Acronis 7/XP Questions

[Anna]

OK Anna, I see the distinction between cloning and imaging that you're
getting at. My apologies on that one.

But also do recognize that TI (ver 11) at least, has that incremental
imaging option, which might be useful (for some).

The other point I might make is I expect (but I don't know this for a
fact) that TI is a bit more full featured than Casper - is able to do more
things. But for a simple backup, maybe Casper is a simpler way.

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)

Bill:
Yes, you are correct in that as I stated in my last post, should the user be
interested in maintaining "generational" backup copies of his/her system,
then a disk-imaging type of program such as ATI would be more appropriate
than a disk-cloning type of program such as the Casper 4.0 program that
we've recommended. Other than that I believe that a disk-cloning type of
program holds more advantages for the largest number of PC users than does a
disk-imaging type of program, for the reasons I've previously stated. And
again, for the reasons I've previously stated, I believe the Casper 4.0
program is superior to the others, including the ATI program.

As to one program being more "full featured" than another, frankly what I've
learned over the years of working with & for thousands of PC users and a
multitude of PC systems is that the overwhelming critical need for virtually
every user of a PC is to maintain a comprehensive backup of his or her
system, including the OS, all programs & applications and, of course,
user-created data. And to do so on a systematic, routine basis so that
his/her backed-up system is relatively current at any point in time. This,
as you know, can be achieved through a disk-cloning (as well as a
disk-imaging) program, and if that objective can be achieved through the use
of a reliable, easy-to-use, and relatively quick program such as the Casper
4.0 program that I've described, then so much the better in my opinion.
Anna

 

[Anna]

Anna, no matter how one looks at the differences in the back up software
Casper is
a bit too pricey for the average end user. Another fact is that a lot of
people do not
know the difference between a clone and a back up image. However I think
that
your knowledge and advice is above reproach.

Frank:
While it is true, as you indicate, that the Casper 4.0 program is more
expensive than virtually every other disk-cloning disk-imaging program that
I'm familiar with, for the reasons I've previously given I believe the extra
cost is well worth the additional expense. Admittedly, this is obviously a
personal decision that has to be made by the individual user. All I can say
is that we've found that *every user* we're familiar with, after using the
Casper 4.0 program over a period of weeks & months has *never* expressed
regret, for even one moment, the add'l expense entailed by purchasing the
Casper program. On the contrary - most of the comments we've heard were of
the nature - "Why didn't I know about or use this program before?". But
again, I fully admit that many potential users will find the program too
expensive to purchase. More's the pity.

And yes, you are correct that a "lot" (actually a vast, if not overwhelming
majority in our experience) of users do not know the difference between a
disk-clone and a disk-image. Again, more's the pity. But I hope forums like
this one will help to educate many users so that they can make an informed
choice based on their specific needs.

And thank you for your gracious comment about my advice being "above
reproach". But, in truth, my advice is *not* above reproach in terms of
being criticized or argued against. I fully understand that others may have
different points of view and may be equally valid given their specific needs
& objectives. So this is just my particular point of view as it refers to
this particular issue.
Anna

 

[Bill in Co.]

Bill:
Yes, you are correct in that as I stated in my last post, should the user
be
interested in maintaining "generational" backup copies of his/her system,
then a disk-imaging type of program such as ATI would be more appropriate
than a disk-cloning type of program such as the Casper 4.0 program that
we've recommended. Other than that I believe that a disk-cloning type of
program holds more advantages for the largest number of PC users than does
a
disk-imaging type of program, for the reasons I've previously stated. And
again, for the reasons I've previously stated, I believe the Casper 4.0
program is superior to the others, including the ATI program.

As to one program being more "full featured" than another, frankly what
I've
learned over the years of working with & for thousands of PC users and a
multitude of PC systems is that the overwhelming critical need for
virtually
every user of a PC is to maintain a comprehensive backup of his or her
system, including the OS, all programs & applications and, of course,
user-created data. And to do so on a systematic, routine basis so that
his/her backed-up system is relatively current at any point in time. This,
as you know, can be achieved through a disk-cloning (as well as a
disk-imaging) program, and if that objective can be achieved through the
use
of a reliable, easy-to-use, and relatively quick program such as the
Casper
4.0 program that I've described, then so much the better in my opinion.
Anna

True enough. My "needs" seemingly tend to be a bit more ... "eclectic".

