Acronis 7/XP Questions

[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.


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


>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:ef04SWecIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Yeah, as I was saying above, Anna is a bit out of date with her advice
>>> on
>>> this one.


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


"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OxvwUVmcIHA.6024@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> OK Anna, I see the distinction between cloning and imaging that you're
> getting at. My apologies on that one.
>
> But also do recognize that TI (ver 11) at least, has that incremental
> imaging option, which might be useful (for some).
>
> The other point I might make is I expect (but I don't know this for a
> fact) that TI is a bit more full featured than Casper - is able to do more
> things. But for a simple backup, maybe Casper is a simpler way.
>
> However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system back with the
> identical folder and subfolder dates of the original, I'm guessing that a
> "disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do that - unlike an image
> backup. (For some of us, that is nice to have (to know when we added
> programs, for example - as a history)


Bill:
Yes, you are correct in that as I stated in my last post, should the user be
interested in maintaining "generational" backup copies of his/her system,
then a disk-imaging type of program such as ATI would be more appropriate
than a disk-cloning type of program such as the Casper 4.0 program that
we've recommended. Other than that I believe that a disk-cloning type of
program holds more advantages for the largest number of PC users than does a
disk-imaging type of program, for the reasons I've previously stated. And
again, for the reasons I've previously stated, I believe the Casper 4.0
program is superior to the others, including the ATI program.

As to one program being more "full featured" than another, frankly what I've
learned over the years of working with & for thousands of PC users and a
multitude of PC systems is that the overwhelming critical need for virtually
every user of a PC is to maintain a comprehensive backup of his or her
system, including the OS, all programs & applications and, of course,
user-created data. And to do so on a systematic, routine basis so that
his/her backed-up system is relatively current at any point in time. This,
as you know, can be achieved through a disk-cloning (as well as a
disk-imaging) program, and if that objective can be achieved through the use
of a reliable, easy-to-use, and relatively quick program such as the Casper
4.0 program that I've described, then so much the better in my opinion.
Anna

 

[Anna]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions


> "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
> news:%238jYN4kcIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk
>> imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of
>> programs.
>>
>> As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of
>> programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my
>> experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD.
>> This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the
>> user routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning
>> program as a comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their
>> systems on a daily (or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week
>> or some such. This "incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it
>> "SmartClone technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her
>> system at a fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs
>> to perform a complete disk clone each time the program is employed.
>>
>> Let me give you an example...
>> Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the
>> drive that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be
>> used to undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there
>> will be virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as
>> compared with any other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might
>> take somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general
>> proposition.
>>
>> But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program will
>> kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two
>> or three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her
>> current system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her
>> system. Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the
>> period between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time.
>> Using Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning
>> operation will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform
>> the initial disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And
>> the same will be true for future disk-cloning operations involving the
>> source and destination hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive
>> for a user to perform frequent backups of his/her system knowing that
>> each subsequent operation will just take a few short minutes and they
>> will have a comprehensive backup of their system?
>>
>> And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging".
>> Having a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is
>> necessary as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data
>> in a usable form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the
>> other hand, is immediately available and the drive is potentially
>> bootable. After all, it's an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a
>> single (or multiple) files of "disk images" that require a restoration
>> process to "translate" them into usable, accessible data. This, of
>> course, has always been the major advantage of a disk-cloning type of
>> program as compared with a disk-imaging type of program. But the basic
>> downside (at least up to now) of the disk-cloning program is that each
>> time the disk-cloning operation was undertaken basically it took the same
>> amount of time to complete the operation. So unfortunately in too many
>> instances the user was loathe to employ his or her disk-cloning program
>> to maintain current backups of their systems because of the length of
>> time it took to complete the disk-cloning operation. There was no real
>> concept of an "incremental disk clone" until this Casper 4.0 program came
>> along - at least to my knowledge.
>>
>> Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging
>> program as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following
>> circumstances...
>>
>> Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of
>> his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging
>> program would be a more practical means of achieving that objective.
>>
>> Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's
>> an *extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no
>> "learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few
>> easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which
>> will trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two
>> disk-cloning operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds
>> or so to get to that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use.
>>
>> So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current
>> advice...
>> Anna


