This is the same post I started earlier. It got too long and a bit confusing.
I'm sorry I have not been able to explain things more clearly. As it is, I
got plenty of responses to give me an idea of what I have to do.

Thanks Daave for explaining the difference between cloning and restoring
with the CD. Wow, that was crystal clear.

And you are right. The discs I have are actually OPERATING SYSTEM DISC and
SYSTEM RECOVERY DISC, not System Restore.(What was I thinking, da!) They came
with my Gateway computer, and I can use them to do a recovery when my system
cracks down. I can also do this by tapping F11.


I do not need a program to boot up my system, but I will give some
consideration to the programs suggested for cloning, or imaging of my hard
drive. It does sound like a good idea, now that I understand better.

To DadiOh,
unless it is just one big file - what's stopping you from just moving it to
where you want it?

Thanks DadiOh, this is what I will do, until I decide about a
cloning/imaging program.

Thanks everybody, you all have been most kind and patient.

Edith

em21 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>This is the same post I started earlier. It got too long and a bit confusing.
>I'm sorry I have not been able to explain things more clearly. As it is, I
>got plenty of responses to give me an idea of what I have to do.

You are a moron. Those who responded to you do NOT look for a new
thread such as this.

Nate Grossman wrote:
> em21 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> This is the same post I started earlier. It got too long and a bit
>> confusing. I'm sorry I have not been able to explain things more
>> clearly. As it is, I got plenty of responses to give me an idea of
>> what I have to do.
>
> You are a moron. Those who responded to you do NOT look for a new
> thread such as this.

That doesn't mean they don't see it, Mr. Empathy.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Name calling is always the last refuge of those with nothing useful to say.
It's no big deal that she did this.

Nate Grossman wrote:
> em21 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> This is the same post I started earlier. It got too long and a bit
>> confusing.
>> I'm sorry I have not been able to explain things more clearly. As it is,
>> I
>> got plenty of responses to give me an idea of what I have to do.
>
> You are a moron. Those who responded to you do NOT look for a new
> thread such as this.

One thing I don't think was mentioned in the close/imaging responses. A
cloned drive is great and gets you back up and running in whatever
length of time it takes to switch in the cloned drive and switch out the
fallen drive. Within reason and time of creation it keeps you ready to
get back in service quickly.

Images however have the advantage of a history. Especially if you make
periodic CD/DVD copies of the backup to keep all the old data. You
wouldn't want to use them for an operating system re-image of the drive
since it'd be out of date, but for any file/program you've ever had that
was not a system file, you could easily go back in time to recover some
long-lost file that no longer exists on your machine.
I've used them quite a few times for just that purpose. I've
recovered entries from Favorites to URLs I can't find but I know I had
once. I've gone back and verified that I actually wrote so and so on
such and such a date and pull that and any other recorded references
back onto a drive, etc.. Or any file or folder you've deleted and want
to get back. Searching and mounting virtual drives from any date you've
saved is possible so a lot of recovery and research is possible.
Yes, I'm prejudiced toward imaging; not that there's anything wrong
with a cloned drive; it's just that they provide two different things.
All my references are to Norton Ghost abilities but IIRC Acronis True
Image can do the same kinds of searches over multiple drive images,
etc., and gives the same abilities that way. I've used TI but not on a
very long time since I settled on Ghost.
An image of any of my drives, including that of the system drive,
takes a maximum of 23 minutes from start to Restarting with a complete
recovery in place. Moving hard drives around in my case at least is
highly unpreferred and would take more than 23 minutes to accomplish a
clone replacement. Ymmv there of course; an external bootable drive is
the most convenient in that case, though booting from external devices
can be "iffy" depending on a few things.

HTH,

Twayne`






"em21" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:00943C24-BF63-4830-B270-(E-Mail Removed)
> This is the same post I started earlier. It got too long and a bit
> confusing. I'm sorry I have not been able to explain things more
> clearly. As it is, I got plenty of responses to give me an idea of
> what I have to do.
>
> Thanks Daave for explaining the difference between cloning and
> restoring with the CD. Wow, that was crystal clear.
>
> And you are right. The discs I have are actually OPERATING SYSTEM
> DISC and SYSTEM RECOVERY DISC, not System Restore.(What was I
> thinking, da!) They came with my Gateway computer, and I can use them
> to do a recovery when my system cracks down. I can also do this by
> tapping F11.
>
>
> I do not need a program to boot up my system, but I will give some
> consideration to the programs suggested for cloning, or imaging of my
> hard drive. It does sound like a good idea, now that I understand
> better.
>
> To DadiOh,
> unless it is just one big file - what's stopping you from just moving
> it to where you want it?
>
> Thanks DadiOh, this is what I will do, until I decide about a
> cloning/imaging program.
>
> Thanks everybody, you all have been most kind and patient.
>
> Edith

