Guest Dave Posted August 15, 2008 Posted August 15, 2008 Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go to the mfg's website and download cloning software. Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and have been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and downloaded their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the tutorial/info, I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy' It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C: drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-) What to do ? Dave
Guest Bill in Co. Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Either get a disk cloning or disk imaging program. Examples are Casper, and Acronis True Image. Dave wrote: > Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a > larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go > to > the mfg's website and download cloning software. > > Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and > have > been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and > downloaded > their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the > tutorial/info, > I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the > nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy' > > It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C: > drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-) > > What to do ? > > Dave
Guest MAP Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 RE: Replacing C: Drive - Again Hi, about six weeks ago I replaced my HD with a larger one as well, I used the WD Data Lifeguard Tools to clone it. All I can say is that it works just fine so I would use it if I were you. The only thing that I thought was odd and most likely it was the programs themselfs was that several programs that I brought were no longer registered,meaning that they reverted to the free trial mode and I had to re-enter my registration codes,but like XP the programs most likely scanned my system during the original install and noted the change it might have happened using another cloning program as well. Good Luck -- Mike Pawlak "Dave" wrote: > Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a > larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go to > the mfg's website and download cloning software. > > Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and have > been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and downloaded > their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the tutorial/info, > I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the > nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy' > > It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C: > drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-) > > What to do ? > > Dave > > >
Guest Paul Montgomery Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again On Aug 15, 6:50 pm, "Dave" <djb...@dcwis.com> wrote: > Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a > larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go to > the mfg's website and download cloning software. > > Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and have > been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and downloaded > their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the tutorial/info, > I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the > nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy' > > It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C: > drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-) > > What to do ? Bill in Co. is right... get one or the other that he lists. I use both in their most recent versions, and I would strongly suggest that you get Acronis True Image because it does more than just clone and that will make it very useful after you've installed your new drive. Casper is a cloning tool par excellence, but it won't image your drive and it won't permit you to do selective backup/images of data files and directories.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Paul Montgomery wrote: > On Aug 15, 6:50 pm, "Dave" <djb...@dcwis.com> wrote: >> Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a >> larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go >> to >> the mfg's website and download cloning software. >> >> Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and >> have >> been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and >> downloaded >> their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the >> tutorial/info, >> I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the >> nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy' >> >> It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C: >> drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-) >> >> What to do ? > > Bill in Co. is right... get one or the other that he lists. > > I use both in their most recent versions, and I would strongly suggest > that you get Acronis True Image because it does more than just clone > and that will make it very useful after you've installed your new > drive. > > Casper is a cloning tool par excellence, but it won't image your drive > and it won't permit you to do selective backup/images of data files > and directories. But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store separate and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive? (I've asked about this before, but can't recall). (But I don't think it's a fantastic idea, and still prefer imaging for keeping multiple backups in ONE partition on the backup drive)
Guest Paul Montgomery Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again On Aug 15, 10:03 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Paul Montgomery wrote: > > > Casper is a cloning tool par excellence, but it won't image your drive > > and it won't permit you to do selective backup/images of data files > > and directories. > > But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store separate > and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive? > (I've asked about this before, but can't recall). (But I don't think it's > a fantastic idea, and still prefer imaging for keeping multiple backups in > ONE partition on the backup drive) Casper clones. A clone is a full-disk-to-full-disk exact copy resulting in the clone being bootable and indistinguishable (except for possibly its size) from the original. I use it to maintain a clone of my system drive to be used in case the system drive fails. Casper can clone from within Windows, and once a clone has been made, it can be updated at will from within Windows as well. Updates are "incremental" and take a fraction of the time needed to make a full clone. To do the same with Acronis True Image requires a full clone be made every time, and it also requires rebooting because the cloning must be accomplished outside of the Windows environment. I found that to be a PITA.
Guest Paul Montgomery Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again On Aug 15, 10:03 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> wrote: > But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store separate > and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive? Forgot to add: Casper can clone either a disk or a partition, and it can put the clone on a partition. Note that the receiving partition must be at least as large as the original, because there is no compression during cloning. It is an exact copy of the original. One would do this so that one could use the clone to restore the original. I see no need for such a function on my system.