"Frank" <bbunny@bqik.net> wrote in message
news:OB$7YWlcIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Anna, no matter how one looks at the differences in the back up software
> Casper is
> a bit too pricey for the average end user. Another fact is that a lot of
> people do not
> know the difference between a clone and a back up image. However I think
> that
> your knowledge and advice is above reproach.


Frank:
While it is true, as you indicate, that the Casper 4.0 program is more
expensive than virtually every other disk-cloning disk-imaging program that
I'm familiar with, for the reasons I've previously given I believe the extra
cost is well worth the additional expense. Admittedly, this is obviously a
personal decision that has to be made by the individual user. All I can say
is that we've found that *every user* we're familiar with, after using the
Casper 4.0 program over a period of weeks & months has *never* expressed
regret, for even one moment, the add'l expense entailed by purchasing the
Casper program. On the contrary - most of the comments we've heard were of
the nature - "Why didn't I know about or use this program before?". But
again, I fully admit that many potential users will find the program too
expensive to purchase. More's the pity.

And yes, you are correct that a "lot" (actually a vast, if not overwhelming
majority in our experience) of users do not know the difference between a
disk-clone and a disk-image. Again, more's the pity. But I hope forums like
this one will help to educate many users so that they can make an informed
choice based on their specific needs.

And thank you for your gracious comment about my advice being "above
reproach". But, in truth, my advice is *not* above reproach in terms of
being criticized or argued against. I fully understand that others may have
different points of view and may be equally valid given their specific needs
& objectives. So this is just my particular point of view as it refers to
this particular issue.
Anna

