B
Bill in Co.
I don't think an hour of waiting around for it to complete is "completely
insignificant".
insignificant".
B
Bill in Co.
I have a trial copy of Casper 4 (didn't know it was up to 5 already), and
may give it another shot with my new setup (when it arrives), although TI
has been working pretty well for me. Admitedly the Smart Clone feature
sounds pretty good, though.
may give it another shot with my new setup (when it arrives), although TI
has been working pretty well for me. Admitedly the Smart Clone feature
sounds pretty good, though.
B
Bill in Co.
John said:
Yup! (It takes me about one hour for it to complete a restore operation
for my 20 GB worth of data using my external USB drive - but I'm only using
a 1.6 GHz CPU).
It may only take 15 minutes to create a full backup image, but it takes much
longer to restore one, from the external USB enclosure drive. And I'm
expecting to cut that time considerably, when I upgrade to using an external
eSATA backup instead of the USB thing.
Right again.
Yes, I've witnessed all that too. But I'm pretty used to it by now.
I was hoping that might have been addressed in a more recent build, but I
don't know, but I'm so used to it by now that at least that's not a biggie
for me.
U
Unknown
Geeeeze! That's only the first time you back-up. Other times are fast so it
IS insignificant..
IS insignificant..
B
Bill in Co.
Nope. It is EVERY time I *restore*. It *always* takes about an hour to
*restore* the system partition. (The backup time is much less, as I've
pointed out)
*restore* the system partition. (The backup time is much less, as I've
pointed out)
F
Frog
Bill,
You were a part of the discussion when Anne recommended Casper to me
back in February. I have found this software package to be very simple
to use. When I have my USB hard drive connected, I can go to drive G or
H, and it looks and acts just like my C and E on my internal drive. I
have restored files, while in normal windows, from this external hard
drive back to the internal hard drive with no problem. I generally find
that it takes me about 2 minutes to back up my internal drive to the
external drive. The CD used to start the system, when/if the normal
start-up procedures stop working, requires about 3-4 minutes to load
from a CD. Once loaded, it would be a simple process to restore either
my C, E or both drives from the external hard drive. I think the only
thing I would add to my backup system would be a second USB 500 GB hard
drive, so that I would have two backups made at two different dates.
Frog
You were a part of the discussion when Anne recommended Casper to me
back in February. I have found this software package to be very simple
to use. When I have my USB hard drive connected, I can go to drive G or
H, and it looks and acts just like my C and E on my internal drive. I
have restored files, while in normal windows, from this external hard
drive back to the internal hard drive with no problem. I generally find
that it takes me about 2 minutes to back up my internal drive to the
external drive. The CD used to start the system, when/if the normal
start-up procedures stop working, requires about 3-4 minutes to load
from a CD. Once loaded, it would be a simple process to restore either
my C, E or both drives from the external hard drive. I think the only
thing I would add to my backup system would be a second USB 500 GB hard
drive, so that I would have two backups made at two different dates.
Frog
B
Bill in Co.
Frog said:
Yes, that is quicker (in making a *backup*), due to its Smart Cloning
feature.
However, more below...
THAT will take much longer, and that's the issue I've been recently
addressing here.
More below.
Why can't you use ONE backup drive to store all the backups?
Oh wait a minute, I think that's a bit limiting (using Casper), in that you
will HAVE to have separate partitions and separate drive letters for each
and every backup you make, unlike if using True Image, where you simply have
ONE partition to store all the different (filename) images.
And again, I would HAVE to reclone the backup drive back to the source drive
to restore, at least the way I use these programs. (I'm not ever
swapping the drives, that is)
A
Anna
Frog said:
Frog:
Glad you've found Casper disk-cloning program to your liking. As you have
pointed out, the latest version is Casper 5. In general it doesn't seem too
different from version 4. They've changed the user interface a bit -
designing it a bit more "modern" I would guess. Also, corrected a bug or
two. But essentially the program "feels" the same as the earlier version.
Needless to say I'm not too surprised about your favorable review. We've
been using the program for about two years now and have been quite impressed
with it. It has become the disk-cloning program of choice for virtually
every user who has experienced the program.
A couple of points...
