Guest Frog Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't think I would ever use any of this expanded capability. Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running? I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish my goal? Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk? I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case. I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that any of you might have on this subject. Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. Frog
Guest philo Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. > The computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD > player in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I > previously used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: > > Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my > research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems > to have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I > don't think I would ever use any of this expanded capability. > > Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or > separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? > > Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk > for this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and > running? > > I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not > dependent on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive > stopped working and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That > tells me that I should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard > drive specifically for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how > to best accomplish my goal? > > Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy > disk? I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is > the case. > > I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations > that any of you might have on this subject. > > > > Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. > Frog > > > > http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/company/inpress/2004/02-20-silicon-trueimage.html
Guest David Webb Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Acronis TrueImage v7.0 is fully compatible with Windows XP. If you've purchased the program on a CD, it will already be bootable. You can also create bootable media during or after the installation. For this, you will need a CD-R/RW blank, five formatted diskettes (or two for the safe variant), or any other media your PC can boot from, such as a Zip drive. FWIW, I use Acronis True Image monthly, to backup all of my drives/partitions to a 160 GB drive mounted in an external USB enclosure. Any of these backups can be easily restored, even in the case of a failed system drive, by using the rescue CD. I've used Acronis v7.0 to successfully backup and restore images of Win2K Pro and WinXP Pro systems. I now use v11.0. Hope this helps. "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The > computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player in > it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously used on > my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: > > Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my > research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to > have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't think I > would ever use any of this expanded capability. > > Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or > separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? > > Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for this > purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running? > > I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent on > having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working and I had > to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I should either put > my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically for this purpose. Do > any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish my goal? > > Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk? I > believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case. > > I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that any > of you might have on this subject. > > > > Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. > Frog > > > >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions David Webb wrote: > Acronis TrueImage v7.0 is fully compatible with Windows XP. > > If you've purchased the program on a CD, it will already be bootable. You > can > also create bootable media during or after the installation. For this, you > will need a CD-R/RW blank, five formatted diskettes (or two for the safe > variant), or any other media your PC can boot from, such as a Zip drive. > > FWIW, I use Acronis True Image monthly, to backup all of my > drives/partitions > to a 160 GB drive mounted in an external USB enclosure. Any of these > backups > can be easily restored, even in the case of a failed system drive, by > using > the rescue CD. > > I've used Acronis v7.0 to successfully backup and restore images of Win2K > Pro > and WinXP Pro systems. > > I now use v11.0. Same here (backing up C: to an external IDE drive). And have restored it, on occasion, using the Acronis CD (which is really nice - didn't need to create one). But I've always wondered, in addition to restoring the system partition C:, is it ever necessary to restore the MBR and Track 0 (also presented as options in Acronis)? (I have a Dell, and the system is on the second partition of my HD - Dell uses the first and third for its own stuff) Shouldn't the MBR also be restored from the backup too? (apparently not, as I've gotten away without doing it) > Hope this helps. > > "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message > news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The >> computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player >> in >> it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously >> used >> on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: >> >> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my >> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems >> to >> have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't >> think >> I would ever use any of this expanded capability. >> >> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or >> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? >> >> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for >> this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running? >> >> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not >> dependent on >> having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working and >> I >> had to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I should >> either put my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically for >> this >> purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish my goal? >> >> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk? >> I >> believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case. >> >> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that >> any >> of you might have on this subject. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. >> Frog
Guest Kris Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Do one check: boot up the "recovery CD" and make sure it can see all your hard drives, both for the partitions and the image files you have backed up. I had a situation where on a particular mobo, I needed to use 11 to see my sata drives, whereas a different mobo (I forget which) only needed 8. I use 11 TI for my stuff, but used 8 for a long time. Damn thing works! In ancient history I used ghost and previous to that used PQDI. Acronis TI is better. email them and tell them yyou have 7 and ask them if they'll give you a break on an upgrade. On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:34:45 -0500, David Webb wrote: > Acronis TrueImage v7.0 is fully compatible with Windows XP. > > If you've purchased the program on a CD, it will already be bootable. You can > also create bootable media during or after the installation. For this, you will > need a CD-R/RW blank, five formatted diskettes (or two for the safe variant), or > any other media your PC can boot from, such as a Zip drive. > > FWIW, I use Acronis True Image monthly, to backup all of my drives/partitions > to a 160 GB drive mounted in an external USB enclosure. Any of these backups can > be easily restored, even in the case of a failed system drive, by using the > rescue CD. > > I've used Acronis v7.0 to successfully backup and restore images of Win2K Pro > and WinXP Pro systems. > > I now use v11.0. > > Hope this helps. > > "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message > news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The >> computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player in >> it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously used on >> my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: >> >> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my >> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to >> have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't think I >> would ever use any of this expanded capability. >> >> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or >> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? >> >> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for this >> purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running? >> >> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent on >> having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working and I had >> to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I should either put >> my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically for this purpose. Do >> any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish my goal? >> >> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk? I >> believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case. >> >> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that any >> of you might have on this subject. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. >> Frog >> >> >> >> -- Kris -------- DFI P35-T2RL | E2200Alen 2.2@2.86 TtP0310 | 2x1gb Mushkin HP 800@1040 | MSI NX8600GTS-OC 256mb | Raidmax RX530-SS psu | XP Pro SP 3rc
