Guest Anna Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 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) >> > Timothy Daniels wrote: >> 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* "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:eEpFnPocIHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > 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). Bill: Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment... The recipient, e.g., another HDD, of a disk-cloning program (AFAIK, *any* disk-cloning program), will reflect the "date created" of any directory ("folder") and/or sub-directory ("sub-folder") that is cloned to the recipient ("destination") drive. Are you under the impression that these dates on the destination drive would reflect the date the disk cloning operation was undertaken? As Tim has, in effect, pointed out - a clone is a clone is a clone. BTW, returning to our prior discussion re the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning program... I thought you might be interested in knowing that a few moments ago I had occasion to clone the contents of one of our machines that held about 35 GB of total data. We previously had cloned the contents of that machine back on 1/30. Using the same source HDD that was previously used in the disk-cloning operation on 1/30, we used the Casper 4.0 program to perform another disk-cloning operation. Obviously considerable data changes had been taken re the source drive during this 20-day period. We completed the disk-cloning operation in just about 6 minutes. That gives you some idea of the speed of the Casper program re its "incremental" disk-cloning capability. Just thought you would like to know. Anna
Guest Colin Barnhorst Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions ....and all the world loves a clone. :) Actually, clones are no big deal. Seen one, seen 'em all. "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message news:OMHIBuocIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > >>>> "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) >>> > >> Timothy Daniels wrote: >>> 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* > > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:eEpFnPocIHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> 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). > > > Bill: > Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment... > > The recipient, e.g., another HDD, of a disk-cloning program (AFAIK, *any* > disk-cloning program), will reflect the "date created" of any directory > ("folder") and/or sub-directory ("sub-folder") that is cloned to the > recipient ("destination") drive. Are you under the impression that these > dates on the destination drive would reflect the date the disk cloning > operation was undertaken? As Tim has, in effect, pointed out - a clone is > a clone is a clone. > > BTW, returning to our prior discussion re the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning > program... > > I thought you might be interested in knowing that a few moments ago I had > occasion to clone the contents of one of our machines that held about 35 > GB of total data. We previously had cloned the contents of that machine > back on 1/30. Using the same source HDD that was previously used in the > disk-cloning operation on 1/30, we used the Casper 4.0 program to perform > another disk-cloning operation. Obviously considerable data changes had > been taken re the source drive during this 20-day period. > > We completed the disk-cloning operation in just about 6 minutes. That > gives you some idea of the speed of the Casper program re its > "incremental" disk-cloning capability. Just thought you would like to > know. > Anna > >
Guest Kenneth Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:38 -0500, "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote: >>SNIP<< > >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. > >>SNIP<< Hi Anna, I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming majority" who understands nothing about the difference between "cloning" and "imaging." Can you describe that to me? Sincere thanks, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Guest Uncle Grumpy Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote: [snip of a lot of quoted "Anna" material and more] >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 I have found that "less is more" is a good guideline. While your advice certainly appears to come from some long and good experience, I think you could state your point much better if you tried to keep your replies much briefer.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Anna 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) >>> Timothy Daniels wrote: >>> 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* > > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:eEpFnPocIHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> 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). > > > Bill: > Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment... > > The recipient, e.g., another HDD, of a disk-cloning program (AFAIK, *any* > disk-cloning program), will reflect the "date created" of any directory > ("folder") and/or sub-directory ("sub-folder") that is cloned to the > recipient ("destination") drive. Yes - of any "disk cloning" program, but NOT so for an imaging or "partition copy" program. More on that below... > Are you under the impression that these > dates on the destination drive would reflect the date the disk cloning > operation was undertaken? As Tim has, in effect, pointed out - a clone is > a > clone is a clone. But not an exact clone. An exact clone - a true clone - would also retain the original source date and time stamps of all the directories and subdirectories of the source drive. And, unless I'm mistaken, that can ONLY be achieved through either 1) an imaging program or 2) a "partition copying" program (like BING, or Norton Partition Copy), and NOT by a file copying clone program. > BTW, returning to our prior discussion re the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning > program... > > I thought you might be interested in knowing that a few moments ago I had > occasion