back up xp professional

[Guest]

I want to back up the whole of C drive including windows xp operating system
and place the backup onto my E drive which i had installed for this purpose.
My question is - A which system is best i.e. norton ghost or acronis.AND B-
does it do what it says as i prefer never to have to reinstall my system and
programms again.

 

[Curt Christianson]

Hi Baz,

Although both products will do the job, Acronis seems to be the most popular
around here at this time. Good for you on wanting to do a backup--so many
issues here could be "fixed" so easily if more users backed up their
computers!

HTH,

Curt

 

[Bob Harris]

In theory, either will work. I happen to prefer True Image by Acronis.

But, be sure to test the restoration process, after you make the image. By
test I mean step through the screen to perform a restore, by stop just
before the last "OK" button.

The reason for testing is that different software is often used to make an
image than to restore it. In the case of True Image, windows-based software
is used to make the image, while XP is running. But, to restore the image,
one uses a bootable CD that happens to run LINUX. True Image makes this CD
for you from within XP. But, because XP drivers and not the same as LINUX
drivers, there have been cases where the XP version of True Image could see
a hard drive, but the LINUX version could not. That is mostly an issue with
very new disk controller, such as when serial ATA was new. Note that the
True Image bootable CD can also be used to create images, so one could test
it by creating an image. If it sees the hard drive for creation, it will
see it for restoration.

If you have a single large C:\ drive, make a disk image instead of a
partition image. A disk image includes the master boot record, but a
partition image usually does not. Otherwise, if you need to restore to a
fresh disk, you will need to write a proper MBR. That can be done with
FDISK or with the XP CD (recovery console) or in a few other ways.

If you restore an image to an existing hard drive, then a new MBR is not
needed, unless you are trying to recover form a virus that altered the MBR.

 

[Maincat]

I want to back up the whole of C drive including windows xp operating
system
and place the backup onto my E drive which i had installed for this
purpose.
My question is - A which system is best i.e. norton ghost or acronis.AND
B-
does it do what it says as i prefer never to have to reinstall my system
and
programms again.

Tried both, but my choice is now True Image. Excellent piece of software
and a bargain for the money.

Steve

 

[Rock]

I want to back up the whole of C drive including windows xp operating
system
and place the backup onto my E drive which i had installed for this
purpose.
My question is - A which system is best i.e. norton ghost or acronis.AND
B-
does it do what it says as i prefer never to have to reinstall my system
and
programms again.

Great that you will be doing a system image. I do suggest, though, that you
not create the image on a second internal drive. That leaves you open to
some system event that damages both drives. Better that backups be placed
on external media.

Place the second drive you bought in an external drive enclosure and connect
it through USB. If you still want a second internal drive pickup another
drive to put in the enclosure. Drives are low cost these days. You can get
a white box 320GB WD Caviar drive for less than $90. Here is an example of
such an enclosure, and the drive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817146307
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144392

I previously used Powerquest's Drive Image 7 in XP but they were bought out
some time ago by Symantec and the technology incorporated in the current
Ghost line. I did like it very much. but have no experience with it's
incarnation as Ghost.

Since I am now using Vista, I changed to Acronis True Image Home version 10
which works in both XP and Vista. It is a nice program, with many features
including the ability to do volume imaging, drive imaging, drive cloning and
file backup. Restores can be done on an image/drive basis or by individual
files. It can also do incremental and differential imaging. It's easy to
use.

Whatever system you go with make sure you test out how it works and that it
works. Restoring to a spare drive is the best way to do this. In that way
you see how it works in a real situation.

 

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Great that you will be doing a system image. I do suggest, though, that
you not create the image on a second internal drive. That leaves you open
to some system event that damages both drives. Better that backups be
placed on external media.

Place the second drive you bought in an external drive enclosure and
connect it through USB. If you still want a second internal drive pickup
another drive to put in the enclosure. Drives are low cost these days.
You can get a white box 320GB WD Caviar drive for less than $90. Here is
an example of such an enclosure, and the drive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817146307
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144392

I previously used Powerquest's Drive Image 7 in XP but they were bought
out some time ago by Symantec and the technology incorporated in the
current Ghost line. I did like it very much. but have no experience with
it's incarnation as Ghost.

Since I am now using Vista, I changed to Acronis True Image Home version
10 which works in both XP and Vista. It is a nice program, with many
features including the ability to do volume imaging, drive imaging, drive
cloning and file backup. Restores can be done on an image/drive basis or
by individual files. It can also do incremental and differential imaging.
It's easy to use.

