Acronis True Image 2014 Premium

On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:49:46 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

Sorry about the double spacing in the previous post, reposted.

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:07:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of
who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping
them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for
every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for
every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets
expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put
multiple backups on a single drive.

Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup
drive will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you might
as well clone). So it has to be larger than the original drive and
that costs more. Sure the three drives you clone you might be
breaking even vs. a one backup drive.

Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller than
the used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use compression.

SNIP since I have no further comments.

True, but even if you take a 120GB drive and backup to an external
and say you get a 60GB saved compressed backup. Which is probably
very typical. Now how do you know you can restore? Are you going to
test it? Or are you going to hope it works? If you test it, are you
going to use the original drive? If so and it fails to boot, now
what? Bad idea eh? So you really need a spare drive to test it,
don't you? So if you need a spare drive to test, you could have
saved lots of time, money and trouble just cloning to the spare
drive anyway.

Obviously you could test dozens of different images on one and the
same spare drive, if all you're doing is making sure they are in fact
restorable.

You only need to devote a drive to a single image if you are in fact
restoring the image to that drive because the original drive is
defunct. But that's the way it would be under any plan, no?

Yes absolutely! Although are you going to test every single backup? If
so, that is twice the work than cloning. If you test less, well then it
is less work for sure. You still have the problem that you are trusting
one backup drive to stay working and not ever corrupting anything. For
me, that is a big if!

Where did I say that there will be only one drive for the backups? What
I said was that imaging allows backups from several drives to exist on a
single drive. If you get three backups on one drive, you'd only need two
drives to duplicate three backups. If you cloned, you'd need six.

I always duplicate my backups...just not often enough.

And everyone who suggests testing suggests testing every backup anyway.

Also, a clone needs to be tested too. Even a supposed exact copy could
end up being inexact.

I do have some machines that it isn't practical to swap drives. One of
them has a 4GB SSD soldered on the motherboard. So I am stuck using
backup/restore. But guess what? I can't trust one backup/restore
program, I use three different backup programs using three different
backup drives. I can't throw in a spare SSD, so I have to restore to the
original. So maybe one might fail to restore, maybe the second might
fail, but I hope the third will never fail. Otherwise that one gets a
factory reset.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

BillW50 wrote, On 5/21/2014 4:34 AM:

Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I
didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what was
new in these versions. As things generally work out with me, they will
probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break the seal on
the boxes.

If unopened how did you check them out ?
If not checked out via the program what was the point of purchasing them ?


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 5/21/2014 5:06 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 4:34 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
I'm glad that you agree with me so at least I haven't been doing
it wrong through the years. I usually install the clone at the time
of making the copy so I'm sure from the start I have a fail safe
method. So in the long run none of these backup applications are
even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who
I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I
didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what
was new in these versions. As things generally work out with me,
they will probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break
the seal on the boxes.

I have a unopened still wrapped in plastic Win7 OS I'll probably
never use. Actually I have a whole system I need to through together.
I just don't have the space to put another desktop. One funny part is
my wife wouldn't even notice if I did build again, there so must
stuff around my computer room. All I'd have to do is rearrange some
stuff and she'd be none the wiser. What's one more system give or
take?

Yes same here. I too still have sealed Windows 7 OS that I was going to
use on a bunch of XP laptops (like this one). I did upgrade one of them
and that worked fine. I never upgraded the others yet. Although I did
move away from desktops in 2005 and went all laptops. Although I do use
docks, external monitors, etc. with them too. As you can store a lot of
laptops in a wall cabinet like you wouldn't believe.

I don't like working with small assemblies unless you're not referring
to actually building laptops. I knew someone that said he did. I like
building the larger beasts. I have a few of these:

http://www.sweetpond.com/index.php?r...uct_id=1620122

They're really nice when it comes to putting everything together
before you add the case.

On 5/21/2014 5:55 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 3:29 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:
So in the long run none of these backup applications are even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of who
I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for every
drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for every
clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets expensive. When
you create a backup, you can typically put multiple backups on a
single drive. So it's a trade-off, as are many things in life. If
cost isn't an
issue, go ahead and clone. If the budget is tight, get a big drive
and put multiple backups/images on it, with the knowledge that
you've saved a chunk of cash but if it ever comes down to having to
use one of those backups, you'll have to restore it first. The
trade-off is time versus money.