Guest Lil' Dave Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The > computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player > in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously > used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: > > Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my > research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to > have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't > think I would ever use any of this expanded capability. > > Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or > separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? > > Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for > this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running? > > I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent > on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working > and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I > should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically > for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish > my goal? > > Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk? > I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case. > > I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that > any of you might have on this subject. > > > > Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. > Frog > > > > Probably the question you should be asking Acronis is if version 7 will be able to access whatever you're saving your image file to for restoration. That is from boot media of Acronis 7. Dave
Guest Stan Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Go to ugr.com and check out the entire website run by Gene Barlow. He is fantastic in his advice and help and he will sell you Acronis 11 for $29. I bought Acronis 10 and later Acronis 11 and recommend him highly. He is a rep for many utilities you might be interested in. Good Luck. Stan "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The > computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player > in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously > used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: > > Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my > research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to > have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't > think I would ever use any of this expanded capability. > > Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or > separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? > > Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for > this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running? > > I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent > on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working > and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I > should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically > for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish > my goal? > > Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk? > I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case. > > I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that > any of you might have on this subject. > > > > Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. > Frog > > > >
Guest Frog Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Thanks you one and all for your responses. Here is what I think I have learned about Acronis and XP from your responses: 1. Acronis 7 is compatible with the Windows XP operating system. 2. I did not purchase Acronis 7 on a CD...I downloaded it when it was offered for free. I am not sure whether the version that I have, which I used on my old 98SE system, can be loaded onto a second computer. 3. I understand that my purchase of Acronis 11 would give me a bootable CD...a capability that would be nice to have if restoring my system became necessary. 4. It seems that there are several places one could store Acronis- produced backups, but that an external hard drive system seems to be the best solution for storing backups. 5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before it becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system. 6. That I should email the people at Acronis to see if they will give me a break on upgrading to Version 11. 7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29. Did I miss anything in my highlights? I think I will upgrade my 30GB external hard drive for a 500GB hard drive. I will use this external hard drive for my system backups. QUESTION HERE---Is it best to put my backups on a separate partition or is it okay to have one big partition with many folders, one of which would be for system backups? I also think I should purchase a new version of Acronis for use on my new XP computer. Again, thanks for all of the responses/recommendations/help...it was all very much appreciated. Frog
Guest usasma Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 RE: Acronis 7/XP Questions I've been using Acronis True Image since v7 and it works quite well on all my XP systems. At times I prefer it to v11 because it seems (to me) to be faster (although some of the "tricks" in the later versions make restoring much faster). It's better to store your backups on and external hard drive - but backing up to DVD is also an option (although you'll end up using several DVD's each time). DO NOT save it to your hard drive. If the hard drive dies, so do your images!!! The only exception to this is if the computer will only run v7 in it's Safe Mode when booting from the disk (and then it won't access USB devices). This happened with my Toshiba M45 laptop. I prefer booting from the Acronis boot CD and making the images from there. That way there's nothing interfering with the process. I'm a bit leary of imaging my OS partition while the OS is running (although I have done it) - I worry about file access issues. Finally, the best advice I've heard is to test the image. Don't assume that it's good, even though it's been verified. Test it to be sure - that way you won't be surprised when you need it. - John "Frog" wrote: > I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. > The computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD > player in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I > previously used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: > > Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my > research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems > to have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I > don't think I would ever use any of this expanded capability. > > Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or > separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? > > Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk > for this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and > running? > > I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not > dependent on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive > stopped working and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That > tells me that I should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard > drive specifically for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how > to best accomplish my goal? > > Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy > disk? I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is > the case. > > I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations > that any of you might have on this subject. > > > > Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. > Frog > > > > >
Guest Anna Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions > "Frog" wrote: > >> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. >> The computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD >> player in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I >> previously used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: >> >> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my >> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems >> to have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I >> don't think I would ever use any of this expanded capability. >> >> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or >> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? >> >> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk >> for this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and >> running? >> >> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not >> dependent on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive >> stopped working and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That >> tells me that I should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard >> drive specifically for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how >> to best accomplish my goal? >> >> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy >> disk? I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is >> the case. >> >> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations >> that any of you might have on this subject. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. >> Frog "usasma" <usasma@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:F40CF432-EDC8-460D-8603-190B79FBBBDC@microsoft.com... > I've been using Acronis True Image since v7 and it works quite well on all > my > XP systems. At times I prefer it to v11 because it seems (to me) to be > faster (although some of the "tricks" in the later versions make restoring > much faster). > > It's better to store your backups on and external hard drive - but backing > up to DVD is also an option (although you'll end up using several DVD's > each > time). DO NOT save it to your hard drive. If the hard drive dies, so do > your images!!! The only exception to this is if the computer will only > run > v7 in it's Safe Mode when booting from the disk (and then it won't access > USB > devices). This happened with my Toshiba M45 laptop. > > I prefer booting from the Acronis boot CD and making the images from > there. > That way there's nothing interfering with the process. I'm a bit leary of > imaging my OS partition while the OS is running (although I have done > it) - I > worry about file access issues. > > Finally, the best advice I've heard is to test the image. Don't assume > that > it's good, even though it's been verified. Test it to be sure - that way > you > won't be surprised when you need it. > > - John Frog: First of all, let me say at the outset that by & large the recent versions of Acronis True Image are basically fine programs as many of the responders to your query have indicated. As a computer technician/consultant we've worked with a wide variety of disk cloning/disk imaging programs involving perhaps thousands of PC systems & users. Up until a few years ago our favorite disk-cloning program in an XP environment was Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 version. We found the general simplicity, straightforwardness, and most of all, effectiveness of this program as a disk-cloning utility most appealing as long as the program was being used through its bootable floppy disk containing the Ghost program (and not through the Windows GUI). We found later versions of the Ghost program - specifically versions 9 & 10 unacceptable for a variety of reasons. We began working with the Acronis program, like you, starting with version 7. While the program generally worked as it should we found too many anomalies in both that version and the following version 8 to recommend it wholeheartedly to our users. (I realize our experience with that program (at least with respect to version 7), apparently differs from the experiences of the other responders to your query who were, and are, apparently favorably disposed toward that version. In any event, we did find the following versions 9 & 10 sufficiently improved so that we did recommend the ATI program to users. (We haven't worked with version 11 to any degree but from the little experience we've had with that program I suspect it's not too different from the previous 9 & 10 versions). The disk-cloning program that we now strongly prefer is the Casper 4.0 program (http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/trial/). It's extremely simple to use even for an inexperienced user, reasonably quick in operation, and quite effective. There's virtually no learning curve in undertaking the disk cloning process as one navigates through the few easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button on the screen which will trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two disk-cloning operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get to that point. The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program compared with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first) disk clone. Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the program can create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually at a fraction of the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This results in a decided incentive for the user to undertake frequent complete backups of his or her system knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones in a relatively short period of time. The Casper 4.0 program is also capable of scheduling the disk-cloning process on a daily, weekly, or other time period selected by the user so that you could arrange for automatic backups at pre-determined times. There's a trial version available (see above link) although it's somewhat crippled but it will give you a good idea as to how the program works. And I can provide further details about using the program should you be interested. The downside to the Casper 4 program as compared with the Acronis and most other disk-cloning programs is the cost of the program which comes to $49.95 for the program + $9.95 for the "Casper Startup Disk" (the program to create the bootable CD containing the Casper program). So it's more expensive than the others. But in our view, well worth the additional cost. AFAIK, the program is available only through download from the developer. All of the above is predicated on the basis that you're seeking a reliable program to backup your *entire* day-to-day booting HDD, including the XP OS, all your programs & applications, and your user-created data. And you want a simple-to-use program to do this on a systematic routine basis reasonably quickly & effectively. To that end we've found this Casper 4.0 program really fills the bill. As to your query about using CDs or even DVDs for comprehensive backup purposes - I would really advise against your doing so. And, as "usasma" has indicated, it's never a wise idea to store a "disk image" on the same physical drive you're backing up. (I should point out at this time that the Casper program is designed only for disk-cloning, not disk imaging). You would be so much better to use an external USB or Firewire external HDD as the recipient of the disk clone. You might even want to consider the recipient HDD to be an internal secondary HDD installed in your machine (I assume you're working with a desktop machine). Having an external HDD containing the backup copy of your system obviously gives you a greater sense of security since the device would ordinarily be disconnected from the machine following the disk-cloning operation. Anyway, if you're more comfortable with the Acronis program, so be it. But at least take a look at the Casper program and compare the two from the point-of-view of your objectives. Anna
Guest Kenneth Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote: >The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program compared >with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis >True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create >*incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first) >disk clone. Howdy, The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and differential images as well... All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Anna wrote: >> "Frog" wrote: >> >>> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. >>> The computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD >>> player in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I >>> previously used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: >>> >>> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my >>> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems >>> to have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I >>> don't think I would ever use any of this expanded capability. >>> >>> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or >>> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? >>> >>> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk >>> for this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and >>> running? >>> >>> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not >>> dependent on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive >>> stopped working and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That >>> tells me that I should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard >>> drive specifically for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how >>> to best accomplish my goal? >>> >>> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy >>> disk? I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is >>> the case. >>> >>> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations >>> that any of you might have on this subject. >>> >>> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. >>> Frog > > "usasma" <usasma@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:F40CF432-EDC8-460D-8603-190B79FBBBDC@microsoft.com... >> I've been using Acronis True Image since v7 and it works quite well on >> all >> my XP systems. At times I prefer it to v11 because it seems (to me) to >> be >> faster (although some of the "tricks" in the later versions make >> restoring >> much faster). >> >> It's better to store your backups on and external hard drive - but >> backing >> up to DVD is also an option (although you'll end up using several DVD's >> each time). DO NOT save it to your hard drive. If the hard drive dies, >> so do >> your images!!! The only exception to this is if the computer will only >> run >> v7 in it's Safe Mode when booting from the disk (and then it won't access >> USB devices). This happened with my Toshiba M45 laptop. >> >> I prefer booting from the Acronis boot CD and making the images from >> there. >> That way there's nothing interfering with the process. I'm a bit leary >> of >> imaging my OS partition while the OS is running (although I have done >> it) - I worry about file access issues. >> >> Finally, the best advice I've heard is to test the image. Don't assume >> that >> it's good, even though it's been verified. Test it to be sure - that way >> you >> won't be surprised when you need it. >> >> - John > > Frog: > First of all, let me say at the outset that by & large the recent versions > of Acronis True Image are basically fine programs as many of the > responders > to your query have indicated. > > As a computer technician/consultant we've worked with a wide variety of > disk > cloning/disk imaging programs involving perhaps thousands of PC systems & > users. Up until a few years ago our favorite disk-cloning program in an XP > environment was Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 version. We found the general > simplicity, straightforwardness, and most of all, effectiveness of this > program as a disk-cloning utility most appealing as long as the program > was > being used through its bootable floppy disk containing the Ghost program > (and not through the Windows GUI). We found later versions of the Ghost > program - specifically versions 9 & 10 unacceptable for a variety of > reasons. > > We began working with the Acronis program, like you, starting with version > 7. While the program generally worked as it should we found too many > anomalies in both