Whatever system you go with make sure you test out how it works and that
it works. Restoring to a spare drive is the best way to do this. In that
way you see how it works in a real situation.

In the past, I've heard/read that a "ghosted" drive image on a drive
different from the first one may act flaky because Windows will notice the
hardware difference. Is this the case?

 

[Rock]

In the past, I've heard/read that a "ghosted" drive image on a drive
different from the first one may act flaky because Windows will notice the
hardware difference. Is this the case?

Not that I've heard or seen. It is a good idea though, after cloning a
bootable drive, to remove the parent drive, and have only the clone attached
for the first boot up. Even when properly cabled, with jumpers set and the
right boot order in the BIOS, if during the first boot the parent can be
seen, it can mess up the ability to boot from the new drive. This doesn't
happen in all cases, some folks have done it without a problem, but it is
best to remove the parent drive for the first boot. After that all should
be well.

 

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Not that I've heard or seen. It is a good idea though, after cloning a
bootable drive, to remove the parent drive, and have only the clone
attached for the first boot up. Even when properly cabled, with jumpers
set and the right boot order in the BIOS, if during the first boot the
parent can be seen, it can mess up the ability to boot from the new drive.
This doesn't happen in all cases, some folks have done it without a
problem, but it is best to remove the parent drive for the first boot.
After that all should be well.

Hmmm. Perhaps Windows only notices processor changes, as when someone
changes a mother board, or moves a hard drive to a new computer and make it
the first bootable drive. I know I've seen this somewhere.....

 

[Rock]

Hmmm. Perhaps Windows only notices processor changes, as when someone
changes a mother board, or moves a hard drive to a new computer and make
it the first bootable drive. I know I've seen this somewhere.....

The hard drive volume serial number is a factor in the hash for windows
activation, and that figures in whether the new drive is cloned or a fresh
install. There is a way to copy / restore the volume serial number to save
that vote. See this article on wpa by the late Alex Nichol, MVP.

http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.php

 

[JoeSpareBedroom]

The hard drive volume serial number is a factor in the hash for windows
activation, and that figures in whether the new drive is cloned or a fresh
install. There is a way to copy / restore the volume serial number to
save that vote. See this article on wpa by the late Alex Nichol, MVP.

http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.php

The OP should take a look at your link, I guess. What I recall is that the
backup you're counting on may not be as solid as you think. It should be
tested under the actual conditions in which it will be needed. And, data
(the work done by the user with various kinds of software) should be backed
up a second time without the entire hard disk image.

 

[Rock]

The OP should take a look at your link, I guess. What I recall is that the
backup you're counting on may not be as solid as you think. It should be
tested under the actual conditions in which it will be needed. And, data
(the work done by the user with various kinds of software) should be
backed up a second time without the entire hard disk image.

Since your recollection is vague and based on something you read somewhere
it's hard to answer with any specifics.

I agree that any backup solution should be tested under real circumstances.
The backup has to be trusted and reliable. I wrote that in the last
paragraph of my original reply to the OP. Redundancy in backups is
worthwhile, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean doing a separate backup
of data files, though that does have it's place.

Imaging to an internal drive, then copying that to an external drive, or
imaging to an external drive and then making a copy on DVD, or alternating
two different external drives are all examples of redundancy, not to mention
network based backup mechanisms.

 

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Since your recollection is vague and based on something you read somewhere
it's hard to answer with any specifics.

I agree that any backup solution should be tested under real
circumstances. The backup has to be trusted and reliable. I wrote that in
the last paragraph of my original reply to the OP. Redundancy in backups
is worthwhile, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean doing a separate
backup of data files, though that does have it's place.

The main reason I back up data separately is that because it's usually
quicker (at least for "small users"), it's more likely to actually BE done,
and done often.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I want to back up the whole of C drive including windows xp operating
system and place the backup onto my E drive which i had installed for
this purpose. My question is - A which system is best i.e. norton
ghost or acronis.AND B- does it do what it says as i prefer never to
have to reinstall my system and programms again.

Two points:

1. Questions about "best" get opinions, not answers. And we don't all have
the same opinions. That said, personally I greatly prefer Acronis True Image
to Ghost.

