Acronis 7/XP Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frog
  • Start date Start date
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

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

OK, point noted. But I was trying to draw a distinction in what to look
at.
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> "Bill in Co." wrote:
>> Anna wrote:
>>> The recipient, e.g., another HDD, of a disk-cloning program
>>> (AFAIK, *any* disk-cloning program), will reflect the
>>> "date created" of any directory ("folder") and/or sub-directory
>>> ("sub-folder") that is cloned to the recipient ("destination") drive.
>>
>> Yes - of any "disk cloning" program, but NOT so for an imaging
>> or "partition copy" program. More on that below...
>>
>>> Are you under the impression that these dates on the destination
>>> drive would reflect the date the disk cloning operation was
>>> undertaken? As Tim has, in effect, pointed out - a clone is a
>>> clone is a clone.
>>
>> But not an exact clone. An exact clone - a true clone - would
>> also retain the original source date and time stamps of all the
>> directories and subdirectories of the source drive.
>>
>> And, unless I'm mistaken, that can ONLY be achieved through
>> either 1) an imaging program or 2) a "partition copying" program
>> (like BING, or Norton Partition Copy), and NOT by a file
>> copying clone program.
>
>
> A clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original partition.
> Some clones include a copy of the MBR as well, even though it is
> not a part of the clone per se. An "image" is a *file* which contains
> (optionally in compressed format) the information contained in a
> partition from which a byte-for-byte copy of the partition may be
> re-created in a process called a "restore" or a "restoration".
> The clone is made to a partition (or partitions) on another hard
> drive, and if it contains an OS, that OS it may be booted directly
> if the hard drive is connected to an IDE controller. An image
> file can be made to any archival medium, such as CDs, DVDs,
> and USB-connected external hard drives, but it must first be
> "restored" (and expanded if it was compressed) to a hard drive
> before any OS within it can be booted. The advantage of an image
> file is that it is more compact than a clone and it can be kept on
> cheap and stable media for archival purposes. The advantage of
> a clone is that the OS in it can be up and running immediately.
> With this in mind, you can see that a term like "a file copying clone
> program" makes no sense.
>
> *TimDaniels*

OK. Then as I mentioned in the other thread, Casper is not a cloning
program (which I had thought Anna called it), but is a file copying program.

By your definition (of what a cloning program is), a "cloning program" will
also end up preserving the original source directory datetimestamps,
because, by your definition, "partition copy" programs like Norton, and
imagining programs like TI Image, are "cloning programs".
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Kenneth wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:35:28 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> Is this not true? Do you not have to invoke the restoration process to
>>> access this or that file from the archive?
>>
>> No. I can use windows explorer to access the files in the backed up
>> image,
>> which I have to admit, does seem a bit remarkable.
>>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> When I read your comment above, I thought: "HUH? I must not
> have understood that as he intended."
>
> Then, I tried it.
>
> It works (without invoking True Image), and I was astounded.
>
> Very sincere thanks for mentioning it!
> --
> Kenneth

Sure. I was quite surprised to discover this. And assuming that TI is
compressing its images (which I believe it is - my option was use standard
compression), it seems a bit amazing that that dircect access is provided
there in windows explorer. I'm not sure how it able to do that, though.
Maybe explorer can decompress it on the fly (courtesy of some windows
explorer shell handling routine for TI)
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> A clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original partition.
>> Some clones include a copy of the MBR as well, even though it is
>> not a part of the clone per se. An "image" is a *file* which contains
>> (optionally in compressed format) the information contained in a
>> partition from which a byte-for-byte copy of the partition may be
>> re-created in a process called a "restore" or a "restoration".
>> The clone is made to a partition (or partitions) on another hard
>> drive, and if it contains an OS, that OS it may be booted directly
>> if the hard drive is connected to an IDE controller. An image
>> file can be made to any archival medium, such as CDs, DVDs,
>> and USB-connected external hard drives, but it must first be
>> "restored" (and expanded if it was compressed) to a hard drive
>> before any OS within it can be booted. The advantage of an image
>> file is that it is more compact than a clone and it can be kept on
>> cheap and stable media for archival purposes. The advantage of
>> a clone is that the OS in it can be up and running immediately.
>> With this in mind, you can see that a term like "a file copying clone
>> program" makes no sense.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>
> OK. Then as I mentioned in the other thread, Casper is not a cloning
> program (which I had thought Anna called it), but is a file copying program.
>
> By your definition (of what a cloning program is), a "cloning program" will
> also end up preserving the original source directory datetimestamps, because,
> by your definition, "partition copy" programs like Norton, and imagining
> programs like TI Image, are "cloning programs".


You steadfastly remain confused. Casper and Ghost and True Image
can do cloning AND imaging. The user gets to choose which to do.

*TimDaniels*
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As I see it, a disk cloning program simply copies all the files and
> folders, which is quite different than a "partition copy" program,
> or an imagining program (which MAY, but doesn't have to,
> compress the image). Those two preserve the original source directories
> date-time-stamps.
>
> Point noted about directories being a type of file. But (I think) that's
> going to add a bit more confusion to the point I was trying to make.


I think you believe that the file manager is involved in the
making of the file copies made by an imaging program and that
the file manager would assign a new time stamp to the copies.
There is no reason to believe this. Remember that the copies
do not exist in the OS's file structure as individual files. They
all exist as data in one huge image file on the archiving medium.
Only when that image file is "restored" back to a hard drive do
the individual files resume their existence in a file structure.

