How to use Acronis to backup o/s ?

Anna said:

....

Understand that if this was merely a situation
(which is
usually the *typical* situation) where the user
was
simply using his or her destination HDD, e.g., a
USB
external HDD, *solely* for the purpose as the
recipient
of the cloned contents of the source HDD, it
could have
been done in one fell swoop. There would be no
need to
clone the contents of the source HDD on a
partition-by-partition basis. A very simple &
quick
disk-to-disk cloning operation using Casper 5.
In the
overwhelming amount of cases (based on my
experience)
this is the usual backup strategy employed by
the typical
PC user.
And what would the user have at the "end of the
day"? A
precise copy of his or her day-to-day working
HDD with
all data on the clone *immediately* accessible
and the
drive potentially bootable. No special
restoration
process being necessary, only another simple
cloning
of the destination drive's contents back to the
internal
HDD in the event the system needed to be
restored. Anna

You've done a good job of clarification, Anna, and
it all makes sense. I think it also enables one
to understand the spirit of what you've been
trying to say, and very well.

I only have one exception comment: That is not
what "the typical PC user" would want, or do.
Ideally the "typical" user is going to be using an
imaging program, which also includes the ability
to clone, as most do, and creating a full disk
image say monthly, and incremental updates to it
in between.
If one were going to toll out operating
systems, whatever, to the field for several
machines, that would be a way to accomplish the
task and be sure that each capable machine ended
up with an identical installation. It's not too
unusual to see things like that in IT departments.
The typical user however is going to be using
the much more efficient and automated imaging
program or something else of their own choosing
such as even ntbackup.exe on XP, for backups or
7-Zip, whatever, depending on what their own
situation seems to warrant in their opinions. If
you go into any of those programs Help sections
are read about the cloning capability, you'll see
quite clearly their intent/spirit of providing the
cloning capabilities in addition to the imaging
capabilities, which are the main intent of the
programs. I won't get into it since I think it's
been beat to death by nowg.

So, all I'm saying is that
"
this is the usual backup strategy employed by
the typical
PC user
"
isn't so in the general world, but perhaps your
experience does run that way for whatever reason.
I really only got into it again here for the sake
of newbies reading this who may not yet have their
heads around imaging programs and cloning.
"Clone" has become so diluted anymore that when a
person actually means "clone" it almost has to be
defined so people don't read it as something else.

Regards,

Twayne

Mike Torello wrote:
"Anna" wrote:

And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise copy
of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone
*immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No
special restoration process being necessary, only another simple
cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal
HDD in the event the system needed to be restored.
Anna

Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how
cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another
bootable disk.

The fact that a potentially bootable hard drive is created *is* what
makes cloning superior. But if you have no need for that (and most users
don't - -as long as they have an up-to-date image), then there is no
advantage. The potentially bootable drive would be beneficial for day
traders or anyone else who cannot wait for the restoration of an image.
But this potentially bootable drive would need to be ready to go; an
eSATA drive with the option to boot from it in the boot menu would get
the user up and running immediately.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:45:01 -0600, Mike Torello wrote:

Sounds like a REAL PITA to me. If one doesn't want to clone, using an
imaging program like Acronis makes more sense - a LOT more sense.

Mike adds...
The way she described cloning a disk with several partitions to
another disk with partitions... no way. It took several cloning
operations.


WaIIy wrote:
"Bring in the Clones"

Casper couldn't be easier.

Once you do the first clone, just click on a shorcut and it "reclones"
in a few minutes and even in the background.

Even an MVP could do it with a little help.


"Anna" wrote:
Mike:
As Wally has indicated, it's actually a very simple operation for Casper 5
to clone the contents of one HDD to another HDD. By & large it's easier
than
any other disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) program I've ever used, including
the various versions of Acronis True Image (excepting their latest 2009
version which I haven't yet tried).

In the example I gave it was a bit complicated (in the description but not
the *actual* process!), because we were dealing with a situation where the
user had multi-partitioned their source HDD and their destination HDD (the
intended recipient of the cloned contents of the source HDD) was also
multi-partitioned with one or more of the established partitions on the
destination drive being used for other purposes (data storage, perhaps
another clone, etc.) by the user.