to clone the contents of one of our machines that held about 35 > GB > of total data. We previously had cloned the contents of that machine back > on > 1/30. Using the same source HDD that was previously used in the > disk-cloning > operation on 1/30, we used the Casper 4.0 program to perform another > disk-cloning operation. Obviously considerable data changes had been taken > re the source drive during this 20-day period. > > We completed the disk-cloning operation in just about 6 minutes. That > gives > you some idea of the speed of the Casper program re its "incremental" > disk-cloning capability. Just thought you would like to know. > Anna Well yes, I'm certain it's a lot faster doing this!! But as I said, you give up the date and time stamps of the originally created directories (since they reflect the newly created ones), which, granted, is not a big deal for most people. But it IS important to me, because I make occasional use of that history, on some occasions.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Kenneth wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:38 -0500, "Anna" > <myname@myisp.net> wrote: > >>> SNIP<< >> >> 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. >> >>> SNIP<< > > Hi Anna, > > I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming > majority" who understands nothing about the difference > between "cloning" and "imaging." > > Can you describe that to me? > > Sincere thanks, > -- > Kenneth In a nutshell, how about this synopsis: Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source partition(s). Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original source partition(s).
Guest Uncle Grumpy Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Kenneth <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote: >Hi Anna, > >I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming >majority" who understands nothing about the difference >between "cloning" and "imaging." > >Can you describe that to me? Let me try... I'm sure my reply will be shorter and easier for you to understand. CLONING: making an exact copy of your hard drive on another hard drive with no changes. The cloned hard drive will be identical to the original and will be usable by your computer without alteration... which means that you will be able to install that drive as the system drive in your computer and will be able to boot up without incident, if you make the necessary hardware/BIOS changes. In today's computers, it is possible to setup your BIOS to automatically boot from the cloned drive in the case where the main system drive has failed. IMAGING: it's like a compressed photo of one hard drive that is saved on another hard drive - or even on another partition. If something goes caput on the main hard drive/partition - i.e., it crashed and everything got scrambled, or you screwed up and trashed it on your own - things can be restored - USING THE IMAGING SOFTWARE that was used to create the image.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Uncle Grumpy wrote: > "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote: > > [snip of a lot of quoted "Anna" material and more] > >> 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 > > I have found that "less is more" is a good guideline. > > While your advice certainly appears to come from some long and good > experience, I think you could state your point much better if you > tried to keep your replies much briefer. I disagree. By often using such length in her replies, she covers everything quite completely and thoroughly - unlike most. Besides which, it also exemplifies an old school value of patience, which is (a bit) in short supply these days. And not fast sound bytes ... for the newage Nintendo generation.
Guest Uncle Grumpy Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >In a nutshell, how about this synopsis: > >Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source >partition(s). > >Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original >source partition(s). Personally, I think your synopsis sucks.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Uncle Grumpy wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> In a nutshell, how about this synopsis: >> >> Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source >> partition(s). >> >> Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original >> source partition(s). > > Personally, I think your synopsis sucks. LOL, perhaps because you didn't understand it. (Just like when you tried to inform me of System Restore, and were off a bit there).
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Uncle Grumpy wrote: > Kenneth <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote: > >> Hi Anna, >> >> I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming >> majority" who understands nothing about the difference >> between "cloning" and "imaging." >> >> Can you describe that to me? > > Let me try... I'm sure my reply will be shorter and easier for you to > understand. > > CLONING: making an exact copy of your hard drive on another hard drive > with no changes. No, it will NOT make an *exact copy*, as I just explained! The destination directories will all be date/time stamped with the date of the cloning. Can't you even understand that? Otherwise you're almost correct - but it is NOT an exact partition copy. Do you understand the difference? > The cloned hard drive will be identical to the > original and will be usable by your computer without alteration... > which means that you will be able to install that drive as the system > drive in your computer and will be able to boot up without incident, > if you make the necessary hardware/BIOS changes. > > In today's computers, it is possible to setup your BIOS to > automatically boot from the cloned drive in the case where the main > system drive has failed. > > IMAGING: it's like a compressed photo of one hard drive that is saved > on another hard drive - or even on another partition. If something > goes caput on the main hard drive/partition - i.e., it crashed and > everything got scrambled, or you screwed up and trashed it on your own > - things can be restored - USING THE IMAGING SOFTWARE that was used to > create the image.
