G
Guest
can'nt find out how to backup windows xp
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
C
Carey Frisch [MVP]
Installing the Backup Program on the Home Version
http://www.onecomputerguy.com/windowsxp_tips.htm#backup_home
HOW TO: Use Backup to Back Up Files and Folders on Your Computer in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308422&Product=winxp
--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
| can'nt find out how to backup windows xp
| --
| les
http://www.onecomputerguy.com/windowsxp_tips.htm#backup_home
HOW TO: Use Backup to Back Up Files and Folders on Your Computer in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;308422&Product=winxp
--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
| can'nt find out how to backup windows xp
| --
| les
Q
q_q_anonymous
les said:can'nt find out how to backup windows xp
not a win xp q
clone the whole hdd eg norton ghost or acronis or free equivalent
S
Shenan Stanley
les said:can'nt find out how to backup windows xp
How To Use Backup to Back Up Files and Folders on Your Computer
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308422
Yes - you still need some sort of external media to store the results
on, but you could schedule the backup to occur when you are not around,
then burn the resultant data onto CD or DVD or something when you are
(while you do other things!)
Another option that came to my attention as of late:
Cobian Backup
http://www.educ.umu.se/~cobian/cobianbackup.htm
A lot of people have wondered about how to completely backup their system
so that they would not have to go through the trouble of a reinstall..
I'm going to voice my opinion here and say that it would be worthless to
do for MOST people. Unless you plan on periodically updating the image
backup of your system (remaking it) - then by the time you use it
(something goes wrong) - it will be so outdated as to be more trouble than
performing a full install of the operating system and all applications.
Having said my part against it, you can clone/backup your hard drive
completely using many methods - by far the simplest are using disk cloning
applications:
Symantec/Norton Ghost
http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/
Acronis True Image
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage
BootItT NG
http://terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
A
Anna
(SNIP...)
A lot of people have wondered about how to completely backup their system so
that they would not have to go through the trouble of a reinstall..
I'm going to voice my opinion here and say that it would be worthless to do
for MOST people. Unless you plan on periodically updating the image backup
of your system (remaking it) - then by the time you use it (something goes
wrong) - it will be so outdated as to be more trouble than
performing a full install of the operating system and all applications.
Having said my part against it, you can clone/backup your hard drive
completely using many methods - by far the simplest are using disk cloning
applications:
Symantec/Norton Ghost
http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/
Acronis True Image
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage
BootItT NG
http://terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html"
Shenan:
You're obviously a very experienced (and I assume, competant) PC user so I
find your negative comment re using a disk imaging program for conducting
routine backups of one's system very puzzling. (All the more so since you
later list a number of disk cloning software applications for precisely this
purpose).
In my view, for the vast majority of PC users, the most effective backup
system one can employ is using a disk imaging program (such as the ones you
mentioned) to routinely & systematically back up one's system. The enormous
advantage of "cloning" one's working HD to another HD cannot be
overestimated. For all practical purposes, the resultant "clone" is a
bit-for-bit copy of one's source disk and, again in my view, is a near-ideal
backup system for most users. By creating this "clone" of one's day-to-day
working HD, the user has at hand an exact copy of his or her operating
system, registry/configuration settings, *all* their programs &
applications - in short, *everything* that's on their source disk. What
backup system can be better? And an added crucial advantage is that where
the recipient of the clone is another internal HD, that drive will be
bootable. (While the recipient of the clone can be a USB/Firewire external
HD, that device is not ordinarily bootable in an XP environment, although
its cloned contents can be re:cloned to an internal HD for restoration
purposes should that need arise).
The disk imaging programs you mentioned, i.e., Symantec's Norton Ghost and
Acronis True Image (I'm not experienced enough with the BootIt NG program to
comment on it) are basically simple to use, relatively fast in carrying out
their disk cloning function and most important in all, effective in their
results. Cloning speed will vary, of course, depending upon the user's
system. Given modern processors and internal HDs, data transfer speed will
be in the range of 800 MB/min to 1.5 GB/min (and up). Cloning to & from a
Firewire/USB external HD will be slower - in the order of 450 MB/min to 800
MB/min.