I have so many drives that are smaller than the ones I use at any
given moment. They used to get moved to the second drive for
"whatever". Since I switched over to SSDs I have gone from 128G to
256G and now I'm at Crucial M550 512G so I can use an older one to
clone to. I lost count of all the drives with somewhere over a dozen
SSDs alone. I have 1,2,3 and 4 TB external drives. I keep several
SSDs in USB3 external cases. I can keep one with me as it's smaller
than my wallet which has been getting smaller also.

Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed longer
on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And they are
going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit concern about
an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also has a TV tuner
connected and does a far amount of TV recording sometimes. Although
monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think I'll hit the limit for at
least 10 years. Plus it won't be long before this one is cloned and
replaced with another SSD anyway. Maybe 256GB next time around.

I can't see myself going larger than the Crucial M550 512GB but I'm
waiting to see if they start using faster chips than the Micron.

You have an advantage because they're much cheaper then when I started
purchasing SSDs. I put one in my ASUS Eee PC and at the time the SSD
cost more than the netbook.

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:49:46 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

Sorry about the double spacing in the previous post, reposted.

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:07:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of
who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping
them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for
every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for
every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets
expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put
multiple backups on a single drive.

Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup
drive will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you
might as well clone). So it has to be larger than the original
drive and that costs more. Sure the three drives you clone you
might be breaking even vs. a one backup drive.

Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller
than the used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use
compression.

SNIP since I have no further comments.

True, but even if you take a 120GB drive and backup to an external
and say you get a 60GB saved compressed backup. Which is probably
very typical. Now how do you know you can restore? Are you going to
test it? Or are you going to hope it works? If you test it, are you
going to use the original drive? If so and it fails to boot, now
what? Bad idea eh? So you really need a spare drive to test it,
don't you? So if you need a spare drive to test, you could have
saved lots of time, money and trouble just cloning to the spare
drive anyway.

Obviously you could test dozens of different images on one and the
same spare drive, if all you're doing is making sure they are in
fact restorable.

You only need to devote a drive to a single image if you are in fact
restoring the image to that drive because the original drive is
defunct. But that's the way it would be under any plan, no?

Yes absolutely! Although are you going to test every single backup?
If so, that is twice the work than cloning. If you test less, well
then it is less work for sure. You still have the problem that you
are trusting one backup drive to stay working and not ever
corrupting anything. For me, that is a big if!

Where did I say that there will be only one drive for the backups?
What I said was that imaging allows backups from several drives to
exist on a single drive. If you get three backups on one drive, you'd
only need two drives to duplicate three backups. If you cloned, you'd
need six.

I always duplicate my backups...just not often enough.

All of the examples up to now were assuming one backup drive vs.
cloning. Adding multiple backup drives changes everything. And one of
the only disadvantage of cloning is it could end of costing more. Now
adding more reliability for backup/restore method by adding more cost by
backing up backups... what are you gaining? If you are trading cost for
reliability, why use backup/restore? Because that is the only negative
of cloning (sometimes). And that one is a bit iffy, as cloning is
cheaper to start off with. But you have to spend more later. Although
spending later, you pay less for more anyway.

And everyone who suggests testing suggests testing every backup
anyway.

Wow, I hated that part. That is twice the work. In my experience,
cloning and backing up takes about the same amount of time. Ok, not
always true, some software is slower than others. But generally they are
very close. Although the heavier the compression for backup, the longer
it takes. But they can take generally the same amount of time if the
compression isn't that heavy. So up to this point, the time is about the
same.

Cloning all you have to do is to drop the new cloned drive and you are
done (unless it failed). Using backup/restore you are done if you don't
test. That is ok if you want to risk it. I've been burned enough that I
want to test it. Now the time you spent to backup, you now have to spend
on restoring. Twice the time! Worse it isn't like you can set it up and
go to bed. No you have to have to start restore manually half way
through the process.

Also, a clone needs to be tested too. Even a supposed exact copy could
end up being inexact.

