Acronis 7/XP Questions

[PD]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

On Feb 18, 5:13 pm, "Bill in Co." <not_really_h...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> >   Since the clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original
> > partition, why wouldn't its files have the same date stamps as well?
> > The files are not copied as files - they are copied as bytes with
> > no consideration given to what they represent.
>
> > *TimDaniels*
>
> I'm not talking about the files.    I'm talking about the directories - the
> date stamps of all the directories and subdirectories.     (Big difference
> there).

Nope. None.

The only "difference" is that you are clueless on this matter.

Keep this up. I'm having a lot of fun at your expense.

 

[Patrick Keenan]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
news:%23SsWloccIHA.4140@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks you one and all for your responses.
>
> Here is what I think I have learned about Acronis and XP from your
> responses:
>
> 1. Acronis 7 is compatible with the Windows XP operating system.

It's quite old, and the current version isn't expensive.

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

No. TrueImage is licensed, as is much software, for installation on one
system.

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

This has been the case for several versions at least, for all the time I've
used Acronis. You create a recovery disk, and it's likely to be a DVD.


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

It is never a good idea to have only one copy of the backup.

>
> 5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before it
> becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system.
>
> 6. That I should email the people at Acronis to see if they will give me
> a break on upgrading to Version 11.

Even if they don't, $50 isn't a huge cost. It certainly isn't anything
like an MS Office upgrade...

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

Brand new, TrueImage isn't far from $50.

>
> Did I miss anything in my highlights?
>
> I think I will upgrade my 30GB external hard drive for a 500GB
> hard drive. I will use this external hard drive for my system backups.

You want more than one backup destination.


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

We often specified a different disk for each day's backup, so there would be
five backup disks, and once every couple of weeks, another copy would be
made that went offsite - just about *anywhere* offsite, but ideally to a
secure location. DVDs are cheap.

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

You would need a second license for another system.

HTH
-pk

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

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> I understood it doofus. Recall that YOU were the one who didn't even
>>> know if System Restore restored programs or not... eh??
>>
>> I never said it restored programs,
>
> Agreed... but you ASKED if it DID restore programs, which is a sure

Show me where I asked if it "restored programs". Try again, Bubba.
(Maybe take Reading 101?)

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> CLONING: making an exact copy of your hard drive on another hard drive
>>> with no changes.
>>
>> No, it will NOT make an *exact copy*, as I just explained! The
>> destination directories will all be date/time stamped with the date of
>> the
>> cloning. Can't you even understand that?
>
> I clone my system disk weekly to a second internal hard drive (and I
> create a backup image of it nightly to a third internal drive and also
> to an external drive).
>
> JUST in case you were right, I just checked the "date created" and
> "date modified" attributes of the directories in the ROOT directory of
> the cloned drive that I cloned yesterday.
>
> GUESS WHAT? They are exactly the same as on my system drive.

No they aren't, if you simply "cloned" (note: CLONED) the drive (as Anna
also pointed out, if you even "bothered" to read her post too). (but I
think you said it was "too long" for you to read)

If you *partition-copied* the partition(s), they will be. If you *imaged*
it, they will be. Otherwise, they will not be - they will be of the time
of creation of the cloning operation.

Note: I'm talking about the *directory and subdirectory date and time
stamps*, NOT the files. Directories and subdirectories, NOT files.

I assume you know what I am talking about here (although at this point, I'm
not so sure I can assume that).

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

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

>Show me where I asked if it "restored programs". Try again, Bubba.
>(Maybe take Reading 101?)

OK... you didn't "ask", but your post showed that you didn't know if
it did or not:

From the thread about backing up the registry...

"Like as to when it would be preferable to use ERUNT over System
Restore, or vice versa?

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that ERUNT is more basic and
fundamental, and does not save/restore user programs or
applications, per se. Whereas System Restore might [snip]

snipped part:

"(and sometimes will even delete some stuff (like
recently downloaded program exe files, for example) you had saved
previously - thinking it's doing you a favor - but sometimes it's a
disservice)."

Which was wrong.

 

[Anna]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions


> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:38 -0500, "Anna"
> <myname@myisp.net> wrote:
>
>>>SNIP<<
>>
>>And yes, you are correct that a "lot" (actually a vast, if not
>>overwhelming
>>majority in our experience) of users do not know the difference between a
>>disk-clone and a disk-image. Again, more's the pity. But I hope forums
>>like
>>this one will help to educate many users so that they can make an informed
>>choice based on their specific needs.
>>
>>>SNIP<<


"Kenneth" <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message
news:cc8kr3poenl3vp7gmdotqulvmb07ts6o6t@4ax.com...
> Hi Anna,
>
> I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming
> majority" who understands nothing about the difference
> between "cloning" and "imaging."
>
> Can you describe that to me?
>
> Sincere thanks,
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."


Kenneth:
Many comprehensive backup-type programs such as Acronis True Image have both
disk-cloning & disk-imaging capabilities.