*TimDaniels*
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Anna" wrote:
> My comment that "For all practical purposes a disk clone
> is a copy of the "source" HDD..." was, of course, with
> reference to the usual disk-to-disk cloning process that's
> generally undertaken by most users when using a disk-
> cloning program.

Right. One of the primary uses of cloning is to move
an installed system from one HD to a larger or faster HD,
and the desire is just to copy the entire contents of the HD.
For that purpose, many HD makers offer free downloadable
utilities from their websites to facilitate that specific task.
But as you say, Casper and Ghost make cloning much more
practical as a backup procedure by offering the option of
cloning just one partition.

*TimDaniels*
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

WOW! What a lot of information I now have to read, research, and
understand...a process that will take some time to complete. I will
return to this thread with further questions when I get to that point.
If this process takes me longer than expected, I will open a new thread
with the same title plus "Part Two".

I did make one decision...I purchased an external USB 500GB hard drive
for my backups. I have some work to do with this drive, before it will
be ready for use on my XP machine...the drive is now FAT32. I'm still
not sure whether or not to have only one partition or two partitions on
this external hard drive. My internal 500GB hard drive has two
partitions on it, and I could do the same on this drive. Would there be
any advantage to this, or will building a folder for a backup of my
system on the external hard drive suffice?

I haven't had a chance to read in any detail about the two options I
have for backup software. It appears that the cost of Casper 4.0 (one
license) is $49.95 and the cost of a Casper Startup Disk is additional
$9.95 (one copy)---for a total cost of $59.90. This total cost, if I am
reading it correctly, is not much more that the cost of Acronis
software. I will do more reading about both options before making my
decision. I sure hope Anna is around to answer some questions, if I go
the Casper 4.0 direction...I very much appreciated your words on this
software package...they were very useful to this limited-computer-
knowledge person, as were the comments of others about Acronis.

Thanks again for taking your time to assist me with my decision.

Frog
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> "Bill in Co." wrote:
>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>> A clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original partition.
>>> Some clones include a copy of the MBR as well, even though it is
>>> not a part of the clone per se. An "image" is a *file* which contains
>>> (optionally in compressed format) the information contained in a
>>> partition from which a byte-for-byte copy of the partition may be
>>> re-created in a process called a "restore" or a "restoration".
>>> The clone is made to a partition (or partitions) on another hard
>>> drive, and if it contains an OS, that OS it may be booted directly
>>> if the hard drive is connected to an IDE controller. An image
>>> file can be made to any archival medium, such as CDs, DVDs,
>>> and USB-connected external hard drives, but it must first be
>>> "restored" (and expanded if it was compressed) to a hard drive
>>> before any OS within it can be booted. The advantage of an image
>>> file is that it is more compact than a clone and it can be kept on
>>> cheap and stable media for archival purposes. The advantage of
>>> a clone is that the OS in it can be up and running immediately.
>>> With this in mind, you can see that a term like "a file copying clone
>>> program" makes no sense.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>> OK. Then as I mentioned in the other thread, Casper is not a cloning
>> program (which I had thought Anna called it), but is a file copying
>> program.
>>
>> By your definition (of what a cloning program is), a "cloning program"
>> will
>> also end up preserving the original source directory datetimestamps,
>> because,
>> by your definition, "partition copy" programs like Norton, and imagining
>> programs like TI Image, are "cloning programs".
>
>
> You steadfastly remain confused. Casper and Ghost and True Image
> can do cloning AND imaging. The user gets to choose which to do.
>
> *TimDaniels*

OK, then let's try this again. I see at least 4 different processes here:

1. "Imaging" of a partition or disk (with OR without any compression <=
note)
And all date-time-stamps of the source material are preserved. Uses sector
copying.

2. "Partition copying" (done by BING and Partition Magic)
And all date-time-stamps of the source material are preserved. Uses sector
copying.

3. File & Folder copying or transfer, which does NOT preserve the source
directory date-time stamps, but does copy all the files and folders over to
a new partition or drive. But this copy is done at the FILE level, and not
the sector-by-sector transfer level, and hence the original source directory
dates will NOT be preserved on the copy, but instead will be the
date-stamped with the time of the copy operation.

4. "Cloning" - well this term still seems a bit ambiguous to me, because it
doesn't say anything about whether it's using a sector copying approach, or
a file copying approach, and those are significantly different.
Literally, the term (in English) just means making a copy.
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." wrote:
> 4. "Cloning" - well this term still seems a bit ambiguous to me,
> because it doesn't say anything about whether it's using a sector
> copying approach, or a file copying approach, and those are
> significantly different. Literally, the term (in English) just means
> making a copy.

Cloning uses sector (aka byte-for-byte) copying. English was
not invented to express modern Information Technology, and as
with other adaptations of the language to new situations, it can
seem to be meaningless or inappropriate in its new applications.

*TimDaniels*
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> "Bill in Co." wrote:
>> 4. "Cloning" - well this term still seems a bit ambiguous to me,
>> because it doesn't say anything about whether it's using a sector
>> copying approach, or a file copying approach, and those are
>> significantly different. Literally, the term (in English) just means
>> making a copy.
>
> Cloning uses sector (aka byte-for-byte) copying. English was
> not invented to express modern Information Technology, and as
> with other adaptations of the language to new situations, it can
> seem to be meaningless or inappropriate in its new applications.
>
> *TimDaniels*

OK then, if that's the universal definition.

