I updating my whole strategy for backing up my home computers. I've read
(and re-read) the threads and DO NOT want to go back over cloning and imaging
or, for that matter file/folder backups.

I'm also NOT interested in comparing software (I can do that). The only
questions I have relate to 1) whether to have all the capabilities (clone,
image, and file/folder) and 2) given the objective to keep the cost down
some, how to limit the software selection.

Casper, TI and Ghost seem to be the biggies for cloning and/or imaging.
There seem to be a lot of file/folder software options. I downloaded a trial
copy of TI just to see what it does and look at the interface. I didn't try
cloning (not sure if it has that capability (yet)) but I did do an image
"backup" (full and then an incremental).

Seems pretty straight forward and it appears I can either restore the whole
image or individual files/folders. This implies that I don't need (or don't
get too much incremental value from) having a separate file/folder tool. I
guess one could argue that a file/folder utility for My Documents might be a
"nice to have" but is there a good argument why one would want a separate
utility in the context of a backup strategy.

I haven't looked at Casper 5 yet but, if they also have a trail version,
I'll do the same test (same with Ghost). As a novice it appears that having
one utility to do both cloning and imaging makes sense. I'd expect the
market (for small home networks) would drive the utilities to do both. Is it?

As I've read the threads (and posted to a couple) my thinking has been drawn
to the recovery side of the discussion not the backup side. I mean, there's
no reason to do backups without thinking about the recovery scenarios.

If I have it right, cloning is done to be able to simply boot off an exact
copy of the HD (or one of it's partitions). And I can see that taking a
clone just before doing something (like upgrading the OS or major apps) would
make sense. But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full
clone back to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and less
attractive as time goes on.

I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful?

Again, I've read the "over and over" discussions and don't want to start the
techie debate. Just some understanding that will help me make the decisions
on what capabilities to buy for my home use.

Thanks

Tom

One key point to imaging, is data partitioning. If you make use of a
dedicated volume for data then recovering the OS partition doesn't
affect your personal data. On my machine I have a Data partition,
and separate drives for Multimedia, Virtual PC Machines....Cloning
has it's place but I consider imaging a better overall solution. If I
ever need to restore XP, I can do that in less than 4 minutes. Also
having separate volumes/partitions allows me to perform backups
on different data using various schedules. Certain things like email
and documents need more frequent backup than other types of
data. Using multiple physical drives also helps with performance of
the PC since disk operations are spread out on different drives.

"tcarp" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:5EEC7963-AAD6-4E2C-B694-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I updating my whole strategy for backing up my home computers. I've read
> (and re-read) the threads and DO NOT want to go back over cloning and
> imaging
> or, for that matter file/folder backups.
>
> I'm also NOT interested in comparing software (I can do that). The only
> questions I have relate to 1) whether to have all the capabilities (clone,
> image, and file/folder) and 2) given the objective to keep the cost down
> some, how to limit the software selection.
>
> Casper, TI and Ghost seem to be the biggies for cloning and/or imaging.
> There seem to be a lot of file/folder software options. I downloaded a
> trial
> copy of TI just to see what it does and look at the interface. I didn't
> try
> cloning (not sure if it has that capability (yet)) but I did do an image
> "backup" (full and then an incremental).
>
> Seems pretty straight forward and it appears I can either restore the
> whole
> image or individual files/folders. This implies that I don't need (or
> don't
> get too much incremental value from) having a separate file/folder tool.
> I
> guess one could argue that a file/folder utility for My Documents might be
> a
> "nice to have" but is there a good argument why one would want a separate
> utility in the context of a backup strategy.
>
> I haven't looked at Casper 5 yet but, if they also have a trail version,
> I'll do the same test (same with Ghost). As a novice it appears that
> having
> one utility to do both cloning and imaging makes sense. I'd expect the
> market (for small home networks) would drive the utilities to do both. Is
> it?
>
> As I've read the threads (and posted to a couple) my thinking has been
> drawn
> to the recovery side of the discussion not the backup side. I mean,
> there's
> no reason to do backups without thinking about the recovery scenarios.
>
> If I have it right, cloning is done to be able to simply boot off an exact
> copy of the HD (or one of it's partitions). And I can see that taking a
> clone just before doing something (like upgrading the OS or major apps)
> would
> make sense. But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full
> clone back to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and
> less
> attractive as time goes on.
>
> I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful?
>
> Again, I've read the "over and over" discussions and don't want to start
> the
> techie debate. Just some understanding that will help me make the
> decisions
> on what capabilities to buy for my home use.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom

tcarp wrote:
> I updating my whole strategy for backing up my home computers. I've read
> (and re-read) the threads and DO NOT want to go back over cloning and imaging
> or, for that matter file/folder backups.
>
> I'm also NOT interested in comparing software (I can do that). The only
> questions I have relate to 1) whether to have all the capabilities (clone,
> image, and file/folder) and 2) given the objective to keep the cost down
> some, how to limit the software selection.
>
> Casper, TI and Ghost seem to be the biggies for cloning and/or imaging.
> There seem to be a lot of file/folder software options. I downloaded a trial
> copy of TI just to see what it does and look at the interface. I didn't try
> cloning (not sure if it has that capability (yet)) but I did do an image
> "backup" (full and then an incremental).
>
> Seems pretty straight forward and it appears I can either restore the whole
> image or individual files/folders. This implies that I don't need (or don't
> get too much incremental value from) having a separate file/folder tool. I
> guess one could argue that a file/folder utility for My Documents might be a
> "nice to have" but is there a good argument why one would want a separate
> utility in the context of a backup strategy.
>
> I haven't looked at Casper 5 yet but, if they also have a trail version,
> I'll do the same test (same with Ghost). As a novice it appears that having
> one utility to do both cloning and imaging makes sense. I'd expect the
> market (for small home networks) would drive the utilities to do both. Is it?
>
> As I've read the threads (and posted to a couple) my thinking has been drawn
> to the recovery side of the discussion not the backup side. I mean, there's
> no reason to do backups without thinking about the recovery scenarios.
>
> If I have it right, cloning is done to be able to simply boot off an exact
> copy of the HD (or one of it's partitions). And I can see that taking a
> clone just before doing something (like upgrading the OS or major apps) would
> make sense. But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full
> clone back to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and less
> attractive as time goes on.
>
> I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful?
>
> Again, I've read the "over and over" discussions and don't want to start the
> techie debate. Just some understanding that will help me make the decisions
> on what capabilities to buy for my home use.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
A clone is not the only way for making an exact image to boot. An
Image will make an exact copy. And you can use that image to rebuild a
HD and boot. So they are basically the same. Its just the steps they
go through to get from point A to B, and the usage of the destination.
Images are just files and you can put several of them on one external
HD, where a clone consumes the drive or at least the partition.
Both will allow you to resize a drive at restore. I've done both while
flipping my laptop drives around, and they seem to be identical in
function to me. I cloned once and imaged a second time. No wonder
you are confused.

IMHO, A clone is good for a new drive install. End of conversation.
Image all the other times works for files and or complete restore.

And with this logic you don't need a file backup utility.
You could also just xcopy your mydocs folder if you wanted to or a batch
file with several xcopy commands. It could be that simple.

"R. McCarty" wrote:

> One key point to imaging, is data partitioning. If you make use of a
> dedicated volume for data then recovering the OS partition doesn't
> affect your personal data. On my machine I have a Data partition,
> and separate drives for Multimedia, Virtual PC Machines....Cloning
> has it's place but I consider imaging a better overall solution. If I
> ever need to restore XP, I can do that in less than 4 minutes. Also
> having separate volumes/partitions allows me to perform backups
> on different data using various schedules. Certain things like email
> and documents need more frequent backup than other types of
> data. Using multiple physical drives also helps with performance of
> the PC since disk operations are spread out on different drives.
>
Perfect! Thanks.

> > Tom
> A clone is not the only way for making an exact image to boot. An
> Image will make an exact copy. And you can use that image to rebuild a
> HD and boot. So they are basically the same. Its just the steps they
> go through to get from point A to B, and the usage of the destination.
> Images are just files and you can put several of them on one external
> HD, where a clone consumes the drive or at least the partition.
> Both will allow you to resize a drive at restore. I've done both while
> flipping my laptop drives around, and they seem to be identical in
> function to me. I cloned once and imaged a second time. No wonder
> you are confused.
>
> IMHO, A clone is good for a new drive install. End of conversation.
> Image all the other times works for files and or complete restore.
>
> And with this logic you don't need a file backup utility.
> You could also just xcopy your mydocs folder if you wanted to or a batch
> file with several xcopy commands. It could be that simple.

Thanks so very much. You confirmed my novice thinking.

I can understand the value of cloning if you're maintaining quite a few
machines and doing regular installs. But for home use, it may be a luxury
that I could save a few $ bu using imaging (possible augmented by a simple
file/folder utility for stuff that changes all the time (documents).

Tom

"tcarp" asked:
> I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful?

Did you ever forget to backup a particular folder while
backing up all the rest? Can you spare 20 minutes to
backup an entire partition instead of picking and choosing
and wondering if you got everything? If your hard drive
fails or if your OS got a virus, would you like to boot up a
copy of that OS without having to get out the CDs/DVDs
and spending half an hour restoring the OS? With a clone
on a 2nd internal HD or on a HD in a removable tray or
on an external eSATA hard drive, you can just restart,
switch the identity of the boot drive in the BIOS, and off
you go. The advantage of a clone, then, is speed of
getting back in the action - important for stock day-trading,
for example.

The usual advantage of image files are the speed of
incremental backup after the first copy ia made and the
smaller archiving capacity needed to store just the files
you've selected to cheap media (CDs, DVDs, USB thumb
drives). But hard drives have gotten cheap, too, and utilities
such as Casper can do incremental updates to clones as well
as to image files, so the maintenance of an up-to-date clone
takes only as much time as making image file updates.

I do both - to cheap archiving media AND to a bootable
hard drive. And doing both is not as time-consuming as you'd
imagine.

*TimDaniels*

Hi,

........But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full clone
back to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and less
attractive as time goes on.

