Guest Timothy Daniels Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." wrote: > 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). A directory (a.k.a "folder) is a type of file. *TimDaniels*
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." wrote: > Anna wrote: >> 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. A clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original partition. Some clones include a copy of the MBR as well, even though it is not a part of the clone per se. An "image" is a *file* which contains (optionally in compressed format) the information contained in a partition from which a byte-for-byte copy of the partition may be re-created in a process called a "restore" or a "restoration". The clone is made to a partition (or partitions) on another hard drive, and if it contains an OS, that OS it may be booted directly if the hard drive is connected to an IDE controller. An image file can be made to any archival medium, such as CDs, DVDs, and USB-connected external hard drives, but it must first be "restored" (and expanded if it was compressed) to a hard drive before any OS within it can be booted. The advantage of an image file is that it is more compact than a clone and it can be kept on cheap and stable media for archival purposes. The advantage of a clone is that the OS in it can be up and running immediately. With this in mind, you can see that a term like "a file copying clone program" makes no sense. *TimDaniels*
Guest Anna Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Kenneth" <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message news:lhglr3deh1sarsqe5slbu0i4aua6cig5le@4ax.com... > 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." Kenneth: While I haven't worked with the latest version 11 of Acronis True Image, except in a cursory fashion, I was under the impression that the restoration process of the disk-image file ("archive") created by ATI was similar, if not identical to previous versions of the program. And this restoration process would extend as well to accessing individual files/folders from within the archive. Is this not true? Do you not have to invoke the restoration process to access this or that file from the archive? Admittedly it's not a terribly onerous task to do so, but in the case where one has used a disk-to-disk cloning program (such as the Casper 4 program which we've recommended), the data, i.e., any file or folder residing on the "cloned" HDD would be immediately accessible in precisely the same way one accesses data on their day-to-day working HDD. No "restoration" process is necessary under those circumstances. Anyway, as long as the ATI meets your requirements and you're satisfied with the program whether you're using it for disk-to-disk cloning or disk-imaging, that's all that's important. Anna
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." wroe: > 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. In essence, you have "cloning" and "imaging" reversed. And, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a directory is a type of file which contains the names and paths to other files as data. Both "directory" files and "data" files are treated the same way by cloning and imaging utlities. "File backup" is another matter. *TimDaniels*
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Anna" wrote: > For all practical purposes a disk clone is a copy > of the "source" HDD... That is true for Acronis' True Image. But Symantec's Ghost and Future Systems Solutions' Casper can make clones of individual partitions. They can, for example, make a clone of partition #2 on HD0 and put it on HD2 in partition #3, as well as make a clone of the entire HD0 contents onto HD2 - and vice versa. In my system, which has 2 internal fixed HDs and 1 internal removable HD in a "mobile rack", I can clone the OS-containing partition in HD0 (the one that I usually boot) and add it to other OS partitions on HD1 for immediate booting if HD0 fails. I can also put the clone of that partition on a large-capacity HD in the mobile rack whereon I also keep several back OSes archived, and I can keep that HD somewhere else for safe-keeping. But merely slipping it back into the rack in the expansion bay of my desktop computer will have it available for booting up any OS on that HD. Of course, to select one OS on a partition among many OS-containing partitions in a system containing several HDs takes an understanding of the boot menu ("boot.ini" in the case of WinNT/2K/XP). It is not rocket science, but boot.ini's syntax is not well documented, especially for multiple HDs, and that is the only reason that multi-booting is not commonly done, IMHO. *TimDaniels*
Guest Kenneth Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:54:51 -0500, "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote: > >"Kenneth" <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message >news:lhglr3deh1sarsqe5slbu0i4aua6cig5le@4ax.com... >> 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." > > >Kenneth: >While I haven't worked with the latest version 11 of Acronis True Image, >except in a cursory fashion, I was under the impression that the restoration >process of the disk-image file ("archive") created by ATI was similar, if >not identical to previous versions of the program. And this restoration >process would extend as well to accessing individual files/folders from >within the archive. > >Is this not true? Do you not have to invoke the restoration process to >access this or that file from the archive? Admittedly it's not a terribly >onerous task to do so, but in the case where one has used a disk-to-disk >cloning program (such as the Casper 4 program which we've recommended), the >data, i.e., any file or folder residing on the "cloned" HDD would be >immediately accessible in precisely the same way one accesses data on their >day-to-day working HDD. No "restoration" process is necessary under those >circumstances. > >Anyway, as