So, if cloning definitively and universally means sector-by-sector copying,
then what Anna was talking about with her usage of Casper wasn't cloning
(because, once again, the directory dates were NOT being preserved in the
copy operations).
But I think you also pointed out that Casper has that option available, too
(haven't used Casper).

But I do know that TI True Image, Norton Partition Magic, and BING do
partition (sector-by-sector) copying, which you said is "cloning". So
maybe we're all on the same page now. :-)

Now we need another term for "disk copying" (at the file level, not sector
level)
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:euz0SC0cIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> If you *partition-copied* the partition(s), they will be. If you
>>> *imaged*
>>> it, they will be. Otherwise, they will not be - they will be of the
>>> time of
>>> creation of the cloning operation.
>>>
>>> Note: I'm talking about the *directory and subdirectory date and time
>>> stamps*, NOT the files. Directories and subdirectories, NOT files.


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


"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> I had thought Anna had said her Casper "cloning" program does NOT retain
> the date stamps of the source directories, but instead gets timestamped
> with their creation date (i.e. the date of the cloning). This is NOT
> the case for a partition copy program like Norton Partition Magic, nor for
> a imaging program like TI Acronis, which *preserve* the source directory
> datetimestamps.
>
> So I'm missing your point here, I guess. As I see it, a disk cloning
> program simply copies all the files and folders, which is quite different
> than a "partition copy" program, or an imagining program (which MAY, but
> doesn't have to, compress the image). Those two preserve the original
> source directories date-time-stamps.
>
> Point noted about directories being a type of file. But (I think)
> that's going to add a bit more confusion to the point I was trying to
> make.


Bill:
To the best of my knowledge I never stated that the cloned copy of the
source HDD would reflect the creation dates of the files/folders based on
the date the clone was created. Quite the contrary. The dates will be
*exactly* reflected as they were reflected on the source HDD. That's why I
did state in a prior post that "a clone is a clone is a clone".

Anyway, thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that you can use
Windows Explorer to directly access files & folders on the disk-image
"archive" created through the Acronis program as you did in a previous post.
I was unaware of that capability and such goes far in minimizing one of my
perceived negatives concerning the Acronis program as compared with a
disk-imaging program such as the Casper 4 program we've been discussing.
Anna
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions


"Frog" <frog@pond.com> wrote in message
news:OsZNtZ2cIHA.4016@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> WOW! What a lot of information I now have to read, research, and
> understand...a process that will take some time to complete. I will
> return to this thread with further questions when I get to that point. If
> this process takes me longer than expected, I will open a new thread with
> the same title plus "Part Two".
>
> I did make one decision...I purchased an external USB 500GB hard drive for
> my backups. I have some work to do with this drive, before it will be
> ready for use on my XP machine...the drive is now FAT32. I'm still not
> sure whether or not to have only one partition or two partitions on this
> external hard drive. My internal 500GB hard drive has two partitions on
> it, and I could do the same on this drive. Would there be any advantage
> to this, or will building a folder for a backup of my system on the
> external hard drive suffice?
>
> I haven't had a chance to read in any detail about the two options I have
> for backup software. It appears that the cost of Casper 4.0 (one license)
> is $49.95 and the cost of a Casper Startup Disk is additional $9.95 (one
> copy)---for a total cost of $59.90. This total cost, if I am reading it
> correctly, is not much more that the cost of Acronis software. I will do
> more reading about both options before making my decision. I sure hope
> Anna is around to answer some questions, if I go the Casper 4.0
> direction...I very much appreciated your words on this software
> package...they were very useful to this limited-computer- knowledge
> person, as were the comments of others about Acronis.
>
> Thanks again for taking your time to assist me with my decision.
>
> Frog


Frog...
It is regrettable that this thread seems to have taken on a complexity that
is not deserved given the simplicity of use, straightforwardness of design,
and general effectiveness of a disk-cloning program specifically with
reference to the program we have been recommending - the Casper 4.0 program.

While I do not wish to demean the Acronis True Image in any way, I sincerely
believe the Casper 4 program is a superior disk-cloning program for the
reasons I've indicated in my prior posts and which I will not reiterate
here.

As to the cost of the Casper program as compared to the Acronis program...

My impression is that you can purchase the Acronis program at less expense
than the Casper program. If one's overriding interest is to purchase the
less expensive program, then there's no point in even discussing the Casper
program no matter how superior I or others believe the Casper program is.
All I will say is that the additional expense of the Casper program (I
suppose it's probably not much more than $20 or $30 between the two) pales
into insignificance over the weeks & months that you or any user will be
using the program. But that's a decision to be made by you and every
potential purchaser of the program. I can only tell you that based upon my
personal knowledge of more than at least a score of users of the Casper 4
program, not a single one has ever expressed regret to me re the increased
cost of that program as compared with other disk-cloning/disk-imaging
programs. The usual comment I hear is that "I wish I had found this program
sooner."

As to your 500 GB USB external HDD...

1. That's a fine piece of equipment to serve as the backup device for your
day-to-day working HDD.

2. There is nothing - absolutely nothing - that you have to do with respect
to using that drive as the recipient of the clone created by the Casper 4
program. You do not have to partition that drive; you do not have to format
that drive. All that will be automatically taken care of when you use the
Casper 4 program to clone the contents of your "source" HDD - your
day-to-day internal working HDD - to the USBEHD.