For all practical purposes a disk clone is a copy of the "source" HDD, let's
say your day-to-day working HDD. As such, the recipient of the clone, the
"destination" HDD is a duplicate of the source drive. All the files &
folders on the source HDD will be copied over to the destination drive.
This, of course, includes the operating system, the registry, all programs &
applications, all user-created data - in short *everything* that's on the
source disk will be copied over to the destination disk. If you would
examine the contents of the source & destination HDDs on a side-by-side
basis following the disk-cloning operation you would find that they mirror
each other. All the files & folders from the source disk can be accessed
from the destination disk. Another advantage is that the destination drive,
since it's a copy of the source drive, will be potentially bootable if it is
installed as an internal HDD in one's system.

I say "potentially bootable" because in many cases the user employs a USB or
Firewire external HDD as the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the
clone. Ordinarily a USB or Firewire device is not bootable under those
circumstances so the HDD contained in the USB or Firewire enclosure would
need to be removed from the external device and installed as an internal HDD
in the PC in order for it to be a bootable device. Note, however, that the
cloned contents on the USB/Firewire EHD can similarly be "re:cloned" to an
internal HDD and that HDD will be immediately bootable & functional. On the
other hand, if the user employs an *internal* HDD as the recipient of the
clone, i.e., the destination drive, that drive will be bootable. However,
many users prefer to use an external device such as a USBEHD as the
destination drive for the added safety involved - the external device can be
easily disconnected following the disk-cloning operation. Also the
portability aspect of an external device is another advantage.

The "disk image", on the other hand, is really nothing more than a snapshot
in time of the system compressed in a single file. Subsequent backups of the
system are created through the use of "incremental" or "differential" files.
Take a look at the following Acronis site for detailed info concerning these
incremental/differential files...
http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/resource/solutions/backup/2005/incremental-backups.html

The advantages of the disk-imaging process (as compared with the
disk-cloning process) is, in my opinion, two-fold - one real, the other
problematical...
1. Should the user desire, for one reason or another, to create
"generational" copies of his or her system it is simply more practical to
create disk-images of the system at this or that particular point in time,
since a number of different disk-images can be stored on a single
large-capacity HDD. Obviously to do the same using a disk-cloning program
would necessitate having a number of HDDs available for each different disk
clone, although given today's enormous capacity drives it's getting easier
to create large partitions on the disk each of which can contain a different
clone.
2. The second (at least presumed) advantage of the disk image process is
that since the file created (Acronis calls it an "archive") is compressed,
there's a savings of disk space (at least theoretically) on the disk that
will contain such file (archive). But in actual practice, at least with
respect to our experience with the Acronis program, there's only a 20% to
25% reduction of disk space. And when you factor in the total disk space
needed to accommodate the original disk-image file plus the additional
incremental disk-image files, that "advantage" pretty much disappears. And
given today's large-capacity disks that are available to many, if not most
users we just don't think this savings of disk space is an important
advantage in this situation.

The major drawbacks (and they are considerable in our opinion) of the
disk-imaging process as compared with the disk-cloning process are...
1. While the data on the disk-clone is immediately accessible (as explained
above), the same is not true for a disk image. It is necessary to invoke a
restoration process of the disk image before the data can be made
accessible.
2. The HDD containing the disk-image is not a bootable product. Again, a
restoration process must be undertaken before this can occur.

We believe that for most PC users the disk-cloning process rather than the
disk-imaging process is a more practical approach in order to
comprehensively backup one's system (with the caveat expressed above
concerning a need for generational copies of one's system). It's simply a
decided advantage to have one's total data immediately available on a drive
that one can access. And the more-or-less "bootability" aspect of the disk
clone (as described above) is another important advantage for most of us.

As you probably know from reading my previous posts on the subject we are
great fans of the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning program - it does not have
disk-imaging capability. Should you, or anyone perusing this thread, desire
add'l info re using that program, I'll be glad to provide such.
Anna

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Show me where I asked if it "restored programs". Try again, Bubba.
>> (Maybe take Reading 101)
>
> OK... you didn't "ask", but your post showed that you didn't know if
> it did or not:

Nope, you're *still* missing my point. More below...

> From the thread about backing up the registry...
>
> "Like as to when it would be preferable to use ERUNT over System
> Restore, or vice versa?
>
> One thing I'm pretty sure of is that ERUNT is more basic and
> fundamental, and does not save/restore user programs or
> applications, per se. Whereas System Restore might [snip]
>
> snipped part:
>
> "(and sometimes will even delete some stuff (like
> recently downloaded program exe files, for example) you had saved
> previously - thinking it's doing you a favor - but sometimes it's a
> disservice)."
>
> Which was wrong.

Which was right. How many times do we have to explain to you that System
Restore CAN - and HAS - and WILL - delete some exe files that were
previously saved? And/or restore some versions 9that were snapshotted),
in some cases?

And THAT was even further covered today.
Can you read? Were ALL the posts "too long" for you?