 

[Timothy Daniels]

[....] 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*

 

[Bill in Co.]

[....] 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).

 

[Anna]

:
[....] 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).

Bill:
Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment...

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. 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.

BTW, returning to our prior discussion re the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning
program...

I thought you might be interested in knowing that a few moments ago I had
occasion to clone the contents of one of our machines that held about 35 GB
of total data. We previously had cloned the contents of that machine back on
1/30. Using the same source HDD that was previously used in the disk-cloning
operation on 1/30, we used the Casper 4.0 program to perform another
disk-cloning operation. Obviously considerable data changes had been taken
re the source drive during this 20-day period.

We completed the disk-cloning operation in just about 6 minutes. That gives
you some idea of the speed of the Casper program re its "incremental"
disk-cloning capability. Just thought you would like to know.
Anna

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

....and all the world loves a clone.

Actually, clones are no big deal. Seen one, seen 'em all.

:
[....] 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)

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).

Bill:
Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment...

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. 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.

BTW, returning to our prior discussion re the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning
program...

I thought you might be interested in knowing that a few moments ago I had
occasion to clone the contents of one of our machines that held about 35
GB of total data. We previously had cloned the contents of that machine
back on 1/30. Using the same source HDD that was previously used in the
disk-cloning operation on 1/30, we used the Casper 4.0 program to perform
another disk-cloning operation. Obviously considerable data changes had
been taken re the source drive during this 20-day period.

We completed the disk-cloning operation in just about 6 minutes. That
gives you some idea of the speed of the Casper program re its
"incremental" disk-cloning capability. Just thought you would like to
know.
Anna

 

[Kenneth]

And yes, you are correct that a "lot" (actually a vast, if not overwhelming
majority in our experience) of users do not know the difference between a
disk-clone and a disk-image. Again, more's the pity. But I hope forums like
this one will help to educate many users so that they can make an informed
choice based on their specific needs.

Hi Anna,

I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming
majority" who understands nothing about the difference
between "cloning" and "imaging."

Can you describe that to me?

Sincere thanks,

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

[snip of a lot of quoted "Anna" material and more]

And thank you for your gracious comment about my advice being "above
reproach". But, in truth, my advice is *not* above reproach in terms of
being criticized or argued against. I fully understand that others may have
different points of view and may be equally valid given their specific needs
& objectives. So this is just my particular point of view as it refers to
this particular issue.
Anna

I have found that "less is more" is a good guideline.

While your advice certainly appears to come from some long and good
experience, I think you could state your point much better if you
tried to keep your replies much briefer.

 

[Bill in Co.]

:
[....] 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)
Timothy Daniels wrote:
Since the clone is an exact byte-for-byte copy of the original
partition, why wouldn't its files have the same date stamps as well?
The files are not copied as files - they are copied as bytes with
no consideration given to what they represent.

*TimDaniels*

I'm not talking about the files. I'm talking about the directories -
the date stamps of all the directories and subdirectories. (Big
difference there).

Bill:
Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment...

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.

BTW, returning to our prior discussion re the Casper 4.0 disk-cloning
program...

I thought you might be interested in knowing that a few moments ago I had
occasion to clone the contents of one of our machines that held about 35
GB
of total data. We previously had cloned the contents of that machine back
on
1/30. Using the same source HDD that was previously used in the
disk-cloning
operation on 1/30, we used the Casper 4.0 program to perform another
disk-cloning operation. Obviously considerable data changes had been taken
re the source drive during this 20-day period.

We completed the disk-cloning operation in just about 6 minutes. That
gives
you some idea of the speed of the Casper program re its "incremental"
disk-cloning capability. Just thought you would like to know.
Anna

Well yes, I'm certain it's a lot faster doing this!! But as I said, you
give up the date and time stamps of the originally created directories
(since they reflect the newly created ones), which, granted, is not a big
deal for most people. But it IS important to me, because I make
occasional use of that history, on some occasions.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Hi Anna,

I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming
majority" who understands nothing about the difference
between "cloning" and "imaging."

