Win7 Backup Image Utility

I make backup inages via the tool that comes with Windows 7. My drive is 500GB
(with 40GB currently on it) and the drive I put the image to is 60GB.
Obviously each time I backup a new image to it the previous one is gone. But
now for a destination drive I use a 320GB. The way I figure it I should get at
LEAST 5 images on it but Windows keeps deleteing the previous one.

If I split the destination drive into 5 partitions (320/5) and each time I
back up use a different partition will those images have a good integrity for
restore if needed? I would hate to have a false sense of security.

TIA, Dennis
==================

Remove the XX's wrote:
I make backup inages via the tool that comes with Windows 7. My drive is 500GB
(with 40GB currently on it) and the drive I put the image to is 60GB.
Obviously each time I backup a new image to it the previous one is gone. But
now for a destination drive I use a 320GB. The way I figure it I should get at
LEAST 5 images on it but Windows keeps deleteing the previous one.

If I split the destination drive into 5 partitions (320/5) and each time I
back up use a different partition will those images have a good integrity for
restore if needed? I would hate to have a false sense of security.

TIA, Dennis
==================

On Windows 7, I've only used the System Image capability, rather than the
other (file mode?) backup.

I experienced the same thing. If I make a fresh image, the other one is
erased and the new one takes its place.

To stop that, I transfer the backup to any other place. Just move it
out of the way, Then run your new backup, and see what happens.

Then, for fun, run your recovery boot CD (or installer DVD), and
go to the restore menu. Did the disk scan find both images or not ?
That's the test you want to try. My experience was, there was
an extended search interval during recovery, where the software
searches for images. Maybe, it can find that image, if it is moved
out of the way. And, it should show the date the backup was made.
There's a fair amount of metadata in the folder, with the actual
image files.

Paul

In article , Paul wrote:


On Windows 7, I've only used the System Image capability, rather than the
other (file mode?) backup.

I experienced the same thing. If I make a fresh image, the other one is
erased and the new one takes its place.

To stop that, I transfer the backup to any other place. Just move it
out of the way, Then run your new backup, and see what happens.

Then, for fun, run your recovery boot CD (or installer DVD), and
go to the restore menu. Did the disk scan find both images or not ?
That's the test you want to try. My experience was, there was
an extended search interval during recovery, where the software
searches for images. Maybe, it can find that image, if it is moved
out of the way. And, it should show the date the backup was made.
There's a fair amount of metadata in the folder, with the actual
image files.

Paul

Thanx Paul, I'll play with that scenerio. I also just split my 320GB into 5
partitions. I'm also going to play with that. One good thing is that the Image
utility is pretty quick so it's fairly easy to play around.

Dennis
===========

Paul wrote:
Remove the XX's wrote:
I make backup inages via the tool that comes with Windows 7. My drive
is 500GB (with 40GB currently on it) and the drive I put the image to
is 60GB. Obviously each time I backup a new image to it the previous
one is gone. But now for a destination drive I use a 320GB. The way I
figure it I should get at LEAST 5 images on it but Windows keeps
deleteing the previous one.
If I split the destination drive into 5 partitions (320/5) and each
time I back up use a different partition will those images have a good
integrity for restore if needed? I would hate to have a false sense of
security.

TIA, Dennis
==================

On Windows 7, I've only used the System Image capability, rather than the
other (file mode?) backup.

I experienced the same thing. If I make a fresh image, the other one is
erased and the new one takes its place.

To stop that, I transfer the backup to any other place. Just move it
out of the way, Then run your new backup, and see what happens.

Then, for fun, run your recovery boot CD (or installer DVD), and
go to the restore menu. Did the disk scan find both images or not ?
That's the test you want to try. My experience was, there was
an extended search interval during recovery, where the software
searches for images. Maybe, it can find that image, if it is moved
out of the way. And, it should show the date the backup was made.
There's a fair amount of metadata in the folder, with the actual
image files.

Paul

Yes. I do that. I copy previous image to a folder on the same drive.

My experience of using the recovery option was that it only found the
one in the root of the drive. So I switched to Paragon images when I
found on testing that it found all its stuff.