 

[Kris]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:04:04 -0500, Frog wrote:

> Thanks you one and all for your responses.
>
> Here is what I think I have learned about Acronis and XP from your
> responses:
>
> 1. Acronis 7 is compatible with the Windows XP operating system.

Probably, but acronis.com tech support could tell you for sure, but it's
old and XP had changed a lot since TI7, so I would encourage you to update.

>
> 2. I did not purchase Acronis 7 on a CD...I downloaded it when it was
> offered for free. I am not sure whether the version that I have, which
> I used on my old 98SE system, can be loaded onto a second computer.
When you start up TI7, there may be eula info in "about". Also while you
have it running, see if there is an option you can select to create a
rescue cd/floppy.

>
> 3. I understand that my purchase of Acronis 11 would give me a bootable
> CD...a capability that would be nice to have if restoring my system
> became necessary.
It's really necessary if your spindle goes bad. It has come in very handy
for me for other reasons.

>
> 4. It seems that there are several places one could store Acronis-
> produced backups, but that an external hard drive system seems to be the
> best solution for storing backups.
I normally store partition image files (2-4gb) in my top partition.
Occasionally I use TI11 to backup directly to DVD. Alternately one can
easily burn the image on HD to a DVD.

>
> 5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before
> it becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system.
Yes! First,
pick a non opsys partition - we'll call it E,
Then create a new partition somewhere of equal or lagrer size - we'll call
it Q.
Use Acronis to back up the partition to a image file on some partition
other than E or Q,
Use Acronis to restore from that image file to partition Q.
Then check Q - dates and everything should be identical.
The purpose of partition Q is simply to allow you to test the process - you
don't need to create and restore to a new partition unless you really need
to.

Backing up and restoring the opsys partition is no different. For example,
I wanted to try out SP3rc. So I used acronis to backup the C:\ partition
and then installed SP3rc. About a month later, I decided to go backto my
pre SP3rc system so I simply restored that image on top - so poof, I was
one month back. The system clock takes care of itself, but any changes you
made in the meantime will be lost. But that's a hell of a lot simpler than
re-installing XP and re-installing a ton of little programs!

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

>
> 7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29.
Check with acronis.com that you will still have tech support from them if
you need it.

>
> Did I miss anything in my highlights?

When I install XP, I always, immediately shut "system restore" OFF. I
learned the hard way not to trust it.

Read that again.

Then I rely on backup images, both on HD and on DVD so that if lightening
strikes (literally) I can be back up fairly quickly. If I am restoring to
a completely new computer because the one I was on got totally fried,
expect MS to ask you to re-activate.


>
> I think I will upgrade my 30GB external hard drive for a 500GB
> hard drive. I will use this external hard drive for my system backups.
You can definitely see why large drives are useful!!! I have a 160 with
about 80 of stuff on it. Some one of these months I will get a second 160
so I can alternate image files from one to the other - always expect a
spindle to crash unrecoverably, without warning. So my backups would then
be, for any particular partition, HD0, then HD1, and then DVD.

>
>
> QUESTION HERE---Is it best to put my backups on a separate partition or
> is it okay to have one big partition with many folders, one of which
> would be for system backups?
You cannot backup to the same partition you are creating a backup image of.
The file has to go on a different partition. This target partition will
get so large that backing it up is pointless. So I sacrifice perhaps 50gb
on the top of each HD and use that for image files of my partitions - each
file/image has the date I created it (eg XP021908) so I quickly know which
is the latest. I may keep 2 or 3 different images of a particular
partition.
I also find it makes my life easier if I divide folders into categories:
Downloads: all programs/drivers/support I have downloaded.
NWN: NeverWinter Nights game
NWN2: NWN2
Misc: other stuff like huge benchmarks, etc.
Backups: Acronis images, and temp larg stuff that I only use for a short
time.

I always have multiple copies of tbird mail folders, etc, - assume that
what you have not backed up will break.

>
> I also think I should purchase a new version of Acronis for use on my
> new XP computer.
Ask acronis.com about that. They sell multi user licenses.

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

ribbit!

--
Kris
--------
DFI P35-T2RL | E2200Alen 2.2@2.86 TtP0310 | 2x1gb Mushkin HP 800@1040 | MSI
NX8600GTS-OC 256mb |
Raidmax RX530-SS psu | XP Pro SP 2

 