long as the ATI meets your requirements and you're satisfied with >the program whether you're using it for disk-to-disk cloning or >disk-imaging, that's all that's important. >Anna > Hi Anna, If one needs to access only a few files in an archive, it is likely that other things on the system are in good shape. To do it, I launch ATI, browse the archive I need, select the file(s) I need, and click to restore. I takes seconds. All the best, and thanks again, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Guest Anna Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions > "Anna" wrote: >> For all practical purposes a disk clone is a copy >> of the "source" HDD... "Timothy Daniels" <NoSpam@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message news:e$25lQzcIHA.5900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > That is true for Acronis' True Image. But Symantec's > Ghost and Future Systems Solutions' Casper can make > clones of individual partitions. They can, for example, > make a clone of partition #2 on HD0 and put it on HD2 > in partition #3, as well as make a clone of the entire HD0 > contents onto HD2 - and vice versa. In my system, which > has 2 internal fixed HDs and 1 internal removable HD in > a "mobile rack", I can clone the OS-containing partition in > HD0 (the one that I usually boot) and add it to other OS > partitions on HD1 for immediate booting if HD0 fails. I > can also put the clone of that partition on a large-capacity > HD in the mobile rack whereon I also keep several back > OSes archived, and I can keep that HD somewhere else > for safe-keeping. But merely slipping it back into the rack > in the expansion bay of my desktop computer will have it > available for booting up any OS on that HD. Of course, > to select one OS on a partition among many OS-containing > partitions in a system containing several HDs takes an > understanding of the boot menu ("boot.ini" in the case of > WinNT/2K/XP). It is not rocket science, but boot.ini's > syntax is not well documented, especially for multiple HDs, > and that is the only reason that multi-booting is not commonly > done, IMHO. > > *TimDaniels* Most certainly the Casper 4 program has the capability of cloning individual partitions from one HDD to another HDD. As a matter of fact that's another one of the significant advantages of the Casper program in that the simplicity in which it accomplishes this task makes it a joy to use. Here are the basic steps... 1. Access the Casper program and click the "Copy Drive" icon. 2. Select the option "Copy a specific drive". Click Next. 3. On the "Select Drive" window that opens, select (highlight) the source hard drive containing the specific partition you want to copy. Click Next. 4. On the "Select Copy Destination" window that opens, select the option "Copy to an existing drive" and click Next. 5. On the "Select Destination Drive" window that opens, select (highlight) the destination hard drive containing the partition that will be the recipient of the clone. Ensure that you've selected the correct destination drive and partition. Click Next. 6. On the next screen, click Next to confirm that you want to overwrite the data on the destination drive. 7. On the next screen, select the option "Perform the copy now" and click Next and then Next again to start the cloning process. Quite straightforward & effective. My comment that "For all practical purposes a disk clone is a copy of the "source" HDD..." was, of course, with reference to the usual disk-to-disk cloning process that's generally undertaken by most users when using a disk-cloning program. But I'm glad you mentioned the partition-to-partition cloning capability of the Casper 4 program. Anna
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Anna wrote: > "Kenneth" <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message > news:lhglr3deh1sarsqe5slbu0i4aua6cig5le@4ax.com... >> 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." > > > Kenneth: > While I haven't worked with the latest version 11 of Acronis True Image, > except in a cursory fashion, I was under the impression that the > restoration > process of the disk-image file ("archive") created by ATI was similar, if > not identical to previous versions of the program. And this restoration > process would extend as well to accessing individual files/folders from > within the archive. > > Is this not true? Do you not have to invoke the restoration process to > access this or that file from the archive? No. I can use windows explorer to access the files in the backed up image, which I have to admit, does seem a bit remarkable.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Timothy Daniels wrote: > "Bill in Co." wroe: >> 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. > > > In essence, you have "cloning" and "imaging" reversed. > And, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a directory > is a type of file which contains the names and paths to other > files as data. Both "directory" files and "data" files are treated > the same way by cloning and imaging utlities. "File backup" is > another matter. > > *TimDaniels* I had thought Anna had said her Casper "cloning" program does NOT retain the date stamps of the source directories, but instead gets timestamped with their creation date (i.e. the date of the cloning). This is NOT the case for a partition copy program like Norton Partition Magic, nor for a imaging program like TI Acronis, which *preserve* the source directory datetimestamps. So I'm missing your point here, I guess. As I see it, a disk cloning program simply copies all the files and folders, which is quite different than a "partition copy" program, or an imagining program (which MAY, but doesn't have to, compress the image). Those two preserve the original source directories date-time-stamps. Point noted about directories being a type of file. But (I think) that's going to add a bit more confusion to the point I was trying to make.