that version and the following version 8 to recommend it > wholeheartedly to our users. (I realize our experience with that program > (at > least with respect to version 7), apparently differs from the experiences > of > the other responders to your query who were, and are, apparently favorably > disposed toward that version. In any event, we did find the following > versions 9 & 10 sufficiently improved so that we did recommend the ATI > program to users. (We haven't worked with version 11 to any degree but > from > the little experience we've had with that program I suspect it's not too > different from the previous 9 & 10 versions). I think you need to check out version 11, Anna (to make these comparisons). More on that below... > The disk-cloning program that we now strongly prefer is the Casper 4.0 > program (http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/trial/). It's extremely > simple to use even for an inexperienced user, reasonably quick in > operation, > and quite effective. There's virtually no learning curve in undertaking > the > disk cloning process as one navigates through the few easy-to-understand > screens with a final mouse-click on the button on the screen which will > trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two > disk-cloning > operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get to > that point. > > The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program compared > with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis > True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create > *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first) > disk clone. You can make something similar called a Differential Backup with Acronis True Image (at least in version 11). I think it's about the same thing. I just prefer to do a complete backup instead, regardless (feels safer, and is simpler in some respects). > Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the > program can create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually at a > fraction of the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This results > in > a decided incentive for the user to undertake frequent complete backups of > his or her system knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones > in > a relatively short period of time. > > The Casper 4.0 program is also capable of scheduling the disk-cloning > process on a daily, weekly, or other time period selected by the user so > that you could arrange for automatic backups at pre-determined times. > > There's a trial version available (see above link) although it's somewhat > crippled but it will give you a good idea as to how the program works. And > I > can provide further details about using the program should you be > interested. > > The downside to the Casper 4 program as compared with the Acronis and most > other disk-cloning programs is the cost of the program which comes to > $49.95 > for the program + $9.95 for the "Casper Startup Disk" (the program to > create > the bootable CD containing the Casper program). So it's more expensive > than > the others. But in our view, well worth the additional cost. AFAIK, the > program is available only through download from the developer. > > All of the above is predicated on the basis that you're seeking a reliable > program to backup your *entire* day-to-day booting HDD, including the XP > OS, > all your programs & applications, and your user-created data. And you want > a > simple-to-use program to do this on a systematic routine basis reasonably > quickly & effectively. To that end we've found this Casper 4.0 program > really fills the bill. > > As to your query about using CDs or even DVDs for comprehensive backup > purposes - I would really advise against your doing so. And, as "usasma" > has > indicated, it's never a wise idea to store a "disk image" on the same > physical drive you're backing up. (I should point out at this time that > the > Casper program is designed only for disk-cloning, not disk imaging). You > would be so much better to use an external USB or Firewire external HDD as > the recipient of the disk clone. You might even want to consider the > recipient HDD to be an internal secondary HDD installed in your machine (I > assume you're working with a desktop machine). Having an external HDD > containing the backup copy of your system obviously gives you a greater > sense of security since the device would ordinarily be disconnected from > the > machine following the disk-cloning operation. > > Anyway, if you're more comfortable with the Acronis program, so be it. But > at least take a look at the Casper program and compare the two from the > point-of-view of your objectives. > Anna
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Kenneth wrote: > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna" > <myname@myisp.net> wrote: > >> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program compared >> with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis >> True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create >> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first) >> disk clone. > > Howdy, > > The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and > differential images as well... > > All the best, > -- > Kenneth Yeah, as I was saying above, Anna is a bit out of date with her advice on this one.
Guest Lil' Dave Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message news:%23SsWloccIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Thanks you one and all for your responses. > > Here is what I think I have learned about Acronis and XP from your > responses: > > 1. Acronis 7 is compatible with the Windows XP operating system. > > 2. I did not purchase Acronis 7 on a CD...I downloaded it when it was > offered for free. I am not sure whether the version that I have, which > I used on my old 98SE system, can be loaded onto a second computer. > > 3. I understand that my purchase of Acronis 11 would give me a bootable > CD...a capability that would be nice to have if restoring my system > became necessary. > > 4. It seems that there are several places one could store Acronis- > produced backups, but that an external hard drive system seems to be the > best solution for storing backups. > > 5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before it > becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system. > > 6. That I should email the people at Acronis to see if they will give me > a break on upgrading to Version 11. > > 7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29. > > Did I miss anything in my highlights? > Sure did. Make very sure the restoration works properly before going down the road a few months and finding out the restore won't work for some reason. > I think I will upgrade my 30GB external hard drive for a 500GB > hard drive. I will use this external hard drive for my system backups. > > > QUESTION HERE---Is it best to put my backups on a separate partition or > is it okay to have one big partition with many folders, one of which > would be for system backups? > As long as its NTFS partitioned... And, you seem to be doing it backwards regarding hard drive capacity. That is 500GB for the onboard/XP hard drive, and 30GB for the external for imaging AND other data. Dave
Guest David Webb Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Comments inline.... "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message news:%23SsWloccIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Thanks you one and all for your responses. > > Here is what I think I have learned about Acronis and XP from your > responses: > > 1. Acronis 7 is compatible with the Windows XP operating system. > > 2. I did not purchase Acronis 7 on a CD...I downloaded it when it was > offered for free. I am not sure whether the version that I have, which > I used on my old 98SE system, can be loaded onto a second computer. > > 3. I understand that my purchase of Acronis 11 would give me a bootable > CD...a capability that would be nice to have if restoring my system > became necessary. > If you generate the Rescue CD, it's not only bootable but it contains all of the utility's features necessary for backup and restore. It doesn't require the system to have an installed version of Acronis. > 4. It seems that there are several places one could store Acronis- > produced backups, but that an external hard drive system seems to be the > best solution for storing backups. > > 5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before it > becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system. > Acornis has an option to verify the image after creating it. This is the only method I've ever had to use. This verification almost doubles the backup time, but it's well worth it (I only started using it after learning the hard way). This feature can be used at anytime on any full image. > 6. That I should email the people at Acronis to see if they will give me > a break on upgrading to Version 11. > > 7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29. > > Did I miss anything in my highlights? > > I think I will upgrade my 30GB external hard drive for a 500GB > hard drive. I will use this external hard drive for my system backups. > The 30 GB is too small for that purpose. You can get a 250 GB drive for $80 USD or buy one if the USB drives already mounted.. > > QUESTION HERE---Is it best to put my backups on a separate partition or > is it okay to have one big partition with many folders, one of which > would be for system backups? > One big partition will work just fine. > I also think I should purchase a new version of Acronis for use on my > new XP computer. > Version 7.0 is limited in one way...it cannot create backup file sizes for DVD media (it will create CD sizes). I prefer to backup using CD or DVD media sizes in case I want to burn them to disc for permanent archive purposes, such as for a new installation of a basic operating system (containing no user info). > Again, thanks for all of the responses/recommendations/help...it > was all very much appreciated. > You're welcome...and thanks for the feedback!