It probably took longer to read my detailed description of the process to
clone the contents of the source HDD, i.e., the three partitions, to the
destination drive than undertaking the process itself.

Understand that if this was merely a situation (which is usually the
*typical* situation) where the user was simply using his or her
destination
HDD, e.g., a USB external HDD, *solely* for the purpose as the recipient
of
the cloned contents of the source HDD, it could have been done in one fell
swoop. There would be no need to clone the contents of the source HDD on a
partition-by-partition basis. A very simple & quick disk-to-disk cloning
operation using Casper 5. In the overwhelming amount of cases (based on my
experience) this is the usual backup strategy employed by the typical PC
user.

And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise copy of
his
or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone *immediately*
accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No special restoration
process being necessary, only another simple cloning of the destination
drive's contents back to the internal HDD in the event the system needed
to
be restored.
Anna


"Mike Torello" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how
cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another
bootable disk.

My imaging program can clone should I need one. From what I gather
here, Casper can't image.


Mike:
First of all, let me say at the outset (as I've always said to all other
users coming upon my comments re the Casper 5 program) that if you're
completely satisfied with the ATI program (or for that matter any other
backup program you may be using) in that it meets your particular backup
objective(s) and you see no need to change programs, that's fine. What I've
always tried to do is to encourage PC users to try (as best they can) to
work with different backup programs and determine which one best meets their
needs. Fortunately, both the ATI & Casper programs do have trial versions
available as do many other disk-cloning & disk-imaging programs.

What I *do* feel strongly about is that for many, if not most PC users, they
should employ a *comprehensive* backup program as at least one element of
their backup strategy. A comprehensive backup program in the sense that the
program is designed to backup the *complete* contents of their day-to-day
working HDD, i.e., their OS, all programs & applications, all their
configurations, and of course, their personal data. In short *everything*
that's on their "source" HDD.

So that if their system becomes unusable because of a corrupted HDD or a
defective HDD, or for *any* reason - they will have the wherewithal
immediately at hand to restore their system to a bootable functional state.

And most important...

The program should carry out its operation as quickly as possible so that
the user will know that the expenditure of time in *routinely* backing up
their *complete* system will be relatively slight, thus giving them
encouragement to *frequently* back up their system so that they will always
(or nearly always) have a reasonably up-to-date backup of their system. I
cannot overemphasize this last point.

And that's where the Casper 5 program does an outstanding job based on my
experience with many disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs.

Casper employs what it calls its "SmartClone" technology. This feature of
the Casper 5 program results in the routine disk-cloning operation taking
only a fraction of the time other disk-cloning (or disk- imaging) programs
need re this backup operation. The Casper program has this unique ability
(at least "unique" in my experience) to detect only the data changes in the
system being cloned since the *previous* disk-cloning operation;
consequently the program needs a *considerably* shorter period of time to
complete subsequent (routine) disk-cloning operations. To my mind, that is
the overriding advantage of Casper 5 as compared with other disk-cloning &
disk-imaging programs in my experience and this is the primary reason I
strongly recommend the program over all over disk-cloning programs (at least
those I've worked with).

To illustrate this "incremental cloning" methodology, here's an excerpt from
one of my recent posts re the process...

"Earlier today we had occasion (for routine backup purposes) to use the
Casper 5 program to clone the contents of a user's day-to-day working HDD -
the "source" disk - to another internal HDD - the "destination" drive.
Today's disk-cloning operation involved about 40 GB of data (the entire
contents, of course, of the source HDD). The first, i.e., initial
disk-cloning operation involving these drives took place a couple of weeks
ago. That initial disk-cloning operation took about 45 minutes - probably
about the same amount of time any disk-cloning or disk-imaging program would
take.

Routine (nearly daily or perhaps two or three times a week) disk-cloning
operations involving these same two HDDs have taken place over the past two
weeks or so since that initial disk-cloning operation. Obviously
considerable changes in the source drive's data have taken place over that
time. Today's disk-cloning operation took about 3 minutes. Three minutes."