Guest Kenneth Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:35:28 -0700, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >> Is this not true? Do you not have to invoke the restoration process to >> access this or that file from the archive? > >No. I can use windows explorer to access the files in the backed up image, >which I have to admit, does seem a bit remarkable. > Hi Bill, When I read your comment above, I thought: "HUH? I must not have understood that as he intended." Then, I tried it. It works (without invoking True Image), and I was astounded. Very sincere thanks for mentioning it! -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Timothy Daniels wrote: > "Bill in Co." wrote: >> 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). > > > A directory (a.k.a "folder) is a type of file. > > *TimDaniels* OK, point noted. But I was trying to draw a distinction in what to look at.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Timothy Daniels wrote: > "Bill in Co." wrote: >> Anna wrote: >>> 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. > > > A clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original partition. > Some clones include a copy of the MBR as well, even though it is > not a part of the clone per se. An "image" is a *file* which contains > (optionally in compressed format) the information contained in a > partition from which a byte-for-byte copy of the partition may be > re-created in a process called a "restore" or a "restoration". > The clone is made to a partition (or partitions) on another hard > drive, and if it contains an OS, that OS it may be booted directly > if the hard drive is connected to an IDE controller. An image > file can be made to any archival medium, such as CDs, DVDs, > and USB-connected external hard drives, but it must first be > "restored" (and expanded if it was compressed) to a hard drive > before any OS within it can be booted. The advantage of an image > file is that it is more compact than a clone and it can be kept on > cheap and stable media for archival purposes. The advantage of > a clone is that the OS in it can be up and running immediately. > With this in mind, you can see that a term like "a file copying clone > program" makes no sense. > > *TimDaniels* OK. Then as I mentioned in the other thread, Casper is not a cloning program (which I had thought Anna called it), but is a file copying program. By your definition (of what a cloning program is), a "cloning program" will also end up preserving the original source directory datetimestamps, because, by your definition, "partition copy" programs like Norton, and imagining programs like TI Image, are "cloning programs".
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Kenneth wrote: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:35:28 -0700, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>> Is this not true? Do you not have to invoke the restoration process to >>> access this or that file from the archive? >> >> No. I can use windows explorer to access the files in the backed up >> image, >> which I have to admit, does seem a bit remarkable. >> > > Hi Bill, > > When I read your comment above, I thought: "HUH? I must not > have understood that as he intended." > > Then, I tried it. > > It works (without invoking True Image), and I was astounded. > > Very sincere thanks for mentioning it! > -- > Kenneth Sure. I was quite surprised to discover this. And assuming that TI is compressing its images (which I believe it is - my option was use standard compression), it seems a bit amazing that that dircect access is provided there in windows explorer. I'm not sure how it able to do that, though. Maybe explorer can decompress it on the fly (courtesy of some windows explorer shell handling routine for TI)
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." wrote: > Timothy Daniels wrote: >> A clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original partition. >> Some clones include a copy of the MBR as well, even though it is >> not a part of the clone per se. An "image" is a *file* which contains >> (optionally in compressed format) the information contained in a >> partition from which a byte-for-byte copy of the partition may be >> re-created in a process called a "restore" or a "restoration". >> The clone is made to a partition (or partitions) on another hard >> drive, and if it contains an OS, that OS it may be booted directly >> if the hard drive is connected to an IDE controller. An image >> file can be made to any archival medium, such as CDs, DVDs, >> and USB-connected external hard drives, but it must first be >> "restored" (and expanded if it was compressed) to a hard drive >> before any OS within it can be booted. The advantage of an image >> file is that it is more compact than a clone and it can be kept on >> cheap and stable media for archival purposes. The advantage of >> a clone is that the OS in it can be up and running immediately. >> With this in mind, you can see that a term like "a file copying clone >> program" makes no sense. >> >> *TimDaniels* > > OK. Then as I mentioned in the other thread, Casper is not a cloning > program (which I had thought Anna called it), but is a file copying program. > > By your definition (of what a cloning program is), a "cloning program" will > also end up preserving the original source directory datetimestamps, because, > by your definition, "partition copy" programs like Norton, and imagining > programs like TI Image, are "cloning programs". You steadfastly remain confused. Casper and Ghost and True Image can do cloning AND imaging. The user gets to choose which to do. *TimDaniels*