Guest David Webb Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions I'm not sure about your MBR questions. I've been using a backup/restore utility from PowerQuest. I've never had the need to restore the MBR. You may want to pose your questions to Acornis tech support. "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:eV$zMERcIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > David Webb wrote: >> Acronis TrueImage v7.0 is fully compatible with Windows XP. >> >> If you've purchased the program on a CD, it will already be bootable. You can >> also create bootable media during or after the installation. For this, you >> will need a CD-R/RW blank, five formatted diskettes (or two for the safe >> variant), or any other media your PC can boot from, such as a Zip drive. >> >> FWIW, I use Acronis True Image monthly, to backup all of my drives/partitions >> to a 160 GB drive mounted in an external USB enclosure. Any of these backups >> can be easily restored, even in the case of a failed system drive, by using >> the rescue CD. >> >> I've used Acronis v7.0 to successfully backup and restore images of Win2K >> Pro >> and WinXP Pro systems. >> >> I now use v11.0. > > > Same here (backing up C: to an external IDE drive). And have restored it, on > occasion, using the Acronis CD (which is really nice - didn't need to create > one). > > But I've always wondered, in addition to restoring the system partition C:, is > it ever necessary to restore the MBR and Track 0 (also presented as options in > Acronis)? > > (I have a Dell, and the system is on the second partition of my HD - Dell uses > the first and third for its own stuff) Shouldn't the MBR also be restored > from the backup too? (apparently not, as I've gotten away without doing it) > > > >> Hope this helps. >> >> "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message >> news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The >>> computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player in >>> it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously used >>> on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions: >>> >>> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my >>> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to >>> have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't think >>> I would ever use any of this expanded capability. >>> >>> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or >>> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options? >>> >>> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for >>> this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running? >>> >>> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent >>> on >>> having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working and I >>> had to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I should >>> either put my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically for this >>> purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish my goal? >>> >>> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk? I >>> believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case. >>> >>> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that any >>> of you might have on this subject. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject. >>> Frog > >
Guest Anna Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions > Kenneth wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna" >> <myname@myisp.net> wrote: >> >>> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program >>> compared >>> with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis >>> True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create >>> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first) >>> disk clone. "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ef04SWecIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Howdy, >> >> The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and >> differential images as well... >> >> All the best, >> -- >> Kenneth > > Yeah, as I was saying above, Anna is a bit out of date with her advice on > this one. Bill & Kenneth: Well, not exactly... Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of programs. As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD. This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the user routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning program as a comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their systems on a daily (or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week or some such. This "incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it "SmartClone technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her system at a fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs to perform a complete disk clone each time the program is employed. Let me give you an example... Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the drive that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be used to undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there will be virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as compared with any other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might take somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general proposition. But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program will kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two or three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her current system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her system. Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the period between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time. Using Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning operation will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform the initial disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And the same will be true for future disk-cloning operations involving the source and destination hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive for a user to perform frequent backups of his/her system knowing that each subsequent operation will just take a few short minutes and they will have a comprehensive backup of their system? And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging". Having a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is necessary as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data in a usable form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the other hand, is immediately available and the drive is potentially bootable. After all, it's an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a single (or multiple) files of "disk images" that require a restoration process to "translate" them into usable, accessible data. This, of course, has always been the major advantage of a disk-cloning type of program as compared with a disk-imaging type of program. But the basic downside (at least up to now) of the disk-cloning program is that each time the disk-cloning operation was undertaken basically it took the same amount of time to complete the operation. So unfortunately in too many instances the user was loathe to employ his or her disk-cloning program to maintain current backups of their systems because of the length of time it took to complete the disk-cloning operation. There was no real concept of an "incremental disk clone" until this Casper 4.0 program came along - at least to my knowledge. Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging program as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following circumstances... Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging program would be a more practical means of achieving that objective. Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's an *extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no "learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which will trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two disk-cloning operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get to that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use. So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current advice... Anna
Guest Frank Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message news:%238jYN4kcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > >> Kenneth wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna" >>> <myname@myisp.net> wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:ef04SWecIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk > imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of > programs. > > As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of > programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my > experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD. > This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the > user routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning > program as a comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their > systems on a daily (or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week > or some such. This "incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it > "SmartClone technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her > system at a fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs > to perform a complete disk clone each time the program is employed. > > Let me give you an example... > Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the drive > that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be used to > undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there will be > virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as compared with > any other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might take somewhere in > the neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general proposition. > > But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program will > kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two > or three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her > current system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her > system. Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the > period between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time. > Using Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning > operation will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform > the initial disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And > the same will be true for future disk-cloning operations involving the > source and destination hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive > for a user to perform frequent backups of his/her system knowing that each > subsequent operation will just take a few short minutes and they will have > a comprehensive backup of their system? > > And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging". > Having a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is > necessary as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data > in a usable form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the other > hand, is immediately available and the drive is potentially bootable. > After all, it's an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a single (or > multiple) files of "disk images" that require a restoration process to > "translate" them into usable, accessible data. This, of course, has always > been the major advantage of a disk-cloning type of program as compared > with a disk-imaging type of program. But the basic downside (at least up > to now) of the disk-cloning program is that each time the disk-cloning > operation was undertaken basically it took the same amount of time to > complete the operation. So unfortunately in too many instances the user > was loathe to employ his or her disk-cloning program to maintain current > backups of their systems because of the length of time it took to complete > the disk-cloning operation. There was no real concept of an "incremental > disk clone" until this Casper 4.0 program came along - at least to my > knowledge. > > Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging > program as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following > circumstances... > > Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of > his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging > program would be a more practical means of achieving that objective. > > Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's an > *extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no > "learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few > easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which > will trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two > disk-cloning operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or > so to get to that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use. > > So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current > advice... > Anna Anna, no matter how one looks at the differences in the back up software Casper is a bit too pricey for the average end user. Another fact is that a lot of people do not know the difference between a clone and a back up image. However I think that your knowledge and advice is above reproach.