3. When you clone the contents of your two-partitioned source HDD to your
USBEHD, the disk-cloning program will create the two partitions on the
external HDD. It will do so allocating the same percentage of disk space for
each partition on the external HDD as you have on your source disk. So, for
example, let's say your 500 GB source HDD's 1st partition is 200 GB and the
2nd partition is 300 GB (we're using approx. numbers here). In your case
since the source & destination HDDs are equal in size, the partitions on the
destination HDD will, of course, be the same.

But let's say your source HDD was a 250 GB HDD containing two partitions -
one partition of 100 GB (representing 40% of the disk capacity), the second
partition 150 GB (representing 60% of disk capacity. And you were cloning
the contents of that two-partitioned source HDD to a 500 GB HDD. In that
situation the disk-cloning program would create the two partitions on the
destination drive using the same percentages established on the source HDD.
So that the 1st partition on the 500 GB HDD would be 200 GB, and the 2nd
partition would be 300 GB.

4. But understand should the user desire different-sized partitions on the
destination drive, he or she would be able to create such and then use the
Casper program to clone the contents of each partition on the source HDD to
whatever partition on the destination HDD that he/she desired. So you have
great flexibility here.

So you see - you really don't have any "work" to do on your external 500 GB
HDD if all you want to do is to clone the complete contents of your present
two-partitioned 500 GB internal HDD (your "source" disk) to your USBEHD.

Please understand that much of what I've indicated here can similarly be
achieved by the Acronis program. But for the reasons I've previously
stated, especially Casper's "SmartClone" technology that greatly speeds up
the routine day-to-day disk-cloning backup process, we prefer the Casper 4
program.

In any event try to work with both programs and perhaps other
disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs as well. That's the only real way to
determine what best suits your particular needs.
Anna
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

CORRECTION - See below...

news:uFZKfg9cIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:euz0SC0cIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> If you *partition-copied* the partition(s), they will be. If you
>>>> *imaged*
>>>> it, they will be. Otherwise, they will not be - they will be of the
>>>> time of
>>>> creation of the cloning operation.
>>>>
>>>> Note: I'm talking about the *directory and subdirectory date and time
>>>> stamps*, NOT the files. Directories and subdirectories, NOT files.
>
>
>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>> In essence, you have "cloning" and "imaging" reversed.
>>> And, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a directory
>>> is a type of file which contains the names and paths to other
>>> files as data. Both "directory" files and "data" files are treated
>>> the same way by cloning and imaging utlities. "File backup" is
>>> another matter.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*


> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> I had thought Anna had said her Casper "cloning" program does NOT retain
>> the date stamps of the source directories, but instead gets timestamped
>> with their creation date (i.e. the date of the cloning). This is NOT
>> the case for a partition copy program like Norton Partition Magic, nor
>> for a imaging program like TI Acronis, which *preserve* the source
>> directory datetimestamps.
>>
>> So I'm missing your point here, I guess. As I see it, a disk cloning
>> program simply copies all the files and folders, which is quite different
>> than a "partition copy" program, or an imagining program (which MAY, but
>> doesn't have to, compress the image). Those two preserve the original
>> source directories date-time-stamps.
>>
>> Point noted about directories being a type of file. But (I think)
>> that's going to add a bit more confusion to the point I was trying to
>> make.


"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message...
> Bill:
> To the best of my knowledge I never stated that the cloned copy of the
> source HDD would reflect the creation dates of the files/folders based on
> the date the clone was created. Quite the contrary. The dates will be
> *exactly* reflected as they were reflected on the source HDD. That's why I
> did state in a prior post that "a clone is a clone is a clone".
>
> Anyway, thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that you can use
> Windows Explorer to directly access files & folders on the disk-image
> "archive" created through the Acronis program as you did in a previous
> post. I was unaware of that capability and such goes far in minimizing one
> of my perceived negatives concerning the Acronis program as compared with
> a disk-imaging program such as the Casper 4 program we've been discussing.
> Anna


Re my last sentence...
I meant to say "disk-cloning program such as the Casper 4 program...".
As we know, the Casper 4 program does *not* have disk-imaging capability in
the same sense as the Acronis True Image program which has both.
Anna
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Anna wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:euz0SC0cIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> If you *partition-copied* the partition(s), they will be. If you
>>>> *imaged*
>>>> it, they will be. Otherwise, they will not be - they will be of the
>>>> time of creation of the cloning operation.
>>>>
>>>> Note: I'm talking about the *directory and subdirectory date and time
>>>> stamps*, NOT the files. Directories and subdirectories, NOT files.
>
>
>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>> In essence, you have "cloning" and "imaging" reversed.
>>> And, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a directory
>>> is a type of file which contains the names and paths to other
>>> files as data. Both "directory" files and "data" files are treated
>>> the same way by cloning and imaging utlities. "File backup" is
>>> another matter.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> I had thought Anna had said her Casper "cloning" program does NOT retain
>> the date stamps of the source directories, but instead gets timestamped
>> with their creation date (i.e. the date of the cloning). This is NOT
>> the case for a partition copy program like Norton Partition Magic, nor
>> for
>> a imaging program like TI Acronis, which *preserve* the source directory
>> datetimestamps.
>>
>> So I'm missing your point here, I guess. As I see it, a disk cloning
>> program simply copies all the files and folders, which is quite different
>> than a "partition copy" program, or an imagining program (which MAY, but
>> doesn't have to, compress the image). Those two preserve the original
>> source directories date-time-stamps.
>>
>> Point noted about directories being a type of file. But (I think)
>> that's going to add a bit more confusion to the point I was trying to
>> make.
>
>
> Bill:
> To the best of my knowledge I never stated that the cloned copy of the
> source HDD would reflect the creation dates of the files/folders based on
> the date the clone was created. Quite the contrary. The dates will be
> *exactly* reflected as they were reflected on the source HDD.