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > As I see it, a disk cloning program simply copies all the files and > folders, which is quite different than a "partition copy" program, > or an imagining program (which MAY, but doesn't have to, > compress the image). Those two preserve the original source directories > date-time-stamps. > > Point noted about directories being a type of file. But (I think) that's > going to add a bit more confusion to the point I was trying to make. I think you believe that the file manager is involved in the making of the file copies made by an imaging program and that the file manager would assign a new time stamp to the copies. There is no reason to believe this. Remember that the copies do not exist in the OS's file structure as individual files. They all exist as data in one huge image file on the archiving medium. Only when that image file is "restored" back to a hard drive do the individual files resume their existence in a file structure. *TimDaniels*
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Anna" wrote: > My comment that "For all practical purposes a disk clone > is a copy of the "source" HDD..." was, of course, with > reference to the usual disk-to-disk cloning process that's > generally undertaken by most users when using a disk- > cloning program. Right. One of the primary uses of cloning is to move an installed system from one HD to a larger or faster HD, and the desire is just to copy the entire contents of the HD. For that purpose, many HD makers offer free downloadable utilities from their websites to facilitate that specific task. But as you say, Casper and Ghost make cloning much more practical as a backup procedure by offering the option of cloning just one partition. *TimDaniels*
Guest Frog Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions WOW! What a lot of information I now have to read, research, and understand...a process that will take some time to complete. I will return to this thread with further questions when I get to that point. If this process takes me longer than expected, I will open a new thread with the same title plus "Part Two". I did make one decision...I purchased an external USB 500GB hard drive for my backups. I have some work to do with this drive, before it will be ready for use on my XP machine...the drive is now FAT32. I'm still not sure whether or not to have only one partition or two partitions on this external hard drive. My internal 500GB hard drive has two partitions on it, and I could do the same on this drive. Would there be any advantage to this, or will building a folder for a backup of my system on the external hard drive suffice? I haven't had a chance to read in any detail about the two options I have for backup software. It appears that the cost of Casper 4.0 (one license) is $49.95 and the cost of a Casper Startup Disk is additional $9.95 (one copy)---for a total cost of $59.90. This total cost, if I am reading it correctly, is not much more that the cost of Acronis software. I will do more reading about both options before making my decision. I sure hope Anna is around to answer some questions, if I go the Casper 4.0 direction...I very much appreciated your words on this software package...they were very useful to this limited-computer- knowledge person, as were the comments of others about Acronis. Thanks again for taking your time to assist me with my decision. Frog
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Timothy Daniels wrote: > "Bill in Co." wrote: >> Timothy Daniels wrote: >>> A clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original partition. >>> Some clones include a copy of the MBR as well, even though it is >>> not a part of the clone per se. An "image" is a *file* which contains >>> (optionally in compressed format) the information contained in a >>> partition from which a byte-for-byte copy of the partition may be >>> re-created in a process called a "restore" or a "restoration". >>> The clone is made to a partition (or partitions) on another hard >>> drive, and if it contains an OS, that OS it may be booted directly >>> if the hard drive is connected to an IDE controller. An image >>> file can be made to any archival medium, such as CDs, DVDs, >>> and USB-connected external hard drives, but it must first be >>> "restored" (and expanded if it was compressed) to a hard drive >>> before any OS within it can be booted. The advantage of an image >>> file is that it is more compact than a clone and it can be kept on >>> cheap and stable media for archival purposes. The advantage of >>> a clone is that the OS in it can be up and running immediately. >>> With this in mind, you can see that a term like "a file copying clone >>> program" makes no sense. >>> >>> *TimDaniels* >> >> OK. Then as I mentioned in the other thread, Casper is not a cloning >> program (which I had thought Anna called it), but is a file copying >> program. >> >> By your definition (of what a cloning program is), a "cloning program" >> will >> also end up preserving the original source directory datetimestamps, >> because, >> by your definition, "partition copy" programs like Norton, and imagining >> programs like TI Image, are "cloning programs". > > > You steadfastly remain confused. Casper and Ghost and True Image > can do cloning AND imaging. The user gets to choose which to do. > > *TimDaniels* OK, then let's try this again. I see at least 4 different processes here: 1. "Imaging" of a partition or disk (with OR without any compression <= note) And all date-time-stamps of the source material are preserved. Uses sector copying. 2. "Partition copying" (done by BING and Partition Magic) And all date-time-stamps of the source material are preserved. Uses sector copying. 3. File & Folder copying or transfer, which does NOT preserve the source directory date-time stamps, but does copy all the files and folders over to a new partition or drive. But this copy is done at the FILE level, and not the sector-by-sector transfer level, and hence the original source directory dates will NOT be preserved on the copy, but instead will be the date-stamped with the time of the copy operation. 4. "Cloning" - well this term still seems a bit ambiguous to me, because it doesn't say anything about whether it's using a sector copying approach, or a file copying approach, and those are significantly different. Literally, the term (in English) just means making a copy.