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Anna wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:56:28 -0500, "Anna"
>>>>> <myname@myisp.net> wrote:
>>>>>> The significant advantage of the Casper 4.0 disk cloning program
>>>>>> compared with other disk cloning programs that we're familiar with,
>>>>>> e.g., Acronis True Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost, is its ability
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> create
>>>>>> *incremental* disk clones following the creation of the original
>>>>>> (first) disk clone.
>
>
>>>> Kenneth wrote:
>>>>> Howdy,
>>>>>
>>>>> The last few versions of TIW do incremental, and
>>>>> differential images as well...
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kenneth
>
>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ef04SWecIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Yeah, as I was saying above, Anna is a bit out of date with her advice
>>>> on
>>>> this one.
>
>
>> Anna wrote:
>>> Bill & Kenneth:
>>> Well, not exactly...
>>>
>>> Understand that Casper 4.0 is a *disk-cloning* program and *not* a *disk
>>> imaging* program. This is a significant difference re these types of
>>> programs.
>>>
>>> As I've tried to explain, Casper 4.0 (unlike other disk-cloning type of
>>> programs that I've worked with) has this unique (at least unique in my
>>> experience) capability to create *incremental* clones of the source HDD.
>>> This capability results in a truly substantial savings of time when the
>>> user
>>> routinely uses (as he or she *should*) his or her disk cloning program
>>> as
>>> a
>>> comprehensive backup program, perhaps backing up their systems on a
>>> daily
>>> (or even more frequent basis) or once or twice a week or some such. This
>>> "incremental" disk-cloning capability (Casper calls it "SmartClone
>>> technology") means that the user can routinely backup his/her system at
>>> a
>>> fraction of a time it would take other disk-cloning programs to perform
>>> a
>>> complete disk clone each time the program is employed.
>>>
>>> Let me give you an example...
>>> Let's say there's 30 to 40 GB of data on the "source" HDD, i.e., the
>>> drive
>>> that will be backed up. During the first time that Casper will be used
>>> to
>>> undertake the disk-cloning operation to a recipient HDD, there will be
>>> virtually no savings of time undertaking this operation as compared with
>>> any
>>> other disk-cloning or disk-imaging program. It might take somewhere in
>>> the
>>> neighborhood of 30 minutes of so as a general proposition.
>>>
>>> But from here on out the significant advantage of the Casper program
>>> will
>>> kick in as compared with other disk-cloning programs. Let's say that two
>>> or
>>> three or four days later the user again desires to backup his/her
>>> current
>>> system so as to maintain an up-to-the-moment backup of his/her system.
>>> Obviously various changes to the system have occurred during the period
>>> between the original disk-cloning operation and the present time. Using
>>> Casper's built-in "SmartClone" capability the entire disk-cloning
>>> operation
>>> will be undertaken in a fraction of the time it took to perform the
>>> initial
>>> disk-cloning operation - probably well under 5 minutes. And the same
>>> will
>>> be
>>> true for future disk-cloning operations involving the source and
>>> destination
>>> hard drives. Isn't that an extroardinary incentive for a user to perform
>>> frequent backups of his/her system knowing that each subsequent
>>> operation
>>> will just take a few short minutes and they will have a comprehensive
>>> backup
>>> of their system?
>>>
>>> And remember, we're talking about "disk-cloning", not "disk imaging".
>>> Having
>>> a disk clone at hand means that no recovery/restoration process is
>>> necessary
>>> as it would be with a disk "image" in order to access the data in a
>>> usable
>>> form. The data on the disk clone's recipient HDD, on the other hand, is
>>> immediately available and the drive is potentially bootable. After all,
>>> it's
>>> an *exact* copy of the source HDD, not merely a single (or multiple)
>>> files
>>> of "disk images" that require a restoration process to "translate" them
>>> into
>>> usable, accessible data. This, of course, has always been the major
>>> advantage of a disk-cloning type of program as compared with a
>>> disk-imaging
>>> type of program. But the basic downside (at least up to now) of the
>>> disk-cloning program is that each time the disk-cloning operation was
>>> undertaken basically it took the same amount of time to complete the
>>> operation. So unfortunately in too many instances the user was loathe to
>>> employ his or her disk-cloning program to maintain current backups of
>>> their
>>> systems because of the length of time it took to complete the
>>> disk-cloning
>>> operation. There was no real concept of an "incremental disk clone"
>>> until
>>> this Casper 4.0 program came along - at least to my knowledge.
>>>
>>> Now I must admit that there could be an advantage of a disk-imaging
>>> program
>>> as compared to a disk-cloning program under the following
>>> circumstances...
>>>
>>> Should the user be interested in maintaining "generational" copies of
>>> his/her system at various points in time, most likely a disk-imaging
>>> program
>>> would be a more practical means of achieving that objective.
>>>
>>> Just one other thing I would like to add about the Casper program. It's
>>> an
>>> *extremely* easy program for the user to learn. There's virtually no
>>> "learning curve" involved here. One navigates through the few
>>> easy-to-understand screens with a final mouse-click on the button which
>>> will
>>> trigger the disk-cloning process. After undertaking one or two
>>> disk-cloning
>>> operations it should take the user no more than 20 seconds or so to get
>>> to
>>> that point. Simply stated, the program is a joy to use.
>>>
>>> So Bill, just perhaps I'm not a "bit out of date" with my current
>>> advice...
>>> Anna
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OxvwUVmcIHA.6024@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> OK Anna, I see the distinction between cloning and imaging that you're
>> getting at. My apologies on that one.
>>
>> But also do recognize that TI (ver 11) at least, has that incremental
>> imaging option, which might be useful (for some).
>>
>> The other point I might make is I expect (but I don't know this for a
>> fact) that TI is a bit more full featured than Casper - is able to do
>> more
>> things. But for a simple backup, maybe Casper is a simpler way.
>>
>> However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system back with
>> the
>> identical folder and subfolder dates of the original, I'm guessing that a
>> "disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do that - unlike an image
>> backup. (For some of us, that is nice to have (to know when we added
>> programs, for example - as a history)
>
>
> Bill:
> Yes, you are correct in that as I stated in my last post, should the user
> be
> interested in maintaining "generational" backup copies of his/her system,
> then a disk-imaging type of program such as ATI would be more appropriate
> than a disk-cloning type of program such as the Casper 4.0 program that
> we've recommended. Other than that I believe that a disk-cloning type of
> program holds more advantages for the largest number of PC users than does
> a
> disk-imaging type of program, for the reasons I've previously stated. And
> again, for the reasons I've previously stated, I believe the Casper 4.0
> program is superior to the others, including the ATI program.
>
> As to one program being more "full featured" than another, frankly what
> I've
> learned over the years of working with & for thousands of PC users and a
> multitude of PC systems is that the overwhelming critical need for
> virtually
> every user of a PC is to maintain a comprehensive backup of his or her
> system, including the OS, all programs & applications and, of course,
> user-created data. And to do so on a systematic, routine basis so that
> his/her backed-up system is relatively current at any point in time. This,
> as you know, can be achieved through a disk-cloning (as well as a
> disk-imaging) program, and if that objective can be achieved through the
> use
> of a reliable, easy-to-use, and relatively quick program such as the
> Casper
> 4.0 program that I've described, then so much the better in my opinion.
> Anna