Understand that the end process of this operation would *not* be an
"incremental file". Rather it would be a *complete* clone - again, a precise
copy of the user's source HDD. Since in the example given the destination
HDD (the recipient of the clone) used in the process was another internal
HDD (it could have been an external SATA HDD having SATA-to-SATA
connectivity), that HDD is *immediately* bootable & functional without any
"restoration" process. What better backup system can a PC user have?

Based upon my experience with thousands of PC users over the years I really
believe that a disk-to-disk cloning program rather than a disk-imaging
program is preferable for the vast number of them. Most particularly if the
disk-cloning program "does its thing" quickly, effectively, and easily. And
to that end I've not found a program superior to the Casper 5 program.

Just one final comment or two...

Let me make it clear that should a user's interest be *only* in a one-time
disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) operation and have little or no interest in
using such a program as a *routine* comprehensive backup system or will use
the program relatively infrequently, then it really doesn't matter which
disk-cloning or disk-imaging program he or she uses. In that case all that
is important is that the program is effective in transferring the contents
of one HDD to another HDD. And for that there are a considerable number of
backup programs to choose from.

Also, if the user has a particularly strong interest in maintaining
"generational" copies of his or her system at particular points in time,
then generally speaking a disk-imaging program (in most cases) would be more
suitable to that objective. While the Casper 5 (or probably most other
disk-cloning programs) could maintain such generational copies of one's
system (depending upon the size of the contents of the source drive and the
disk space available on the destination drive), it doesn't lend itself as
readily to that objective as would a disk-imaging program. But truth-to-tell
would you not agree that most PC users are not really interested in having
generational copies of their systems available for backup purposes, except
for perhaps two or three such copies (which Casper 5 could probably easily
accommodate)?
Anna

WaIIy wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:38:44 -0600, Mike Torello
wrote:

Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how
cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another
bootable disk.

What does that mean?
That's the whole point of the clone.

Is English your primary language?

What part of "when one has no need for another bootable disk"
are you having a problem understanding?

This thread has been going back and forth on the merits of a couple
programs for making backups... CLONING is not the type of backup I
need or want, no matter how easy it is to make one, etc.

You apparently didn't read any further than where you positioned your
reply. If you had, it should have been apparent:

My imaging program can clone should I need one. From what I gather
here, Casper can't image.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:54:29 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Anna" wrote:

And what would the user have at the "end of
the day"?
A precise copy of his or her day-to-day
working HDD
with all data on the clone *immediately*
accessible
and the drive potentially bootable. No
special
restoration process being necessary, only
another
simple cloning of the destination drive's
contents
back to the internal HDD in the event the
system
needed to be restored.
Anna

Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not
apparent
to me how cloning is better than imaging when
one has
no need for another bootable disk.

The fact that a potentially bootable hard drive
is
created *is* what makes cloning superior. But
if you
have no need for that (and most users
don't - -as long
as they have an up-to-date image), then there
is no
advantage.

Why would I want to fiddle with images when I
have an
updated exact copy of my drive in a few minutes?

Makes no sense to me.

As a "typical" user, there is no fiddling
around.

The potentially bootable drive would be
beneficial for
day
traders or anyone else who cannot wait for the
restoration of an image. But this potentially
bootable
drive would need to be ready to go; an eSATA
drive with
the option to boot from it in the boot menu
would get
the user up and running immediately.

Because images restore faster; no
platter/track/sector tracking needed.

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:54:29 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Anna" wrote:

And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise
copy
of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone
*immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No
special restoration process being necessary, only another simple
cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal
HDD in the event the system needed to be restored.
Anna

Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how
cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another
bootable disk.

The fact that a potentially bootable hard drive is created *is* what
makes cloning superior. But if you have no need for that (and most
users
don't - -as long as they have an up-to-date image), then there is no
advantage.

Why would I want to fiddle with images when I have an updated exact
copy
of my drive in a few minutes?

Makes no sense to me.