Guest Timothy Daniels Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." wrote: > 4. "Cloning" - well this term still seems a bit ambiguous to me, > because it doesn't say anything about whether it's using a sector > copying approach, or a file copying approach, and those are > significantly different. Literally, the term (in English) just means > making a copy. Cloning uses sector (aka byte-for-byte) copying. English was not invented to express modern Information Technology, and as with other adaptations of the language to new situations, it can seem to be meaningless or inappropriate in its new applications. *TimDaniels*
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Timothy Daniels wrote: > "Bill in Co." wrote: >> 4. "Cloning" - well this term still seems a bit ambiguous to me, >> because it doesn't say anything about whether it's using a sector >> copying approach, or a file copying approach, and those are >> significantly different. Literally, the term (in English) just means >> making a copy. > > Cloning uses sector (aka byte-for-byte) copying. English was > not invented to express modern Information Technology, and as > with other adaptations of the language to new situations, it can > seem to be meaningless or inappropriate in its new applications. > > *TimDaniels* OK then, if that's the universal definition. So, if cloning definitively and universally means sector-by-sector copying, then what Anna was talking about with her usage of Casper wasn't cloning (because, once again, the directory dates were NOT being preserved in the copy operations). But I think you also pointed out that Casper has that option available, too (haven't used Casper). But I do know that TI True Image, Norton Partition Magic, and BING do partition (sector-by-sector) copying, which you said is "cloning". So maybe we're all on the same page now. :-) Now we need another term for "disk copying" (at the file level, not sector level)
Guest Anna Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:euz0SC0cIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> 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. >> Timothy Daniels wrote: >> In essence, you have "cloning" and "imaging" reversed. >> And, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a directory >> is a type of file which contains the names and paths to other >> files as data. Both "directory" files and "data" files are treated >> the same way by cloning and imaging utlities. "File backup" is >> another matter. >> >> *TimDaniels* "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > I had thought Anna had said her Casper "cloning" program does NOT retain > the date stamps of the source directories, but instead gets timestamped > with their creation date (i.e. the date of the cloning). This is NOT > the case for a partition copy program like Norton Partition Magic, nor for > a imaging program like TI Acronis, which *preserve* the source directory > datetimestamps. > > So I'm missing your point here, I guess. As I see it, a disk cloning > program simply copies all the files and folders, which is quite different > than a "partition copy" program, or an imagining program (which MAY, but > doesn't have to, compress the image). Those two preserve the original > source directories date-time-stamps. > > Point noted about directories being a type of file. But (I think) > that's going to add a bit more confusion to the point I was trying to > make. Bill: To the best of my knowledge I never stated that the cloned copy of the source HDD would reflect the creation dates of the files/folders based on the date the clone was created. Quite the contrary. The dates will be *exactly* reflected as they were reflected on the source HDD. That's why I did state in a prior post that "a clone is a clone is a clone". Anyway, thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that you can use Windows Explorer to directly access files & folders on the disk-image "archive" created through the Acronis program as you did in a previous post. I was unaware of that capability and such goes far in minimizing one of my perceived negatives concerning the Acronis program as compared with a disk-imaging program such as the Casper 4 program we've been discussing. Anna