Guest Uncle Grumpy Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Frank" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote: >Anna, no matter how one looks at the differences in the back up software >Casper is a bit too pricey for the average end user. And too limited
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Anna wrote: >> Kenneth wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna" >>> <myname@myisp.net> wrote: >>> >>>> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program >>>> compared >>>> with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., >>>> Acronis >>>> True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create >>>> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original >>>> (first) >>>> disk clone. > > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:ef04SWecIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Howdy, >>> >>> The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and >>> differential images as well... >>> >>> All the best, >>> -- >>> Kenneth >> >> Yeah, as I was saying above, Anna is a bit out of date with her advice on >> this one. > > > Bill & Kenneth: > Well, not exactly... > > Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk > imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of > programs. > > As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of > programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my > experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD. > This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the > user > routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning program as > a > comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their systems on a daily > (or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week or some such. This > "incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it "SmartClone > technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her system at a > fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs to perform a > complete disk clone each time the program is employed. > > Let me give you an example... > Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the drive > that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be used to > undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there will be > virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as compared with > any > other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might take somewhere in the > neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general proposition. > > But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program will > kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two > or > three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her current > system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her system. > Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the period > between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time. Using > Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning > operation > will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform the > initial > disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And the same will > be > true for future disk-cloning operations involving the source and > destination > hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive for a user to perform > frequent backups of his/her system knowing that each subsequent operation > will just take a few short minutes and they will have a comprehensive > backup > of their system? > > And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging". > Having > a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is > necessary > as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data in a usable > form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the other hand, is > immediately available and the drive is potentially bootable. After all, > it's > an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a single (or multiple) files > of "disk images" that require a restoration process to "translate" them > into > usable, accessible data. This, of course, has always been the major > advantage of a disk-cloning type of program as compared with a > disk-imaging > type of program. But the basic downside (at least up to now) of the > disk-cloning program is that each time the disk-cloning operation was > undertaken basically it took the same amount of time to complete the > operation. So unfortunately in too many instances the user was loathe to > employ his or her disk-cloning program to maintain current backups of > their > systems because of the length of time it took to complete the disk-cloning > operation. There was no real concept of an "incremental disk clone" until > this Casper 4.0 program came along - at least to my knowledge. > > Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging > program > as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following circumstances... > > Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of > his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging > program > would be a more practical means of achieving that objective. > > Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's an > *extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no > "learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few > easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which > will > trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two > disk-cloning > operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get to > that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use. > > So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current > advice... > Anna OK Anna, I see the distinction between cloning and imaging that you're getting at. My apologies on that one. But also do recognize that TI (ver 11) at least, has that incremental imaging option, which might be useful (for some). The other point I might make is I expect (but I don't know this for a fact) that TI is a bit more full featured than Casper - is able to do more things. But for a simple backup, maybe Casper is a simpler way. However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system back with the identical folder and subfolder dates of the original, I'm guessing that a "disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do that - unlike an image backup. (For some of us, that is nice to have (to know when we added programs, for example - as a history)
Guest Anna Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions >>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna" >>>> <myname@myisp.net> wrote: >>>>> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program >>>>> compared with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, >>>>> e.g., Acronis True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to >>>>> create >>>>> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original >>>>> (first) disk clone. >>> Kenneth wrote: >>>> Howdy, >>>> >>>> The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and >>>> differential images as well... >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> -- >>>> Kenneth >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:ef04SWecIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Yeah, as I was saying above, Anna is a bit out of date with her advice >>> on >>> this one. > Anna wrote: >> Bill & Kenneth: >> Well, not exactly... >> >> Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk >> imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of >> programs. >> >> As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of >> programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my >> experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD. >> This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the >> user >> routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning program as >> a >> comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their systems on a daily >> (or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week or some such. This >> "incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it "SmartClone >> technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her system at a >> fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs to perform a >> complete disk clone each time the program is employed. >> >> Let me give you an example... >> Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the >> drive >> that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be used to >> undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there will be >> virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as compared with >> any >> other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might take somewhere in >> the >> neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general proposition. >> >> But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program will >> kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two >> or >> three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her current >> system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her system. >> Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the period >> between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time. Using >> Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning >> operation >> will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform the >> initial >> disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And the same will >> be >> true for future disk-cloning operations involving the source and >> destination >> hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive for a user to perform >> frequent backups of his/her system knowing that each subsequent operation >> will just take a few short minutes and they will have a comprehensive >> backup >> of their system? >> >> And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging". >> Having >> a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is >> necessary >> as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data in a >> usable >> form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the other hand, is >> immediately available and the drive is potentially bootable. After all, >> it's >> an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a single (or multiple) >> files >> of "disk images" that require a restoration process