Acronis 7/XP Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frog
  • Start date Start date
F

Frog

Guest
I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it.
The computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD
player in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I
previously used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:

Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems
to have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I
don't think I would ever use any of this expanded capability.

Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?

Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk
for this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and
running?

I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not
dependent on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive
stopped working and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That
tells me that I should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard
drive specifically for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how
to best accomplish my goal?

Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy
disk? I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is
the case.

I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations
that any of you might have on this subject.



Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
Frog
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions


"Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it.
> The computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD
> player in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I
> previously used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:
>
> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems
> to have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I
> don't think I would ever use any of this expanded capability.
>
> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?
>
> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk
> for this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and
> running?
>
> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not
> dependent on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive
> stopped working and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That
> tells me that I should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard
> drive specifically for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how
> to best accomplish my goal?
>
> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy
> disk? I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is
> the case.
>
> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations
> that any of you might have on this subject.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
> Frog
>
>
>
>


http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/company/inpress/2004/02-20-silicon-trueimage.html
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Acronis TrueImage v7.0 is fully compatible with Windows XP.

If you've purchased the program on a CD, it will already be bootable. You can
also create bootable media during or after the installation. For this, you will
need a CD-R/RW blank, five formatted diskettes (or two for the safe variant), or
any other media your PC can boot from, such as a Zip drive.

FWIW, I use Acronis True Image monthly, to backup all of my drives/partitions
to a 160 GB drive mounted in an external USB enclosure. Any of these backups can
be easily restored, even in the case of a failed system drive, by using the
rescue CD.

I've used Acronis v7.0 to successfully backup and restore images of Win2K Pro
and WinXP Pro systems.

I now use v11.0.

Hope this helps.

"Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The
> computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player in
> it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously used on
> my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:
>
> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to
> have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't think I
> would ever use any of this expanded capability.
>
> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?
>
> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for this
> purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running?
>
> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent on
> having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working and I had
> to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I should either put
> my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically for this purpose. Do
> any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish my goal?
>
> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk? I
> believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case.
>
> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that any
> of you might have on this subject.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
> Frog
>
>
>
>
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

David Webb wrote:
> Acronis TrueImage v7.0 is fully compatible with Windows XP.
>
> If you've purchased the program on a CD, it will already be bootable. You
> can
> also create bootable media during or after the installation. For this, you
> will need a CD-R/RW blank, five formatted diskettes (or two for the safe
> variant), or any other media your PC can boot from, such as a Zip drive.
>
> FWIW, I use Acronis True Image monthly, to backup all of my
> drives/partitions
> to a 160 GB drive mounted in an external USB enclosure. Any of these
> backups
> can be easily restored, even in the case of a failed system drive, by
> using
> the rescue CD.
>
> I've used Acronis v7.0 to successfully backup and restore images of Win2K
> Pro
> and WinXP Pro systems.
>
> I now use v11.0.



Same here (backing up C: to an external IDE drive). And have restored it,
on occasion, using the Acronis CD (which is really nice - didn't need to
create one).

But I've always wondered, in addition to restoring the system partition C:,
is it ever necessary to restore the MBR and Track 0 (also presented as
options in Acronis)?

(I have a Dell, and the system is on the second partition of my HD - Dell
uses the first and third for its own stuff) Shouldn't the MBR also be
restored from the backup too? (apparently not, as I've gotten away without
doing it)



> Hope this helps.
>
> "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
> news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The
>> computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player
>> in
>> it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously
>> used
>> on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:
>>
>> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
>> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems
>> to
>> have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't
>> think
>> I would ever use any of this expanded capability.
>>
>> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
>> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?
>>
>> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for
>> this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running?
>>
>> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not
>> dependent on
>> having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working and
>> I
>> had to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I should
>> either put my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically for
>> this
>> purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish my goal?
>>
>> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk?
>> I
>> believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case.
>>
>> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that
>> any
>> of you might have on this subject.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
>> Frog
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Do one check: boot up the "recovery CD" and make sure it can see all your
hard drives, both for the partitions and the image files you have backed
up. I had a situation where on a particular mobo, I needed to use 11 to
see my sata drives, whereas a different mobo (I forget which) only needed
8.

I use 11 TI for my stuff, but used 8 for a long time. Damn thing works!
In ancient history I used ghost and previous to that used PQDI. Acronis TI
is better.

email them and tell them yyou have 7 and ask them if they'll give you a
break on an upgrade.