[Kris]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:29:40 -0500, Kris wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:04:04 -0500, Frog wrote:
>
>> Thanks you one and all for your responses.
>>
>> Here is what I think I have learned about Acronis and XP from your
>> responses:
>>
>> 1. Acronis 7 is compatible with the Windows XP operating system.
>
> Probably, but acronis.com tech support could tell you for sure, but it's
> old and XP had changed a lot since TI7, so I would encourage you to update.
>
>>
>> 2. I did not purchase Acronis 7 on a CD...I downloaded it when it was
>> offered for free. I am not sure whether the version that I have, which
>> I used on my old 98SE system, can be loaded onto a second computer.
> When you start up TI7, there may be eula info in "about". Also while you
> have it running, see if there is an option you can select to create a
> rescue cd/floppy.
>
>>
>> 3. I understand that my purchase of Acronis 11 would give me a bootable
>> CD...a capability that would be nice to have if restoring my system
>> became necessary.
> It's really necessary if your spindle goes bad. It has come in very handy
> for me for other reasons.
>
>>
>> 4. It seems that there are several places one could store Acronis-
>> produced backups, but that an external hard drive system seems to be the
>> best solution for storing backups.
> I normally store partition image files (2-4gb) in my top partition.
> Occasionally I use TI11 to backup directly to DVD. Alternately one can
> easily burn the image on HD to a DVD.
>
>>
>> 5. That I should check to see if my Acronis backup system works before
>> it becomes necessary to restore files and/or my system.
> Yes! First,
> pick a non opsys partition - we'll call it E,
> Then create a new partition somewhere of equal or lagrer size - we'll call
> it Q.
> Use Acronis to back up the partition to a image file on some partition
> other than E or Q,
> Use Acronis to restore from that image file to partition Q.
> Then check Q - dates and everything should be identical.
> The purpose of partition Q is simply to allow you to test the process - you
> don't need to create and restore to a new partition unless you really need
> to.
>
> Backing up and restoring the opsys partition is no different. For example,
> I wanted to try out SP3rc. So I used acronis to backup the C:\ partition
> and then installed SP3rc. About a month later, I decided to go backto my
> pre SP3rc system so I simply restored that image on top - so poof, I was
> one month back. The system clock takes care of itself, but any changes you
> made in the meantime will be lost. But that's a hell of a lot simpler than
> re-installing XP and re-installing a ton of little programs!
>
>>
>> 6. That I should email the people at Acronis to see if they will give me
>> a break on upgrading to Version 11.
> Definitely!
>
>>
>> 7. That ugr.com will sell me a copy of Acronis 11 for $29.
> Check with acronis.com that you will still have tech support from them if
> you need it.
>
>>
>> Did I miss anything in my highlights?
>
> When I install XP, I always, immediately shut "system restore" OFF. I
> learned the hard way not to trust it.
>
> Read that again.
>
> Then I rely on backup images, both on HD and on DVD so that if lightening
> strikes (literally) I can be back up fairly quickly. If I am restoring to
> a completely new computer because the one I was on got totally fried,
> expect MS to ask you to re-activate.
>
>
>>
>> I think I will upgrade my 30GB external hard drive for a 500GB
>> hard drive. I will use this external hard drive for my system backups.
> You can definitely see why large drives are useful!!! I have a 160 with
> about 80 of stuff on it. Some one of these months I will get a second 160
> so I can alternate image files from one to the other - always expect a
> spindle to crash unrecoverably, without warning. So my backups would then
> be, for any particular partition, HD0, then HD1, and then DVD.
>
>>
>>
>> QUESTION HERE---Is it best to put my backups on a separate partition or
>> is it okay to have one big partition with many folders, one of which
>> would be for system backups?
> You cannot backup to the same partition you are creating a backup image of.
> The file has to go on a different partition. This target partition will
> get so large that backing it up is pointless. So I sacrifice perhaps 50gb
> on the top of each HD and use that for image files of my partitions - each
> file/image has the date I created it (eg XP021908) so I quickly know which
> is the latest. I may keep 2 or 3 different images of a particular
> partition.
> I also find it makes my life easier if I divide folders into categories:
> Downloads: all programs/drivers/support I have downloaded.
> NWN: NeverWinter Nights game
> NWN2: NWN2
> Misc: other stuff like huge benchmarks, etc.
> Backups: Acronis images, and temp larg stuff that I only use for a short
> time.
>
> I always have multiple copies of tbird mail folders, etc, - assume that
> what you have not backed up will break.
>
>>
>> I also think I should purchase a new version of Acronis for use on my
>> new XP computer.
> Ask acronis.com about that. They sell multi user licenses.
>
>>
>> Again, thanks for all of the responses/recommendations/help...it
>> was all very much appreciated.
>>
>> Frog
>
> ribbit!

looked at ugr.com and it looks like you can pick up 2 copies of TI 11 for
$49. Probably legit. Just check with acronis.com. Actually I don't
recall that in all the tech support he gave me that he ever asked me for a
key. Let me know - I'm looking at acronis Disk Director 10 for 29 -
that's been on my list for a few.
--
Kris

 

[Kenneth]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:30:22 -0500, "Anna"
<myname@myisp.net> wrote:

>
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:38 -0500, "Anna"
>> <myname@myisp.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>SNIP<<
>>>
>>>And yes, you are correct that a "lot" (actually a vast, if not
>>>overwhelming
>>>majority in our experience) of users do not know the difference between a
>>>disk-clone and a disk-image. Again, more's the pity. But I hope forums
>>>like
>>>this one will help to educate many users so that they can make an informed
>>>choice based on their specific needs.
>>>
>>>>SNIP<<
>
>
>"Kenneth" <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message
>news:cc8kr3poenl3vp7gmdotqulvmb07ts6o6t@4ax.com...
>> Hi Anna,
>>
>> I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming
>> majority" who understands nothing about the difference
>> between "cloning" and "imaging."
>>
>> Can you describe that to me?
>>
>> Sincere thanks,
>> --
>> Kenneth
>>
>> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
>
>
>Kenneth:
>Many comprehensive backup-type programs such as Acronis True Image have both
>disk-cloning & disk-imaging capabilities.
>
>For all practical purposes a disk clone is a copy of the "source" HDD, let's
>say your day-to-day working HDD. As such, the recipient of the clone, the
>"destination" HDD is a duplicate of the source drive. All the files &
>folders on the source HDD will be copied over to the destination drive.
>This, of course, includes the operating system, the registry, all programs &
>applications, all user-created data - in short *everything* that's on the
>source disk will be copied over to the destination disk. If you would
>examine the contents of the source & destination HDDs on a side-by-side
>basis following the disk-cloning operation you would find that they mirror
>each other. All the files & folders from the source disk can be accessed
>from the destination disk. Another advantage is that the destination drive,
>since it's a copy of the source drive, will be potentially bootable if it is
>installed as an internal HDD in one's system.
>
>I say "potentially bootable" because in many cases the user employs a USB or
>Firewire external HDD as the destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the
>clone. Ordinarily a USB or Firewire device is not bootable under those
>circumstances so the HDD contained in the USB or Firewire enclosure would
>need to be removed from the external device and installed as an internal HDD
>in the PC in order for it to be a bootable device. Note, however, that the
>cloned contents on the USB/Firewire EHD can similarly be "re:cloned" to an
>internal HDD and that HDD will be immediately bootable & functional. On the
>other hand, if the user employs an *internal* HDD as the recipient of the
>clone, i.e., the destination drive, that drive will be bootable. However,
>many users prefer to use an external device such as a USBEHD as the
>destination drive for the added safety involved - the external device can be
>easily disconnected following the disk-cloning operation. Also the
>portability aspect of an external device is another advantage.
>
>The "disk image", on the other hand, is really nothing more than a snapshot
>in time of the system compressed in a single file. Subsequent backups of the
>system are created through the use of "incremental" or "differential" files.
>Take a look at the following Acronis site for detailed info concerning these
>incremental/differential files...
>http://www.acronis.com/enterprise/resource/solutions/backup/2005/incremental-backups.html
>
>The advantages of the disk-imaging process (as compared with the
>disk-cloning process) is, in my opinion, two-fold - one real, the other
>problematical...
>1. Should the user desire, for one reason or another, to create
>"generational" copies of his or her system it is simply more practical to
>create disk-images of the system at this or that particular point in time,
>since a number of different disk-images can be stored on a single
>large-capacity HDD. Obviously to do the same using a disk-cloning program
>would necessitate having a number of HDDs available for each different disk
>clone, although given today's enormous capacity drives it's getting easier
>to create large partitions on the disk each of which can contain a different
>clone.
>2. The second (at least presumed) advantage of the disk image process is
>that since the file created (Acronis calls it an "archive") is compressed,
>there's a savings of disk space (at least theoretically) on the disk that
>will contain such file (archive). But in actual practice, at least with
>respect to our experience with the Acronis program, there's only a 20% to
>25% reduction of disk space. And when you factor in the total disk space
>needed to accommodate the original disk-image file plus the additional
>incremental disk-image files, that "advantage" pretty much disappears. And
>given today's large-capacity disks that are available to many, if not most
>users we just don't think this savings of disk space is an important
>advantage in this situation.
>
>The major drawbacks (and they are considerable in our opinion) of the
>disk-imaging process as compared with the disk-cloning process are...
>1. While the data on the disk-clone is immediately accessible (as explained
>above), the same is not true for a disk image. It is necessary to invoke a
>restoration process of the disk image before the data can be made
>accessible.
>2. The HDD containing the disk-image is not a bootable product. Again, a
>restoration process must be undertaken before this can occur.
>
>We believe that for most PC users the disk-cloning process rather than the
>disk-imaging process is a more practical approach in order to
>comprehensively backup one's system (with the caveat expressed above
>concerning a need for generational copies of one's system). It's simply a
>decided advantage to have one's total data immediately available on a drive
>that one can access. And the more-or-less "bootability" aspect of the disk
>clone (as described above) is another important advantage for most of us.
>
>As you probably know from reading my previous posts on the subject we are
>great fans of the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning program - it does not have
>disk-imaging capability. Should you, or anyone perusing this thread, desire
>add'l info re using that program, I'll be glad to provide such.
>Anna
>
>
Hi Anna,

Please accept my thanks for your interesting comments...