Ed

On 21/11/2012 10:03 PM, Remove the XX's wrote:
I make backup inages via the tool that comes with Windows 7. My drive is 500GB
(with 40GB currently on it) and the drive I put the image to is 60GB.
Obviously each time I backup a new image to it the previous one is gone. But
now for a destination drive I use a 320GB. The way I figure it I should get at
LEAST 5 images on it but Windows keeps deleteing the previous one.

If I split the destination drive into 5 partitions (320/5) and each time I
back up use a different partition will those images have a good integrity for
restore if needed? I would hate to have a false sense of security.

TIA, Dennis
==================

For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:23:19 -0800 "Anthony Buckland"
wrote in article N-



For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.

I second that! Used it for years and it's saved my bacon a time or two.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:23:19 -0800 "Anthony Buckland"
wrote in article N-



For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.


wrote:

I second that! Used it for years and it's saved my bacon a time or two.

I agree guys, done a half dozen or so 'disaster' restores over the years using
xcopy32 /c/h/e/r/k on 95, XXCLONE or Ghost on XP and now Win7's tool.

I figured out the issue...you have to go through the restore from Windows then
reboot to see the saved backups in Backup and Restore manager. I could swear I
set it to restore from Safe Mode a while back but I must be confused. Also the
Win7 recovery disk works fine too. To get around losing the previous backups
on the destination drive I just made 5-60GB Partions. I have about 40GB on my
drive so I should be good for while. In theory I should only want the most
recent but it's the paranoia factor.....

Dennis
===============

On 11/22/2012 9:07 PM, Jason wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:23:19 -0800 "Anthony Buckland"
wrote in articleN-



For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.

I second that! Used it for years and it's saved my bacon a time or two.

I've been burned by Acronis for many years. It will make backups all day
long faithfully. When it comes to restoring, it can't see some USB
drives that it had saved files on for years. And this is a known Acronis
problem. And no other backup software has this major flaw.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 05:06:15 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

On 11/22/2012 9:07 PM, Jason wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:23:19 -0800 "Anthony Buckland"
wrote in articleN-



For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.

I second that! Used it for years and it's saved my bacon a time or two.

I've been burned by Acronis for many years. It will make backups all day
long faithfully. When it comes to restoring, it can't see some USB
drives that it had saved files on for years. And this is a known Acronis
problem. And no other backup software has this major flaw.

I have Shadowprotect, possibly the most expensive backup/recovery
software. It will backup to anything writeable, but if you want to
recover your system disk you have to boot from the SP stand-alone disk
and that cannot see USB3 drives, as far as I can tell.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England

On 23/11/2012 11:38 AM, Robin Bignall wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 05:06:15 -0600, BillW50 wrote:

On 11/22/2012 9:07 PM, Jason wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:23:19 -0800 "Anthony Buckland"
wrote in articleN-



For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.

I second that! Used it for years and it's saved my bacon a time or two.

I've been burned by Acronis for many years. It will make backups all day
long faithfully. When it comes to restoring, it can't see some USB
drives that it had saved files on for years. And this is a known Acronis
problem. And no other backup software has this major flaw.

I have Shadowprotect, possibly the most expensive backup/recovery
software. It will backup to anything writeable, but if you want to
recover your system disk you have to boot from the SP stand-alone disk
and that cannot see USB3 drives, as far as I can tell.


Can you connect your USB3 device to a USB2 port ?

That port likely uses a different driver.

Paul

On 11/23/2012 10:38 AM, Robin Bignall wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 05:06:15 -0600, wrote:

On 11/22/2012 9:07 PM, Jason wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:23:19 -0800 "Anthony Buckland"
wrote in articleN-



For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.

I second that! Used it for years and it's saved my bacon a time or two.

I've been burned by Acronis for many years. It will make backups all day
long faithfully. When it comes to restoring, it can't see some USB
drives that it had saved files on for years. And this is a known Acronis
problem. And no other backup software has this major flaw.

I have Shadowprotect, possibly the most expensive backup/recovery
software. It will backup to anything writeable, but if you want to
recover your system disk you have to boot from the SP stand-alone disk
and that cannot see USB3 drives, as far as I can tell.