On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:34:45 -0500, David Webb wrote:

> Acronis TrueImage v7.0 is fully compatible with Windows XP.
>
> If you've purchased the program on a CD, it will already be bootable. You can
> also create bootable media during or after the installation. For this, you will
> need a CD-R/RW blank, five formatted diskettes (or two for the safe variant), or
> any other media your PC can boot from, such as a Zip drive.
>
> FWIW, I use Acronis True Image monthly, to backup all of my drives/partitions
> to a 160 GB drive mounted in an external USB enclosure. Any of these backups can
> be easily restored, even in the case of a failed system drive, by using the
> rescue CD.
>
> I've used Acronis v7.0 to successfully backup and restore images of Win2K Pro
> and WinXP Pro systems.
>
> I now use v11.0.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
> news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The
>> computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player in
>> it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously used on
>> my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:
>>
>> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
>> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to
>> have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't think I
>> would ever use any of this expanded capability.
>>
>> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
>> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?
>>
>> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for this
>> purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running?
>>
>> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent on
>> having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working and I had
>> to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I should either put
>> my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically for this purpose. Do
>> any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish my goal?
>>
>> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk? I
>> believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case.
>>
>> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that any
>> of you might have on this subject.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
>> Frog
>>
>>
>>
>>



--
Kris
--------
DFI P35-T2RL | E2200Alen 2.2@2.86 TtP0310 | 2x1gb Mushkin HP 800@1040 | MSI
NX8600GTS-OC 256mb |
Raidmax RX530-SS psu | XP Pro SP 3rc
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The
> computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player
> in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously
> used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:
>
> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to
> have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't
> think I would ever use any of this expanded capability.
>
> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?
>
> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for
> this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running?
>
> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent
> on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working
> and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I
> should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically
> for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish
> my goal?
>
> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk?
> I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case.
>
> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that
> any of you might have on this subject.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
> Frog
>
>
>
>


Probably the question you should be asking Acronis is if version 7 will be
able to access whatever you're saving your image file to for restoration.
That is from boot media of Acronis 7.
Dave
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Go to ugr.com and check out the entire website run by Gene Barlow. He is
fantastic in his advice and help and he will sell you Acronis 11 for $29. I
bought Acronis 10 and later Acronis 11 and recommend him highly. He is a rep
for many utilities you might be interested in. Good Luck. Stan
"Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The
> computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player
> in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously
> used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:
>
> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to
> have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't
> think I would ever use any of this expanded capability.
>
> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?
>
> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for
> this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running?
>
> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent
> on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working
> and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I
> should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically
> for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish
> my goal?
>
> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk?
> I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case.
>
> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that
> any of you might have on this subject.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
> Frog
>
>
>
>
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Thanks you one and all for your responses.

Here is what I think I have learned about Acronis and XP from your
responses:

1. Acronis 7 is compatible with the Windows XP operating system.

2. I did not purchase Acronis 7 on a CD...I downloaded it when it was
offered for free. I am not sure whether the version that I have, which
I used on my old 98SE system, can be loaded onto a second computer.

3. I understand that my purchase of Acronis 11 would give me a bootable
CD...a capability that would be nice to have if restoring my system
became necessary.

4. It seems that there are several places one could store Acronis-
produced backups, but that an external hard drive system seems to be the
best solution for storing backups.

5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before
it becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system.

6. That I should email the people at Acronis to see if they will give me
a break on upgrading to Version 11.

7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29.

Did I miss anything in my highlights?

I think I will upgrade my 30GB external hard drive for a 500GB
hard drive. I will use this external hard drive for my system backups.


QUESTION HERE---Is it best to put my backups on a separate partition or
is it okay to have one big partition with many folders, one of which
would be for system backups?

I also think I should purchase a new version of Acronis for use on my
new XP computer.

Again, thanks for all of the responses/recommendations/help...it
was all very much appreciated.

Frog
 
RE: Acronis 7/XP Questions

I've been using Acronis True Image since v7 and it works quite well on all my
XP systems. At times I prefer it to v11 because it seems (to me) to be
faster (although some of the "tricks" in the later versions make restoring
much faster).

It's better to store your backups on and external hard drive - but backing
up to DVD is also an option (although you'll end up using several DVD's each
time). DO NOT save it to your hard drive. If the hard drive dies, so do
your images!!! The only exception to this is if the computer will only run
v7 in it's Safe Mode when booting from the disk (and then it won't access USB
devices). This happened with my Toshiba M45 laptop.

I prefer booting from the Acronis boot CD and making the images from there.
That way there's nothing interfering with the process. I'm a bit leary of
imaging my OS partition while the OS is running (although I have done it) - I
worry about file access issues.