True enough. My "needs" seemingly tend to be a bit more ... "eclectic".

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

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


Since the clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original
partition, why wouldn't its files have the same date stamps as well?
The files are not copied as files - they are copied as bytes with
no consideration given to what they represent.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> "Bill in Co." wrote:
>>> [....] However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system
>>> back with the identical folder and subfolder dates of the original,
>>> I'm guessing that a "disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do
>>> that - unlike an image backup. (For some of us, that is nice to have
>>> (to know when we added programs, for example - as a history)
>
> Since the clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original
> partition, why wouldn't its files have the same date stamps as well?
> The files are not copied as files - they are copied as bytes with
> no consideration given to what they represent.
>
> *TimDaniels*

I'm not talking about the files. I'm talking about the directories - the
date stamps of all the directories and subdirectories. (Big difference
there).

 

[Anna]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions


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

> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> Since the clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original
>> partition, why wouldn't its files have the same date stamps as well?
>> The files are not copied as files - they are copied as bytes with
>> no consideration given to what they represent.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*


"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eEpFnPocIHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> I'm not talking about the files. I'm talking about the directories -
> the date stamps of all the directories and subdirectories. (Big
> difference there).


Bill:
Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment...

The recipient, e.g., another HDD, of a disk-cloning program (AFAIK, *any*
disk-cloning program), will reflect the "date created" of any directory
("folder") and/or sub-directory ("sub-folder") that is cloned to the
recipient ("destination") drive. Are you under the impression that these
dates on the destination drive would reflect the date the disk cloning
operation was undertaken? As Tim has, in effect, pointed out - a clone is a
clone is a clone.

BTW, returning to our prior discussion re the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning
program...

I thought you might be interested in knowing that a few moments ago I had
occasion to clone the contents of one of our machines that held about 35 GB
of total data. We previously had cloned the contents of that machine back on
1/30. Using the same source HDD that was previously used in the disk-cloning
operation on 1/30, we used the Casper 4.0 program to perform another
disk-cloning operation. Obviously considerable data changes had been taken
re the source drive during this 20-day period.

We completed the disk-cloning operation in just about 6 minutes. That gives
you some idea of the speed of the Casper program re its "incremental"
disk-cloning capability. Just thought you would like to know.
Anna

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

....and all the world loves a clone.

Actually, clones are no big deal. Seen one, seen 'em all.