Thanks for the info.
--
edith


"Twayne" wrote:

> One thing I don't think was mentioned in the close/imaging responses. A
> cloned drive is great and gets you back up and running in whatever
> length of time it takes to switch in the cloned drive and switch out the
> fallen drive. Within reason and time of creation it keeps you ready to
> get back in service quickly.
>
> Images however have the advantage of a history. Especially if you make
> periodic CD/DVD copies of the backup to keep all the old data. You
> wouldn't want to use them for an operating system re-image of the drive
> since it'd be out of date, but for any file/program you've ever had that
> was not a system file, you could easily go back in time to recover some
> long-lost file that no longer exists on your machine.
> I've used them quite a few times for just that purpose. I've
> recovered entries from Favorites to URLs I can't find but I know I had
> once. I've gone back and verified that I actually wrote so and so on
> such and such a date and pull that and any other recorded references
> back onto a drive, etc.. Or any file or folder you've deleted and want
> to get back. Searching and mounting virtual drives from any date you've
> saved is possible so a lot of recovery and research is possible.
> Yes, I'm prejudiced toward imaging; not that there's anything wrong
> with a cloned drive; it's just that they provide two different things.
> All my references are to Norton Ghost abilities but IIRC Acronis True
> Image can do the same kinds of searches over multiple drive images,
> etc., and gives the same abilities that way. I've used TI but not on a
> very long time since I settled on Ghost.
> An image of any of my drives, including that of the system drive,
> takes a maximum of 23 minutes from start to Restarting with a complete
> recovery in place. Moving hard drives around in my case at least is
> highly unpreferred and would take more than 23 minutes to accomplish a
> clone replacement. Ymmv there of course; an external bootable drive is
> the most convenient in that case, though booting from external devices
> can be "iffy" depending on a few things.
>
> HTH,
>
> Twayne`
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "em21" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:00943C24-BF63-4830-B270-(E-Mail Removed)
> > This is the same post I started earlier. It got too long and a bit
> > confusing. I'm sorry I have not been able to explain things more
> > clearly. As it is, I got plenty of responses to give me an idea of
> > what I have to do.
> >
> > Thanks Daave for explaining the difference between cloning and
> > restoring with the CD. Wow, that was crystal clear.
> >
> > And you are right. The discs I have are actually OPERATING SYSTEM
> > DISC and SYSTEM RECOVERY DISC, not System Restore.(What was I
> > thinking, da!) They came with my Gateway computer, and I can use them
> > to do a recovery when my system cracks down. I can also do this by
> > tapping F11.
> >
> >
> > I do not need a program to boot up my system, but I will give some
> > consideration to the programs suggested for cloning, or imaging of my
> > hard drive. It does sound like a good idea, now that I understand
> > better.
> >
> > To DadiOh,
> > unless it is just one big file - what's stopping you from just moving
> > it to where you want it?
> >
> > Thanks DadiOh, this is what I will do, until I decide about a
> > cloning/imaging program.
> >
> > Thanks everybody, you all have been most kind and patient.
> >
> > Edith
>
>
>
>

> "Twayne" wrote:
>
>> One thing I don't think was mentioned in the close/imaging responses. A
>> cloned drive is great and gets you back up and running in whatever
>> length of time it takes to switch in the cloned drive and switch out the
>> fallen drive. Within reason and time of creation it keeps you ready to
>> get back in service quickly.
>>
>> Images however have the advantage of a history. Especially if you make
>> periodic CD/DVD copies of the backup to keep all the old data. You
>> wouldn't want to use them for an operating system re-image of the drive
>> since it'd be out of date, but for any file/program you've ever had that
>> was not a system file, you could easily go back in time to recover some
>> long-lost file that no longer exists on your machine.
>> I've used them quite a few times for just that purpose. I've
>> recovered entries from Favorites to URLs I can't find but I know I had
>> once. I've gone back and verified that I actually wrote so and so on
>> such and such a date and pull that and any other recorded references
>> back onto a drive, etc.. Or any file or folder you've deleted and want
>> to get back. Searching and mounting virtual drives from any date you've
>> saved is possible so a lot of recovery and research is possible.
>> Yes, I'm prejudiced toward imaging; not that there's anything wrong
>> with a cloned drive; it's just that they provide two different things.
>> All my references are to Norton Ghost abilities but IIRC Acronis True
>> Image can do the same kinds of searches over multiple drive images,
>> etc., and gives the same abilities that way. I've used TI but not on a
>> very long time since I settled on Ghost.
>> An image of any of my drives, including that of the system drive,
>> takes a maximum of 23 minutes from start to Restarting with a complete
>> recovery in place. Moving hard drives around in my case at least is
>> highly unpreferred and would take more than 23 minutes to accomplish a
>> clone replacement. Ymmv there of course; an external bootable drive is
>> the most convenient in that case, though booting from external devices
>> can be "iffy" depending on a few things.
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Twayne`