Finally, the best advice I've heard is to test the image. Don't assume that
it's good, even though it's been verified. Test it to be sure - that way you
won't be surprised when you need it.

- John

"Frog" wrote:

> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it.
> The computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD
> player in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I
> previously used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:
>
> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems
> to have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I
> don't think I would ever use any of this expanded capability.
>
> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?
>
> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk
> for this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and
> running?
>
> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not
> dependent on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive
> stopped working and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That
> tells me that I should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard
> drive specifically for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how
> to best accomplish my goal?
>
> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy
> disk? I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is
> the case.
>
> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations
> that any of you might have on this subject.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
> Frog
>
>
>
>
>
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions


> "Frog" wrote:
>
>> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it.
>> The computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD
>> player in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I
>> previously used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:
>>
>> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
>> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems
>> to have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I
>> don't think I would ever use any of this expanded capability.
>>
>> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
>> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?
>>
>> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk
>> for this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and
>> running?
>>
>> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not
>> dependent on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive
>> stopped working and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That
>> tells me that I should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard
>> drive specifically for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how
>> to best accomplish my goal?
>>
>> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy
>> disk? I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is
>> the case.
>>
>> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations
>> that any of you might have on this subject.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
>> Frog



"usasma" <usasma@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F40CF432-EDC8-460D-8603-190B79FBBBDC@microsoft.com...
> I've been using Acronis True Image since v7 and it works quite well on all
> my
> XP systems. At times I prefer it to v11 because it seems (to me) to be
> faster (although some of the "tricks" in the later versions make restoring
> much faster).
>
> It's better to store your backups on and external hard drive - but backing
> up to DVD is also an option (although you'll end up using several DVD's
> each
> time). DO NOT save it to your hard drive. If the hard drive dies, so do
> your images!!! The only exception to this is if the computer will only
> run
> v7 in it's Safe Mode when booting from the disk (and then it won't access
> USB
> devices). This happened with my Toshiba M45 laptop.
>
> I prefer booting from the Acronis boot CD and making the images from
> there.
> That way there's nothing interfering with the process. I'm a bit leary of
> imaging my OS partition while the OS is running (although I have done
> it) - I
> worry about file access issues.
>
> Finally, the best advice I've heard is to test the image. Don't assume
> that
> it's good, even though it's been verified. Test it to be sure - that way
> you
> won't be surprised when you need it.
>
> - John



Frog:
First of all, let me say at the outset that by & large the recent versions
of Acronis True Image are basically fine programs as many of the responders
to your query have indicated.

As a computer technician/consultant we've worked with a wide variety of disk
cloning/disk imaging programs involving perhaps thousands of PC systems &
users. Up until a few years ago our favorite disk-cloning program in an XP
environment was Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 version. We found the general
simplicity, straightforwardness, and most of all, effectiveness of this
program as a disk-cloning utility most appealing as long as the program was
being used through its bootable floppy disk containing the Ghost program
(and not through the Windows GUI). We found later versions of the Ghost
program - specifically versions 9 & 10 unacceptable for a variety of
reasons.

We began working with the Acronis program, like you, starting with version
7. While the program generally worked as it should we found too many
anomalies in both that version and the following version 8 to recommend it
wholeheartedly to our users. (I realize our experience with that program (at
least with respect to version 7), apparently differs from the experiences of
the other responders to your query who were, and are, apparently favorably
disposed toward that version. In any event, we did find the following
versions 9 & 10 sufficiently improved so that we did recommend the ATI
program to users. (We haven't worked with version 11 to any degree but from
the little experience we've had with that program I suspect it's not too
different from the previous 9 & 10 versions).

The disk-cloning program that we now strongly prefer is the Casper 4.0
program (http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/trial/). It's extremely
simple to use even for an inexperienced user, reasonably quick in operation,
and quite effective. There's virtually no learning curve in undertaking the
disk cloning process as one navigates through the few easy-to-understand
screens with a final mouse-click on the button on the screen which will
trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two disk-cloning
operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get to
that point.

The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program compared
with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis
True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create
*incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first)
disk clone. Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the
program can create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually at a
fraction of the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This results in
a decided incentive for the user to undertake frequent complete backups of
his or her system knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones in
a relatively short period of time.

The Casper 4.0 program is also capable of scheduling the disk-cloning
process on a daily, weekly, or other time period selected by the user so
that you could arrange for automatic backups at pre-determined times.

There's a trial version available (see above link) although it's somewhat
crippled but it will give you a good idea as to how the program works. And I
can provide further details about using the program should you be
interested.