Can you describe that to me?

Sincere thanks,

In a nutshell, how about this synopsis:

Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source
partition(s).

Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original
source partition(s).

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

Hi Anna,

I am certainly part of that "vast, if not overwhelming
majority" who understands nothing about the difference
between "cloning" and "imaging."

Can you describe that to me?

Let me try... I'm sure my reply will be shorter and easier for you to
understand.

CLONING: making an exact copy of your hard drive on another hard drive
with no changes. The cloned hard drive will be identical to the
original and will be usable by your computer without alteration...
which means that you will be able to install that drive as the system
drive in your computer and will be able to boot up without incident,
if you make the necessary hardware/BIOS changes.

In today's computers, it is possible to setup your BIOS to
automatically boot from the cloned drive in the case where the main
system drive has failed.

IMAGING: it's like a compressed photo of one hard drive that is saved
on another hard drive - or even on another partition. If something
goes caput on the main hard drive/partition - i.e., it crashed and
everything got scrambled, or you screwed up and trashed it on your own
- things can be restored - USING THE IMAGING SOFTWARE that was used to
create the image.

 

[Bill in Co.]

[snip of a lot of quoted "Anna" material and more]

And thank you for your gracious comment about my advice being "above
reproach". But, in truth, my advice is *not* above reproach in terms of
being criticized or argued against. I fully understand that others may
have
different points of view and may be equally valid given their specific
needs
& objectives. So this is just my particular point of view as it refers to
this particular issue.
Anna

I have found that "less is more" is a good guideline.

While your advice certainly appears to come from some long and good
experience, I think you could state your point much better if you
tried to keep your replies much briefer.

I disagree. By often using such length in her replies, she covers
everything quite completely and thoroughly - unlike most.

Besides which, it also exemplifies an old school value of patience, which is
(a bit) in short supply these days. And not fast sound bytes ... for the
newage Nintendo generation.

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

In a nutshell, how about this synopsis:

Cloning makes a good copy, but not an exact copy, of the original source
partition(s).

Imaging, OR "partition copying", makes an *exact* copy of the original
source partition(s).

Personally, I think your synopsis sucks.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Personally, I think your synopsis sucks.

LOL, perhaps because you didn't understand it. (Just like when you tried
to inform me of System Restore, and were off a bit there).

 

[Bill in Co.]

Let me try... I'm sure my reply will be shorter and easier for you to
understand.

CLONING: making an exact copy of your hard drive on another hard drive
with no changes.

No, it will NOT make an *exact copy*, as I just explained! The
destination directories will all be date/time stamped with the date of the
cloning. Can't you even understand that? Otherwise you're almost
correct - but it is NOT an exact partition copy. Do you understand the
difference?

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

LOL, perhaps because you didn't understand it. (Just like when you tried
to inform me of System Restore, and were off a bit there).

I understood it doofus. Recall that YOU were the one who didn't even
know if System Restore restored programs or not... eh??

Your explanation of imaging/cloning only dealt with partitions.

You forgot to include disks... a serious omission.

 

[Bill in Co.]

I understood it doofus. Recall that YOU were the one who didn't even
know if System Restore restored programs or not... eh??

I never said it restored programs, but it can restore *some* files
associated with some of the programs, as has already been pointed out, and
not just by me. (It was probably too lengthy for you to read, however).

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

No, it will NOT make an *exact copy*, as I just explained! The
destination directories will all be date/time stamped with the date of the
cloning. Can't you even understand that?

I clone my system disk weekly to a second internal hard drive (and I
create a backup image of it nightly to a third internal drive and also
to an external drive).

JUST in case you were right, I just checked the "date created" and
"date modified" attributes of the directories in the ROOT directory of
the cloned drive that I cloned yesterday.

GUESS WHAT? They are exactly the same as on my system drive.

Need I check all the other directories on those two drives to convince
you that you're pissing into the wind?

 

[Uncle Grumpy]

I never said it restored programs,

Agreed... but you ASKED if it DID restore programs, which is a sure
indication that you had no clue.