Guest Uncle Grumpy Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source >>> partition(s). >>> >>> Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original >>> source partition(s). >> >> Personally, I think your synopsis sucks. > >LOL, perhaps because you didn't understand it. (Just like when you tried >to inform me of System Restore, and were off a bit there). I understood it doofus. Recall that YOU were the one who didn't even know if System Restore restored programs or not... eh?? Your explanation of imaging/cloning only dealt with partitions. You forgot to include disks... a serious omission.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Uncle Grumpy wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>>> Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original >>>> source >>>> partition(s). >>>> >>>> Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original >>>> source partition(s). >>> >>> Personally, I think your synopsis sucks. >> >> LOL, perhaps because you didn't understand it. (Just like when you >> tried >> to inform me of System Restore, and were off a bit there). > > I understood it doofus. Recall that YOU were the one who didn't even > know if System Restore restored programs or not... eh?? I never said it restored programs, but it can restore *some* files associated with some of the programs, as has already been pointed out, and not just by me. (It was probably too lengthy for you to read, however). > Your explanation of imaging/cloning only dealt with partitions. > > You forgot to include disks... a serious omission.
Guest Uncle Grumpy Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >> CLONING: making an exact copy of your hard drive on another hard drive >> with no changes. > >No, it will NOT make an *exact copy*, as I just explained! The >destination directories will all be date/time stamped with the date of the >cloning. Can't you even understand that? I clone my system disk weekly to a second internal hard drive (and I create a backup image of it nightly to a third internal drive and also to an external drive). JUST in case you were right, I just checked the "date created" and "date modified" attributes of the directories in the ROOT directory of the cloned drive that I cloned yesterday. GUESS WHAT? They are exactly the same as on my system drive. Need I check all the other directories on those two drives to convince you that you're pissing into the wind?
Guest Uncle Grumpy Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >> I understood it doofus. Recall that YOU were the one who didn't even >> know if System Restore restored programs or not... eh?? > >I never said it restored programs, Agreed... but you ASKED if it DID restore programs, which is a sure indication that you had no clue.
Guest PD Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions On Feb 18, 5:13 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > 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). Nope. None. The only "difference" is that you are clueless on this matter. Keep this up. I'm having a lot of fun at your expense.
Guest Patrick Keenan Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 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. It's quite old, and the current version isn't expensive. > > 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. No. TrueImage is licensed, as is much software, for installation on one system. > > 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. This has been the case for several versions at least, for all the time I've used Acronis. You create a recovery disk, and it's likely to be a DVD. > 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. It is never a good idea to have only one copy of the backup. > > 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. Even if they don't, $50 isn't a huge cost. It certainly isn't anything like an MS Office upgrade... > > 7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29. Brand new, TrueImage isn't far from $50. > > 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. You want more than one backup destination. > > > 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? We often specified a different disk for each day's backup, so there would be five backup disks, and once every couple of weeks, another copy would be made that went offsite - just about *anywhere* offsite, but ideally to a secure location. DVDs are cheap. > > I also think I should purchase a new version of Acronis for use on my > new XP computer. You would need a second license for another system. HTH -pk > > Again, thanks for all of the responses/recommendations/help...it > was all very much appreciated. > > Frog > >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Uncle Grumpy wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> I understood it doofus. Recall that YOU were the one who didn't even >>> know if System Restore restored programs or not... eh?? >> >> I never said it restored programs, > > Agreed... but you ASKED if it DID restore programs, which is a sure Show me where I asked if it "restored programs". Try again, Bubba. (Maybe take Reading 101?)