1. The CD you mention "to start the system" is, of course, the Casper
"Startup Disk", a bootable CD that contains the Casper program. It is
generally used only in those situations where the Casper program is not
accessible on the HDD on which the program is installed because that HDD has
become defective or the system so dysfunctional that it's unbootable. So the
Startup Disk would ordinarily be used to access the drive (internal or
external) on which the clone resides and clone those contents back to the
internal (original "source") HDD - should that HDD be non-defective - or to
a new HDD should that be necessary - in order to restore the system.
Routine backups of the system would, of course, be effected through the use
of the Casper program installed on the source HDD.
2. As you point out, a significant advantage (if not *the significant
advantage*) of the Casper program in comparison with every other
disk-cloning program we've worked with over the years is its rather
extroardinary speed in backing up one's day-to-day working HDD through its
disk-cloning process. When used on a routine basis - say every day or every
other day or once a week, etc., the program takes a fraction of the time to
complete the disk-cloning process because of its "SmartClone" capability.
This is an enormous incentive for users to comprehensively back up their
systems on a frequent basis, knowing that the operation will take a few
short minutes, just as you have experienced.
3. You mention the possible need for another large external HDD in order to
create "generational" clones, i.e., clones of the system at different points
in time. I assume you're aware that you could multi-partition your present
500 GB HDD and clone the contents of your internal HDD to each partition at
different points in time. Obviously the amount of data you would be cloning
would determine whether this is feasible. Let's say for example that as a
general proposition you have about 50 GB of data on your source HDD. You
could then create a fair number of partitions on your external HDD to act as
recipients of the cloned data at various points in time. As I'm sure you
know, the Casper program easily allows one to clone the contents of the disk
(or individual partition) on the "source" drive to any partition on the
"destination" drive (and vice versa). And the restoration process is as
simple as the backup process. You would simply choose which partition on the
destination drive you wish to clone the contents back to the internal HDD.
(I see where "Bill in Co.") has posted a response to your latest post. I
have apparently been simply unable to explain to Bill Casper's disk-cloning
process in a way that he truly understands that process. With respect to
cloning the contents of one's internal HDD to this or that partition on an
external HDD Bill somehow sees this as some negative implication because the
various partitions containing each clone will bear different drive letters.
I can't seem to make him understand that this is of no consequence since the
drive letter assignment for each partition on the destination drive has
absolutely no relevance should the contents of that partition be "re:cloned"
back to the internal HDD for "restoration" purposes.)
Anna
J
John Barnett MVP
Sadly, JS I gave up on Norton Ghost years ago, I won't even test Norton
Software because it has such a bad reputation now. Originally PowerQuest
Drive Image used to be my main Imaging application, then Norton took over
PowerQuest, rebranded Drive Image to Ghost and, no doubt made a few internal
changes, and ruined a perfectly good backup application.
There are many people who still like Norton Software but, as you will see
from a number of MVP's, many MVPs won't recommend it or use it.
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
Software because it has such a bad reputation now. Originally PowerQuest
Drive Image used to be my main Imaging application, then Norton took over
PowerQuest, rebranded Drive Image to Ghost and, no doubt made a few internal
changes, and ruined a perfectly good backup application.
There are many people who still like Norton Software but, as you will see
from a number of MVP's, many MVPs won't recommend it or use it.
--
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
U
Unknown
Good grief! How many times do you restore?????????
B
Bill in Co.
Anna said:
Well, it's just a bit of a minor nuisance, that's all. I'm probably being
overly ... (don't know what the right word is here
No Anna, I understand that part just fine. I just would prefer not to
have to have separate partition drive letters show up on the backup drive
for each and every backup that's made, but admitely that's not really a big
deal, I guess (in retrospect).
B
Bill in Co.
Maybe once a week. Sometimes more often, sometimes less often, depending
B
Bill in Co.
I'm still using Norton Partition Magic 8 (for partition work), and also
Acronis True Image, and I like the features of both. Obviously each has
its place. But PM8 is the ONLY Norton product I have on here!
I also have BING (BootItNG), but I do find PM a bit "friendlier" and easier
to use, of course, at least in most instances. But with my older Win98SE
computer, I've found BING to be more than sufficient (for Partition Copy
work) in its Maintenance Mode.