to "translate" them >> into >> usable, accessible data. This, of course, has always been the major >> advantage of a disk-cloning type of program as compared with a >> disk-imaging >> type of program. But the basic downside (at least up to now) of the >> disk-cloning program is that each time the disk-cloning operation was >> undertaken basically it took the same amount of time to complete the >> operation. So unfortunately in too many instances the user was loathe to >> employ his or her disk-cloning program to maintain current backups of >> their >> systems because of the length of time it took to complete the >> disk-cloning >> operation. There was no real concept of an "incremental disk clone" until >> this Casper 4.0 program came along - at least to my knowledge. >> >> Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging >> program >> as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following >> circumstances... >> >> Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of >> his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging >> program >> would be a more practical means of achieving that objective. >> >> Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's >> an >> *extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no >> "learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few >> easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which >> will >> trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two >> disk-cloning >> operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get >> to >> that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use. >> >> So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current >> advice... >> Anna "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:OxvwUVmcIHA.6024@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > OK Anna, I see the distinction between cloning and imaging that you're > getting at. My apologies on that one. > > But also do recognize that TI (ver 11) at least, has that incremental > imaging option, which might be useful (for some). > > The other point I might make is I expect (but I don't know this for a > fact) that TI is a bit more full featured than Casper - is able to do more > things. But for a simple backup, maybe Casper is a simpler way. > > However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system back with the > identical folder and subfolder dates of the original, I'm guessing that a > "disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do that - unlike an image > backup. (For some of us, that is nice to have (to know when we added > programs, for example - as a history) Bill: Yes, you are correct in that as I stated in my last post, should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" backup copies of his/her system, then a disk-imaging type of program such as ATI would be more appropriate than a disk-cloning type of program such as the Casper 4.0 program that we've recommended. Other than that I believe that a disk-cloning type of program holds more advantages for the largest number of PC users than does a disk-imaging type of program, for the reasons I've previously stated. And again, for the reasons I've previously stated, I believe the Casper 4.0 program is superior to the others, including the ATI program. As to one program being more "full featured" than another, frankly what I've learned over the years of working with & for thousands of PC users and a multitude of PC systems is that the overwhelming critical need for virtually every user of a PC is to maintain a comprehensive backup of his or her system, including the OS, all programs & applications and, of course, user-created data. And to do so on a systematic, routine basis so that his/her backed-up system is relatively current at any point in time. This, as you know, can be achieved through a disk-cloning (as well as a disk-imaging) program, and if that objective can be achieved through the use of a reliable, easy-to-use, and relatively quick program such as the Casper 4.0 program that I've described, then so much the better in my opinion. Anna
Guest Anna Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions > "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message > news:%238jYN4kcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk >> imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of >> programs. >> >> As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of >> programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my >> experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD. >> This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the >> user routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning >> program as a comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their >> systems on a daily (or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week >> or some such. This "incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it >> "SmartClone technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her >> system at a fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs >> to perform a complete disk clone each time the program is employed. >> >> Let me give you an example... >> Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the >> drive that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be >> used to undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there >> will be virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as >> compared with any other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might >> take somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general >> proposition. >> >> But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program will >> kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two >> or three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her >> current system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her >> system. Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the >> period between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time. >> Using Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning >> operation will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform >> the initial disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And >> the same will be true for future disk-cloning operations involving the >> source and destination hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive >> for a user to perform frequent backups of his/her system knowing that >> each subsequent operation will just take a few short minutes and they >> will have a comprehensive backup of their system? >> >> And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging". >> Having a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is >> necessary as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data >> in a usable form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the >> other hand, is immediately available and the drive is potentially >> bootable. After all, it's an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a >> single (or multiple) files of "disk images" that require a restoration >> process to "translate" them into usable, accessible data. This, of >> course, has always been the major advantage of a disk-cloning type of >> program as compared with a disk-imaging type of program. But the basic >> downside (at least up to now) of the disk-cloning program is that each >> time the disk-cloning operation was undertaken basically it took the same >> amount of time to complete the operation. So unfortunately in too many >> instances the user was loathe to employ his or her disk-cloning program >> to maintain current backups of their systems because of the length of >> time it took to complete the disk-cloning operation. There was no real >> concept of an "incremental disk clone" until this Casper 4.0 program came >> along - at least to my knowledge. >> >> Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging >> program as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following >> circumstances... >> >> Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of >> his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging >> program would be a more practical means of achieving that objective. >> >> Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's >> an *extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no >> "learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few >> easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which >> will trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two >> disk-cloning operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds >> or so to get to that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use. >> >> So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current >> advice... >> Anna "Frank" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message news:OB$7YWlcIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Anna, no matter how one looks at the differences in the back up software > Casper is > a bit too pricey for the average end user. Another fact is that a lot of > people do not > know the difference between a clone and a back up image. However I think > that > your knowledge and advice is above reproach. Frank: While it is true, as you indicate, that the Casper 4.0 program is more expensive than virtually every other disk-cloning disk-imaging program that I'm familiar with, for the reasons I've previously given I believe the extra cost is well worth the additional expense. Admittedly, this is obviously a personal decision that has to be made by the individual user. All I can say is that we've found that *every user* we're familiar with, after using the Casper 4.0 program over a period of weeks & months has *never* expressed regret, for even one moment, the add'l expense entailed by purchasing the Casper program. On the contrary - most of the comments we've heard were of the nature - "Why didn't I know about or use this program before?". But again, I fully admit that many potential users will find the program too expensive to purchase. More's the pity. And yes, you are correct that a "lot" (actually a vast, if not overwhelming majority in our experience) of users do not know the difference between a disk-clone and a disk-image. Again, more's the pity. But I hope forums like this one will help to educate many users so that they can make an informed choice based on their specific needs. And thank you for your gracious comment about my advice being "above reproach". But, in truth, my advice is *not* above reproach in terms of being criticized or argued against. I fully understand that others may have different points of view and may be equally valid given their specific needs & objectives. So this is just my particular point of view as it refers to this particular issue. Anna