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Uncle Grumpy wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> CLONING: making an exact copy of your hard drive on another hard drive >>> with no changes. >> >> No, it will NOT make an *exact copy*, as I just explained! The >> destination directories will all be date/time stamped with the date of >> the >> cloning. Can't you even understand that? > > I clone my system disk weekly to a second internal hard drive (and I > create a backup image of it nightly to a third internal drive and also > to an external drive). > > JUST in case you were right, I just checked the "date created" and > "date modified" attributes of the directories in the ROOT directory of > the cloned drive that I cloned yesterday. > > GUESS WHAT? They are exactly the same as on my system drive. No they aren't, if you simply "cloned" (note: CLONED) the drive (as Anna also pointed out, if you even "bothered" to read her post too). (but I think you said it was "too long" for you to read) If you *partition-copied* the partition(s), they will be. If you *imaged* it, they will be. Otherwise, they will not be - they will be of the time of creation of the cloning operation. Note: I'm talking about the *directory and subdirectory date and time stamps*, NOT the files. Directories and subdirectories, NOT files. I assume you know what I am talking about here (although at this point, I'm not so sure I can assume that).
Guest Uncle Grumpy Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >Show me where I asked if it "restored programs". Try again, Bubba. >(Maybe take Reading 101?) OK... you didn't "ask", but your post showed that you didn't know if it did or not: From the thread about backing up the registry... "Like as to when it would be preferable to use ERUNT over System Restore, or vice versa? One thing I'm pretty sure of is that ERUNT is more basic and fundamental, and does not save/restore user programs or applications, per se. Whereas System Restore might [snip] snipped part: "(and sometimes will even delete some stuff (like recently downloaded program exe files, for example) you had saved previously - thinking it's doing you a favor - but sometimes it's a disservice)." Which was wrong.
Guest Anna Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:38 -0500, "Anna" > <myname@myisp.net> wrote: > >>>SNIP<< >> >>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. >> >>>SNIP<< "Kenneth" <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message news:cc8kr3poenl3vp7gmdotqulvmb07ts6o6t@4ax.com... > Hi Anna, > > I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming > majority" who understands nothing about the difference > between "cloning" and "imaging." > > Can you describe that to me? > > Sincere thanks, > -- > Kenneth > > If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." Kenneth: Many comprehensive backup-type programs such as Acronis True Image have both disk-cloning & disk-imaging capabilities. For all practical purposes a disk clone is a copy of the "source" HDD, let's say your day-to-day working HDD. As such, the recipient of the clone, the "destination" HDD is a duplicate of the source drive. All the files & folders on the source HDD will be copied over to the destination drive. This, of course, includes the operating system, the registry, all programs & applications, all user-created data - in short *everything* that's on the source disk will be copied over to the destination disk. If you would examine the contents of the source & destination HDDs on a side-by-side basis following the disk-cloning operation you would find that they mirror each other. All the files & folders from the source disk can be accessed from the destination disk. Another advantage is that the destination drive, since it's a copy of the source drive, will be potentially bootable if it is installed as an internal HDD in one's system. I say "potentially bootable" because in many cases the user employs a USB or Firewire external HDD as the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the clone. Ordinarily a USB or Firewire device is not bootable under those circumstances so the HDD contained in the USB or Firewire enclosure would need to be removed from the external device and installed as an internal HDD in the PC in order for it to be a bootable device. Note, however, that the cloned contents on the USB/Firewire EHD can similarly be "re:cloned" to an internal HDD and that HDD will be immediately bootable & functional. On the other hand, if the user employs an *internal* HDD as the recipient of the clone, i.e., the destination drive, that drive will be bootable. However, many users prefer to use an external device such as a USBEHD as the