The downside to the Casper 4 program as compared with the Acronis and most
other disk-cloning programs is the cost of the program which comes to $49.95
for the program + $9.95 for the "Casper Startup Disk" (the program to create
the bootable CD containing the Casper program). So it's more expensive than
the others. But in our view, well worth the additional cost. AFAIK, the
program is available only through download from the developer.

All of the above is predicated on the basis that you're seeking a reliable
program to backup your *entire* day-to-day booting HDD, including the XP OS,
all your programs & applications, and your user-created data. And you want a
simple-to-use program to do this on a systematic routine basis reasonably
quickly & effectively. To that end we've found this Casper 4.0 program
really fills the bill.

As to your query about using CDs or even DVDs for comprehensive backup
purposes - I would really advise against your doing so. And, as "usasma" has
indicated, it's never a wise idea to store a "disk image" on the same
physical drive you're backing up. (I should point out at this time that the
Casper program is designed only for disk-cloning, not disk imaging). You
would be so much better to use an external USB or Firewire external HDD as
the recipient of the disk clone. You might even want to consider the
recipient HDD to be an internal secondary HDD installed in your machine (I
assume you're working with a desktop machine). Having an external HDD
containing the backup copy of your system obviously gives you a greater
sense of security since the device would ordinarily be disconnected from the
machine following the disk-cloning operation.

Anyway, if you're more comfortable with the Acronis program, so be it. But
at least take a look at the Casper program and compare the two from the
point-of-view of your objectives.
Anna
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna"
<myname@myisp.net> wrote:

>The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program compared
>with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis
>True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create
>*incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first)
>disk clone.


Howdy,

The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and
differential images as well...

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Anna wrote:
>> "Frog" wrote:
>>
>>> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it.
>>> The computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD
>>> player in it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I
>>> previously used on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:
>>>
>>> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
>>> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems
>>> to have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I
>>> don't think I would ever use any of this expanded capability.
>>>
>>> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
>>> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?
>>>
>>> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk
>>> for this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and
>>> running?
>>>
>>> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not
>>> dependent on having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive
>>> stopped working and I had to start over with a new hard drive). That
>>> tells me that I should either put my backup on CDs or an external hard
>>> drive specifically for this purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how
>>> to best accomplish my goal?
>>>
>>> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy
>>> disk? I believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is
>>> the case.
>>>
>>> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations
>>> that any of you might have on this subject.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
>>> Frog

>
> "usasma" <usasma@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:F40CF432-EDC8-460D-8603-190B79FBBBDC@microsoft.com...
>> I've been using Acronis True Image since v7 and it works quite well on
>> all
>> my XP systems. At times I prefer it to v11 because it seems (to me) to
>> be
>> faster (although some of the "tricks" in the later versions make
>> restoring
>> much faster).
>>
>> It's better to store your backups on and external hard drive - but
>> backing
>> up to DVD is also an option (although you'll end up using several DVD's
>> each time). DO NOT save it to your hard drive. If the hard drive dies,
>> so do
>> your images!!! The only exception to this is if the computer will only
>> run
>> v7 in it's Safe Mode when booting from the disk (and then it won't access
>> USB devices). This happened with my Toshiba M45 laptop.
>>
>> I prefer booting from the Acronis boot CD and making the images from
>> there.
>> That way there's nothing interfering with the process. I'm a bit leary
>> of
>> imaging my OS partition while the OS is running (although I have done
>> it) - I worry about file access issues.
>>
>> Finally, the best advice I've heard is to test the image. Don't assume
>> that
>> it's good, even though it's been verified. Test it to be sure - that way
>> you
>> won't be surprised when you need it.
>>
>> - John

>
> Frog:
> First of all, let me say at the outset that by & large the recent versions
> of Acronis True Image are basically fine programs as many of the
> responders
> to your query have indicated.
>
> As a computer technician/consultant we've worked with a wide variety of
> disk
> cloning/disk imaging programs involving perhaps thousands of PC systems &
> users. Up until a few years ago our favorite disk-cloning program in an XP
> environment was Symantec's Norton Ghost 2003 version. We found the general
> simplicity, straightforwardness, and most of all, effectiveness of this
> program as a disk-cloning utility most appealing as long as the program
> was
> being used through its bootable floppy disk containing the Ghost program
> (and not through the Windows GUI). We found later versions of the Ghost
> program - specifically versions 9 & 10 unacceptable for a variety of
> reasons.
>
> We began working with the Acronis program, like you, starting with version
> 7. While the program generally worked as it should we found too many
> anomalies in both that version and the following version 8 to recommend it
> wholeheartedly to our users. (I realize our experience with that program
> (at
> least with respect to version 7), apparently differs from the experiences
> of
> the other responders to your query who were, and are, apparently favorably
> disposed toward that version. In any event, we did find the following
> versions 9 & 10 sufficiently improved so that we did recommend the ATI
> program to users. (We haven't worked with version 11 to any degree but
> from
> the little experience we've had with that program I suspect it's not too
> different from the previous 9 & 10 versions).