As a "typical" user, there is no fiddling around.

But "fiddling around" can actually be beneficial! Example:

Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system
something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right
away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed
with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B.
Later that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then
Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows.

If you had been imaging rather than cloning, you would have the ability
to restore any of the incremental images you had been making along the
way. But if you only have one clone, the fact that it *is* up-to-date is
not to your advantage. You choose to boot from this clone. But you have
problems and the next day your PC again won't boot. If you had restored
the image made prior to Monday when the problematic program was
installed, you'd be in much better shape! There's your trade-off.

Restoring an image or swapping a cloned drive (or re-cloning as some do)
is not really done that often anyway. I'd rather have the process take a
little bit longer if it means I can choose from a multitude of images.

WaIIy wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:35:52 -0600, Mike Torello
wrote:

This thread has been going back and forth on the merits of a couple
programs for making backups... CLONING is not the type of backup I
need or want, no matter how easy it is to make one, etc.

Uhh, the thread is about cloning. A ham sandwich is not my type of
backup. The thread is about cloning, if it's not your type of backup,
keep it to yourself.

It began on Jan 16 as: "How to use Acronis to backup o/s"

It ran with that subject for no less than 145 posts and 9 days before
it got changed yesterday to "Using Casper... " by "Anna" when she had
to backtrack and correct the bad info she'd posted about Casper.

Like something to help you wash that mouth full of crow down?

WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:38:01 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:



"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:54:29 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Anna" wrote:

And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise
copy
of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone
*immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No
special restoration process being necessary, only another simple
cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal
HDD in the event the system needed to be restored.
Anna

Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how
cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another
bootable disk.

The fact that a potentially bootable hard drive is created *is* what
makes cloning superior. But if you have no need for that (and most
users
don't - -as long as they have an up-to-date image), then there is no
advantage.

Why would I want to fiddle with images when I have an updated exact
copy
of my drive in a few minutes?

Makes no sense to me.

As a "typical" user, there is no fiddling around.

But "fiddling around" can actually be beneficial! Example:

Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system
something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right
away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed
with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B.
Later that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then
Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows.

If you had been imaging rather than cloning, you would have the ability
to restore any of the incremental images you had been making along the
way. But if you only have one clone, the fact that it *is* up-to-date is
not to your advantage. You choose to boot from this clone. But you have
problems and the next day your PC again won't boot. If you had restored
the image made prior to Monday when the problematic program was
installed, you'd be in much better shape! There's your trade-off.

Restoring an image or swapping a cloned drive (or re-cloning as some do)
is not really done that often anyway. I'd rather have the process take a
little bit longer if it means I can choose from a multitude of images.


Excellent, excellent post and good examples.

Exactly. And kudos for his clean explanation.

I agree, there is some danger to cloning.

Hey, I like to live on the edge

Same here. That's why I use imaging, so I can have multiple dated backups
any which I can easily restore at a moment's notice. I can't take the
chance with cloning and only having one copy. I *need* the generational
copies, any one which of can be used to make a bootable disk, for the
reasons mentioned. (And even if the source HD fails, it's possible to
install a new source HD, and then restore the destination disk's image
backup. Granted, that's not as easy as with a cloned disk, however).

I do make a copy of my drive on a different HD , which I can boot with
after some fiddling around and clone/copy at different times.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:43:59 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

Because images restore faster; no
platter/track/sector tracking needed.


Uhh, it's close to impossible to restore faster
than
Casper.

That seems to be a silly statement at first take,
but ... . You seem so positive of yourself, and
it's so counter-intuitive, that I would like to
know more. Can you cite a source of any kind to
support that it's "impossible" for anything to
"restore" any "faster" than Casper? I am
legitimately interested; not just looking for a
way to argue against itg.

Regards,

Twayne

Twayne wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:43:59 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

Because images restore faster; no
platter/track/sector tracking needed.


Uhh, it's close to impossible to restore faster
than
Casper.

That seems to be a silly statement at first take,
but ... . You seem so positive of yourself, and
it's so counter-intuitive, that I would like to
know more. Can you cite a source of any kind to
support that it's "impossible" for anything to
"restore" any "faster" than Casper?