"em21" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:03C87B91-FB98-44C9-BE39-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks for the info.
> --
> edith


Edith:
Just a few comments with respect to Twayne's comments comparing the
differences between the disk-cloning & disk-imaging approaches with respect
to these comprehensive backup programs such as the ones we've discussed
during a similar thread. To be perfectly frank my comments are directed to
others, as well as to you, who are who are considering employing this type
of program.

In my previous posts re this issue (the thread had the same subject-name
sans the "2" designation) I pointed out that in my view the vast majority of
PC users (especially home PC users) would be better served by a disk-to-disk
cloning program rather than a disk-imaging program. I won't repeat in any
detail the reasons I gave for arriving at this conclusion except to state
that the disk-cloning program I strongly recommended is the Casper 5
program.

(If anyone may be interested in my more-or-less detailed recent comments
directed to Edith re this issue, he or she may want to see them in the
"Backup" thread that recently appeared in this newsgroup).

First of all, let me state at the outset as I try to do in nearly every post
of mine while discussing these backup programs that a potential user seeking
a comprehensive backup program should try to experiment with as many
different programs as they possibly can to determine which one (or type)
best meets their needs. Nearly all of these programs have demo or trial
versions available so it's possible for a potential user to gain at least
some insight as to whether this or that program would best serve their
interests & objectives. I suppose it goes without saying that no one should
rely on my suggestions or the suggestions of anyone else (especially in
these newsgroups).

To put it as short & sweetly as I can...it's difficult for me to imagine a
better backup system for the great majority of PC users than having a
precise copy of their day-to-day working HDD at their hand. A copy where
*all* the data on their "source" HDD is instantly available. A copy that
needs no restoration or recovery process of any kind in order to access its
data instantly. A copy that is completely bootable & functional (should it
be another internally-connected HDD or an eSATA-connected external HDD)
without the need to perform any recovery/restore process.

Using the Casper 5 disk-cloning program as I have previously related - when
the program is used on a routine basis (say, once a week or more frequently)
the user will be confident that he/she has at hand an up-to-date *complete*
copy of their system, and should the need arise to restore their system
because of a failed HDD or a corrupted OS that results in an unbootable
system or the system is dysfunctional in any way, the system can be easily
restored in reasonably short order using the cloned HDD either to directly
replace the failed/defective/dysfunctional day-to-day HDD or (in the more
usual type of case) clone the contents of the "good" cloned HDD back to the
internal HDD.

Twayne mentions the need for "moving hard drives around (in) a case" with
respect to "clone replacement". Please understand, as I have insinuated
above, that this is (in my experience) the more unusual technique when
restoring a system from the cloned HDD, i.e., the drive serving as the
recipient of the contents of the user's internal HDD. In most cases the user
will simply use the *identical* backup process he or she used when routinely
cloning the contents of their source HDD, i.e., clone back to the internal
HDD the contents of the cloned ("destination") HDD assuming the internal HDD
is non-defective. If the internal HDD has failed, the user would simply
replace that HDD with a new one and again clone the contents of the
destination HDD back to the new drive. To be sure, the user has the
*additional* option, should he or she choose to use it, of replacing the
failed HDD with the cloned HDD. So there's a great degree of flexibility
here, is there not?

Twayne also raises the issue of time expenditure insofar as it involves the
time it takes to restore his system from a disk image and points out that,
as he puts it, "Moving hard drives around in my case at least is highly
unpreferred and would take more than 23 minutes to accomplish a clone
replacement." First of all, see my comment above that in the great majority
of cases (in my experience) where restoration of a system is necessary, it's
usually not because of a defective HDD, rather it's a case of a
dysfunctional OS that needs restoration. And even when the HDD needs to be
replaced the user can easily clone the contents of the "destination" HDD to
the new "source" HDD. So it's completely unnecessary for the user to "move
hard drives around in (their) case", unless one chooses to do so.