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:OMHIBuocIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:
>>>>> [....] However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system
>>>>> back with the identical folder and subfolder dates of the original,
>>>>> I'm guessing that a "disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do
>>>>> that - unlike an image backup. (For some of us, that is nice to have
>>>>> (to know when we added programs, for example - as a history)
>>>
>
>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>> Since the clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original
>>> partition, why wouldn't its files have the same date stamps as well?
>>> The files are not copied as files - they are copied as bytes with
>>> no consideration given to what they represent.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eEpFnPocIHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> I'm not talking about the files. I'm talking about the directories -
>> the date stamps of all the directories and subdirectories. (Big
>> difference there).
>
>
> Bill:
> Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment...
>
> The recipient, e.g., another HDD, of a disk-cloning program (AFAIK, *any*
> disk-cloning program), will reflect the "date created" of any directory
> ("folder") and/or sub-directory ("sub-folder") that is cloned to the
> recipient ("destination") drive. Are you under the impression that these
> dates on the destination drive would reflect the date the disk cloning
> operation was undertaken? As Tim has, in effect, pointed out - a clone is
> a clone is a clone.
>
> BTW, returning to our prior discussion re the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning
> program...
>
> I thought you might be interested in knowing that a few moments ago I had
> occasion to clone the contents of one of our machines that held about 35
> GB of total data. We previously had cloned the contents of that machine
> back on 1/30. Using the same source HDD that was previously used in the
> disk-cloning operation on 1/30, we used the Casper 4.0 program to perform
> another disk-cloning operation. Obviously considerable data changes had
> been taken re the source drive during this 20-day period.
>
> We completed the disk-cloning operation in just about 6 minutes. That
> gives you some idea of the speed of the Casper program re its
> "incremental" disk-cloning capability. Just thought you would like to
> know.
> Anna
>
>

 

[Kenneth]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:38 -0500, "Anna"
<myname@myisp.net> wrote:

>>SNIP<<
>
>And yes, you are correct that a "lot" (actually a vast, if not overwhelming
>majority in our experience) of users do not know the difference between a
>disk-clone and a disk-image. Again, more's the pity. But I hope forums like
>this one will help to educate many users so that they can make an informed
>choice based on their specific needs.
>
>>SNIP<<

Hi Anna,

I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming
majority" who understands nothing about the difference
between "cloning" and "imaging."

Can you describe that to me?

Sincere thanks,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote:

[snip of a lot of quoted "Anna" material and more]

>And thank you for your gracious comment about my advice being "above
>reproach". But, in truth, my advice is *not* above reproach in terms of
>being criticized or argued against. I fully understand that others may have
>different points of view and may be equally valid given their specific needs
>& objectives. So this is just my particular point of view as it refers to
>this particular issue.
>Anna

I have found that "less is more" is a good guideline.

While your advice certainly appears to come from some long and good
experience, I think you could state your point much better if you
tried to keep your replies much briefer.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Anna wrote:
>>>> "Bill in Co." wrote:
>>>>> [....] However, let me ask you this: if you want to get your system
>>>>> back with the identical folder and subfolder dates of the original,
>>>>> I'm guessing that a "disk cloning system" will NOT be able to do
>>>>> that - unlike an image backup. (For some of us, that is nice to have
>>>>> (to know when we added programs, for example - as a history)
>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>> Since the clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original
>>> partition, why wouldn't its files have the same date stamps as well?
>>> The files are not copied as files - they are copied as bytes with
>>> no consideration given to what they represent.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:eEpFnPocIHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> I'm not talking about the files. I'm talking about the directories -
>> the date stamps of all the directories and subdirectories. (Big
>> difference there).
>
>
> Bill:
> Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment...
>
> The recipient, e.g., another HDD, of a disk-cloning program (AFAIK, *any*
> disk-cloning program), will reflect the "date created" of any directory
> ("folder") and/or sub-directory ("sub-folder") that is cloned to the
> recipient ("destination") drive.

Yes - of any "disk cloning" program, but NOT so for an imaging or "partition
copy" program. More on that below...