Guest Anna Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message news:OsZNtZ2cIHA.4016@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > WOW! What a lot of information I now have to read, research, and > understand...a process that will take some time to complete. I will > return to this thread with further questions when I get to that point. If > this process takes me longer than expected, I will open a new thread with > the same title plus "Part Two". > > I did make one decision...I purchased an external USB 500GB hard drive for > my backups. I have some work to do with this drive, before it will be > ready for use on my XP machine...the drive is now FAT32. I'm still not > sure whether or not to have only one partition or two partitions on this > external hard drive. My internal 500GB hard drive has two partitions on > it, and I could do the same on this drive. Would there be any advantage > to this, or will building a folder for a backup of my system on the > external hard drive suffice? > > I haven't had a chance to read in any detail about the two options I have > for backup software. It appears that the cost of Casper 4.0 (one license) > is $49.95 and the cost of a Casper Startup Disk is additional $9.95 (one > copy)---for a total cost of $59.90. This total cost, if I am reading it > correctly, is not much more that the cost of Acronis software. I will do > more reading about both options before making my decision. I sure hope > Anna is around to answer some questions, if I go the Casper 4.0 > direction...I very much appreciated your words on this software > package...they were very useful to this limited-computer- knowledge > person, as were the comments of others about Acronis. > > Thanks again for taking your time to assist me with my decision. > > Frog Frog... It is regrettable that this thread seems to have taken on a complexity that is not deserved given the simplicity of use, straightforwardness of design, and general effectiveness of a disk-cloning program specifically with reference to the program we have been recommending - the Casper 4.0 program. While I do not wish to demean the Acronis True Image in any way, I sincerely believe the Casper 4 program is a superior disk-cloning program for the reasons I've indicated in my prior posts and which I will not reiterate here. As to the cost of the Casper program as compared to the Acronis program... My impression is that you can purchase the Acronis program at less expense than the Casper program. If one's overriding interest is to purchase the less expensive program, then there's no point in even discussing the Casper program no matter how superior I or others believe the Casper program is. All I will say is that the additional expense of the Casper program (I suppose it's probably not much more than $20 or $30 between the two) pales into insignificance over the weeks & months that you or any user will be using the program. But that's a decision to be made by you and every potential purchaser of the program. I can only tell you that based upon my personal knowledge of more than at least a score of users of the Casper 4 program, not a single one has ever expressed regret to me re the increased cost of that program as compared with other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs. The usual comment I hear is that "I wish I had found this program sooner." As to your 500 GB USB external HDD... 1. That's a fine piece of equipment to serve as the backup device for your day-to-day working HDD. 2. There is nothing - absolutely nothing - that you have to do with respect to using that drive as the recipient of the clone created by the Casper 4 program. You do not have to partition that drive; you do not have to format that drive. All that will be automatically taken care of when you use the Casper 4 program to clone the contents of your "source" HDD - your day-to-day internal working HDD - to the USBEHD. 3. When you clone the contents of your two-partitioned source HDD to your USBEHD, the disk-cloning program will create the two partitions on the external HDD. It will do so allocating the same percentage of disk space for each partition on the external HDD as you have on your source disk. So, for example, let's say your 500 GB source HDD's 1st partition is 200 GB and the 2nd partition is 300 GB (we're using approx. numbers here). In your case since the source & destination HDDs are equal in size, the partitions on the destination HDD will, of course, be the same. But let's say your source HDD was a 250 GB HDD containing two partitions - one partition of 100 GB (representing 40% of the disk capacity), the second partition 150 GB (representing 60% of disk capacity. And you were cloning the contents of that two-partitioned source HDD to a 500 GB HDD. In that situation the disk-cloning program would create the two partitions on the destination drive using the same percentages established on the source HDD. So that the 1st partition on the 500 GB HDD would be 200 GB, and the 2nd partition would be 300 GB. 4. But understand should the user desire different-sized partitions on the destination drive, he or she would be able to create such and then use the Casper program to clone the contents of each partition on the source HDD to whatever partition on the destination HDD that he/she desired. So you have great flexibility here. So you see - you really don't have any "work" to do on your external 500 GB HDD if all you want to do is to clone the complete contents of your present two-partitioned 500 GB internal HDD (your "source" disk) to your USBEHD. Please understand that much of what I've indicated here can similarly be achieved by the Acronis program. But for the reasons I've previously stated, especially Casper's "SmartClone" technology that greatly speeds up the routine day-to-day disk-cloning backup process, we prefer the Casper 4 program. In any event try to work with both programs and perhaps other disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs as well. That's the only real way to determine what best suits your particular needs. Anna