An amazing response from you, of all people.
Probably only after using a registry cleaner, as you've often said, and
never documented. ROFL.

I am legitimately interested; not just looking for a
way to argue against itg.

Regards,

Twayne

WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:32:55 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:38:01 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:



"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:54:29 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Mike Torello wrote:
"Anna" wrote:

And what would the user have at the "end of the day"? A precise
copy
of his or her day-to-day working HDD with all data on the clone
*immediately* accessible and the drive potentially bootable. No
special restoration process being necessary, only another simple
cloning of the destination drive's contents back to the internal
HDD in the event the system needed to be restored.
Anna

Thanks for the explanation, but it's still not apparent to me how
cloning is better than imaging when one has no need for another
bootable disk.

The fact that a potentially bootable hard drive is created *is* what
makes cloning superior. But if you have no need for that (and most
users
don't - -as long as they have an up-to-date image), then there is no
advantage.

Why would I want to fiddle with images when I have an updated exact
copy
of my drive in a few minutes?

Makes no sense to me.

As a "typical" user, there is no fiddling around.

But "fiddling around" can actually be beneficial! Example:

Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system
something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right
away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed
with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B.
Later that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then
Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows.

If you had been imaging rather than cloning, you would have the ability
to restore any of the incremental images you had been making along the
way. But if you only have one clone, the fact that it *is* up-to-date
is
not to your advantage. You choose to boot from this clone. But you have
problems and the next day your PC again won't boot. If you had restored
the image made prior to Monday when the problematic program was
installed, you'd be in much better shape! There's your trade-off.

Restoring an image or swapping a cloned drive (or re-cloning as some
do)
is not really done that often anyway. I'd rather have the process take
a
little bit longer if it means I can choose from a multitude of images.


Excellent, excellent post and good examples.

Exactly. And kudos for his clean explanation.

I agree, there is some danger to cloning.

Hey, I like to live on the edge

Same here. That's why I use imaging, so I can have multiple dated
backups
any which I can easily restore at a moment's notice. I can't take the
chance with cloning and only having one copy. I *need* the generational
copies, any one which of can be used to make a bootable disk, for the
reasons mentioned. (And even if the source HD fails, it's possible to
install a new source HD, and then restore the destination disk's image
backup. Granted, that is NOT as easy as with a cloned disk, however).

After reading all this stuff the past week, I think that imaging with
mutiple incremental backups is safer, as you state.

good point

It just depends on what the user needs and how technically inclined s/he is.
Cloning a disk with Casper is no doubt a simpler approach for the average
Joe or Jill, and may serve his/her needs quite well. But the average Joe
or Jill isn't making generational backups, AND would like the easiest
program to use. :-)

Actually, I'm not using multiple incremental (or differential) image
backups. I'm using multiple FULL image backups; each image file is complete
in its own right, and there is only ONE file for each generational image.
I have about 10 of them right now on the secondary internal (SATA) drive.

It takes me 10 minutes to backup my C: partition, with the system, programs,
and data (a total of about 20 GB worth), to my second internal SATA hard
drive.

And it takes about 25 minutes to restore any one of those images (since
they're all roughly the same size).

"Daave" wrote in message
...
But "fiddling around" can actually be beneficial! Example:

Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system
something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right
away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed with
no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B. Later
that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then Saturday comes
and you can't even boot to Windows.

If you had been imaging rather than cloning, you would have the ability to
restore any of the incremental images you had been making along the way.
But if you only have one clone, the fact that it *is* up-to-date is not to
your advantage. You choose to boot from this clone. But you have problems
and the next day your PC again won't boot. If you had restored the image
made prior to Monday when the problematic program was installed, you'd be
in much better shape! There's your trade-off.

Restoring an image or swapping a cloned drive (or re-cloning as some do)
is not really done that often anyway. I'd rather have the process take a
little bit longer if it means I can choose from a multitude of images.


