that your "synopsis" is incorrect - and inadequate in detail. And imaging is not the same thing as partition copying (if so implied). I think Bill has learned something about cloning since he posted that. It seems you haven't, if you believe your synopsis. The synopsis was YOURS Bill old boy. The material between the dashed lines is a copy of a post you made on Feb. 18 of last year. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:59:43 -0500, "Anna" wrote:
So my apologies to all of you for the misinformation. Accepted... I stand vindicated. Richie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|