> Are you under the impression that these
> dates on the destination drive would reflect the date the disk cloning
> operation was undertaken? As Tim has, in effect, pointed out - a clone is
> a
> clone is a clone.

But not an exact clone. An exact clone - a true clone - would also retain
the original source date and time stamps of all the directories and
subdirectories of the source drive.

And, unless I'm mistaken, that can ONLY be achieved through either 1) an
imaging program or 2) a "partition copying" program (like BING, or Norton
Partition Copy), and NOT by a file copying clone program.

> BTW, returning to our prior discussion re the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning
> program...
>
> I thought you might be interested in knowing that a few moments ago I had
> occasion to clone the contents of one of our machines that held about 35
> GB
> of total data. We previously had cloned the contents of that machine back
> on
> 1/30. Using the same source HDD that was previously used in the
> disk-cloning
> operation on 1/30, we used the Casper 4.0 program to perform another
> disk-cloning operation. Obviously considerable data changes had been taken
> re the source drive during this 20-day period.
>
> We completed the disk-cloning operation in just about 6 minutes. That
> gives
> you some idea of the speed of the Casper program re its "incremental"
> disk-cloning capability. Just thought you would like to know.
> Anna

Well yes, I'm certain it's a lot faster doing this!! But as I said, you
give up the date and time stamps of the originally created directories
(since they reflect the newly created ones), which, granted, is not a big
deal for most people. But it IS important to me, because I make
occasional use of that history, on some occasions.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Kenneth wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:38 -0500, "Anna"
> <myname@myisp.net> wrote:
>
>>> SNIP<<
>>
>> And yes, you are correct that a "lot" (actually a vast, if not
>> overwhelming
>> majority in our experience) of users do not know the difference between a
>> disk-clone and a disk-image. Again, more's the pity. But I hope forums
>> like
>> this one will help to educate many users so that they can make an
>> informed
>> choice based on their specific needs.
>>
>>> SNIP<<
>
> Hi Anna,
>
> I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming
> majority" who understands nothing about the difference
> between "cloning" and "imaging."
>
> Can you describe that to me?
>
> Sincere thanks,
> --
> Kenneth

In a nutshell, how about this synopsis:

Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source
partition(s).

Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original
source partition(s).

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Kenneth <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote:

>Hi Anna,
>
>I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming
>majority" who understands nothing about the difference
>between "cloning" and "imaging."
>
>Can you describe that to me?

Let me try... I'm sure my reply will be shorter and easier for you to
understand.

CLONING: making an exact copy of your hard drive on another hard drive
with no changes. The cloned hard drive will be identical to the
original and will be usable by your computer without alteration...
which means that you will be able to install that drive as the system
drive in your computer and will be able to boot up without incident,
if you make the necessary hardware/BIOS changes.

In today's computers, it is possible to setup your BIOS to
automatically boot from the cloned drive in the case where the main
system drive has failed.

IMAGING: it's like a compressed photo of one hard drive that is saved
on another hard drive - or even on another partition. If something
goes caput on the main hard drive/partition - i.e., it crashed and
everything got scrambled, or you screwed up and trashed it on your own
- things can be restored - USING THE IMAGING SOFTWARE that was used to
create the image.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote:
>
> [snip of a lot of quoted "Anna" material and more]
>
>> And thank you for your gracious comment about my advice being "above
>> reproach". But, in truth, my advice is *not* above reproach in terms of
>> being criticized or argued against. I fully understand that others may
>> have
>> different points of view and may be equally valid given their specific
>> needs
>> & objectives. So this is just my particular point of view as it refers to
>> this particular issue.
>> Anna
>
> I have found that "less is more" is a good guideline.
>
> While your advice certainly appears to come from some long and good
> experience, I think you could state your point much better if you
> tried to keep your replies much briefer.

I disagree. By often using such length in her replies, she covers
everything quite completely and thoroughly - unlike most.