OK, sorry, I must have missed that.

> Anyway, thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that you can use
> Windows Explorer to directly access files & folders on the disk-image
> "archive" created through the Acronis program as you did in a previous
> post.
> I was unaware of that capability and such goes far in minimizing one of my
> perceived negatives concerning the Acronis program as compared with a
> disk-cloning program such as the Casper 4 program we've been discussing.
> Anna

Yeah - and it's kind of amazing that it even allows that, I think, since
they're supposedly compressed. But I gave one possible explanation for
that in the other post, but that's only my supposition.

However, I am still unclear about one thing: From what you're saying, (if I
read this right), you are saying that you can do an incremental backup with
Casper (to save only the recent changes of the source drive), and then
restore that back with the original source directory dates being retained in
the restoration, which seems a bit amazing to me. I guess I wouldn't have
expected that. But then again, I haven't played around with TI True
Image's incremental backups, either, just prefering to do the whole
enchilada, (and thereby not having to keep track of the separate incremental
restoration images each time).
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

> Anna wrote:
>> Anyway, thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that you can use
>> Windows Explorer to directly access files & folders on the disk-image
>> "archive" created through the Acronis program as you did in a previous
>> post.
>> I was unaware of that capability and such goes far in minimizing one of
>> my
>> perceived negatives concerning the Acronis program as compared with a
>> disk-cloning program such as the Casper 4 program we've been discussing.
>> Anna


"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ueHEfJBdIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Yeah - and it's kind of amazing that it even allows that, I think, since
> they're supposedly compressed. But I gave one possible explanation for
> that in the other post, but that's only my supposition.
>
> However, I am still unclear about one thing: From what you're saying, (if
> I read this right), you are saying that you can do an incremental backup
> with Casper (to save only the recent changes of the source drive), and
> then restore that back with the original source directory dates being
> retained in the restoration, which seems a bit amazing to me. I guess I
> wouldn't have expected that. But then again, I haven't played around
> with TI True Image's incremental backups, either, just prefering to do the
> whole enchilada, (and thereby not having to keep track of the separate
> incremental restoration images each time).


Bill:
Yes, you have it pretty much right. Although we're most impressed with the
simplicity of design of the Casper 4 program which makes it so easy to use
for even an inexperienced user and its general all-around effectiveness in
cloning the contents of one HDD to another HDD...

Its most important advantage (as compared with other disk-cloning programs)
insofar as we are concerned is its rather extroardinary ability to create
"incremental clones", using what Casper refers to as its "SmartClone"
technology. The result of this is that it takes the user only a fraction of
the time to create subsequent clones of the source HDD than it would
otherwise take using the typical disk-cloning methodology.

As an example...

When a typical disk-cloning program undertakes its disk-to-disk cloning
process it does so without regard that the "source" and "destination" HDDs
involved in the disk-cloning operation are the *identical* drives that had
been involved when a prior disk-cloning operation had been undertaken. It
doesn't matter to the disk-cloning program whether the HDD now being cloned
was cloned an hour ago, or a day ago, or whenever. The now disk cloning
operation will proceed as if the HDD recipient of the clone, i.e., the
destination HDD is bare of data, even though that same destination HDD was
the recipient of a prior clone from the same source HDD 10 minutes ago.

As a result...

The disk-cloning operation will take a substantial amount of time to "do its
work" each time the disk-cloning operation is undertaken, without regard to
the fact that perhaps only a relatively few changes involving the source
HDD's data has changed since the last disk-cloning operation. So let's say
it takes about 30 minutes or so to clone the contents of a HDD containing 40
GB of data. Two days later the user decides to again back up his or her
system by undertaking another disk-cloning operation. Presumably the data
changes over those two days haven't been especially large. But it will take
the disk-cloning program about the same period of time to perform the
disk-cloning operation as it did originally. And so on and so on in the
following days.

But with the Casper 4 program, the program will recognize only the change in
data that has occurred from its last disk-cloning operation and proceed to
"do its work" on that basis. Thus, given the example above it will probably
take less than 3 or 4 minutes to complete the disk-cloning operation. And so
on and so forth.

So you can see what a valuable incentive this is for users to systematically
& routinely backup their systems with the Casper 4 program - knowing that
the expenditure of time to complete the disk-cloning operation will be
relatively slight.

And the recipient of the clone - the destination HDD - will be a copy of the
source HDD with all its data immediately accessible in precisely the same
way one would access data from their source HDD - their day-to-day working
HDD in most cases. And the destination HDD, should it be an internal HDD or
installed as a internal HDD from an exterior enclosure will be immediately
bootable without the need of any recovery process.