Consider the multitude of postings to this and similar newsgroups, the vast
majority of posts pleas of help from users who have run into one problem or
another, for example...
"I just installed SP2 and now my computer won't boot. It was working
perfectly before."
"All of a sudden I get this blue screen with some gibberish on it and now my
computer won't boot. It was working fine till I installed this "Soup Up Your
PC" program yesterday."
"A friend recommended I make this registry change which I did and now my
computer won't boot."
"The other day I mistakenly deleted some important personal files and now I
can't get them back. They're not in my Recycle Bin. What do I do now?"
This never-ending list goes on & on doesn't it? Yes, in some cases the
System Restore utility will return the system to a functional state. And
hopefully the user has maintained some sort of backup program so that his or
her data files can be retrieved. But consider the number of times the System
Restore function and simple data backup schemes are unable to restore the
system to its previous workable state.
As you may know from my prior postings on this subject, I am a strong
proponent of the Norton Ghost 2003 disk imaging program for carrying out the
disk cloning process. I find that program superior to the later Norton Ghost
programs in terms of ease of use for basic disk-to-disk cloning operations.
My experience with the Acronis program (version 8) has been positive as
well. If any reader is interested in seeing step-by-step instructions for
using either of these programs, I'll be glad to post them.
But whatever disk imaging program a user chooses, the point remains that
basic disk-to-disk cloning is a practical, day-in-day-out near-failsafe
backup system for most PC users.
Anna
A lot of people have wondered about how to completely backup their system so
that they would not have to go through the trouble of a reinstall..
I'm going to voice my opinion here and say that it would be worthless to do
for MOST people. Unless you plan on periodically updating the image backup
of your system (remaking it) - then by the time you use it (something goes
wrong) - it will be so outdated as to be more trouble than
performing a full install of the operating system and all applications.
Having said my part against it, you can clone/backup your hard drive
completely using many methods - by far the simplest are using disk cloning
applications:
Symantec/Norton Ghost
http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/
Acronis True Image
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage
BootItT NG
http://terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html"
Shenan:
You're obviously a very experienced (and I assume, competant) PC user so I
find your negative comment re using a disk imaging program for conducting
routine backups of one's system very puzzling. (All the more so since you
later list a number of disk cloning software applications for precisely this
purpose).
In my view, for the vast majority of PC users, the most effective backup
system one can employ is using a disk imaging program (such as the ones you
mentioned) to routinely & systematically back up one's system. The enormous
advantage of "cloning" one's working HD to another HD cannot be
overestimated. For all practical purposes, the resultant "clone" is a
bit-for-bit copy of one's source disk and, again in my view, is a near-ideal
backup system for most users. By creating this "clone" of one's day-to-day
working HD, the user has at hand an exact copy of his or her operating
system, registry/configuration settings, *all* their programs &
applications - in short, *everything* that's on their source disk. What
backup system can be better? And an added crucial advantage is that where
the recipient of the clone is another internal HD, that drive will be
bootable. (While the recipient of the clone can be a USB/Firewire external
HD, that device is not ordinarily bootable in an XP environment, although
its cloned contents can be re:cloned to an internal HD for restoration
purposes should that need arise).
The disk imaging programs you mentioned, i.e., Symantec's Norton Ghost and
Acronis True Image (I'm not experienced enough with the BootIt NG program to
comment on it) are basically simple to use, relatively fast in carrying out
their disk cloning function and most important in all, effective in their
results. Cloning speed will vary, of course, depending upon the user's
system. Given modern processors and internal HDs, data transfer speed will
be in the range of 800 MB/min to 1.5 GB/min (and up). Cloning to & from a
Firewire/USB external HD will be slower - in the order of 450 MB/min to 800
MB/min.