Guest Anna Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions CORRECTION - See below... news:uFZKfg9cIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:euz0SC0cIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> 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. > > >>> Timothy Daniels wrote: >>> In essence, you have "cloning" and "imaging" reversed. >>> And, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a directory >>> is a type of file which contains the names and paths to other >>> files as data. Both "directory" files and "data" files are treated >>> the same way by cloning and imaging utlities. "File backup" is >>> another matter. >>> >>> *TimDaniels* > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> I had thought Anna had said her Casper "cloning" program does NOT retain >> the date stamps of the source directories, but instead gets timestamped >> with their creation date (i.e. the date of the cloning). This is NOT >> the case for a partition copy program like Norton Partition Magic, nor >> for a imaging program like TI Acronis, which *preserve* the source >> directory datetimestamps. >> >> So I'm missing your point here, I guess. As I see it, a disk cloning >> program simply copies all the files and folders, which is quite different >> than a "partition copy" program, or an imagining program (which MAY, but >> doesn't have to, compress the image). Those two preserve the original >> source directories date-time-stamps. >> >> Point noted about directories being a type of file. But (I think) >> that's going to add a bit more confusion to the point I was trying to >> make. "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message... > Bill: > To the best of my knowledge I never stated that the cloned copy of the > source HDD would reflect the creation dates of the files/folders based on > the date the clone was created. Quite the contrary. The dates will be > *exactly* reflected as they were reflected on the source HDD. That's why I > did state in a prior post that "a clone is a clone is a clone". > > Anyway, thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that you can use > Windows Explorer to directly access files & folders on the disk-image > "archive" created through the Acronis program as you did in a previous > post. I was unaware of that capability and such goes far in minimizing one > of my perceived negatives concerning the Acronis program as compared with > a disk-imaging program such as the Casper 4 program we've been discussing. > Anna Re my last sentence... I meant to say "disk-cloning program such as the Casper 4 program...". As we know, the Casper 4 program does *not* have disk-imaging capability in the same sense as the Acronis True Image program which has both. Anna
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions Anna wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:euz0SC0cIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> 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. > > >>> Timothy Daniels wrote: >>> In essence, you have "cloning" and "imaging" reversed. >>> And, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a directory >>> is a type of file which contains the names and paths to other >>> files as data. Both "directory" files and "data" files are treated >>> the same way by cloning and imaging utlities. "File backup" is >>> another matter. >>> >>> *TimDaniels* > > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> I had thought Anna had said her Casper "cloning" program does NOT retain >> the date stamps of the source directories, but instead gets timestamped >> with their creation date (i.e. the date of the cloning). This is NOT >> the case for a partition copy program like Norton Partition Magic, nor >> for >> a imaging program like TI Acronis, which *preserve* the source directory >> datetimestamps. >> >> So I'm missing your point here, I guess. As I see it, a disk cloning >> program simply copies all the files and folders, which is quite different >> than a "partition copy" program, or an imagining program (which MAY, but >> doesn't have to, compress the image). Those two preserve the original >> source directories date-time-stamps. >> >> Point noted about directories being a type of file. But (I think) >> that's going to add a bit more confusion to the point I was trying to >> make. > > > Bill: > To the best of my knowledge I never stated that the cloned copy of the > source HDD would reflect the creation dates of the files/folders based on > the date the clone was created. Quite the contrary. The dates will be > *exactly* reflected as they were reflected on the source HDD. OK, sorry, I must have missed that. > Anyway, thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that you can use > Windows Explorer to directly access files & folders on the disk-image > "archive" created through the Acronis program as you did in a previous > post. > I was unaware of that capability and such goes far in minimizing one of my > perceived negatives concerning the Acronis program as compared with a > disk-cloning program such as the Casper 4 program we've been discussing. > Anna Yeah - and it's kind of amazing that it even allows that, I think, since they're supposedly compressed. But I gave one possible explanation for that in the other post, but that's only my supposition. However, I am still unclear about one thing: From what you're saying, (if I read this right), you are saying that you can do an incremental backup with Casper (to save only the recent changes of the source drive), and then restore that back with the original source directory dates being retained in the restoration, which seems a bit amazing to me. I guess I wouldn't have expected that. But then again, I haven't played around with TI True Image's incremental backups, either, just prefering to do the whole enchilada, (and thereby not having to keep track of the separate incremental restoration images each time).