It's worth considering...
Anna
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Anna wrote:
>> Anna wrote:
>>> Anyway, thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that you can use
>>> Windows Explorer to directly access files & folders on the disk-image
>>> "archive" created through the Acronis program as you did in a previous
>>> post.
>>> I was unaware of that capability and such goes far in minimizing one of
>>> my
>>> perceived negatives concerning the Acronis program as compared with a
>>> disk-cloning program such as the Casper 4 program we've been discussing.
>>> Anna
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ueHEfJBdIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Yeah - and it's kind of amazing that it even allows that, I think, since
>> they're supposedly compressed. But I gave one possible explanation for
>> that in the other post, but that's only my supposition.
>>
>> However, I am still unclear about one thing: From what you're saying,
>> (if
>> I read this right), you are saying that you can do an incremental backup
>> with Casper (to save only the recent changes of the source drive), and
>> then restore that back with the original source directory dates being
>> retained in the restoration, which seems a bit amazing to me. I guess
>> I
>> wouldn't have expected that. But then again, I haven't played around
>> with TI True Image's incremental backups, either, just prefering to do
>> the
>> whole enchilada, (and thereby not having to keep track of the separate
>> incremental restoration images each time).
>
>
> Bill:
> Yes, you have it pretty much right. Although we're most impressed with the
> simplicity of design of the Casper 4 program which makes it so easy to use
> for even an inexperienced user and its general all-around effectiveness in
> cloning the contents of one HDD to another HDD...

I understand that it's easier to use, from what you've said. But more
below.

> Its most important advantage (as compared with other disk-cloning
> programs)
> insofar as we are concerned is its rather extroardinary ability to create
> "incremental clones", using what Casper refers to as its "SmartClone"
> technology. The result of this is that it takes the user only a fraction
> of
> the time to create subsequent clones of the source HDD than it would
> otherwise take using the typical disk-cloning methodology.
>
> As an example...
>
> When a typical disk-cloning program undertakes its disk-to-disk cloning
> process it does so without regard that the "source" and "destination" HDDs
> involved in the disk-cloning operation are the *identical* drives that had
> been involved when a prior disk-cloning operation had been undertaken. It
> doesn't matter to the disk-cloning program whether the HDD now being
> cloned
> was cloned an hour ago, or a day ago, or whenever. The now disk cloning
> operation will proceed as if the HDD recipient of the clone, i.e., the
> destination HDD is bare of data, even though that same destination HDD was
> the recipient of a prior clone from the same source HDD 10 minutes ago.
>
> As a result...
>
> The disk-cloning operation will take a substantial amount of time to "do
> its
> work" each time the disk-cloning operation is undertaken, without regard
> to
> the fact that perhaps only a relatively few changes involving the source
> HDD's data has changed since the last disk-cloning operation. So let's say
> it takes about 30 minutes or so to clone the contents of a HDD containing
> 40
> GB of data. Two days later the user decides to again back up his or her
> system by undertaking another disk-cloning operation. Presumably the data
> changes over those two days haven't been especially large. But it will
> take
> the disk-cloning program about the same period of time to perform the
> disk-cloning operation as it did originally. And so on and so on in the
> following days.
>
> But with the Casper 4 program, the program will recognize only the change
> in
> data that has occurred from its last disk-cloning operation and proceed to
> "do its work" on that basis. Thus, given the example above it will
> probably
> take less than 3 or 4 minutes to complete the disk-cloning operation. And
> so
> on and so forth.

But I don't understand how that is possible *using a sector-to-sector
restoration process* (which you seem to be implying it IS using):

For a file based (and not disk sector-based) copying process, I understand
how the incremental backup can work - but not by using a raw
sector-to-sector copying process, which is necessary IF you want to retain
the original source directory timestamps.

> So you can see what a valuable incentive this is for users to
> systematically
> & routinely backup their systems with the Casper 4 program - knowing that
> the expenditure of time to complete the disk-cloning operation will be
> relatively slight.
>
> And the recipient of the clone - the destination HDD - will be a copy of
> the
> source HDD with all its data immediately accessible in precisely the same
> way one would access data from their source HDD - their day-to-day working
> HDD in most cases. And the destination HDD, should it be an internal HDD
> or
> installed as a internal HDD from an exterior enclosure will be immediately
> bootable without the need of any recovery process.
>
> It's worth considering...
> Anna
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions



>>> Anna wrote:
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:ueHEfJBdIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
(SNIP)
>>> However, I am still unclear about one thing: From what you're saying,
>>> (if
>>> I read this right), you are saying that you can do an incremental backup
>>> with Casper (to save only the recent changes of the source drive), and
>>> then restore that back with the original source directory dates being
>>> retained in the restoration, which seems a bit amazing to me. I guess
>>> I wouldn't have expected that.
(SNIP)