I do have one quibble though:

You wrote "The major drawbacks (and they are considerable in
our opinion) of the disk-imaging process as compared with
the disk-cloning process are...1. While the data on the
disk-clone is immediately accessible (as explained above),
the same is not true for a disk image. It is necessary to
invoke a restoration process of the disk image before the
data can be made accessible."

But (if I understand it correctly ) that is not true of the
current versions of Acronis TI:

If, for example, I discover a situation in which I would
prefer to "return" to an earlier version of a file with
which I am working, I launch TI, navigate to the file in the
image from the time frame I prefer, and with a few clicks I
am back to the earlier version of the file.

It takes moments, and works perfectly.

Thanks again,
--
Kenneth

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

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

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


A directory (a.k.a "folder) is a type of file.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." wrote:
> Anna wrote:
>> The recipient, e.g., another HDD, of a disk-cloning program
>> (AFAIK, *any* disk-cloning program), will reflect the
>> "date created" of any directory ("folder") and/or sub-directory
>> ("sub-folder") that is cloned to the recipient ("destination") drive.
>
> Yes - of any "disk cloning" program, but NOT so for an imaging
> or "partition copy" program. More on that below...
>
>> Are you under the impression that these dates on the destination
>> drive would reflect the date the disk cloning operation was
>> undertaken? As Tim has, in effect, pointed out - a clone is a
>> clone is a clone.
>
> But not an exact clone. An exact clone - a true clone - would
> also retain the original source date and time stamps of all the
> directories and subdirectories of the source drive.
>
> And, unless I'm mistaken, that can ONLY be achieved through
> either 1) an imaging program or 2) a "partition copying" program
> (like BING, or Norton Partition Copy), and NOT by a file
> copying clone program.


A clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original partition.
Some clones include a copy of the MBR as well, even though it is
not a part of the clone per se. An "image" is a *file* which contains
(optionally in compressed format) the information contained in a
partition from which a byte-for-byte copy of the partition may be
re-created in a process called a "restore" or a "restoration".
The clone is made to a partition (or partitions) on another hard
drive, and if it contains an OS, that OS it may be booted directly
if the hard drive is connected to an IDE controller. An image
file can be made to any archival medium, such as CDs, DVDs,
and USB-connected external hard drives, but it must first be
"restored" (and expanded if it was compressed) to a hard drive
before any OS within it can be booted. The advantage of an image
file is that it is more compact than a clone and it can be kept on
cheap and stable media for archival purposes. The advantage of
a clone is that the OS in it can be up and running immediately.
With this in mind, you can see that a term like "a file copying clone
program" makes no sense.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Anna]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions


"Kenneth" <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message
news:lhglr3deh1sarsqe5slbu0i4aua6cig5le@4ax.com...
> Hi Anna,
>
> Please accept my thanks for your interesting comments...
>
> I do have one quibble though:
>
> You wrote "The major drawbacks (and they are considerable in
> our opinion) of the disk-imaging process as compared with
> the disk-cloning process are...1. While the data on the
> disk-clone is immediately accessible (as explained above),
> the same is not true for a disk image. It is necessary to
> invoke a restoration process of the disk image before the
> data can be made accessible."
>
> But (if I understand it correctly ) that is not true of the
> current versions of Acronis TI:
>
> If, for example, I discover a situation in which I would
> prefer to "return" to an earlier version of a file with
> which I am working, I launch TI, navigate to the file in the
> image from the time frame I prefer, and with a few clicks I
> am back to the earlier version of the file.
>
> It takes moments, and works perfectly.
>
> Thanks again,
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."


Kenneth:
While I haven't worked with the latest version 11 of Acronis True Image,
except in a cursory fashion, I was under the impression that the restoration
process of the disk-image file ("archive") created by ATI was similar, if
not identical to previous versions of the program. And this restoration
process would extend as well to accessing individual files/folders from
within the archive.

Is this not true? Do you not have to invoke the restoration process to
access this or that file from the archive? Admittedly it's not a terribly
onerous task to do so, but in the case where one has used a disk-to-disk
cloning program (such as the Casper 4 program which we've recommended), the
data, i.e., any file or folder residing on the "cloned" HDD would be
immediately accessible in precisely the same way one accesses data on their
day-to-day working HDD. No "restoration" process is necessary under those
circumstances.

Anyway, as long as the ATI meets your requirements and you're satisfied with
the program whether you're using it for disk-to-disk cloning or
disk-imaging, that's all that's important.
Anna

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." wroe:
> If you *partition-copied* the partition(s), they will be. If you *imaged*
> it, they will be. Otherwise, they will not be - they will be of the time of
> creation of the cloning operation.
>
> Note: I'm talking about the *directory and subdirectory date and time stamps*,
> NOT the files. Directories and subdirectories, NOT files.


In essence, you have "cloning" and "imaging" reversed.
And, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a directory
is a type of file which contains the names and paths to other
files as data. Both "directory" files and "data" files are treated
the same way by cloning and imaging utlities. "File backup" is
another matter.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Anna" wrote:
> For all practical purposes a disk clone is a copy
> of the "source" HDD...