I think you need to check out version 11, Anna (to make these comparisons).
More on that below...

> The disk-cloning program that we now strongly prefer is the Casper 4.0
> program (http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/trial/). It's extremely
> simple to use even for an inexperienced user, reasonably quick in
> operation,
> and quite effective. There's virtually no learning curve in undertaking
> the
> disk cloning process as one navigates through the few easy-to-understand
> screens with a final mouse-click on the button on the screen which will
> trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two
> disk-cloning
> operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get to
> that point.
>
> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program compared
> with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis
> True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create
> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first)
> disk clone.


You can make something similar called a Differential Backup with Acronis
True Image (at least in version 11). I think it's about the same thing.
I just prefer to do a complete backup instead, regardless (feels safer, and
is simpler in some respects).


> Employing what Casper calls its "SmartClone" technology the
> program can create subsequent disk clones of the source HDD usually at a
> fraction of the time it takes to create a "full" disk clone. This results
> in
> a decided incentive for the user to undertake frequent complete backups of
> his or her system knowing that they can create "incremental" disk clones
> in
> a relatively short period of time.
>
> The Casper 4.0 program is also capable of scheduling the disk-cloning
> process on a daily, weekly, or other time period selected by the user so
> that you could arrange for automatic backups at pre-determined times.
>
> There's a trial version available (see above link) although it's somewhat
> crippled but it will give you a good idea as to how the program works. And
> I
> can provide further details about using the program should you be
> interested.
>
> The downside to the Casper 4 program as compared with the Acronis and most
> other disk-cloning programs is the cost of the program which comes to
> $49.95
> for the program + $9.95 for the "Casper Startup Disk" (the program to
> create
> the bootable CD containing the Casper program). So it's more expensive
> than
> the others. But in our view, well worth the additional cost. AFAIK, the
> program is available only through download from the developer.
>
> All of the above is predicated on the basis that you're seeking a reliable
> program to backup your *entire* day-to-day booting HDD, including the XP
> OS,
> all your programs & applications, and your user-created data. And you want
> a
> simple-to-use program to do this on a systematic routine basis reasonably
> quickly & effectively. To that end we've found this Casper 4.0 program
> really fills the bill.
>
> As to your query about using CDs or even DVDs for comprehensive backup
> purposes - I would really advise against your doing so. And, as "usasma"
> has
> indicated, it's never a wise idea to store a "disk image" on the same
> physical drive you're backing up. (I should point out at this time that
> the
> Casper program is designed only for disk-cloning, not disk imaging). You
> would be so much better to use an external USB or Firewire external HDD as
> the recipient of the disk clone. You might even want to consider the
> recipient HDD to be an internal secondary HDD installed in your machine (I
> assume you're working with a desktop machine). Having an external HDD
> containing the backup copy of your system obviously gives you a greater
> sense of security since the device would ordinarily be disconnected from
> the
> machine following the disk-cloning operation.
>
> Anyway, if you're more comfortable with the Acronis program, so be it. But
> at least take a look at the Casper program and compare the two from the
> point-of-view of your objectives.
> Anna
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Kenneth wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna"
> <myname@myisp.net> wrote:
>
>> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program compared
>> with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis
>> True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create
>> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first)
>> disk clone.

>
> Howdy,
>
> The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and
> differential images as well...
>
> All the best,
> --
> Kenneth


Yeah, as I was saying above, Anna is a bit out of date with her advice on
this one.
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
news:%23SsWloccIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks you one and all for your responses.
>
> Here is what I think I have learned about Acronis and XP from your
> responses:
>
> 1. Acronis 7 is compatible with the Windows XP operating system.
>
> 2. I did not purchase Acronis 7 on a CD...I downloaded it when it was
> offered for free. I am not sure whether the version that I have, which
> I used on my old 98SE system, can be loaded onto a second computer.
>
> 3. I understand that my purchase of Acronis 11 would give me a bootable
> CD...a capability that would be nice to have if restoring my system
> became necessary.
>
> 4. It seems that there are several places one could store Acronis-
> produced backups, but that an external hard drive system seems to be the
> best solution for storing backups.
>
> 5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before it
> becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system.
>
> 6. That I should email the people at Acronis to see if they will give me
> a break on upgrading to Version 11.
>
> 7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29.
>
> Did I miss anything in my highlights?
>


Sure did. Make very sure the restoration works properly before going down
the road a few months and finding out the restore won't work for some
reason.