>> Anna wrote:
>> Bill:
>> Yes, you have it pretty much right. Although we're most impressed with
>> the
>> simplicity of design of the Casper 4 program which makes it so easy to
>> use
>> for even an inexperienced user and its general all-around effectiveness
>> in
>> cloning the contents of one HDD to another HDD...
>>
>> Its most important advantage (as compared with other disk-cloning
>> programs)
>> insofar as we are concerned is its rather extroardinary ability to create
>> "incremental clones", using what Casper refers to as its "SmartClone"
>> technology. The result of this is that it takes the user only a fraction
>> of the time to create subsequent clones of the source HDD than it would
>> otherwise take using the typical disk-cloning methodology.
>>
>> As an example...
>>
>> When a typical disk-cloning program undertakes its disk-to-disk cloning
>> process it does so without regard that the "source" and "destination"
>> HDDs
>> involved in the disk-cloning operation are the *identical* drives that
>> had
>> been involved when a prior disk-cloning operation had been undertaken. It
>> doesn't matter to the disk-cloning program whether the HDD now being
>> cloned was cloned an hour ago, or a day ago, or whenever. The now disk
>> cloning
>> operation will proceed as if the HDD recipient of the clone, i.e., the
>> destination HDD is bare of data, even though that same destination HDD
>> was
>> the recipient of a prior clone from the same source HDD 10 minutes ago.
>>
>> As a result...
>>
>> The disk-cloning operation will take a substantial amount of time to "do
>> its work" each time the disk-cloning operation is undertaken, without
>> regard to the fact that perhaps only a relatively few changes involving
>> the source
>> HDD's data has changed since the last disk-cloning operation. So let's
>> say
>> it takes about 30 minutes or so to clone the contents of a HDD containing
>> 40 GB of data. Two days later the user decides to again back up his or
>> her
>> system by undertaking another disk-cloning operation. Presumably the data
>> changes over those two days haven't been especially large. But it will
>> take the disk-cloning program about the same period of time to perform
>> the
>> disk-cloning operation as it did originally. And so on and so on in the
>> following days.
>>
>> But with the Casper 4 program, the program will recognize only the change
>> in data that has occurred from its last disk-cloning operation and
>> proceed to
>> "do its work" on that basis. Thus, given the example above it will
>> probably take less >> than 3 or 4 minutes to complete the disk-cloning
>> operation. And so on and so forth.
>>
>> So you can see what a valuable incentive this is for users to
>> systematically & routinely backup their systems with the Casper 4
>> program - knowing that the expenditure of time to complete the
>> disk-cloning operation will >> be relatively slight.
>>
>> And the recipient of the clone - the destination HDD - will be a copy of
>> the source HDD with all its data immediately accessible in precisely the
>> same
>> way one would access data from their source HDD - their day-to-day
>> working
>> HDD in most cases. And the destination HDD, should it be an internal HDD
>> or installed as a internal HDD from an exterior enclosure will be
>> immediately
>> bootable without the need of any recovery process.
>>
>> It's worth considering...
>> Anna


"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uG9yeMDdIHA.4312@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I understand that it's easier to use, from what you've said. But more
> below.
>
> But I don't understand how that is possible *using a sector-to-sector
> restoration process* (which you seem to be implying it IS using):
>
> For a file based (and not disk sector-based) copying process, I understand
> how the incremental backup can work - but not by using a raw
> sector-to-sector copying process, which is necessary IF you want to retain
> the original source directory timestamps.


Bill:
I honestly don't know what more I can say or how much clearer I can make
this. But let me put it this way in one more effort to do so...

If you would examine the "source" HDD - the drive that was cloned today -
and compare it on a side-by-side basis with the "destination" HDD - the
drive that was the recipient of the clone...

The drives would be identical with respect to the data contained on each.
Identical.

If, for example, one of the folders on the source HDD was named "Bill's
Latest Exploits" and was created 11/10/06, then the same folder named
"Bill's Latest Exploits" with the date of creation shown as 11/10/06 would
be listed on the destination drive. Identical.

If, for example, one of the files on the source HDD had the name "Pike's
Peak climb" dated 3/8/07, then the same file on the destination HDD would be
listed as "Pike's Peak climb" bearing the same 3/8/07 date. Identical.

I trust this clarifies things.
Anna
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