That is true for Acronis' True Image. But Symantec's
Ghost and Future Systems Solutions' Casper can make
clones of individual partitions. They can, for example,
make a clone of partition #2 on HD0 and put it on HD2
in partition #3, as well as make a clone of the entire HD0
contents onto HD2 - and vice versa. In my system, which
has 2 internal fixed HDs and 1 internal removable HD in
a "mobile rack", I can clone the OS-containing partition in
HD0 (the one that I usually boot) and add it to other OS
partitions on HD1 for immediate booting if HD0 fails. I
can also put the clone of that partition on a large-capacity
HD in the mobile rack whereon I also keep several back
OSes archived, and I can keep that HD somewhere else
for safe-keeping. But merely slipping it back into the rack
in the expansion bay of my desktop computer will have it
available for booting up any OS on that HD. Of course,
to select one OS on a partition among many OS-containing
partitions in a system containing several HDs takes an
understanding of the boot menu ("boot.ini" in the case of
WinNT/2K/XP). It is not rocket science, but boot.ini's
syntax is not well documented, especially for multiple HDs,
and that is the only reason that multi-booting is not commonly
done, IMHO.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Kenneth]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:54:51 -0500, "Anna"
<myname@myisp.net> wrote:

>
>"Kenneth" <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message
>news:lhglr3deh1sarsqe5slbu0i4aua6cig5le@4ax.com...
>> Hi Anna,
>>
>> Please accept my thanks for your interesting comments...
>>
>> I do have one quibble though:
>>
>> You wrote "The major drawbacks (and they are considerable in
>> our opinion) of the disk-imaging process as compared with
>> the disk-cloning process are...1. While the data on the
>> disk-clone is immediately accessible (as explained above),
>> the same is not true for a disk image. It is necessary to
>> invoke a restoration process of the disk image before the
>> data can be made accessible."
>>
>> But (if I understand it correctly ) that is not true of the
>> current versions of Acronis TI:
>>
>> If, for example, I discover a situation in which I would
>> prefer to "return" to an earlier version of a file with
>> which I am working, I launch TI, navigate to the file in the
>> image from the time frame I prefer, and with a few clicks I
>> am back to the earlier version of the file.
>>
>> It takes moments, and works perfectly.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> --
>> Kenneth
>>
>> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
>
>
>Kenneth:
>While I haven't worked with the latest version 11 of Acronis True Image,
>except in a cursory fashion, I was under the impression that the restoration
>process of the disk-image file ("archive") created by ATI was similar, if
>not identical to previous versions of the program. And this restoration
>process would extend as well to accessing individual files/folders from
>within the archive.
>
>Is this not true? Do you not have to invoke the restoration process to
>access this or that file from the archive? Admittedly it's not a terribly
>onerous task to do so, but in the case where one has used a disk-to-disk
>cloning program (such as the Casper 4 program which we've recommended), the
>data, i.e., any file or folder residing on the "cloned" HDD would be
>immediately accessible in precisely the same way one accesses data on their
>day-to-day working HDD. No "restoration" process is necessary under those
>circumstances.
>
>Anyway, as long as the ATI meets your requirements and you're satisfied with
>the program whether you're using it for disk-to-disk cloning or
>disk-imaging, that's all that's important.
>Anna
>
Hi Anna,

If one needs to access only a few files in an archive, it is
likely that other things on the system are in good shape.

To do it, I launch ATI, browse the archive I need, select
the file(s) I need, and click to restore.

I takes seconds.

All the best, and thanks again,
--
Kenneth

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

 

[Anna]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions


> "Anna" wrote:
>> For all practical purposes a disk clone is a copy
>> of the "source" HDD...


"Timothy Daniels" <NoSpam@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:e$25lQzcIHA.5900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> That is true for Acronis' True Image. But Symantec's
> Ghost and Future Systems Solutions' Casper can make
> clones of individual partitions. They can, for example,
> make a clone of partition #2 on HD0 and put it on HD2
> in partition #3, as well as make a clone of the entire HD0
> contents onto HD2 - and vice versa. In my system, which
> has 2 internal fixed HDs and 1 internal removable HD in
> a "mobile rack", I can clone the OS-containing partition in
> HD0 (the one that I usually boot) and add it to other OS
> partitions on HD1 for immediate booting if HD0 fails. I
> can also put the clone of that partition on a large-capacity
> HD in the mobile rack whereon I also keep several back
> OSes archived, and I can keep that HD somewhere else
> for safe-keeping. But merely slipping it back into the rack
> in the expansion bay of my desktop computer will have it
> available for booting up any OS on that HD. Of course,
> to select one OS on a partition among many OS-containing
> partitions in a system containing several HDs takes an
> understanding of the boot menu ("boot.ini" in the case of
> WinNT/2K/XP). It is not rocket science, but boot.ini's
> syntax is not well documented, especially for multiple HDs,
> and that is the only reason that multi-booting is not commonly
> done, IMHO.
>
> *TimDaniels*


Most certainly the Casper 4 program has the capability of cloning individual
partitions from one HDD to another HDD. As a matter of fact that's another
one of the significant advantages of the Casper program in that the
simplicity in which it accomplishes this task makes it a joy to use.