Acronis True Image, and I like the features of both. Obviously each has
its place. But PM8 is the ONLY Norton product I have on here!
I also have BING (BootItNG), but I do find PM a bit "friendlier" and easier
to use, of course, at least in most instances. But with my older Win98SE
computer, I've found BING to be more than sufficient (for Partition Copy
work) in its Maintenance Mode.
D
Daave
I'm pretty sure that Unknown wants to know why you feel there is a need
to restore a disk image when uninstalling the program you are testing
and performing a System Restore (if necessary) should be adequate. It's
great that you image your drive as often as you do, but the idea is you
restore the image *only* if you run into actual problems that can only
be reversed by restoring the image.
to restore a disk image when uninstalling the program you are testing
and performing a System Restore (if necessary) should be adequate. It's
great that you image your drive as often as you do, but the idea is you
restore the image *only* if you run into actual problems that can only
be reversed by restoring the image.
B
Bill in Co.
Because some of the multimedia trial software applications that I try out to
see if I want to purchase them are quite extensive, and often change lots of
things on my system, some of which are sometimes not reversible by a simple
uninstall.
I'm talking about some relatively large audio and video apps - multimedia
apps, for example. And just uninstalling the program is often not enough.
To explain:
For example, if you install something (e.g.) like a trial version of Adobe
Audition, it makes some pretty extensive changes to your system, and since I
do a fair amount of audio restoration work (for myself), with various audio
and sometimes video applications, the last thing I need is any added hiccups
to my system (such as with codec modifications, codec or DLL removals or
replacements, or anything that affects any of my other related multimedia
software).
(BTDT, on several occasions, so, thanks but no thanks)
As I said, I've been around the block on this one. (One has to have
really walked the walk, to know the talk, here.
And the ONLY sure and safe way to get it back *perfectly as it was* is to do
a restore operation, should you wish (I mean, a guaranteed clean "uninstall"
of the app AND whatever collateral system, codec, DLLs, etc, "damage" it had
the potential to do, and sometimes has, in the past. As I said, BTDT.
(But does this mean I never just use uninstall? Of course not. It all
depends, and experience is the best lesson, to really know this one).
see if I want to purchase them are quite extensive, and often change lots of
things on my system, some of which are sometimes not reversible by a simple
uninstall.
I'm talking about some relatively large audio and video apps - multimedia
apps, for example. And just uninstalling the program is often not enough.
To explain:
For example, if you install something (e.g.) like a trial version of Adobe
Audition, it makes some pretty extensive changes to your system, and since I
do a fair amount of audio restoration work (for myself), with various audio
and sometimes video applications, the last thing I need is any added hiccups
to my system (such as with codec modifications, codec or DLL removals or
replacements, or anything that affects any of my other related multimedia
software).
(BTDT, on several occasions, so, thanks but no thanks)
As I said, I've been around the block on this one. (One has to have
really walked the walk, to know the talk, here.
And the ONLY sure and safe way to get it back *perfectly as it was* is to do
a restore operation, should you wish (I mean, a guaranteed clean "uninstall"
of the app AND whatever collateral system, codec, DLLs, etc, "damage" it had
the potential to do, and sometimes has, in the past. As I said, BTDT.
(But does this mean I never just use uninstall? Of course not. It all
depends, and experience is the best lesson, to really know this one).
A
Anna
Bill in Co. said:Because some of the multimedia trial software applications that I try out
to see if I want to purchase them are quite extensive, and often change
lots of things on my system, some of which are sometimes not reversible by
a simple uninstall.
I'm talking about some relatively large audio and video apps - multimedia
apps, for example. And just uninstalling the program is often not
enough. To explain:
For example, if you install something (e.g.) like a trial version of Adobe
Audition, it makes some pretty extensive changes to your system, and since
I do a fair amount of audio restoration work (for myself), with various
audio and sometimes video applications, the last thing I need is any added
hiccups to my system (such as with codec modifications, codec or DLL
removals or replacements, or anything that affects any of my other related
multimedia software).
(BTDT, on several occasions, so, thanks but no thanks)
As I said, I've been around the block on this one. (One has to have
really walked the walk, to know the talk, here.