Besides which, it also exemplifies an old school value of patience, which is
(a bit) in short supply these days. And not fast sound bytes ... for the
newage Nintendo generation.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In a nutshell, how about this synopsis:
>
>Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source
>partition(s).
>
>Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original
>source partition(s).

Personally, I think your synopsis sucks.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> In a nutshell, how about this synopsis:
>>
>> Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source
>> partition(s).
>>
>> Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original
>> source partition(s).
>
> Personally, I think your synopsis sucks.

LOL, perhaps because you didn't understand it. (Just like when you tried
to inform me of System Restore, and were off a bit there).

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> Kenneth <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Anna,
>>
>> I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming
>> majority" who understands nothing about the difference
>> between "cloning" and "imaging."
>>
>> Can you describe that to me?
>
> Let me try... I'm sure my reply will be shorter and easier for you to
> understand.
>
> CLONING: making an exact copy of your hard drive on another hard drive
> with no changes.

No, it will NOT make an *exact copy*, as I just explained! The
destination directories will all be date/time stamped with the date of the
cloning. Can't you even understand that? Otherwise you're almost
correct - but it is NOT an exact partition copy. Do you understand the
difference?

> The cloned hard drive will be identical to the
> original and will be usable by your computer without alteration...
> which means that you will be able to install that drive as the system
> drive in your computer and will be able to boot up without incident,
> if you make the necessary hardware/BIOS changes.
>
> In today's computers, it is possible to setup your BIOS to
> automatically boot from the cloned drive in the case where the main
> system drive has failed.
>
> IMAGING: it's like a compressed photo of one hard drive that is saved
> on another hard drive - or even on another partition. If something
> goes caput on the main hard drive/partition - i.e., it crashed and
> everything got scrambled, or you screwed up and trashed it on your own
> - things can be restored - USING THE IMAGING SOFTWARE that was used to
> create the image.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>> Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source
>>> partition(s).
>>>
>>> Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original
>>> source partition(s).
>>
>> Personally, I think your synopsis sucks.
>
>LOL, perhaps because you didn't understand it. (Just like when you tried
>to inform me of System Restore, and were off a bit there).

I understood it doofus. Recall that YOU were the one who didn't even
know if System Restore restored programs or not... eh??

Your explanation of imaging/cloning only dealt with partitions.

You forgot to include disks... a serious omission.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original
>>>> source
>>>> partition(s).
>>>>
>>>> Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original
>>>> source partition(s).
>>>
>>> Personally, I think your synopsis sucks.
>>
>> LOL, perhaps because you didn't understand it. (Just like when you
>> tried
>> to inform me of System Restore, and were off a bit there).
>
> I understood it doofus. Recall that YOU were the one who didn't even
> know if System Restore restored programs or not... eh??

I never said it restored programs, but it can restore *some* files
associated with some of the programs, as has already been pointed out, and
not just by me. (It was probably too lengthy for you to read, however).

> Your explanation of imaging/cloning only dealt with partitions.
>
> You forgot to include disks... a serious omission.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> CLONING: making an exact copy of your hard drive on another hard drive
>> with no changes.
>
>No, it will NOT make an *exact copy*, as I just explained! The
>destination directories will all be date/time stamped with the date of the
>cloning. Can't you even understand that?

I clone my system disk weekly to a second internal hard drive (and I
create a backup image of it nightly to a third internal drive and also
to an external drive).

JUST in case you were right, I just checked the "date created" and
"date modified" attributes of the directories in the ROOT directory of
the cloned drive that I cloned yesterday.

GUESS WHAT? They are exactly the same as on my system drive.

Need I check all the other directories on those two drives to convince
you that you're pissing into the wind?

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> I understood it doofus. Recall that YOU were the one who didn't even
>> know if System Restore restored programs or not... eh??
>
>I never said it restored programs,

Agreed... but you ASKED if it DID restore programs, which is a sure
indication that you had no clue.