destination drive for the added safety involved - the external device can be easily disconnected following the disk-cloning operation. Also the portability aspect of an external device is another advantage. The "disk image", on the other hand, is really nothing more than a snapshot in time of the system compressed in a single file. Subsequent backups of the system are created through the use of "incremental" or "differential" files. Take a look at the following Acronis site for detailed info concerning these incremental/differential files... http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/resource/solutions/backup/2005/incremental-backups.html The advantages of the disk-imaging process (as compared with the disk-cloning process) is, in my opinion, two-fold - one real, the other problematical... 1. Should the user desire, for one reason or another, to create "generational" copies of his or her system it is simply more practical to create disk-images of the system at this or that particular point in time, since a number of different disk-images can be stored on a single large-capacity HDD. Obviously to do the same using a disk-cloning program would necessitate having a number of HDDs available for each different disk clone, although given today's enormous capacity drives it's getting easier to create large partitions on the disk each of which can contain a different clone. 2. The second (at least presumed) advantage of the disk image process is that since the file created (Acronis calls it an "archive") is compressed, there's a savings of disk space (at least theoretically) on the disk that will contain such file (archive). But in actual practice, at least with respect to our experience with the Acronis program, there's only a 20% to 25% reduction of disk space. And when you factor in the total disk space needed to accommodate the original disk-image file plus the additional incremental disk-image files, that "advantage" pretty much disappears. And given today's large-capacity disks that are available to many, if not most users we just don't think this savings of disk space is an important advantage in this situation. The major drawbacks (and they are considerable in our opinion) of the disk-imaging process as compared with the disk-cloning process are... 1. While the data on the disk-clone is immediately accessible (as explained above), the same is not true for a disk image. It is necessary to invoke a restoration process of the disk image before the data can be made accessible. 2. The HDD containing the disk-image is not a bootable product. Again, a restoration process must be undertaken before this can occur. We believe that for most PC users the disk-cloning process rather than the disk-imaging process is a more practical approach in order to comprehensively backup one's system (with the caveat expressed above concerning a need for generational copies of one's system). It's simply a decided advantage to have one's total data immediately available on a drive that one can access. And the more-or-less "bootability" aspect of the disk clone (as described above) is another important advantage for most of us. As you probably know from reading my previous posts on the subject we are great fans of the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning program - it does not have disk-imaging capability. Should you, or anyone perusing this thread, desire add'l info re using that program, I'll be glad to provide such. Anna
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Uncle Grumpy wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Show me where I asked if it "restored programs". Try again, Bubba. >> (Maybe take Reading 101) > > OK... you didn't "ask", but your post showed that you didn't know if > it did or not: Nope, you're *still* missing my point. More below... > From the thread about backing up the registry... > > "Like as to when it would be preferable to use ERUNT over System > Restore, or vice versa? > > One thing I'm pretty sure of is that ERUNT is more basic and > fundamental, and does not save/restore user programs or > applications, per se. Whereas System Restore might [snip] > > snipped part: > > "(and sometimes will even delete some stuff (like > recently downloaded program exe files, for example) you had saved > previously - thinking it's doing you a favor - but sometimes it's a > disservice)." > > Which was wrong. Which was right. How many times do we have to explain to you that System Restore CAN - and HAS - and WILL - delete some exe files that were previously saved? And/or restore some versions 9that were snapshotted), in some cases? And THAT was even further covered today. Can you read? Were ALL the posts "too long" for you?