Guest John John (MVP) Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again That is what you want to use, it will work just fine. Read the manual for more help: http://www.wdc.com/en/library/eide/2779-001005.pdf John Dave wrote: > Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a > larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go to > the mfg's website and download cloning software. > > Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and have > been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and downloaded > their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the tutorial/info, > I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word 'clone', the > nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy' > > It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C: > drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-) > > What to do ? > > Dave > >
Guest Dave Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Thank you all again - One last (hopefully) amateur question. Given that I have several additional HDs (some partitioned) for backup, is there any point/benefit to partitioning my (newer & larger) main HD? Thx Dave "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:uaeKyR6$IHA.2244@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > That is what you want to use, it will work just fine. Read the manual for > more help: > http://www.wdc.com/en/library/eide/2779-001005.pdf > > John > > Dave wrote: > >> Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive with a >> larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which was to go >> to the mfg's website and download cloning software. >> >> Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, and >> have been using it for external storage), I went to the WD website and >> downloaded their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping and reading the >> tutorial/info, I'm not sure this is what I want. It never uses the word >> 'clone', the nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive Data Copy' >> >> It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current C: >> drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-) >> >> What to do ? >> >> Dave
Guest dadiOH Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Dave wrote: > Two weeks ago I posted a question about how to replace my C: drive > with a larger one. I got many good replies (thank you), one of which > was to go to the mfg's website and download cloning software. > > Since I wanted to install a Western Digital (which I already have, > and have been using it for external storage), I went to the WD > website and downloaded their Data Lifeguard Tools. After unzipping > and reading the tutorial/info, I'm not sure this is what I want. It > never uses the word 'clone', the nearest thing is 'Drive-to-Drive > Data Copy' > It would seem I need to do a little more than just 'copy' my current > C: drive onto another HD. Am I missing something - obviously I am :-) > What to do ? Use what you downloaded, it does the job just fine. BTW, the words "clone" and "image" imply a sector by sector copy of a drive - of all sectors, used or not. Programs that clone or image may or may not copy unused sectors but even copying used sectors sector by sector is not needed. One can simply copy all files and folders to a drive as long as that drive has a valid boot sector and the program doing the copying will copy all files/folders. -- dadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Guest Bill in Co. Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Paul Montgomery wrote: > On Aug 15, 10:03 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >> But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store >> separate >> and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive? > > Forgot to add: > > Casper can clone either a disk or a partition, and it can put the > clone on a partition. Note that the receiving partition must be at > least as large as the original, because there is no compression during > cloning. It is an exact copy of the original. One would do this so > that one could use the clone to restore the original. > > I see no need for such a function on my system. OK, thanks, Paul. I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I *am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on the backup drive that I can restore at will. And - if I tried to use Casper to do this (by cloning the source drive partition): 1) there would be no compression, 2) the "Smart Cloning" feature of Casper might be inapplicable here(??), since a new and complete clone would be created each time in its own unique partition, and 3) a separate lettered drive partition would need to be created each time on the backup drive. Not sure about #2 above. And in any case, to use this (for my purposes) I would have to RECLONE back the desired backup clone - which is similar to what I am doing now with ATI (except I'm restoring an image).
Guest Paul Montgomery Posted August 16, 2008 Posted August 16, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again On Aug 16, 3:57 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Paul Montgomery wrote: > > On Aug 15, 10:03 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: > > >> But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store > >> separate > >> and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup drive? > > > Forgot to add: > > > Casper can clone either a disk or a partition, and it can put the > > clone on a partition. Note that the receiving partition must be at > > least as large as the original, because there is no compression during > > cloning. It is an exact copy of the original. One would do this so > > that one could use the clone to restore the original. > > > I see no need for such a function on my system. > > OK, thanks, Paul. I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is > then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I > *am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on the > backup drive that I can restore at will. > > And - if I tried to use Casper to do this (by cloning the source drive > partition): > > 1) there would be no compression, > > 2) the "Smart Cloning" feature of Casper might be inapplicable here(??), > since a new and complete clone would be created each time in its own unique > partition, and Smart Cloning is like an incremental backup. Casper looks at both drives and only updates the clone where needed, resulting in a significant time saving. > 3) a separate lettered drive partition would need to be created each time on > the backup drive. > > Not sure about #2 above. > > And in any case, to use this (for my purposes) I would have to RECLONE back > the desired backup clone - which is similar to what I am doing now with ATI > (except I'm restoring an image). Correct. I think you've finally got the difference between the two down pat. It certainly took you long enough <G> (I'm not new here).