Here are the basic steps...
1. Access the Casper program and click the "Copy Drive" icon.

2. Select the option "Copy a specific drive". Click Next.

3. On the "Select Drive" window that opens, select (highlight) the source
hard drive containing the specific partition you want to copy. Click Next.

4. On the "Select Copy Destination" window that opens, select the option
"Copy to an existing drive" and click Next.

5. On the "Select Destination Drive" window that opens, select (highlight)
the destination hard drive containing the partition that will be the
recipient of the clone. Ensure that you've selected the correct destination
drive and partition. Click Next.

6. On the next screen, click Next to confirm that you want to overwrite the
data on the destination drive.

7. On the next screen, select the option "Perform the copy now" and click
Next and then Next again to start the cloning process.

Quite straightforward & effective.

My comment that "For all practical purposes a disk clone is a copy of the
"source" HDD..." was, of course, with reference to the usual disk-to-disk
cloning process that's generally undertaken by most users when using a
disk-cloning program. But I'm glad you mentioned the partition-to-partition
cloning capability of the Casper 4 program.
Anna

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Anna wrote:
> "Kenneth" <usenet@soleSPAMLESSassociates.com> wrote in message
> news:lhglr3deh1sarsqe5slbu0i4aua6cig5le@4ax.com...
>> Hi Anna,
>>
>> Please accept my thanks for your interesting comments...
>>
>> I do have one quibble though:
>>
>> You wrote "The major drawbacks (and they are considerable in
>> our opinion) of the disk-imaging process as compared with
>> the disk-cloning process are...1. While the data on the
>> disk-clone is immediately accessible (as explained above),
>> the same is not true for a disk image. It is necessary to
>> invoke a restoration process of the disk image before the
>> data can be made accessible."
>>
>> But (if I understand it correctly ) that is not true of the
>> current versions of Acronis TI:
>>
>> If, for example, I discover a situation in which I would
>> prefer to "return" to an earlier version of a file with
>> which I am working, I launch TI, navigate to the file in the
>> image from the time frame I prefer, and with a few clicks I
>> am back to the earlier version of the file.
>>
>> It takes moments, and works perfectly.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> --
>> Kenneth
>>
>> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
>
>
> Kenneth:
> While I haven't worked with the latest version 11 of Acronis True Image,
> except in a cursory fashion, I was under the impression that the
> restoration
> process of the disk-image file ("archive") created by ATI was similar, if
> not identical to previous versions of the program. And this restoration
> process would extend as well to accessing individual files/folders from
> within the archive.
>
> Is this not true? Do you not have to invoke the restoration process to
> access this or that file from the archive?

No. I can use windows explorer to access the files in the backed up image,
which I have to admit, does seem a bit remarkable.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> "Bill in Co." wroe:
>> If you *partition-copied* the partition(s), they will be. If you
>> *imaged*
>> it, they will be. Otherwise, they will not be - they will be of the
>> time of
>> creation of the cloning operation.
>>
>> Note: I'm talking about the *directory and subdirectory date and time
>> stamps*, NOT the files. Directories and subdirectories, NOT files.
>
>
> In essence, you have "cloning" and "imaging" reversed.
> And, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a directory
> is a type of file which contains the names and paths to other
> files as data. Both "directory" files and "data" files are treated
> the same way by cloning and imaging utlities. "File backup" is
> another matter.
>
> *TimDaniels*

I had thought Anna had said her Casper "cloning" program does NOT retain the
date stamps of the source directories, but instead gets timestamped with
their creation date (i.e. the date of the cloning). This is NOT the case
for a partition copy program like Norton Partition Magic, nor for a imaging
program like TI Acronis, which *preserve* the source directory
datetimestamps.

So I'm missing your point here, I guess. As I see it, a disk cloning
program simply copies all the files and folders, which is quite different
than a "partition copy" program, or an imagining program (which MAY, but
doesn't have to, compress the image). Those two preserve the original
source directories date-time-stamps.

Point noted about directories being a type of file. But (I think) that's
going to add a bit more confusion to the point I was trying to make.

 

[Kenneth]

Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:35:28 -0700, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> Is this not true? Do you not have to invoke the restoration process to
>> access this or that file from the archive?
>
>No. I can use windows explorer to access the files in the backed up image,
>which I have to admit, does seem a bit remarkable.
>

Hi Bill,

When I read your comment above, I thought: "HUH? I must not
have understood that as he intended."

Then, I tried it.

It works (without invoking True Image), and I was astounded.

Very sincere thanks for mentioning it!
--
Kenneth

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