Consider the multitude of postings to this and similar newsgroups, the vast
majority of posts pleas of help from users who have run into one problem or
another, for example...
"I just installed SP2 and now my computer won't boot. It was working
perfectly before."
"All of a sudden I get this blue screen with some gibberish on it and now my
computer won't boot. It was working fine till I installed this "Soup Up Your
PC" program yesterday."
"A friend recommended I make this registry change which I did and now my
computer won't boot."
"The other day I mistakenly deleted some important personal files and now I
can't get them back. They're not in my Recycle Bin. What do I do now?"
This never-ending list goes on & on doesn't it? Yes, in some cases the
System Restore utility will return the system to a functional state. And
hopefully the user has maintained some sort of backup program so that his or
her data files can be retrieved. But consider the number of times the System
Restore function and simple data backup schemes are unable to restore the
system to its previous workable state.
As you may know from my prior postings on this subject, I am a strong
proponent of the Norton Ghost 2003 disk imaging program for carrying out the
disk cloning process. I find that program superior to the later Norton Ghost
programs in terms of ease of use for basic disk-to-disk cloning operations.
My experience with the Acronis program (version 8) has been positive as
well. If any reader is interested in seeing step-by-step instructions for
using either of these programs, I'll be glad to post them.
But whatever disk imaging program a user chooses, the point remains that
basic disk-to-disk cloning is a practical, day-in-day-out near-failsafe
backup system for most PC users.
Anna
S
Shenan Stanley
Shenan Stanley wrote:
Most users will not keep up with it and will not bother to make an image
right before what they assume to be a harmless patch. They do not have the
technical fore-thought to have investigated SP2 (or other patches) to know
that one may mess up their system. They do not think that uninstalling
Norton Internet Security might disable the systems ability to boot. They do
not know that they downloaded that movie and it was actually a virus that
might wipe out their system.
I never said "DON'T use these systems" - I gave my opinion that for most
people - they would not be using the tool to its fullest potential - mostly
because people do not have the resources to do so or - in their mind - the
one to two hours to wait while their 14GB backup finishes. It's a matter of
choosing the lesser of two evils. If someone wants to use imaging - I don't
deny them that - I warn them that it takes more fore thought and effort than
scheduling a backup to external media - including system files - so they can
make up their own mind.
In every example you gave - other than SP2 - I can see most people not
bothering to make a ghost image of their machine so the backup would be
current. Matter of fact - in my experience - if a normal user backs up
their machine at all - it's a miracle. And even those who do - if they do
it more than once a month - it's amazing. I would say that most - including
some very experienced users - trust their hardware too much - trust their
experience too much - until the worst happens. In that case - a ghost
backup made 30 days ago would be all but worthless unless supplemented by a
nightly backup regime. And again - a 30 day old ghost image is optimistic
at most.
I realize that Norton Ghost 2003 is greatly improved - and can do some
things "automagically" - but I still say that "it would be worthless to do
for MOST people." I phrased that carefully originally and I still stand by
it. Most people do not have 3GHz machines with 250GB hard drives and an
external 250GB they are willing to set aside for just ghost images. Most do
not have some server they can back up to. Many have multiple machines they
would need to backup. For most people - it's just not doable. For those
for whom it is - I happily volunteer the name of those applications capable
of doing it. It wasn't until mere months ago that it started become an
offering from Dell and such companies to have what they phrase as a "hidden
hard drive" - which is actually a mirrored RAID setup. In my opinion - that
beats imaging hands-down - but still does not substitute for a periodic file
backup to external media. And I certainly would never want anyone to think
because they have a ghost backup or a mirrored drive - they were safe from
data loss. *smile*
A lot of people have wondered about how to completely backup their system
so that they would not have to go through the trouble of a reinstall..
I'm going to voice my opinion here and say that it would be worthless to
do for MOST people. Unless you plan on periodically updating the image
backup of your system (remaking it) - then by the time you use it
(something goes wrong) - it will be so outdated as to be more trouble than
performing a full install of the operating system and all applications.