Daave:
Please understand that there is *nothing* that stands in the way of a user
of the Casper 5 program to create a clone of his or her source HDD on a
*daily* basis. We do this on a number of our PCs and we're aware of many
Casper 5 users who likewise do this.

As I have tried to emphasize all through this discussion of the Casper 5
program in comparing it with other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs, it is
the program's incredible speed in creating a clone of one's HDD when the
program is used on a routine *frequent* basis that makes the program so
attractive in my estimation.

Using as an example a HDD containing 50 GB of data...

Should the user clone the contents of that drive on a *daily* basis, it will
probably take somewhere in the vicinity of 2 to 4 minutes to complete the
disk-cloning operation. TWO TO FOUR MINUTES! The precise amount of time to
complete the disk-cloning operation would, of course, depend chiefly upon
the amount of changes made in the system since the last disk-cloning
operation.

And the Casper program also provides the user with an option of automatic
scheduling of these disk-cloning operations on whatever time frame the user
chooses, including a daily basis should the user desire such.

Frankly, I'm not entirely clear re the scenario(s) you posit. One of the
recommendations we make to users of Casper 5 (or for that matter users of
*any* disk-cloning/disk-imaging program) is that *before* making substantive
changes to one's system, e.g., installing new, untested programs, or making
radical configuration changes, or installing a new Service Pack, etc. etc.,
the user undertake a disk-cloning operation with the Casper program. Thus,
should problems arise as a consequence of any of those events the user will
have at hand a bootable, functional clone of their "good" system. There's no
"trade-off" involved here.

And as I've repeatedly emphasized, because the Casper program speedily
completes the disk-cloning operation this gives the user strong
encouragement to frequently back up their entire system even on a daily
basis if one chooses to do so since the expenditure of backup time comes
close to being trivial.

And where the destination HDD (the recipient of the clone) is another
internal HDD, the user has *immediately* at hand a bootable, functional HDD
with all data *immediately* accessible and no "restoration" process is
necessary to achieve this capability. And where the destination HDD is an
external HDD, e.g., a USB-connected device, it's a relatively simple matter
to clone the contents of that external drive back to the user's internal HDD
and the system is easily & relatively quickly returned to a bootable
functional state.

I have previously stated a number of times that when the user has a specific
interest in maintaining "generational" copies of his or her system at
particular points in time,
in most cases a disk-imaging program would be more suitable to that
objective.

While the Casper 5 (and probably most other disk-cloning programs) could
maintain such generational copies of one's system (depending upon the size
of the contents of the source drive and the disk space available on the
destination drive), it doesn't lend itself as readily to that objective as
would a disk-imaging program. But as a general proposition (in my
experience) it's the commercial enterprises who have a particular interest
in maintaining generational copies of their data.

In my experience with thousands PC users (as it involves this issue of
comprehensive backup programs) the vast majority of users are interested
only in maintaining a reasonably up-to-date backup of their system and they
are not particularly interested in generational copies of their system at
past points-in-time.
Anna

"Anna" wrote in message
...

"Daave" wrote in message
...
But "fiddling around" can actually be beneficial! Example:

Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system
something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage
right away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are
installed with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install
Program B. Later that day you start noticing some performance
problems. Then Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows.

If you had been imaging rather than cloning, you would have the
ability to restore any of the incremental images you had been making
along the way. But if you only have one clone, the fact that it *is*
up-to-date is not to your advantage. You choose to boot from this
clone. But you have problems and the next day your PC again won't
boot. If you had restored the image made prior to Monday when the
problematic program was installed, you'd be in much better shape!
There's your trade-off.

Restoring an image or swapping a cloned drive (or re-cloning as some
do) is not really done that often anyway. I'd rather have the process
take a little bit longer if it means I can choose from a multitude of
images.


Daave:
Please understand that there is *nothing* that stands in the way of a
user of the Casper 5 program to create a clone of his or her source
HDD on a *daily* basis. We do this on a number of our PCs and we're
aware of many Casper 5 users who likewise do this.

Actually, my point was that doing just that *could* be problematic.
Probably not, but the possibility exists for the last "good" clone to no
longer exist. At least with imaging, since you can store a number of
generational images on one hard drive, you can restore the last good
image because it still exists.