> I think I will upgrade my 30GB external hard drive for a 500GB
> hard drive. I will use this external hard drive for my system backups.
>
>
> QUESTION HERE---Is it best to put my backups on a separate partition or
> is it okay to have one big partition with many folders, one of which
> would be for system backups?
>


As long as its NTFS partitioned...

And, you seem to be doing it backwards regarding hard drive capacity. That
is 500GB for the onboard/XP hard drive, and 30GB for the external for
imaging AND other data.
Dave
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Comments inline....

"Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
news:%23SsWloccIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks you one and all for your responses.
>
> Here is what I think I have learned about Acronis and XP from your
> responses:
>
> 1. Acronis 7 is compatible with the Windows XP operating system.
>
> 2. I did not purchase Acronis 7 on a CD...I downloaded it when it was
> offered for free. I am not sure whether the version that I have, which
> I used on my old 98SE system, can be loaded onto a second computer.
>
> 3. I understand that my purchase of Acronis 11 would give me a bootable
> CD...a capability that would be nice to have if restoring my system
> became necessary.
>


If you generate the Rescue CD, it's not only bootable but it contains all of the
utility's features necessary for backup and restore. It doesn't require the
system to have an installed version of Acronis.

> 4. It seems that there are several places one could store Acronis-
> produced backups, but that an external hard drive system seems to be the
> best solution for storing backups.
>
> 5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before it
> becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system.
>


Acornis has an option to verify the image after creating it. This is the only
method I've ever had to use. This verification almost doubles the backup time,
but it's well worth it (I only started using it after learning the hard way).
This feature can be used at anytime on any full image.

> 6. That I should email the people at Acronis to see if they will give me
> a break on upgrading to Version 11.
>
> 7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29.
>
> Did I miss anything in my highlights?
>
> I think I will upgrade my 30GB external hard drive for a 500GB
> hard drive. I will use this external hard drive for my system backups.
>


The 30 GB is too small for that purpose. You can get a 250 GB drive for $80 USD
or buy one if the USB drives already mounted..

>
> QUESTION HERE---Is it best to put my backups on a separate partition or
> is it okay to have one big partition with many folders, one of which
> would be for system backups?
>


One big partition will work just fine.

> I also think I should purchase a new version of Acronis for use on my
> new XP computer.
>


Version 7.0 is limited in one way...it cannot create backup file sizes for DVD
media (it will create CD sizes). I prefer to backup using CD or DVD media sizes
in case I want to burn them to disc for permanent archive purposes, such as for
a new installation of a basic operating system (containing no user info).

> Again, thanks for all of the responses/recommendations/help...it
> was all very much appreciated.
>


You're welcome...and thanks for the feedback!
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

I'm not sure about your MBR questions. I've been using a backup/restore utility
from PowerQuest. I've never had the need to restore the MBR. You may want to
pose your questions to Acornis tech support.

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eV$zMERcIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> David Webb wrote:
>> Acronis TrueImage v7.0 is fully compatible with Windows XP.
>>
>> If you've purchased the program on a CD, it will already be bootable. You can
>> also create bootable media during or after the installation. For this, you
>> will need a CD-R/RW blank, five formatted diskettes (or two for the safe
>> variant), or any other media your PC can boot from, such as a Zip drive.
>>
>> FWIW, I use Acronis True Image monthly, to backup all of my drives/partitions
>> to a 160 GB drive mounted in an external USB enclosure. Any of these backups
>> can be easily restored, even in the case of a failed system drive, by using
>> the rescue CD.
>>
>> I've used Acronis v7.0 to successfully backup and restore images of Win2K
>> Pro
>> and WinXP Pro systems.
>>
>> I now use v11.0.