In any event - and this is the most important point - the expenditure of
user's time in restoring his or her system is *not* the most significant
factor or even a terribly important one for most users insofar as choosing a
disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) program. What *is* important is the amount of
time the user will be expending when routinely *backing up* his or her
system. In the real world, the great majority of users will be backing up
their systems many, many times before the need arises to restore their
system through one process or another. Whether is takes 23 minutes or 45
minutes or 1 hour to restore one's system is, as a practical matter,
inconsequential. What's truly important is that the program carries out this
function precisely and without any problems, not the amount of time it takes
to do so.

And it is precisely this "expenditure of backup time" feature that, in our
view, makes the Casper 5 so superior when compared with other
disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs, including the Acronis program. As I have
tried to consistently point out when discussing the Casper 5 program - when
the program is used on a routine, frequent basis (roughly no less than
once-a-week), the amount of time it will take for the user to complete the
entire backup process comes close to being trifling. Because Casper 5 has
the unique ability to create *incremental* clones it takes the program only
a few short minutes to complete most disk-cloning operations. And understand
that the result is a *complete* clone of the user's "source" HDD - a precise
copy of such, *not* an "incremental" file.

There is, however, one area that Twayne mentions in his comments where the
user may prefer a disk-imaging program, such as the Acronis one, rather than
a disk-cloning program. Should the user have a strong or vital interest in
maintaining "generational" (multiple) copies of his or her system at
particular points-in-time, then generally speaking a disk-imaging program
(in most cases) would be more suitable to that objective. While the Casper 5
(or probably most other disk-cloning programs) could maintain such
generational copies of one's system - depending upon the size of the
contents of the source drive and the disk space available on the destination
drive and the number of needed generational copies - it doesn't lend itself
as readily to that objective as would a disk-imaging program.

Generally speaking (again, in our experience) the average PC home user
(unlike commercial entities) has no or minimal interest in maintaining
generational copies of their system. In the overwhelming number of cases the
user is simply interested in maintaining an up-to-date current backup of
his/her system. And there is nothing to prevent the user from employing the
Casper 5 disk-cloning program to maintain such generational copies of one's
system, assuming it's a reasonable number of such instances and adequate
disk-capacity is available.
Anna

"Anna" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)
>> "Twayne" wrote:
>>
<snip>
> Generally speaking (again, in our experience) the average PC home user
> (unlike commercial entities) has no or minimal interest in maintaining
> generational copies of their system. In the overwhelming number of
> cases the user is simply interested in maintaining an up-to-date
> current backup of his/her system. And there is nothing to prevent the
> user from employing the Casper 5 disk-cloning program to maintain
> such generational copies of one's system, assuming it's a reasonable
> number of such instances and adequate disk-capacity is available.
> Anna

Interestingly, I seem to have stepped on someone's toes unintentionally.
If you feel that way I apologize as that wasn't my intent. I'm also
aware of Casper and there have been a few threads concerning it right
here.

My only intent was to point out what you call the "generational"
capabilities of imaging programs; I've found it useful many times to be
able to go back a few 'generations' and recreate/retrieve something
that's no longer a part of the directory structure anywhere on my hard
drive. I keep everything backed up to a pair of 1 Gig externals that
take turns being "online" for data security and DVD for disaster
recovery, such as fire, theft, whatever. Whether it's an unintentional
deletion that I didn't notice for some days or weeks or perhaps I just
changed my mind on, I like the abilty to be able to go back into past
"generations" of backups. It's my experience that "most people" find
that ability pays for itself rather quickly when it turns out to be
something important to them. Whether it's just a letter to Aunt Tilda
or an old tax program, it's there to be easily retrieved, with all data
still intact.
Ghost & I'm pretty sure Acronis' TI can also clone disks and there is
no better protection to be up and running in a short amount of time than
a properly managed clone methodology, espeically when one might be also
considering hundreds of Gigs of data in addition to the bootable
partition.
I could make arguements for or against either method, depending on
which hat I chose to wear as cloning/imaging aren't really the same
thing; they're two similar sides of different things. I simply happen
use both methodologies and noted the data on imaging seemed to be
missing some completeness compared to cloning and thus I provided that.
IMO it was good information and relevent from an all-around aspect.
So if I stepped on some toes somehow, I apologize for doing so. I do
think you made too many cases for things like "overwhelming number of
users" and "great majority of cases", etc. etc., you are actually
professing an opinion, not a fact, and you must realize that yours isn't
guaranteed to be in the majority simply because you use phrases that
indicate "almost everyone". Such statements usually bring out the "how
do you know?" and "what's the source of your data?" etc. types of
questions. NO, I am not asking that of you here. IMO It's much better to
simply state that it's your opinion, and it's always been successful for
you, worked well for you, etc., and your circle of friends,
acquaintances, whatever.