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Anna wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna" >>>>> <myname@myisp.net> wrote: >>>>>> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program >>>>>> compared with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, >>>>>> e.g., Acronis True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability >>>>>> to >>>>>> create >>>>>> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original >>>>>> (first) disk clone. > > >>>> Kenneth wrote: >>>>> Howdy, >>>>> >>>>> The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and >>>>> differential images as well... >>>>> >>>>> All the best, >>>>> -- >>>>> Kenneth > > >>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:ef04SWecIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> Yeah, as I was saying above, Anna is a bit out of date with her advice >>>> on >>>> this one. > > >> Anna wrote: >>> Bill & Kenneth: >>> Well, not exactly... >>> >>> Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk >>> imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of >>> programs. >>> >>> As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of >>> programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my >>> experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD. >>> This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the >>> user >>> routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning program >>> as >>> a >>> comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their systems on a >>> daily >>> (or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week or some such. This >>> "incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it "SmartClone >>> technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her system at >>> a >>> fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs to perform >>> a >>> complete disk clone each time the program is employed. >>> >>> Let me give you an example... >>> Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the >>> drive >>> that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be used >>> to >>> undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there will be >>> virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as compared with >>> any >>> other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might take somewhere in >>> the >>> neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general proposition. >>> >>> But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program >>> will >>> kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two >>> or >>> three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her >>> current >>> system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her system. >>> Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the period >>> between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time. Using >>> Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning >>> operation >>> will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform the >>> initial >>> disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And the same >>> will >>> be >>> true for future disk-cloning operations involving the source and >>> destination >>> hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive for a user to perform >>> frequent backups of his/her system knowing that each subsequent >>> operation >>> will just take a few short minutes and they will have a comprehensive >>> backup >>> of their system? >>> >>> And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging". >>> Having >>> a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is >>> necessary >>> as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data in a >>> usable >>> form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the other hand, is >>> immediately available and the drive is potentially bootable. After all, >>> it's >>> an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a single (or multiple) >>> files >>> of "disk images" that require a restoration process to "translate" them >>> into >>> usable, accessible data. This, of course, has always been the major >>> advantage of a disk-cloning type of program as compared with a >>> disk-imaging >>> type of program. But the basic downside (at least up to now) of the >>> disk-cloning program is that each time the disk-cloning operation was >>> undertaken basically it took the same amount of time to complete the >>> operation. So unfortunately in too many instances the user was loathe to >>> employ his or her disk-cloning program to maintain current backups of >>> their >>> systems because of the length of time it took to complete the >>> disk-cloning >>> operation. There was no real concept of an "incremental disk clone" >>> until >>> this Casper 4.0 program came along - at least to my knowledge. >>> >>> Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging >>> program >>> as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following >>> circumstances... >>> >>> Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of >>> his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging >>> program >>> would be a more practical means of achieving that objective. >>> >>> Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's >>> an >>> *extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no >>> "learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few >>> easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which >>> will >>> trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two >>> disk-cloning >>> operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get >>> to >>> that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use. >>> >>> So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current >>> advice... >>> Anna > > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:OxvwUVmcIHA.6024@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> OK Anna, I see the distinction between cloning and imaging that you're >> getting at. My apologies on that one. >> >> But also do recognize that TI (ver 11) at least, has that incremental >> imaging option, which might be useful (for some). >> >> The other point I might make is I expect (but I don't know this for a >> fact) that TI is a bit more full featured than Casper - is able to do >> more >> things. But for a simple backup, maybe Casper is a simpler way. >> >> However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system back with >> the >> identical folder and subfolder dates of the original, I'm guessing that a >> "disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do that - unlike an image >> backup. (For some of us, that is nice to have (to know when we added >> programs, for example - as a history) > > > Bill: > Yes, you are correct in that as I stated in my last post, should the user > be > interested in maintaining "generational" backup copies of his/her system, > then a disk-imaging type of program such as ATI would be more appropriate > than a disk-cloning type of program such as the Casper 4.0 program that > we've recommended. Other than that I believe that a disk-cloning type of > program holds more advantages for the largest number of PC users than does > a > disk-imaging type of program, for the reasons I've previously stated. And > again, for the reasons I've previously stated, I believe the Casper 4.0 > program is superior to the others, including the ATI program. > > As to one program being more "full featured" than another, frankly what > I've > learned over the years of working with & for thousands of PC users and a > multitude of PC systems is that the overwhelming critical need for > virtually > every user of a PC is to maintain a comprehensive backup of his or her > system, including the OS, all programs & applications and, of course, > user-created data. And to do so on a systematic, routine basis so that > his/her backed-up system is relatively current at any point in time. This, > as you know, can be achieved through a disk-cloning (as well as a > disk-imaging) program, and if that objective can be achieved through the > use > of a reliable, easy-to-use, and relatively quick program such as the > Casper > 4.0 program that I've described, then so much the better in my opinion. > Anna True enough. My "needs" seemingly tend to be a bit more ... "eclectic". :-)
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions > "Bill in Co." wrote: >>[....] However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system >> back with the identical folder and subfolder dates of the original, >> I'm guessing that a "disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do >> that - unlike an image backup. (For some of us, that is nice to have >> (to know when we added programs, for example - as a history) Since the clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original partition, why wouldn't its files have the same date stamps as well? The files are not copied as files - they are copied as bytes with no consideration given to what they represent. *TimDaniels*
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Timothy Daniels wrote: >> "Bill in Co." wrote: >>> [....] However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system >>> back with the identical folder and subfolder dates of the original, >>> I'm guessing that a "disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do >>> that - unlike an image backup. (For some of us, that is nice to have >>> (to know when we added programs, for example - as a history) > > Since the clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original > partition, why wouldn't its files have the same date stamps as well? > The files are not copied as files - they are copied as bytes with > no consideration given to what they represent. > > *TimDaniels* I'm not talking about the files. I'm talking about the directories - the date stamps of all the directories and subdirectories. (Big difference there).
Recommended Posts