And the ONLY sure and safe way to get it back *perfectly as it was* is to
do a restore operation, should you wish (I mean, a guaranteed clean
"uninstall" of the app AND whatever collateral system, codec, DLLs, etc,
"damage" it had the potential to do, and sometimes has, in the past. As
I said, BTDT.
(But does this mean I never just use uninstall? Of course not. It all
depends, and experience is the best lesson, to really know this one).
Daave (& others)...
Bill makes a good point as to a significant advantage in backing up one's
system (either through the disk-imaging or disk-cloning process) as a
security measure *prior* to installing new programs, modifying
configurations, etc. on one's day-to-day working HDD. How many times have we
all installed a program on our system or made this or that change to our OS
configuration or modified some other aspect in our system - only to learn
that the new program or change created havoc with our system and now we're
faced with an onerous & time-consuming task of returning our system to a
bootable functional state that we previously experienced. And even when we
do presumably correct the situation - truth be told - in many instances the
"debris" left behind by these "presumably" removed programs and our attempt
to modify a changed configuration to its previous functional state will, in
many instances, rise up to "bite" us at some future date.
All one has to do is peruse this & similar newsgroups dealing with users' OS
problems. How many times an hour - a day - a week - do we see a plaintive
call for help because...
"I just installed SP3 and now my computer doesn't even boot", or,
"I made that registry change XYZ suggested and I'm getting weird messages
from Windows", or,
"I installed the latest update from Microsoft and now my anti-spyware
program has been trashed", or
"I installed that new Super-Duper Anti-Malware program and now all I get a
black screen", or...
the list goes on & on, does it not?
In so many cases the problem would have been a non-problem had the user made
a precise copy of his or her functional system *prior* to installing a
major program on their machine or making some major change in their
otherwise perfectly-working system. And, as Bill points out, this can be
relatively easily achieved through the use of a disk-imaging (or
disk-cloning) program. So that in the event of a catastrophe - minor or
major - the system can be easily restored to its previous functional state.
As you (and possibly others) may know from my previous posts on the subject
of backup programs, we prefer the Casper 5 disk-cloning program to achieve
this kind of relative security. Especially since that program does its
disk-to-disk cloning work in a very speedy fashion so that the user is not
constrained from using the program in the manner described above when
circumstances warrant. Both the backup & restore operations (since both
involve the same disk-cloning process) are simple & quick.
I'm not, of course, suggesting that the user needs to carry out a
disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) operation every time a change is made to
their system when such change is obviously trivial in nature. But in my view
the user should be prudent in exercising caution whenever a relatively major
(or significant) change in their system is contemplated, and backup their
system *prior* to the intended change.
Anna
J
JS
Too bad you don't live next door, I've got an old tape of some sheet music I
wrote and performed by Duane Eddy some years back.
The tape has the typical 60Hz hum and other noise.
JS
wrote and performed by Duane Eddy some years back.
The tape has the typical 60Hz hum and other noise.
JS
J
JS
I've have an old software package I used years ago to document the changes
made to a system when installing an application and the changes made after
uninstalling the same application. Let me tell you their are so many pieces
left behind by some apps that unless you want to spend all day to get rid of
them an Image restore can put you back to exactly the way the system was
before the application was installed is short order.
For testing purposes that Image backup becomes a reference point that you
can always go back to.
JS
made to a system when installing an application and the changes made after
uninstalling the same application. Let me tell you their are so many pieces
left behind by some apps that unless you want to spend all day to get rid of
them an Image restore can put you back to exactly the way the system was
before the application was installed is short order.
For testing purposes that Image backup becomes a reference point that you
can always go back to.
JS
U
Unknown
The original point Bill was trying to make was the amount of time needed to
restore his system.
Is it earth shattering if it takes 20 minutes instead of 18 minutes? I think
not.
restore his system.
Is it earth shattering if it takes 20 minutes instead of 18 minutes? I think
not.
B
Bill in Co.
Unknown said:
Well you think wrong, as it takes *one hour* to do the restore operation.
And I do it often enough, that it matters to me (if I have a choice, and I
do).
But it ain't gonna take an hour for too much longer, once the new ship comes
in to harbor, with some new goodies (like an eSATA external drive), on
board.
I hope.