Oh yes, absolutely! I clone and use the clone and save the original (you
were using it and you know that one works). If the clone fails, you
would know right away if it doesn't boot. And you will be using it until
the next clone. So you have time to make sure everything works ok.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

In ,
....winston typed:
BillW50 wrote, On 5/21/2014 4:34 AM:

Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I
didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what
was new in these versions. As things generally work out with me,
they will probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break
the seal on the boxes.

If unopened how did you check them out ?

No I didn't, I purchased them to check them out.

If not checked out via the program what was the point of purchasing
them ?

It is on the to do list when nothing important is happening. Sometimes
it takes 15 years to get to that list. And sometimes I lose the list in
the 15 year time span. Then I think by then, why the hell did I buy that
for?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

BillW50 wrote, On 5/21/2014 10:35 PM:
In ,
...winston typed:
BillW50 wrote, On 5/21/2014 4:34 AM:

Same here. Heck I still have Acronis 2013 and 2014 here unopened. I
didn't really need them for anything, I just wanted to checkout what
was new in these versions. As things generally work out with me,
they will probably stay on the shelf for 15 years before I'll break
the seal on the boxes.

If unopened how did you check them out ?

No I didn't, I purchased them to check them out.

If not checked out via the program what was the point of purchasing
them ?

It is on the to do list when nothing important is happening. Sometimes
it takes 15 years to get to that list. And sometimes I lose the list in
the 15 year time span. Then I think by then, why the hell did I buy that
for?



After installation, if you want to report [here]what you find when
checking them out 15 yrs might be too long. Usenet or some of us may
expire before then.

Optionally the manual can be downloaded here
http://www.acronis.com/download/docs/ati2014/userguide

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 5:06 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Yes same here. I too still have sealed Windows 7 OS that I was going
to use on a bunch of XP laptops (like this one). I did upgrade one
of them and that worked fine. I never upgraded the others yet.
Although I did move away from desktops in 2005 and went all laptops.
Although I do use docks, external monitors, etc. with them too. As
you can store a lot of laptops in a wall cabinet like you wouldn't
believe.
I don't like working with small assemblies unless you're not
referring to actually building laptops. I knew someone that said he
did. I like building the larger beasts. I have a few of these:

http://www.sweetpond.com/index.php?r...uct_id=1620122

They're really nice when it comes to putting everything together
before you add the case.

Wow! What a beautiful tech station I love it! :-D

As for small assemblies... yes I always had a fondness towards them. And
while my first laptop was back in '84, I also needed desktops. Since
desktops had more power and sometimes I needed the extra power. Although
since 2005, laptops had enough power to compete with desktop machines
for my needs anyway. I even replaced my gaming desktops with Alienware
laptops. Although these portable monster space heaters are not known as
laptops (though they look like laptops), but rather known as desktop
replacements.

I also don't mind taking them apart and doing repair work on them. And
the ones I like a lot have docking ports and removable bays. Like
earlier today I popped this machine out of the dock (no wires to
disconnect), slid the DVD drive out of its bay while the machine is
still running. And inserted a second battery that slides right into that
same bay. With two batteries, I have 8 hours of runtime. And I could
always swap charged batteries while it is still running too. And I have
about 9 charged batteries and I could run for days without power if I
wanted too. I really like that freedom. :-D

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 5:55 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 3:29 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:
So in the long run none of these backup applications are even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of
who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping
them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for
every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for
every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets
expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put
multiple backups on a single drive. So it's a trade-off, as are
many things in life. If cost isn't an
issue, go ahead and clone. If the budget is tight, get a big drive
and put multiple backups/images on it, with the knowledge that
you've saved a chunk of cash but if it ever comes down to having to
use one of those backups, you'll have to restore it first. The
trade-off is time versus money.

I have so many drives that are smaller than the ones I use at any
given moment. They used to get moved to the second drive for
"whatever". Since I switched over to SSDs I have gone from 128G to
256G and now I'm at Crucial M550 512G so I can use an older one to
clone to. I lost count of all the drives with somewhere over a dozen
SSDs alone. I have 1,2,3 and 4 TB external drives. I keep several
SSDs in USB3 external cases. I can keep one with me as it's smaller
than my wallet which has been getting smaller also.

Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed
longer on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And
they are going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit
concern about an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also
has a TV tuner connected and does a far amount of TV recording
sometimes. Although monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think
I'll hit the limit for at least 10 years. Plus it won't be long
before this one is cloned and replaced with another SSD anyway.
Maybe 256GB next time around.
I can't see myself going larger than the Crucial M550 512GB but I'm
waiting to see if they start using faster chips than the Micron.

You have an advantage because they're much cheaper then when I
started purchasing SSDs. I put one in my ASUS Eee PC and at the time
the SSD cost more than the netbook.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 5:55 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed
longer on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And
they are going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit
concern about an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also
has a TV tuner connected and does a far amount of TV recording
sometimes. Although monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think
I'll hit the limit for at least 10 years. Plus it won't be long
before this one is cloned and replaced with another SSD anyway.
Maybe 256GB next time around.

I can't see myself going larger than the Crucial M550 512GB but I'm
waiting to see if they start using faster chips than the Micron.

My newer machines came stock with SSD and they are fine and I haven't
had a desire to upgrade those yet. The ones that I am upgrading right
now had SATA (type 1) 7200rpm hard drives. Since the SATA port can only
handle 150MB/s tops, I am not interested in anything faster anyway. So
cheap, slow, and reliable will get the job done on these machines.

I wasn't sure what to expect on such systems. Since 95% of the time the
hard drive wasn't doing anything anyway. But boy, it is a huge
difference. Boot times are 5 times faster, games loads five times
faster, and most applications load in a blink of an eye. Nor do I have
to be careful about bumping the machine while moving around with it.
Head crashes are a thing of the past.

You have an advantage because they're much cheaper then when I
started purchasing SSDs. I put one in my ASUS Eee PC and at the time
the SSD cost more than the netbook.

Oh yes, I remember. Although what I liked in the early days of SSD, was
most SSD were the SLC type and MLC type were the ones that were hard to
find. Today it is just the opposite. I would prefer SLC SSDs, but they
are so hard to find nowadays. But MLC SSDs are more reliable as ever and
cheaper than they ever have been. So I guess it isn't so bad anymore.
:-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 5/22/2014 12:14 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 5:06 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Yes same here. I too still have sealed Windows 7 OS that I was going
to use on a bunch of XP laptops (like this one). I did upgrade one
of them and that worked fine. I never upgraded the others yet.
Although I did move away from desktops in 2005 and went all laptops.
Although I do use docks, external monitors, etc. with them too. As
you can store a lot of laptops in a wall cabinet like you wouldn't
believe.
I don't like working with small assemblies unless you're not
referring to actually building laptops. I knew someone that said he
did. I like building the larger beasts. I have a few of these:

http://www.sweetpond.com/index.php?r...uct_id=1620122

They're really nice when it comes to putting everything together
before you add the case.

Wow! What a beautiful tech station I love it! :-D

As for small assemblies... yes I always had a fondness towards them. And
while my first laptop was back in '84, I also needed desktops. Since
desktops had more power and sometimes I needed the extra power. Although
since 2005, laptops had enough power to compete with desktop machines
for my needs anyway. I even replaced my gaming desktops with Alienware
laptops. Although these portable monster space heaters are not known as
laptops (though they look like laptops), but rather known as desktop
replacements.

I also don't mind taking them apart and doing repair work on them. And
the ones I like a lot have docking ports and removable bays. Like
earlier today I popped this machine out of the dock (no wires to
disconnect), slid the DVD drive out of its bay while the machine is
still running. And inserted a second battery that slides right into that
same bay. With two batteries, I have 8 hours of runtime. And I could
always swap charged batteries while it is still running too. And I have
about 9 charged batteries and I could run for days without power if I
wanted too. I really like that freedom. :-D

I just goggled "laptop replacements" and had some interesting reading.
My only need for one would be running SolidWorks 2014/SolidCAM. I never
did get into gaming. For now my ASUS Republic of Games G73Sw will do. I,
of coarse, replaced the original HDD with a Crucial SSD. Unfortunately
it came from BestBuy back when I didn't know of their underhanded
misleading sales.