2. Regarding your plan to backup to your E. Drive, I *strongly* that you
reconsider that idea and do *not* do this. Backup to a second non-removable
hard drive is better than no backup at all, but just barely. The problem is
that it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and
backup to many of the most common dangers: severe power glitches, nearby
lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in
the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of
your business depends on your data) you should have multiple generations of
backup, and at least one of those generations should be stored off-site.

My computer isn't used for business, but my personal backup scheme uses two
identical removable hard drives,I alternate between the two, and use Acronis
TrueImage to make a complete copy of the primary drive.

 

[Rock]

"Rock" <[email protected]> wrote

I want to back up the whole of C drive including windows xp
operating system
and place the backup onto my E drive which i had installed for
this purpose.
My question is - A which system is best i.e. norton ghost or
acronis.AND B-
does it do what it says as i prefer never to have to reinstall my
system and
programms again.

Great that you will be doing a system image. I do suggest, though,
that you not create the image on a second internal drive. That
leaves you open to some system event that damages both drives.
Better that backups be placed on external media.

Place the second drive you bought in an external drive enclosure
and connect it through USB. If you still want a second internal
drive pickup another drive to put in the enclosure. Drives are low
cost these days. You can get a white box 320GB WD Caviar drive for
less than $90. Here is an example of such an enclosure, and the
drive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817146307
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822144392

I previously used Powerquest's Drive Image 7 in XP but they were
bought out some time ago by Symantec and the technology
incorporated in the current Ghost line. I did like it very much.
but have no experience with it's incarnation as Ghost.

Since I am now using Vista, I changed to Acronis True Image Home
version 10 which works in both XP and Vista. It is a nice program,
with many features including the ability to do volume imaging,
drive imaging, drive cloning and file backup. Restores can be done
on an image/drive basis or by individual files. It can also do
incremental and differential imaging. It's easy to use.

Whatever system you go with make sure you test out how it works and
that it works. Restoring to a spare drive is the best way to do
this. In that way you see how it works in a real situation.

In the past, I've heard/read that a "ghosted" drive image on a drive
different from the first one may act flaky because Windows will
notice the hardware difference. Is this the case?

Not that I've heard or seen. It is a good idea though, after cloning
a bootable drive, to remove the parent drive, and have only the clone
attached for the first boot up. Even when properly cabled, with
jumpers set and the right boot order in the BIOS, if during the first
boot the parent can be seen, it can mess up the ability to boot from
the new drive. This doesn't happen in all cases, some folks have done
it without a problem, but it is best to remove the parent drive for
the first boot. After that all should be well.

Hmmm. Perhaps Windows only notices processor changes, as when someone
changes a mother board, or moves a hard drive to a new computer and
make it the first bootable drive. I know I've seen this somewhere.....

The hard drive volume serial number is a factor in the hash for windows
activation, and that figures in whether the new drive is cloned or a
fresh install. There is a way to copy / restore the volume serial
number to save that vote. See this article on wpa by the late Alex
Nichol, MVP.

http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.php

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]


The OP should take a look at your link, I guess. What I recall is that
the backup you're counting on may not be as solid as you think. It
should be tested under the actual conditions in which it will be needed.
And, data (the work done by the user with various kinds of software)
should be backed up a second time without the entire hard disk image.

Since your recollection is vague and based on something you read
somewhere it's hard to answer with any specifics.

I agree that any backup solution should be tested under real
circumstances. The backup has to be trusted and reliable. I wrote that
in the last paragraph of my original reply to the OP. Redundancy in
backups is worthwhile, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean doing a
separate backup of data files, though that does have it's place.

The main reason I back up data separately is that because it's usually
quicker (at least for "small users"), it's more likely to actually BE
done, and done often.

I agree, speed can be a factor. With Acronis True Image I do a full system
image once a week and a differential image the other six nights. A
differential contains all changes from the last full image. It is
significantly faster than a full image. It can also do incremental imaging
which only records changes from the last incremental backup. In that case
the backup files are even smaller, and it is very quick, but if you need to
restore a complete drive or partition then you have to restore the last full
image and then each incremental backup.

All are set to run automatically at a time when I'm not using the system, so
there is no issue with how long it takes or any hassle in making it happen.
If the system is off at the scheduled time it runs the next time the system
is started.

The imaging includes verification of the image, and each day I take a moment
to confirm the previous night's image completed successfully.

Whatever backup one chooses, there are tools to automate the process, so it
get's done as expected.