Guest Kris Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:04:04 -0500, Frog wrote: > 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. Probably, but acronis.com tech support could tell you for sure, but it's old and XP had changed a lot since TI7, so I would encourage you to update. > > 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. When you start up TI7, there may be eula info in "about". Also while you have it running, see if there is an option you can select to create a rescue cd/floppy. > > 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. It's really necessary if your spindle goes bad. It has come in very handy for me for other reasons. > > 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. I normally store partition image files (2-4gb) in my top partition. Occasionally I use TI11 to backup directly to DVD. Alternately one can easily burn the image on HD to a DVD. > > 5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before > it becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system. Yes! First, pick a non opsys partition - we'll call it E, Then create a new partition somewhere of equal or lagrer size - we'll call it Q. Use Acronis to back up the partition to a image file on some partition other than E or Q, Use Acronis to restore from that image file to partition Q. Then check Q - dates and everything should be identical. The purpose of partition Q is simply to allow you to test the process - you don't need to create and restore to a new partition unless you really need to. Backing up and restoring the opsys partition is no different. For example, I wanted to try out SP3rc. So I used acronis to backup the C:\ partition and then installed SP3rc. About a month later, I decided to go backto my pre SP3rc system so I simply restored that image on top - so poof, I was one month back. The system clock takes care of itself, but any changes you made in the meantime will be lost. But that's a hell of a lot simpler than re-installing XP and re-installing a ton of little programs! > > 6. That I should email the people at Acronis to see if they will give me > a break on upgrading to Version 11. Definitely! > > 7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29. Check with acronis.com that you will still have tech support from them if you need it. > > Did I miss anything in my highlights? When I install XP, I always, immediately shut "system restore" OFF. I learned the hard way not to trust it. Read that again. Then I rely on backup images, both on HD and on DVD so that if lightening strikes (literally) I can be back up fairly quickly. If I am restoring to a completely new computer because the one I was on got totally fried, expect MS to ask you to re-activate. > > 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. You can definitely see why large drives are useful!!! I have a 160 with about 80 of stuff on it. Some one of these months I will get a second 160 so I can alternate image files from one to the other - always expect a spindle to crash unrecoverably, without warning. So my backups would then be, for any particular partition, HD0, then HD1, and then DVD. > > > 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? You cannot backup to the same partition you are creating a backup image of. The file has to go on a different partition. This target partition will get so large that backing it up is pointless. So I sacrifice perhaps 50gb on the top of each HD and use that for image files of my partitions - each file/image has the date I created it (eg XP021908) so I quickly know which is the latest. I may keep 2 or 3 different images of a particular partition. I also find it makes my life easier if I divide folders into categories: Downloads: all programs/drivers/support I have downloaded. NWN: NeverWinter Nights game NWN2: NWN2 Misc: other stuff like huge benchmarks, etc. Backups: Acronis images, and temp larg stuff that I only use for a short time. I always have multiple copies of tbird mail folders, etc, - assume that what you have not backed up will break. > > I also think I should purchase a new version of Acronis for use on my > new XP computer. Ask acronis.com about that. They sell multi user licenses. > > Again, thanks for all of the responses/recommendations/help...it > was all very much appreciated. > > Frog ribbit! -- 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 2
Guest Kris Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:29:40 -0500, Kris wrote: > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:04:04 -0500, Frog wrote: > >> 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. > > Probably, but acronis.com tech support could tell you for sure, but it's > old and XP had changed a lot since TI7, so I would encourage you to update. > >> >> 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. > When you start up TI7, there may be eula info in "about". Also while you > have it running, see if there is an option you can select to create a > rescue cd/floppy. > >> >> 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. > It's really necessary if your spindle goes bad. It has come in very handy > for me for other reasons. > >> >> 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. > I normally store partition image files (2-4gb) in my top partition. > Occasionally I use TI11 to backup directly to DVD. Alternately one can > easily burn the image on HD to a DVD. > >> >> 5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before >> it becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system. > Yes! First, > pick a non opsys partition - we'll call it E, > Then create a new partition somewhere of equal or lagrer size - we'll call > it Q. > Use Acronis to back up the partition to a image file on some partition > other than E or Q, > Use Acronis to restore from that image file to partition Q. > Then check Q - dates and everything should be identical. > The purpose of partition Q is simply to allow you to test the process - you > don't need to create and restore to a new partition unless you really need > to. > > Backing up and restoring the opsys partition is no different. For example, > I wanted to try out SP3rc. So I used acronis to backup the C:\ partition > and then installed SP3rc. About a month later, I decided to go backto my > pre SP3rc system so I simply restored that image on top - so poof, I was > one month back. The system clock takes care of itself, but any changes you > made in the meantime will be lost. But that's a hell of a lot simpler than > re-installing XP and re-installing a ton of little programs! > >> >> 6. That I should email the people at Acronis to see if they will give me >> a break on upgrading to Version 11. > Definitely! > >> >> 7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29. > Check with acronis.com that you will still have tech support from them if > you need it. > >> >> Did I miss anything in my highlights? > > When I install XP, I always, immediately shut "system restore" OFF. I > learned the hard way not to trust it. > > Read that again. > > Then I rely on backup images, both on HD and on DVD so that if lightening > strikes (literally) I can be back up fairly quickly. If I am restoring to > a completely new computer because the one I was on got totally fried, > expect MS to ask you to re-activate. > > >> >> 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. > You can definitely see why large drives are useful!!! I have a 160 with > about 80 of stuff on it. Some one of these months I will get a second 160 > so I can alternate image files from one to the other - always expect a > spindle to crash unrecoverably, without warning. So my backups would then > be, for any particular partition, HD0, then HD1, and then DVD. > >> >> >> 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? > You cannot backup to the same partition you are creating a backup image of. > The file has to go on a different partition. This target partition will > get so large that backing it up is pointless. So I sacrifice perhaps 50gb > on the top of each HD and use that for image files of my partitions - each > file/image has the date I created it (eg XP021908) so I quickly know which > is the latest. I may keep 2 or 3 different images of a particular > partition. > I also find it makes my life easier if I divide folders into categories: > Downloads: all programs/drivers/support I have downloaded. > NWN: NeverWinter Nights game > NWN2: NWN2 > Misc: other stuff like huge benchmarks, etc. > Backups: Acronis images, and temp larg stuff that I only use for a short > time. > > I always have multiple copies of tbird mail folders, etc, - assume that > what you have not backed up will break. > >> >> I also think I should purchase a new version of Acronis for use on my >> new XP computer. > Ask acronis.com about that. They sell multi user licenses. > >> >> Again, thanks for all of the responses/recommendations/help...it >> was all very much appreciated. >> >> Frog > > ribbit! looked at ugr.com and it looks like you can pick up 2 copies of TI 11 for $49. Probably legit. Just check with acronis.com. Actually I don't recall that in all the tech support he gave me that he ever asked me for a key. Let me know - I'm looking at acronis Disk Director 10 for 29 - that's been on my list for a few. -- Kris
Guest Kenneth Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:30:22 -0500, "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:38 -0500, "Anna" >> <myname@myisp.net> wrote: >> >>>>SNIP<< >>> >>>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. >>> >>>>SNIP<< > > >"Kenneth" <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message >news:cc8kr3poenl3vp7gmdotqulvmb07ts6o6t@4ax.com... >> Hi Anna, >> >> I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming >> majority" who understands nothing about the difference >> between "cloning" and "imaging." >> >> Can you describe that to me? >> >> Sincere thanks, >> -- >> Kenneth >> >> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." > > >Kenneth: >Many comprehensive backup-type programs such as Acronis True Image have both >disk-cloning & disk-imaging capabilities. > >For all practical purposes a disk clone is a copy of the "source" HDD, let's >say your day-to-day working HDD. As such, the recipient of the clone, the >"destination" HDD is a duplicate of the source drive. All the files & >folders on the source HDD will be copied over to the destination drive. >This, of course, includes the operating system, the registry, all programs & >applications, all user-created data - in short *everything* that's on the >source disk will be copied over to the destination disk. If you would >examine the contents of the source & destination HDDs on a side-by-side >basis following the disk-cloning operation you would find that they mirror >each other. All the files & folders from the source disk can be accessed >from the destination disk. Another advantage is that the destination