>
>
> Same here (backing up C: to an external IDE drive). And have restored it, on
> occasion, using the Acronis CD (which is really nice - didn't need to create
> one).
>
> But I've always wondered, in addition to restoring the system partition C:, is
> it ever necessary to restore the MBR and Track 0 (also presented as options in
> Acronis)?
>
> (I have a Dell, and the system is on the second partition of my HD - Dell uses
> the first and third for its own stuff) Shouldn't the MBR also be restored
> from the backup too? (apparently not, as I've gotten away without doing it)
>
>
>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> "Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
>> news:OAQeZFQcIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> I have a new computer that has Windows XP software loaded on it. The
>>> computer includes a floppy drive (A drive) and a read/write CD/DVD player in
>>> it. I also have a copy of Acronis 7 backup software that I previously used
>>> on my old Windows 98SE system. Now, for my questions:
>>>
>>> Is Acronis 7 compatible with a Windows XP machine? I think, based on my
>>> research on the Web, that it is compatible. The newer version 11 seems to
>>> have many new whistles and bells included in the software, but I don't think
>>> I would ever use any of this expanded capability.
>>>
>>> Secondly, is it better to have my backups on my hard drive (E Drive) or
>>> separate CDs? What are the pros and cons associated with both options?
>>>
>>> Is it better to make the backups using an Acronis startup floppy disk for
>>> this purpose or use the software on the system once it is up and running?
>>>
>>> I would really like to be able to have a backup that is not dependent
>>> on
>>> having a working hard drive (say that the hard drive stopped working and I
>>> had to start over with a new hard drive). That tells me that I should
>>> either put my backup on CDs or an external hard drive specifically for this
>>> purpose. Do any of you have thoughts on how to best accomplish my goal?
>>>
>>> Lastly, will Windows XP recognize an Acronis 7 startup floppy disk? I
>>> believe that it will, but I need some reassurance that that is the case.
>>>
>>> I would like to hear any other thoughts and/or recommendations that any
>>> of you might have on this subject.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for any help sent my way on this subject.
>>> Frog

>
>
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions


> Kenneth wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna"
>> <myname@myisp.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program
>>> compared
>>> with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g., Acronis
>>> True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create
>>> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original (first)
>>> disk clone.



"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ef04SWecIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Howdy,
>>
>> The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and
>> differential images as well...
>>
>> All the best,
>> --
>> Kenneth

>
> Yeah, as I was saying above, Anna is a bit out of date with her advice on
> this one.



Bill & Kenneth:
Well, not exactly...

Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk
imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of
programs.

As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of
programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my
experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD.
This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the user
routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning program as a
comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their systems on a daily
(or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week or some such. This
"incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it "SmartClone
technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her system at a
fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs to perform a
complete disk clone each time the program is employed.

Let me give you an example...
Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the drive
that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be used to
undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there will be
virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as compared with any
other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might take somewhere in the
neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general proposition.

But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program will
kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two or
three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her current
system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her system.
Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the period
between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time. Using
Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning operation
will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform the initial
disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And the same will be
true for future disk-cloning operations involving the source and destination
hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive for a user to perform
frequent backups of his/her system knowing that each subsequent operation
will just take a few short minutes and they will have a comprehensive backup
of their system?

And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging". Having
a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is necessary
as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data in a usable
form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the other hand, is
immediately available and the drive is potentially bootable. After all, it's
an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a single (or multiple) files
of "disk images" that require a restoration process to "translate" them into
usable, accessible data. This, of course, has always been the major
advantage of a disk-cloning type of program as compared with a disk-imaging
type of program. But the basic downside (at least up to now) of the
disk-cloning program is that each time the disk-cloning operation was
undertaken basically it took the same amount of time to complete the
operation. So unfortunately in too many instances the user was loathe to
employ his or her disk-cloning program to maintain current backups of their
systems because of the length of time it took to complete the disk-cloning
operation. There was no real concept of an "incremental disk clone" until
this Casper 4.0 program came along - at least to my knowledge.

Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging program
as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following circumstances...

Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of
his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging program
would be a more practical means of achieving that objective.

Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's an
*extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no
"learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few
easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which will
trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two disk-cloning
operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get to
that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use.

So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current advice...
Anna
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions


"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:%238jYN4kcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>> Kenneth wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna"
>>> <myname@myisp.net> wrote:


> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ef04SWecIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...


> Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk
> imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of
> programs.
>
> As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of
> programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my
> experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD.
> This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the
> user routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning
> program as a comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their
> systems on a daily (or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week
> or some such. This "incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it
> "SmartClone technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her
> system at a fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs
> to perform a complete disk clone each time the program is employed.
>
> Let me give you an example...
> Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the drive
> that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be used to
> undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there will be
> virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as compared with
> any other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might take somewhere in
> the neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general proposition.
>
> But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program will
> kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two
> or three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her
> current system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her
> system. Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the
> period between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time.
> Using Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning
> operation will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform
> the initial disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And
> the same will be true for future disk-cloning operations involving the
> source and destination hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive
> for a user to perform frequent backups of his/her system knowing that each
> subsequent operation will just take a few short minutes and they will have
> a comprehensive backup of their system?
>
> And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging".
> Having a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is
> necessary as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data
> in a usable form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the other
> hand, is immediately available and the drive is potentially bootable.
> After all, it's an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a single (or
> multiple) files of "disk images" that require a restoration process to
> "translate" them into usable, accessible data. This, of course, has always
> been the major advantage of a disk-cloning type of program as compared
> with a disk-imaging type of program. But the basic downside (at least up
> to now) of the disk-cloning program is that each time the disk-cloning
> operation was undertaken basically it took the same amount of time to
> complete the operation. So unfortunately in too many instances the user
> was loathe to employ his or her disk-cloning program to maintain current
> backups of their systems because of the length of time it took to complete
> the disk-cloning operation. There was no real concept of an "incremental
> disk clone" until this Casper 4.0 program came along - at least to my
> knowledge.
>
> Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging
> program as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following
> circumstances...
>
> Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of
> his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging
> program would be a more practical means of achieving that objective.
>
> Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's an
> *extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no
> "learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few
> easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which
> will trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two
> disk-cloning operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or
> so to get to that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use.
>
> So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current
> advice...
> Anna


Anna, no matter how one looks at the differences in the back up software
Casper is
a bit too pricey for the average end user. Another fact is that a lot of
people do not
know the difference between a clone and a back up image. However I think
that
your knowledge and advice is above reproach.
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Frank" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote:

>Anna, no matter how one looks at the differences in the back up software
>Casper is a bit too pricey for the average end user.


And too limited
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Anna wrote:
>> Kenneth wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna"
>>> <myname@myisp.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program
>>>> compared
>>>> with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with, e.g.,
>>>> Acronis
>>>> True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability to create
>>>> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original
>>>> (first)
>>>> disk clone.

>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ef04SWecIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and
>>> differential images as well...
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>> --
>>> Kenneth

>>
>> Yeah, as I was saying above, Anna is a bit out of date with her advice on
>> this one.

>
>
> Bill & Kenneth:
> Well, not exactly...
>
> Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk
> imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of
> programs.
>
> As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of
> programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my
> experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD.
> This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the
> user
> routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning program as
> a
> comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their systems on a daily
> (or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week or some such. This
> "incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it "SmartClone
> technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her system at a
> fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs to perform a
> complete disk clone each time the program is employed.
>
> Let me give you an example...
> Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the drive
> that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be used to
> undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there will be
> virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as compared with
> any
> other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might take somewhere in the
> neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general proposition.
>
> But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program will
> kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two
> or
> three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her current
> system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her system.
> Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the period
> between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time. Using
> Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning
> operation
> will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform the
> initial
> disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And the same will
> be
> true for future disk-cloning operations involving the source and
> destination
> hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive for a user to perform
> frequent backups of his/her system knowing that each subsequent operation
> will just take a few short minutes and they will have a comprehensive
> backup
> of their system?
>
> And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging".
> Having
> a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is
> necessary
> as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data in a usable
> form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the other hand, is
> immediately available and the drive is potentially bootable. After all,
> it's
> an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a single (or multiple) files
> of "disk images" that require a restoration process to "translate" them
> into
> usable, accessible data. This, of course, has always been the major
> advantage of a disk-cloning type of program as compared with a
> disk-imaging
> type of program. But the basic downside (at least up to now) of the
> disk-cloning program is that each time the disk-cloning operation was
> undertaken basically it took the same amount of time to complete the
> operation. So unfortunately in too many instances the user was loathe to
> employ his or her disk-cloning program to maintain current backups of
> their
> systems because of the length of time it took to complete the disk-cloning
> operation. There was no real concept of an "incremental disk clone" until
> this Casper 4.0 program came along - at least to my knowledge.
>
> Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging
> program
> as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following circumstances...
>
> Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of
> his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging
> program
> would be a more practical means of achieving that objective.
>
> Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's an
> *extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no
> "learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few
> easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which
> will
> trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two
> disk-cloning
> operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get to
> that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use.
>
> So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current
> advice...
> Anna


OK Anna, I see the distinction between cloning and imaging that you're
getting at. My apologies on that one.

But also do recognize that TI (ver 11) at least, has that incremental
imaging option, which might be useful (for some).

The other point I might make is I expect (but I don't know this for a fact)
that TI is a bit more full featured than Casper - is able to do more things.
But for a simple backup, maybe Casper is a simpler way.

However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system back with the
identical folder and subfolder dates of the original, I'm guessing that a
"disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do that - unlike an image backup.
(For some of us, that is nice to have (to know when we added programs, for
example - as a history)
 
Back
Top