I've no intention of making this a matter of wetting down the table-top
so understant please that this is actually an apology if I've offended
you somoehow. I don't disagree with anything you said about Casper or
about cloning et al.

HTH,

Twayne`

"Twayne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> So if I stepped on some toes somehow, I apologize for doing so. I do
>think you made too many cases for things like "overwhelming number of
>users" and "great majority of cases", etc. etc., you are actually
>professing an opinion, not a fact,

Ya THINK!?

If her opinion was fact, and if Casper is so effing great... why is
she practically the ONLY one in the XP groups who is touting it?

> "Anna" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)
> <snip>
>> Generally speaking (again, in our experience) the average PC home user
>> (unlike commercial entities) has no or minimal interest in maintaining
>> generational copies of their system. In the overwhelming number of
>> cases the user is simply interested in maintaining an up-to-date
>> current backup of his/her system. And there is nothing to prevent the
>> user from employing the Casper 5 disk-cloning program to maintain
>> such generational copies of one's system, assuming it's a reasonable
>> number of such instances and adequate disk-capacity is available.
>> Anna


"Twayne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Interestingly, I seem to have stepped on someone's toes unintentionally.
> If you feel that way I apologize as that wasn't my intent. I'm also aware
> of Casper and there have been a few threads concerning it right here.
>
> My only intent was to point out what you call the "generational"
> capabilities of imaging programs; I've found it useful many times to be
> able to go back a few 'generations' and recreate/retrieve something that's
> no longer a part of the directory structure anywhere on my hard drive. I
> keep everything backed up to a pair of 1 Gig externals that take turns
> being "online" for data security and DVD for disaster recovery, such as
> fire, theft, whatever. Whether it's an unintentional deletion that I
> didn't notice for some days or weeks or perhaps I just changed my mind on,
> I like the abilty to be able to go back into past "generations" of
> backups. It's my experience that "most people" find that ability pays for
> itself rather quickly when it turns out to be something important to them.
> Whether it's just a letter to Aunt Tilda or an old tax program, it's there
> to be easily retrieved, with all data still intact.
> Ghost & I'm pretty sure Acronis' TI can also clone disks and there is no
> better protection to be up and running in a short amount of time than a
> properly managed clone methodology, espeically when one might be also
> considering hundreds of Gigs of data in addition to the bootable
> partition.
> I could make arguements for or against either method, depending on which
> hat I chose to wear as cloning/imaging aren't really the same thing;
> they're two similar sides of different things. I simply happen use both
> methodologies and noted the data on imaging seemed to be missing some
> completeness compared to cloning and thus I provided that. IMO it was
> good information and relevent from an all-around aspect.
> So if I stepped on some toes somehow, I apologize for doing so. I do
> think you made too many cases for things like "overwhelming number of
> users" and "great majority of cases", etc. etc., you are actually
> professing an opinion, not a fact, and you must realize that yours isn't
> guaranteed to be in the majority simply because you use phrases that
> indicate "almost everyone". Such statements usually bring out the "how
> do you know?" and "what's the source of your data?" etc. types of
> questions. NO, I am not asking that of you here. IMO It's much better to
> simply state that it's your opinion, and it's always been successful for
> you, worked well for you, etc., and your circle of friends,
> acquaintances, whatever.
>
> I've no intention of making this a matter of wetting down the table-top so
> understant please that this is actually an apology if I've offended you
> somoehow. I don't disagree with anything you said about Casper or about
> cloning et al.
>
> HTH,
>
> Twayne`


Twayne...
First of all what in the world makes you think you've "stepped on someone's
toes unintentionally" and an apology is in order? Unless there's some degree
of sarcasm in your remarks that I don't detect, this is simply absurd. On
the other hand the final sentence of your comment above is puzzling to say
the least.

My comments re this issue are based upon my experience and obviously reflect
my opinions (what else would they be if they weren't my opinions?). As I've
stated time & time again users' needs differ with respect to establishing &
maintaining a comprehensive backup system and those needs can be met by
employing different programs. That concept has always been part & parcel of
any comments/recommendations that I've made concerning the issue at hand.

But as I've consistently stated, I continue to believe that for the
overwhelming number of PC users a disk-cloning program - specifically the
Casper 5 program - is a superior vehicle for meeting those backup needs.

I have (I think) clearly stated why I believe this to be so and have
provided detailed commentary to support my views. (Commentary, I might add,
that you have seen fit to "snip" in your response above). Certainly you or
anyone else can disagree with any conclusion I've drawn re this or any other
issue I've commented upon.
Anna