Anna wrote:
>>>> Anna wrote:
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ueHEfJBdIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> (SNIP)
>>>> However, I am still unclear about one thing: From what you're saying,
>>>> (if
>>>> I read this right), you are saying that you can do an incremental
>>>> backup
>>>> with Casper (to save only the recent changes of the source drive), and
>>>> then restore that back with the original source directory dates being
>>>> retained in the restoration, which seems a bit amazing to me. I
>>>> guess
>>>> I wouldn't have expected that.
> (SNIP)
>
>
>>> Anna wrote:
>>> Bill:
>>> Yes, you have it pretty much right. Although we're most impressed with
>>> the
>>> simplicity of design of the Casper 4 program which makes it so easy to
>>> use
>>> for even an inexperienced user and its general all-around effectiveness
>>> in
>>> cloning the contents of one HDD to another HDD...
>>>
>>> Its most important advantage (as compared with other disk-cloning
>>> programs)
>>> insofar as we are concerned is its rather extroardinary ability to
>>> create
>>> "incremental clones", using what Casper refers to as its "SmartClone"
>>> technology. The result of this is that it takes the user only a fraction
>>> of the time to create subsequent clones of the source HDD than it would
>>> otherwise take using the typical disk-cloning methodology.
>>>
>>> As an example...
>>>
>>> When a typical disk-cloning program undertakes its disk-to-disk cloning
>>> process it does so without regard that the "source" and "destination"
>>> HDDs
>>> involved in the disk-cloning operation are the *identical* drives that
>>> had
>>> been involved when a prior disk-cloning operation had been undertaken.
>>> It
>>> doesn't matter to the disk-cloning program whether the HDD now being
>>> cloned was cloned an hour ago, or a day ago, or whenever. The now disk
>>> cloning
>>> operation will proceed as if the HDD recipient of the clone, i.e., the
>>> destination HDD is bare of data, even though that same destination HDD
>>> was
>>> the recipient of a prior clone from the same source HDD 10 minutes ago.
>>>
>>> As a result...
>>>
>>> The disk-cloning operation will take a substantial amount of time to "do
>>> its work" each time the disk-cloning operation is undertaken, without
>>> regard to the fact that perhaps only a relatively few changes involving
>>> the source
>>> HDD's data has changed since the last disk-cloning operation. So let's
>>> say
>>> it takes about 30 minutes or so to clone the contents of a HDD
>>> containing
>>> 40 GB of data. Two days later the user decides to again back up his or
>>> her
>>> system by undertaking another disk-cloning operation. Presumably the
>>> data
>>> changes over those two days haven't been especially large. But it will
>>> take the disk-cloning program about the same period of time to perform
>>> the
>>> disk-cloning operation as it did originally. And so on and so on in the
>>> following days.
>>>
>>> But with the Casper 4 program, the program will recognize only the
>>> change
>>> in data that has occurred from its last disk-cloning operation and
>>> proceed to
>>> "do its work" on that basis. Thus, given the example above it will
>>> probably take less >> than 3 or 4 minutes to complete the disk-cloning
>>> operation. And so on and so forth.
>>>
>>> So you can see what a valuable incentive this is for users to
>>> systematically & routinely backup their systems with the Casper 4
>>> program - knowing that the expenditure of time to complete the
>>> disk-cloning operation will >> be relatively slight.
>>>
>>> And the recipient of the clone - the destination HDD - will be a copy of
>>> the source HDD with all its data immediately accessible in precisely the
>>> same
>>> way one would access data from their source HDD - their day-to-day
>>> working
>>> HDD in most cases. And the destination HDD, should it be an internal HDD
>>> or installed as a internal HDD from an exterior enclosure will be
>>> immediately
>>> bootable without the need of any recovery process.
>>>
>>> It's worth considering...
>>> Anna
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uG9yeMDdIHA.4312@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> I understand that it's easier to use, from what you've said. But more
>> below.
>>
>> But I don't understand how that is possible *using a sector-to-sector
>> restoration process* (which you seem to be implying it IS using):
>>
>> For a file based (and not disk sector-based) copying process, I
>> understand
>> how the incremental backup can work - but not by using a raw
>> sector-to-sector copying process, which is necessary IF you want to
>> retain
>> the original source directory timestamps.
>
>
> Bill:
> I honestly don't know what more I can say or how much clearer I can make
> this. But let me put it this way in one more effort to do so...
>
> If you would examine the "source" HDD - the drive that was cloned today -
> and compare it on a side-by-side basis with the "destination" HDD - the
> drive that was the recipient of the clone...
>
> The drives would be identical with respect to the data contained on each.
> Identical.
>
> If, for example, one of the folders on the source HDD was named "Bill's
> Latest Exploits" and was created 11/10/06, then the same folder named
> "Bill's Latest Exploits" with the date of creation shown as 11/10/06 would
> be listed on the destination drive. Identical.
>
> If, for example, one of the files on the source HDD had the name "Pike's
> Peak climb" dated 3/8/07, then the same file on the destination HDD would
> be
> listed as "Pike's Peak climb" bearing the same 3/8/07 date. Identical.
>
> I trust this clarifies things.
> Anna

OK then.

I'm just trying to understand technically how it is possible using an
incremental backup with *sector-to-sector* partition restoration.

It would appear that the program knows exactly which sectors are needed for
each incrementally changed, group of files and directories being restored,
and restores those. And it doesn't need the whole partition to be able to
do so.

OK, then. (have never tried that approach) :-)
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

"Bill in Co." wrote:
> I'm just trying to understand technically how it is possible using an
> incremental backup with *sector-to-sector* partition restoration.


Bill, you're trying to understand - and asking us in so doing -
how a proprietary process works. Companies which employ
lots of smart people do this to make a profit, and they are able
to do that because not many other people can do it. There is no
way that anyone would tell you, even if they could, how it works.
So desist. Suffice it to know that time stamps are not changed
in monolithic and in incremental cloning and leave it at that.

*TimDaniels*
 
Re: Acronis 7/XP Questions

SNIP
>
> 2. There is nothing - absolutely nothing - that you have to do with respect
> to using that drive as the recipient of the clone created by the Casper 4
> program. You do not have to partition that drive; you do not have to format
> that drive. All that will be automatically taken care of when you use the
> Casper 4 program to clone the contents of your "source" HDD - your
> day-to-day internal working HDD - to the USBEHD.

The Western Digital/My Book Premium Edition USB connected 500GB hard
drive shipped with "a FAT32 partition for full drive capability". Are
you saying that Casper 4 will (my words) remove everything off the hard
drive and start over in NTSF? If so, that will make my life a whole lot
easier.

My new hard drive is now registered and I only need to obtain software
for making backups at this point. Again, thanks for explaining Casper 4
to me and others in this thread.

Frog
 

Similar threads

AWS
Site Upgraded
Replies
1
Views
31
Cloaked
Cloaked
N
Can I update my 10 year old Acer desktop
Replies
0
Views
570
neophyte
N
B
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
62
Bhuta-Bhavya-Bhavat-Prabh
B
G
where to get a product for server 2012 r2
Replies
1
Views
271
RSchwarz
RSchwarz
I
Everything is stuck....
Replies
1
Views
163
RSchwarz
RSchwarz
Back
Top