Guest Paul Montgomery Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again On Aug 16, 3:57 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> wrote: > OK, thanks, Paul. I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is > then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I > *am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on the > backup drive that I can restore at will. Just a thought on that: do you make a new image every time you are about to install a new program or to try "going under the hood" to play with your setup? I would make ONE image, and do incremental images periodically, keeping a string of them running. To backup two days, all you would have to do is cut any incrementals more recent than the point you want to backup to, and temporarily put them somewhere else and then restore from the remainder. Doing periodic incrementals would save you having to make multiple full backups, and would save you a lot of time making the images. You could keep written notes telling you why you made each incremental image making the choice of which to restore to easier.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Paul Montgomery wrote: > On Aug 16, 3:57 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> > wrote: >> Paul Montgomery wrote: >>> On Aug 15, 10:03 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> >>> wrote: >> >>>> But isn't it at least theoretically possible to use Casper to store >>>> separate >>>> and selective backups *in separate partitions* on the same backup >>>> drive? >> >>> Forgot to add: >> >>> Casper can clone either a disk or a partition, and it can put the >>> clone on a partition. Note that the receiving partition must be at >>> least as large as the original, because there is no compression during >>> cloning. It is an exact copy of the original. One would do this so >>> that one could use the clone to restore the original. >> >>> I see no need for such a function on my system. >> >> OK, thanks, Paul. I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is >> then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I >> *am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on >> the >> backup drive that I can restore at will. >> >> And - if I tried to use Casper to do this (by cloning the source drive >> partition): >> >> 1) there would be no compression, >> >> 2) the "Smart Cloning" feature of Casper might be inapplicable here(??), >> since a new and complete clone would be created each time in its own >> unique >> partition, and > > Smart Cloning is like an incremental backup. Casper looks at both > drives and only updates the clone where needed, resulting in a > significant time saving. But what about the case I mentioned, where one desires to several new clones (of the source drive partition C:) in different partitions on the same backup drive, so that one could have a collection to choose from, IF one wanted to reclone it back to the source drive (and yes, I know that's not it's main design function)? (instead of using ATI and imaging, I mean, or as an alternative) >> 3) a separate lettered drive partition would need to be created each time >> on >> the backup drive. >> >> Not sure about #2 above. >> >> And in any case, to use this (for my purposes) I would have to RECLONE >> back >> the desired backup clone - which is similar to what I am doing now with >> ATI >> (except I'm restoring an image). > > Correct. I think you've finally got the difference between the two > down pat. Ummm, not quite - per my above comment. :-) (So there is still a bit of confusion there on my part) > It certainly took you long enough <G> (I'm not new here). I'm not quite "there" yet, but gettin close (I hope).
Guest Bill in Co. Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Paul Montgomery wrote: > On Aug 16, 3:57 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >> OK, thanks, Paul. I think for my needs (if I understand this) then ATI is >> then better, since I'm NOT trying to make a bootable backup drive, but I >> *am* trying to keep a few multiple and dated system partition backups on >> the >> backup drive that I can restore at will. > > Just a thought on that: do you make a new image every time you are > about to install a new program or to try "going under the hood" to > play with your setup? Not quite every time, but pretty close, yes. Any time I think it could be potentially problematic (and actually HAS been, on several occasions, especially with the larger and/or "more invasive" programs) > I would make ONE image, and do incremental images periodically, > keeping a string of them running. To backup two days, all you would > have to do is cut any incrementals more recent than the point you want > to backup to, and temporarily put them somewhere else and then restore > from the remainder. I don't like incrementals (they are a bit of a PIA), because you always have to keep track of the increments and use them all, when necessary (for a restore operation). But that is NEVER needed - and it is MUCH simpler, to simply make a brand new FULL image backup. It only takes me now about 10 minutes to make a full system backup of my C: partition (I'm using a second internal SATA drive, which really helps in that regard! - but I also have a USB external enclosure backup drive, which, of course, is noticeably slower for backups and restores) > Doing periodic incrementals would save you having to make multiple > full backups, and would save you a lot of time making the images. It's faster, of course, but has the disadvantage I mentioned above. > You could keep written notes telling you why you made each incremental > image making the choice of which to restore to easier. But see the above. As it is now, I simply have about 4 complete image backups, each identified with a single, but different numbered, file name (and a short comment in each since ATI lets you put a comment in there when you create the image backup (and you can also see it when you open ATI as needbe)
Guest Daave Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:eM%23UcRBAJHA.2244@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > I don't like incrementals (they are a bit of a PIA), because you > always have to keep track of the increments and use them all, when > necessary (for a restore operation). What do you mean "you always have to keep track of the increments and use them all?" When was the last time you restored from the initial full backup *plus* any susequent incremental backups? From the User Guide (mine is Version 9): <quote> p. 30 3. If you are to restore a disk/partition from an incremental backup, Acronis True Image will suggest that you select one of successive incremental archives by date/time of its creation. Thus, you can return the disk/partition to a certain moment, often called "a point of restore." To restore data from an incremental backup, you must have all previous incremental backup files and the initial full backup. If any of successive backups is missing, restoration is impossible. To restore data from a differential backup, you must have the initial full backup as well. </quote> So, if you want to restore your system to a particulat point in time, you merely select the appropriate archive in order to return to the "point of restore." As long as you haven't deleted the initial full backup or any of the subsequent incremental backups, the procedure is as easy as pie. Try it again. :-) Regarding cloning, if the goal does not include creating something that's bootable, I'd say you're just wasting your time. It's like forcing a square peg into a round hole!