Those boot up disks generally use Linux or WinPE as an OS just to run
the application. And it sounds like whatever OS it is using, doesn't
have the correct driver for USB3 ports.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v12
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:23:19 -0800, Anthony Buckland wrote:

On 21/11/2012 10:03 PM, Remove the XX's wrote:
I make backup inages via the tool that comes with Windows 7. My drive is 500GB
(with 40GB currently on it) and the drive I put the image to is 60GB.
Obviously each time I backup a new image to it the previous one is gone. But
now for a destination drive I use a 320GB. The way I figure it I should get at
LEAST 5 images on it but Windows keeps deleteing the previous one.

If I split the destination drive into 5 partitions (320/5) and each time I
back up use a different partition will those images have a good integrity for
restore if needed? I would hate to have a false sense of security.

TIA, Dennis
==================

For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.

I am a fan of the similar product Macrium Reflect, which can also be had
in a less flexible free version.

I've used EaseUS Todo Backup, which is free but, IIRC, is also available
in a paid version. It works OK.

Both of the above do image backups or clone backups, your choice. In
fact I often[1] do one of each type.

[1] Here, "often" means "a large percentage of backups"; I don't backup
often enough :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.

I have ATI 2009, which I don't really like.

That aside, I'm trying to "shoehorn" the contents of a 300G boot drive
into a 240G SSD. The Win backup utility will work with a smaller to
larger or the same drive, but not to a smaller, even when the original
drive has more than enough free space to account for the difference in
size between the drives.

Macrium "Free" supposedly has a similar issue, and the pubs claim that
the buyit version doesn't.

Any suggestions?

charlie wrote:


For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.

I have ATI 2009, which I don't really like.

That aside, I'm trying to "shoehorn" the contents of a 300G boot drive
into a 240G SSD. The Win backup utility will work with a smaller to
larger or the same drive, but not to a smaller, even when the original
drive has more than enough free space to account for the difference in
size between the drives.

Macrium "Free" supposedly has a similar issue, and the pubs claim that
the buyit version doesn't.

Any suggestions?


The simplest answer (but not the best), is to shrink the source
partition. Windows 7 has a built-in shrink, available either
in Disk Management, or via diskpart command line. It is
limited in shrink capability, by virtue of an inability to
move all metadata files. If you have an originally prepared
300GB, the smallest you can make it via Windows 7 built-in is
150GB. If you have some other partition management product,
you can do better than that (until you're down to the
size needed to hold the actual file content). There is a
certain defragmenter, that if you run it, it moves the
metadata to the left, and then the Windows 7 built-in
shrink would be able to go below 150GB. But that's purely
of academic interest.

Paul

On 11/27/12 1:46 AM, Paul wrote:
charlie wrote:


For years, I've used Acronis True Image, not just because I feel
a sense of security, but because I have, more than once, actually
restored a system with it. Your heart may dwell in your mouth,
but there's nothing like actually having your computer saved.
Disclosu I have no stake in their success. Further disclosu
it costs money.

I have ATI 2009, which I don't really like.

That aside, I'm trying to "shoehorn" the contents of a 300G boot drive
into a 240G SSD. The Win backup utility will work with a smaller to
larger or the same drive, but not to a smaller, even when the original
drive has more than enough free space to account for the difference in
size between the drives.

Macrium "Free" supposedly has a similar issue, and the pubs claim that
the buyit version doesn't.

Any suggestions?


The simplest answer (but not the best), is to shrink the source
partition. Windows 7 has a built-in shrink, available either
in Disk Management, or via diskpart command line. It is
limited in shrink capability, by virtue of an inability to
move all metadata files. If you have an originally prepared
300GB, the smallest you can make it via Windows 7 built-in is
150GB. If you have some other partition management product,
you can do better than that (until you're down to the
size needed to hold the actual file content). There is a
certain defragmenter, that if you run it, it moves the
metadata to the left, and then the Windows 7 built-in
shrink would be able to go below 150GB. But that's purely
of academic interest.

And that defragmenter would be ???????

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 17.0
Thunderbird 17.0
LibreOffice 3.6.3.2