B
Bill in Co.
Guest
Re: Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk
Reposted for Anna (this was my last reply in case you missed it), and
updated.
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> Anna wrote:
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23lGuTrZ1IHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> We may have already covered this, but, all this being said, when would
>>>> YOU prefer to use *imaging* instead of cloning (in this case, use TI
>>>> instead of Casper)? Can you think of any possible case or reason?
>>> (SNIP)
>>>> I think they should sell Casper boxed WITH the program on a bootup
>>>> restore
>>>> CD, like Acronis True Image, however. Of course, it's not too much
>>>> work to make one, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill:
>>> We rarely use the disk-imaging approach in our day-to-day backups. In
>>> general, when we do use the disk-imaging approach (using Acronis True
>>> Image)
>>> it's because of a rather unusual reason that most users would have no
>>> need for.
>>>
>>> We frequently have occasion to fresh install the XP OS for a variety of
>>> users with different PCs. And in many instances also install various
>>> programs on these machines. So we like to have copies of those
>>> particular
>>> installations in case the user later has problems with the system. Also
>>> for
>>> our own reference reasons. To that end the disk-imaging approach better
>>> meets our needs rather than going the disk-cloning route, primarily
>>> because the compression feature of disk-imaging allows us to "store"
>>> more
>>> different
>>> systems on a multi-partitioned HDD. (We generally work with removable
>>> HDDs so that we store the disk-images on an internal HDD).
OK. And the assumption here is that the compressed image is significantly
smaller than the actual data, and that is the main reason in this case.
(In the case of True Image, I've found the image to be compressed down to
about 75% (or so) of the size of the actual data. IOW, reduced BY about
25%, or possibly 30%, in some cases)
Although there may be another one come to think of it, mentioned below:
>>> Also, when a user is concerned with creating "generational" backups of
>>> his
>>> or her system, i.e., individual comprehensive backups of their system at
>>> various points in time, a disk-imaging program is generally considered
>>> to
>>> be the program of choice, although depending upon the number of
>>> "generations"
>>> desired by the user, the amount of data involved, and the size of the
>>> "destination" HDD, that capability can also be accommodated by a
>>> disk-cloning program such as Casper.
Right, so what's the real big difference here, except that 1) the image is
somewhat smaller than a clone would be, and 2) perhaps it is easier to
keep track of several image files, rather than keeping track of several
different
clones, because each image just "presents itself" as a single file to
manage,
and NOT just a multitude of thousands of directories and files, as it really
is, as likely seen in the cloning approach.
Although come to think of it, maybe you can also just see and manage the
clones labeled as just Clone1, Clone2, etc - so that's easy to manage too.
(in which case there is no real difference in this vein)
>>> But when all is said & done, we recognize that many users are quite
>>> comfortable with the disk-imaging approach rather than the disk-cloning
>>> approach and simply do not wish to change.
Actually, I took a few minutes out to give it a short test run, and at
first glance, it looked a bit more user-friendly than True Image, and it
seemed to be pretty straightforward and "friendly" to use.
I did this between some other tests I was running on another drive, but then
later went back to my original backup. So I'll have to try it out more
thoroughly next time, and give it a real test.
Reposted for Anna (this was my last reply in case you missed it), and
updated.
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> Anna wrote:
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23lGuTrZ1IHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> We may have already covered this, but, all this being said, when would
>>>> YOU prefer to use *imaging* instead of cloning (in this case, use TI
>>>> instead of Casper)? Can you think of any possible case or reason?
>>> (SNIP)
>>>> I think they should sell Casper boxed WITH the program on a bootup
>>>> restore
>>>> CD, like Acronis True Image, however. Of course, it's not too much
>>>> work to make one, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill:
>>> We rarely use the disk-imaging approach in our day-to-day backups. In
>>> general, when we do use the disk-imaging approach (using Acronis True
>>> Image)
>>> it's because of a rather unusual reason that most users would have no
>>> need for.
>>>
>>> We frequently have occasion to fresh install the XP OS for a variety of
>>> users with different PCs. And in many instances also install various
>>> programs on these machines. So we like to have copies of those
>>> particular
>>> installations in case the user later has problems with the system. Also
>>> for
>>> our own reference reasons. To that end the disk-imaging approach better
>>> meets our needs rather than going the disk-cloning route, primarily
>>> because the compression feature of disk-imaging allows us to "store"
>>> more
>>> different
>>> systems on a multi-partitioned HDD. (We generally work with removable
>>> HDDs so that we store the disk-images on an internal HDD).
OK. And the assumption here is that the compressed image is significantly
smaller than the actual data, and that is the main reason in this case.
(In the case of True Image, I've found the image to be compressed down to
about 75% (or so) of the size of the actual data. IOW, reduced BY about
25%, or possibly 30%, in some cases)
Although there may be another one come to think of it, mentioned below:
>>> Also, when a user is concerned with creating "generational" backups of
>>> his
>>> or her system, i.e., individual comprehensive backups of their system at
>>> various points in time, a disk-imaging program is generally considered
>>> to
>>> be the program of choice, although depending upon the number of
>>> "generations"
>>> desired by the user, the amount of data involved, and the size of the
>>> "destination" HDD, that capability can also be accommodated by a
>>> disk-cloning program such as Casper.
Right, so what's the real big difference here, except that 1) the image is
somewhat smaller than a clone would be, and 2) perhaps it is easier to
keep track of several image files, rather than keeping track of several
different
clones, because each image just "presents itself" as a single file to
manage,
and NOT just a multitude of thousands of directories and files, as it really
is, as likely seen in the cloning approach.
Although come to think of it, maybe you can also just see and manage the
clones labeled as just Clone1, Clone2, etc - so that's easy to manage too.
(in which case there is no real difference in this vein)
>>> But when all is said & done, we recognize that many users are quite
>>> comfortable with the disk-imaging approach rather than the disk-cloning
>>> approach and simply do not wish to change.
Actually, I took a few minutes out to give it a short test run, and at
first glance, it looked a bit more user-friendly than True Image, and it
seemed to be pretty straightforward and "friendly" to use.
I did this between some other tests I was running on another drive, but then
later went back to my original backup. So I'll have to try it out more
thoroughly next time, and give it a real test.