Guest Bill in Co. Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Daave wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:eM%23UcRBAJHA.2244@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > >> I don't like incrementals (they are a bit of a PIA), because you >> always have to keep track of the increments and use them all, when >> necessary (for a restore operation). > > What do you mean "you always have to keep track of the increments and > use them all?" Well, I didn't mean it quite so literally that "I" had to keep track, but rather, ATI does. More below. > When was the last time you restored from the initial full > backup *plus* any susequent incremental backups? Never, nor do I want to, for the reasons below. > From the User Guide > (mine is Version 9): > > <quote> > p. 30 > > 3. If you are to restore a disk/partition from an incremental backup, > Acronis True Image will suggest that you select one of successive > incremental archives by date/time of its creation. Thus, you can return > the disk/partition to a certain moment, often called "a point of > restore." > > To restore data from an incremental backup, you must have all previous > incremental backup files and the initial full backup. If any of > successive backups is missing, restoration is impossible. > > To restore data from a differential backup, you must have the initial > full backup as well. > </quote> > > So, if you want to restore your system to a particulat point in time, > you merely select the appropriate archive in order to return to the > "point of restore." As long as you haven't deleted the initial full > backup or any of the subsequent incremental backups, the procedure is as > easy as pie. Try it again. :-) No, I don't want that. I want the simplicity and reliability of having just ONE *composite and full* backup image that *stands on its own*. PLUS: sometimes I use Windows Explorer to copy a file or two out of that backed up image file. > Regarding cloning, if the goal does not include creating something > that's bootable, I'd say you're just wasting your time. It's like > forcing a square peg into a round hole! So it seems!
Guest Daave Posted August 17, 2008 Posted August 17, 2008 Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again Re: Replacing C: Drive - Again "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:O5U6PMKAJHA.3648@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Daave wrote: >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:eM%23UcRBAJHA.2244@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> >>> I don't like incrementals (they are a bit of a PIA), because you >>> always have to keep track of the increments and use them all, when >>> necessary (for a restore operation). >> >> What do you mean "you always have to keep track of the increments and >> use them all?" > > Well, I didn't mean it quite so literally that "I" had to keep track, > but rather, ATI does. More below. > >> When was the last time you restored from the initial full >> backup *plus* any susequent incremental backups? > > Never, nor do I want to, for the reasons below. > >> From the User Guide >> (mine is Version 9): >> >> <quote> >> p. 30 >> >> 3. If you are to restore a disk/partition from an incremental backup, >> Acronis True Image will suggest that you select one of successive >> incremental archives by date/time of its creation. Thus, you can >> return >> the disk/partition to a certain moment, often called "a point of >> restore." >> >> To restore data from an incremental backup, you must have all >> previous >> incremental backup files and the initial full backup. If any of >> successive backups is missing, restoration is impossible. >> >> To restore data from a differential backup, you must have the initial >> full backup as well. >> </quote> >> >> So, if you want to restore your system to a particulat point in time, >> you merely select the appropriate archive in order to return to the >> "point of restore." As long as you haven't deleted the initial full >> backup or any of the subsequent incremental backups, the procedure is >> as >> easy as pie. Try it again. :-) > > No, I don't want that. I want the simplicity and reliability of > having just ONE *composite and full* backup image that *stands on its > own*. Why? The other method is equally simple and reliable. > PLUS: sometimes I use Windows Explorer to copy a file or two out of > that backed up image file. You would still be able to do this. It's your choice, obviously. If you only want to deal exclusively with full backup images, that's your prerogative. It's not necessary and will actually take you a bit longer, but if that's what makes you happy, go for it. After all, the really important point is that you have a regular and reliable backup strategy, so that's good.
Recommended Posts