I know many people I work with are opting for laptops over desktops
for the smaller footprint and portability. I'm lucky enough to have a
sizable loft I converted so I get my solitude and comfort when needed.

It sounds like you hate wires. I rather like cables and wires. I
rearrange then just for something to do. I enjoy cable management in my
desktops. Lights too and fans. It's like a computer carnival around here.

Laptops just wouldn't do it for me.

On 5/22/2014 12:50 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
AlDrake typed:
On 5/21/2014 5:55 PM, BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed
longer on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And
they are going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit
concern about an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also
has a TV tuner connected and does a far amount of TV recording
sometimes. Although monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think
I'll hit the limit for at least 10 years. Plus it won't be long
before this one is cloned and replaced with another SSD anyway.
Maybe 256GB next time around.

I can't see myself going larger than the Crucial M550 512GB but I'm
waiting to see if they start using faster chips than the Micron.

My newer machines came stock with SSD and they are fine and I haven't
had a desire to upgrade those yet. The ones that I am upgrading right
now had SATA (type 1) 7200rpm hard drives. Since the SATA port can only
handle 150MB/s tops, I am not interested in anything faster anyway. So
cheap, slow, and reliable will get the job done on these machines.

I wasn't sure what to expect on such systems. Since 95% of the time the
hard drive wasn't doing anything anyway. But boy, it is a huge
difference. Boot times are 5 times faster, games loads five times
faster, and most applications load in a blink of an eye. Nor do I have
to be careful about bumping the machine while moving around with it.
Head crashes are a thing of the past.

You have an advantage because they're much cheaper then when I
started purchasing SSDs. I put one in my ASUS Eee PC and at the time
the SSD cost more than the netbook.

Oh yes, I remember. Although what I liked in the early days of SSD, was
most SSD were the SLC type and MLC type were the ones that were hard to
find. Today it is just the opposite. I would prefer SLC SSDs, but they
are so hard to find nowadays. But MLC SSDs are more reliable as ever and
cheaper than they ever have been. So I guess it isn't so bad anymore.
:-)

Yes, I like the speed too. I think it's not beneficial to keep an HDD
installed as it's powered and produces heat. The only system I have any
in is my InWin BUC666

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=CA-017-IW

that has side access though a locked door.

My comments are inline below...

On Wed, 21 May 2014 21:24:49 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:49:46 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

Sorry about the double spacing in the previous post, reposted.

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:07:14 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:36:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 03:49:34 -0400, AlDrake
wrote:

So in the long run none of these backup applications are even
worth the money, time and trouble I guess. But that all part of
who I am. I have shelves of toys I never use after unwrapping
them.

When you clone your drive(s), you need an additional drive for
every drive you wish to clone, or simply an additional drive for
every clone you wish to make. For many people, that gets
expensive. When you create a backup, you can typically put
multiple backups on a single drive.

Actually it should be cheaper the first time around. As a backup
drive will hold more than one backup I assume (otherwise you
might as well clone). So it has to be larger than the original
drive and that costs more. Sure the three drives you clone you
might be breaking even vs. a one backup drive.

Images are smaller than the whole drive. They are even smaller
than the used portion of the drive, if as is typical you use
compression.

SNIP since I have no further comments.

True, but even if you take a 120GB drive and backup to an external
and say you get a 60GB saved compressed backup. Which is probably
very typical. Now how do you know you can restore? Are you going to
test it? Or are you going to hope it works? If you test it, are you
going to use the original drive? If so and it fails to boot, now
what? Bad idea eh? So you really need a spare drive to test it,
don't you? So if you need a spare drive to test, you could have
saved lots of time, money and trouble just cloning to the spare
drive anyway.

Obviously you could test dozens of different images on one and the
same spare drive, if all you're doing is making sure they are in
fact restorable.

You only need to devote a drive to a single image if you are in fact
restoring the image to that drive because the original drive is
defunct. But that's the way it would be under any plan, no?

Yes absolutely! Although are you going to test every single backup?
If so, that is twice the work than cloning. If you test less, well
then it is less work for sure. You still have the problem that you
are trusting one backup drive to stay working and not ever
corrupting anything. For me, that is a big if!