As I have tried to emphasize all through this discussion of the Casper
5 program in comparing it with other disk-cloning/disk-imaging
programs, it is the program's incredible speed in creating a clone of
one's HDD when the program is used on a routine *frequent* basis that
makes the program so attractive in my estimation.

And if it's done too frequently, it's possible (admittedly not probable,
but still the possibility exists) that the most recent clone would be
problematic.

Using as an example a HDD containing 50 GB of data...

Should the user clone the contents of that drive on a *daily* basis,
it will probably take somewhere in the vicinity of 2 to 4 minutes to
complete the disk-cloning operation. TWO TO FOUR MINUTES! The precise
amount of time to complete the disk-cloning operation would, of
course, depend chiefly upon the amount of changes made in the system
since the last disk-cloning operation.

That's impressive, yes. But that gives us the trade-off. Disk-to-disk
cloning has the advantage of giving you a fully bootable drive, yes. But
imaging gives you a much larger number of options. And if your most
recent clone has the same problems, then as I see it, imaging is
superior in that instance. It might be rare. But I'd rather have that
extra bit of security.

And the Casper program also provides the user with an option of
automatic scheduling of these disk-cloning operations on whatever time
frame the user chooses, including a daily basis should the user desire
such.

Frankly, I'm not entirely clear re the scenario(s) you posit. One of
the recommendations we make to users of Casper 5 (or for that matter
users of *any* disk-cloning/disk-imaging program) is that *before*
making substantive changes to one's system, e.g., installing new,
untested programs, or making radical configuration changes, or
installing a new Service Pack, etc. etc., the user undertake a
disk-cloning operation with the Casper program. Thus, should problems
arise as a consequence of any of those events the user will have at
hand a bootable, functional clone of their "good" system. There's no
"trade-off" involved here.

Sure there is. Here is the scenario again:

Monday: You install program A. It turns out to mess up your system
something fierce. The problem is that you don't notice the damage right
away. Tuesday: Updates (e.g., Windows security updates) are installed
with no consequence that you can tell. Friday: You install Program B.
Later that day you start noticing some performance problems. Then
Saturday comes and you can't even boot to Windows.

Let's say you cloned Sunday night or Monday morning prior to installing
Program A. That's great. But then you created other clones on Tuesday
(before the updates) and Friday (prior to installing Program B). If you
want to pop in the cloned hard drive that is the best (i.e., the one
made before Program A was installed), you can't do it; it doesn't exist!
However, if you have been making images, that image *would* exist.

I am assuming the user is performing disk-to-disk cloning so that the
destination drive is an exact bootable copy.

And as I've repeatedly emphasized, because the Casper program speedily
completes the disk-cloning operation this gives the user strong
encouragement to frequently back up their entire system even on a
daily basis if one chooses to do so since the expenditure of backup
time comes close to being trivial.

And where the destination HDD (the recipient of the clone) is another
internal HDD, the user has *immediately* at hand a bootable,
functional HDD

snip

In my scenario, the cloned HDD is *not* functional. Now if the user has
seven physical hard drives and chooses to use the clone made on Monday,
then all is well. I assume that's not your typical user, though!

with all data *immediately* accessible and no "restoration" process is
necessary to achieve this capability.

In my scenario, the restoration process, albeit longer, is better.

Hi,

"........... 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.


I Clone my entire drive every friday night. As was mentioned earlier,
it's an exact copy of the main hard drive. When I open a file explorer I
see both the original and the clones contents, that means individual
files, not an image of the disk contents. There are no "hoops", drag,
drop, whatever suits your needs. It's like having two of everything
available at once.

If it takes you "a few minutes" to "retrieve a lost file from an image",
you should look into using a cloned drive instead.


---==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

Hi,

Twayne wrote"...... If you can pick out a file to restore on its
own, it's not a clone."

Why do you say that? My clones are an exact copy of the drive, file by
file, folder by folder. Are you writing that a clone is not an exact copy?


---==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