drive, >since it's a copy of the source drive, will be potentially bootable if it is >installed as an internal HDD in one's system. > >I say "potentially bootable" because in many cases the user employs a USB or >Firewire external HDD as the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the >clone. Ordinarily a USB or Firewire device is not bootable under those >circumstances so the HDD contained in the USB or Firewire enclosure would >need to be removed from the external device and installed as an internal HDD >in the PC in order for it to be a bootable device. Note, however, that the >cloned contents on the USB/Firewire EHD can similarly be "re:cloned" to an >internal HDD and that HDD will be immediately bootable & functional. On the >other hand, if the user employs an *internal* HDD as the recipient of the >clone, i.e., the destination drive, that drive will be bootable. However, >many users prefer to use an external device such as a USBEHD as the >destination drive for the added safety involved - the external device can be >easily disconnected following the disk-cloning operation. Also the >portability aspect of an external device is another advantage. > >The "disk image", on the other hand, is really nothing more than a snapshot >in time of the system compressed in a single file. Subsequent backups of the >system are created through the use of "incremental" or "differential" files. >Take a look at the following Acronis site for detailed info concerning these >incremental/differential files... >http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/resource/solutions/backup/2005/incremental-backups.html > >The advantages of the disk-imaging process (as compared with the >disk-cloning process) is, in my opinion, two-fold - one real, the other >problematical... >1. Should the user desire, for one reason or another, to create >"generational" copies of his or her system it is simply more practical to >create disk-images of the system at this or that particular point in time, >since a number of different disk-images can be stored on a single >large-capacity HDD. Obviously to do the same using a disk-cloning program >would necessitate having a number of HDDs available for each different disk >clone, although given today's enormous capacity drives it's getting easier >to create large partitions on the disk each of which can contain a different >clone. >2. The second (at least presumed) advantage of the disk image process is >that since the file created (Acronis calls it an "archive") is compressed, >there's a savings of disk space (at least theoretically) on the disk that >will contain such file (archive). But in actual practice, at least with >respect to our experience with the Acronis program, there's only a 20% to >25% reduction of disk space. And when you factor in the total disk space >needed to accommodate the original disk-image file plus the additional >incremental disk-image files, that "advantage" pretty much disappears. And >given today's large-capacity disks that are available to many, if not most >users we just don't think this savings of disk space is an important >advantage in this situation. > >The major drawbacks (and they are considerable in our opinion) of the >disk-imaging process as compared with the disk-cloning process are... >1. While the data on the disk-clone is immediately accessible (as explained >above), the same is not true for a disk image. It is necessary to invoke a >restoration process of the disk image before the data can be made >accessible. >2. The HDD containing the disk-image is not a bootable product. Again, a >restoration process must be undertaken before this can occur. > >We believe that for most PC users the disk-cloning process rather than the >disk-imaging process is a more practical approach in order to >comprehensively backup one's system (with the caveat expressed above >concerning a need for generational copies of one's system). It's simply a >decided advantage to have one's total data immediately available on a drive >that one can access. And the more-or-less "bootability" aspect of the disk >clone (as described above) is another important advantage for most of us. > >As you probably know from reading my previous posts on the subject we are >great fans of the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning program - it does not have >disk-imaging capability. Should you, or anyone perusing this thread, desire >add'l info re using that program, I'll be glad to provide such. >Anna > > Hi Anna, Please accept my thanks for your interesting comments... I do have one quibble though: You wrote "The major drawbacks (and they are considerable in our opinion) of the disk-imaging process as compared with the disk-cloning process are...1. While the data on the disk-clone is immediately accessible (as explained above), the same is not true for a disk image. It is necessary to invoke a restoration process of the disk image before the data can be made accessible." But (if I understand it correctly ) that is not true of the current versions of Acronis TI: If, for example, I discover a situation in which I would prefer to "return" to an earlier version of a file with which I am working, I launch TI, navigate to the file in the image from the time frame I prefer, and with a few clicks I am back to the earlier version of the file. It takes moments, and works perfectly. Thanks again, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Recommended Posts