Guest Anna Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions > Anna wrote: >> Anyway, thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that you can use >> Windows Explorer to directly access files & folders on the disk-image >> "archive" created through the Acronis program as you did in a previous >> post. >> I was unaware of that capability and such goes far in minimizing one of >> my >> perceived negatives concerning the Acronis program as compared with a >> disk-cloning program such as the Casper 4 program we've been discussing. >> Anna "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ueHEfJBdIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Yeah - and it's kind of amazing that it even allows that, I think, since > they're supposedly compressed. But I gave one possible explanation for > that in the other post, but that's only my supposition. > > However, I am still unclear about one thing: From what you're saying, (if > I read this right), you are saying that you can do an incremental backup > with Casper (to save only the recent changes of the source drive), and > then restore that back with the original source directory dates being > retained in the restoration, which seems a bit amazing to me. I guess I > wouldn't have expected that. But then again, I haven't played around > with TI True Image's incremental backups, either, just prefering to do the > whole enchilada, (and thereby not having to keep track of the separate > incremental restoration images each time). Bill: Yes, you have it pretty much right. Although we're most impressed with the simplicity of design of the Casper 4 program which makes it so easy to use for even an inexperienced user and its general all-around effectiveness in cloning the contents of one HDD to another HDD... Its most important advantage (as compared with other disk-cloning programs) insofar as we are concerned is its rather extroardinary ability to create "incremental clones", using what Casper refers to as its "SmartClone" technology. The result of this is that it takes the user only a fraction of the time to create subsequent clones of the source HDD than it would otherwise take using the typical disk-cloning methodology. As an example... When a typical disk-cloning program undertakes its disk-to-disk cloning process it does so without regard that the "source" and "destination" HDDs involved in the disk-cloning operation are the *identical* drives that had been involved when a prior disk-cloning operation had been undertaken. It doesn't matter to the disk-cloning program whether the HDD now being cloned was cloned an hour ago, or a day ago, or whenever. The now disk cloning operation will proceed as if the HDD recipient of the clone, i.e., the destination HDD is bare of data, even though that same destination HDD was the recipient of a prior clone from the same source HDD 10 minutes ago. As a result... The disk-cloning operation will take a substantial amount of time to "do its work" each time the disk-cloning operation is undertaken, without regard to the fact that perhaps only a relatively few changes involving the source HDD's data has changed since the last disk-cloning operation. So let's say it takes about 30 minutes or so to clone the contents of a HDD containing 40 GB of data. Two days later the user decides to again back up his or her system by undertaking another disk-cloning operation. Presumably the data changes over those two days haven't been especially large. But it will take the disk-cloning program about the same period of time to perform the disk-cloning operation as it did originally. And so on and so on in the following days. But with the Casper 4 program, the program will recognize only the change in data that has occurred from its last disk-cloning operation and proceed to "do its work" on that basis. Thus, given the example above it will probably take less than 3 or 4 minutes to complete the disk-cloning operation. And so on and so forth. So you can see what a valuable incentive this is for users to systematically & routinely backup their systems with the Casper 4 program - knowing that the expenditure of time to complete the disk-cloning operation will be relatively slight. And the recipient of the clone - the destination HDD - will be a copy of the source HDD with all its data immediately accessible in precisely the same way one would access data from their source HDD - their day-to-day working HDD in most cases. And the destination HDD, should it be an internal HDD or installed as a internal HDD from an exterior enclosure will be immediately bootable without the need of any recovery process. It's worth considering... Anna
Recommended Posts