I clone my hard drive every weekend, Friday night usually. The only time
you would need to "copy a full clone back to the hard drive" would be
when you've really had a catastrophy. Normally a clone is just an exact
copy of your drive, if you just need a few files off it, just take them
as you would from any other storage location. There's nothing magical
here, just double copies of everything you've cloned.


---==X={}=X==---

Jim Self

AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association #140897
EAA Technical Counselor #4562

"PA20Pilot" wrote:
> .......But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full clone back
> to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and less attractive
> as time goes on.

Yes, copying a clone "back to the original hard drive" makes no sense
at all since a clone's value is in its immediate bootability and its lack of
need for a schedual of files to backup. If you want to archive your tax
records or the wedding photos, put them on CD or DVD. If you want to
get back on the air quickly in case of a hard drive crash or data corruption,
have a clone on another hard drive handy.

*TimDaniels*

"tcarp" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:5EEC7963-AAD6-4E2C-B694-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I updating my whole strategy for backing up my home computers. I've read
> (and re-read) the threads and DO NOT want to go back over cloning and
> imaging
> or, for that matter file/folder backups.
>
> I'm also NOT interested in comparing software (I can do that). The only
> questions I have relate to 1) whether to have all the capabilities (clone,
> image, and file/folder) and 2) given the objective to keep the cost down
> some, how to limit the software selection.
>
> Casper, TI and Ghost seem to be the biggies for cloning and/or imaging.
> There seem to be a lot of file/folder software options. I downloaded a
> trial
> copy of TI just to see what it does and look at the interface. I didn't
> try
> cloning (not sure if it has that capability (yet)) but I did do an image
> "backup" (full and then an incremental).
>
> Seems pretty straight forward and it appears I can either restore the
> whole
> image or individual files/folders. This implies that I don't need (or
> don't
> get too much incremental value from) having a separate file/folder tool.
> I
> guess one could argue that a file/folder utility for My Documents might be
> a
> "nice to have" but is there a good argument why one would want a separate
> utility in the context of a backup strategy.
>
> I haven't looked at Casper 5 yet but, if they also have a trail version,
> I'll do the same test (same with Ghost). As a novice it appears that
> having
> one utility to do both cloning and imaging makes sense. I'd expect the
> market (for small home networks) would drive the utilities to do both. Is
> it?
>
> As I've read the threads (and posted to a couple) my thinking has been
> drawn
> to the recovery side of the discussion not the backup side. I mean,
> there's
> no reason to do backups without thinking about the recovery scenarios.
>

Totally inaccurate. Any cloning or imaging software implementation should
assure the clone or restoration of image is successful from the git-go as
part of the test of that software.

> If I have it right, cloning is done to be able to simply boot off an exact
> copy of the HD (or one of it's partitions). And I can see that taking a
> clone just before doing something (like upgrading the OS or major apps)
> would
> make sense. But as time goes by documents get changed so copying a full
> clone back to the original HD seems like something that becomes less and
> less
> attractive as time goes on.
>
> I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful?
>

Cloning and imaging should be both be done if the software is capable.
Different hard drive targets, of course. If so, a clone shoud be done much
less often for many reasons. The clone is for quick recovery, the imaging
is for strategic timely/multiple backups. As you can see, I'm not a fan of
this vs that stuff. Both are useful. So, I won't go down the road you're
paving.
--
Dave

"Timothy Daniels" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "tcarp" asked:
>> I what circumstances would having the clone be most useful?
>
> Did you ever forget to backup a particular folder while
> backing up all the rest? Can you spare 20 minutes to
> backup an entire partition instead of picking and choosing
> and wondering if you got everything? If your hard drive
> fails or if your OS got a virus, would you like to boot up a
> copy of that OS without having to get out the CDs/DVDs
> and spending half an hour restoring the OS? With a clone
> on a 2nd internal HD or on a HD in a removable tray or
> on an external eSATA hard drive, you can just restart,
> switch the identity of the boot drive in the BIOS, and off
> you go. The advantage of a clone, then, is speed of
> getting back in the action - important for stock day-trading,
> for example.
>
> The usual advantage of image files are the speed of
> incremental backup after the first copy ia made and the
> smaller archiving capacity needed to store just the files
> you've selected to cheap media (CDs, DVDs, USB thumb
> drives). But hard drives have gotten cheap, too, and utilities
> such as Casper can do incremental updates to clones as well
> as to image files, so the maintenance of an up-to-date clone
> takes only as much time as making image file updates.
>
> I do both - to cheap archiving media AND to a bootable
> hard drive. And doing both is not as time-consuming as you'd
> imagine.
>
> *TimDaniels*
>

All well and good. Except, there's only one copy, the clone. Imaging
allows many copies of different instances of different times of the same
windows partition or whatever partition to a sizable hard drive.
Restoration of the proper image may allow usage without something unwanted
where other images may not, depending on what you're trying to revert to.
Both cloning and imaging serve purposes.

Some typical imaging restoration options include the option of or not:
restore the mbr, restore the original disk signature, allow the primary
partition to be bootable, restore the primary partition to a logical
partition, hiding the restored partition. All at the time of restoration
when needed, not before the fact like cloning.
--
Dave