Where did I say that there will be only one drive for the backups?
What I said was that imaging allows backups from several drives to
exist on a single drive. If you get three backups on one drive, you'd
only need two drives to duplicate three backups. If you cloned, you'd
need six.

I always duplicate my backups...just not often enough.

All of the examples up to now were assuming one backup drive vs.
cloning. Adding multiple backup drives changes everything. And one of
the only disadvantage of cloning is it could end of costing more. Now
adding more reliability for backup/restore method by adding more cost by
backing up backups... what are you gaining?

I didn't say backing up backups, I said making multiple backups - it
never occurred to me to back up a backup. I back up the *original* drive
multiple times. OK, usually twice, and usually a clone on one drive and
an incremental image on another.

If you are trading cost for
reliability, why use backup/restore? Because that is the only negative
of cloning (sometimes). And that one is a bit iffy, as cloning is
cheaper to start off with. But you have to spend more later. Although
spending later, you pay less for more anyway.

Why do you say cloning is cheaper? Makes no sense to me. It can cost a
whole drive, whereas images only need a partial drive.

And everyone who suggests testing suggests testing every backup
anyway.

Wow, I hated that part. That is twice the work. In my experience,
cloning and backing up takes about the same amount of time. Ok, not
always true, some software is slower than others. But generally they are
very close. Although the heavier the compression for backup, the longer
it takes. But they can take generally the same amount of time if the
compression isn't that heavy. So up to this point, the time is about the
same.

Confession time: I believe that it is important to test backups. I don;t
do it, however :-)

See, we sometimes *do* agree!

Cloning all you have to do is to drop the new cloned drive and you are
done (unless it failed). Using backup/restore you are done if you don't
test. That is ok if you want to risk it. I've been burned enough that I
want to test it. Now the time you spent to backup, you now have to spend
on restoring. Twice the time! Worse it isn't like you can set it up and
go to bed. No you have to have to start restore manually half way
through the process.

You forget that a clone can also fail. Also, I might want to replace the
failed hard drive by a new one and restore it from the clone, or if I do
replace the failed drive by the clone, I will *definitely* want to back
the clone up. Immediately.

Also, a clone needs to be tested too. Even a supposed exact copy could
end up being inexact.

Oh yes, absolutely! I clone and use the clone and save the original (you
were using it and you know that one works). If the clone fails, you
would know right away if it doesn't boot. And you will be using it until
the next clone. So you have time to make sure everything works ok.

There are computers where you can't replace the hard drive unless you
own an axe. That setup breaks most schemes :-(

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In message , BillW50
writes:
[]
Boy we sure do many things the same way. Although I have delayed longer
on my older machines to SSD and I just started recently. And they are
going to all get 120GB SSD I believe for now. I was a bit concern about
an SSD on this machine in particular, since it also has a TV tuner
connected and does a far amount of TV recording sometimes. Although
monitoring the lifetime writes, I don't think I'll hit the limit for at
least 10 years. Plus it won't be long before this one is cloned and
replaced with another SSD anyway. Maybe 256GB next time around.

I take it that the two of you cloners (I agree cloning's better than
backing up if you can afford all the extra drives) always swap the
drives, i. e. remove and store the drive you cloned from and install the
clone, whenever you do it - as a (quick and dirty, see next post) way of
ensuring the clone is successful.

When you do this, and the drive you are putting into storage is an SSD,
do you label it with how much life it has left?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A good pun is its own reword.

In message , BillW50
writes:
In ,
Gene E. Bloch typed:
[]
Also, a clone needs to be tested too. Even a supposed exact copy could
end up being inexact.

Oh yes, absolutely! I clone and use the clone and save the original (you
were using it and you know that one works). If the clone fails, you
would know right away if it doesn't boot. And you will be using it until
the next clone. So you have time to make sure everything works ok.

How do you decide when the testing is complete? Obviously if it doesn't
boot, it has failed, but if it does boot, what further testing (e. g. of
applications) do you do - if any?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'd be a middle-class hero if I had the time, but I've got to go to Waitrose
first. - Tim Vine, RT 2014/2/15-21