Having said my part against it, you can clone/backup your hard drive
completely using many methods - by far the simplest are using disk cloning
applications:
Symantec/Norton Ghost
http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/
Acronis True Image
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage
BootItT NG
http://terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
You're obviously a very experienced (and I assume, competant) PC user so
I find your negative comment re using a disk imaging program for
conducting routine backups of one's system very puzzling. (All the more so
since you later list a number of disk cloning software applications for
precisely this purpose).
In my view, for the vast majority of PC users, the most effective backup
system one can employ is using a disk imaging program (such as the ones
you mentioned) to routinely & systematically back up one's system. The
enormous advantage of "cloning" one's working HD to another HD cannot be
overestimated. For all practical purposes, the resultant "clone" is a
bit-for-bit copy of one's source disk and, again in my view, is a
near-ideal backup system for most users. By creating this "clone" of one's
day-to-day working HD, the user has at hand an exact copy of his or her
operating system, registry/configuration settings, *all* their programs &
applications - in short, *everything* that's on their source disk. What
backup system can be better? And an added crucial advantage is that where
the recipient of the clone is another internal HD, that drive will be
bootable. (While the recipient of the clone can be a USB/Firewire external
HD, that device is not ordinarily bootable in an XP environment, although
its cloned contents can be re:cloned to an internal HD for restoration
purposes should that need arise).
The disk imaging programs you mentioned, i.e., Symantec's Norton Ghost and
Acronis True Image (I'm not experienced enough with the BootIt NG program
to comment on it) are basically simple to use, relatively fast in carrying
out their disk cloning function and most important in all, effective in
their results. Cloning speed will vary, of course, depending upon the
user's system. Given modern processors and internal HDs, data transfer
speed will be in the range of 800 MB/min to 1.5 GB/min (and up). Cloning
to & from a Firewire/USB external HD will be slower - in the order of 450
MB/min to 800 MB/min.
Consider the multitude of postings to this and similar newsgroups, the
vast majority of posts pleas of help from users who have run into one
problem or another, for example...
"I just installed SP2 and now my computer won't boot. It was working
perfectly before."
"All of a sudden I get this blue screen with some gibberish on it and now
my computer won't boot. It was working fine till I installed this "Soup Up
Your PC" program yesterday."
"A friend recommended I make this registry change which I did and now my
computer won't boot."
"The other day I mistakenly deleted some important personal files and now
I can't get them back. They're not in my Recycle Bin. What do I do now?"
This never-ending list goes on & on doesn't it? Yes, in some cases the
System Restore utility will return the system to a functional state. And
hopefully the user has maintained some sort of backup program so that his
or her data files can be retrieved. But consider the number of times the
System Restore function and simple data backup schemes are unable to
restore the system to its previous workable state.
As you may know from my prior postings on this subject, I am a strong
proponent of the Norton Ghost 2003 disk imaging program for carrying out
the disk cloning process. I find that program superior to the later Norton
Ghost programs in terms of ease of use for basic disk-to-disk cloning
operations. My experience with the Acronis program (version 8) has been
positive as well. If any reader is interested in seeing step-by-step
instructions for using either of these programs, I'll be glad to post
them.
But whatever disk imaging program a user chooses, the point remains that
basic disk-to-disk cloning is a practical, day-in-day-out near-failsafe
backup system for most PC users.
Most users will not keep up with it and will not bother to make an image
right before what they assume to be a harmless patch. They do not have the
technical fore-thought to have investigated SP2 (or other patches) to know
that one may mess up their system. They do not think that uninstalling
Norton Internet Security might disable the systems ability to boot. They do
not know that they downloaded that movie and it was actually a virus that
might wipe out their system.
I never said "DON'T use these systems" - I gave my opinion that for most
people - they would not be using the tool to its fullest potential - mostly
because people do not have the resources to do so or - in their mind - the
one to two hours to wait while their 14GB backup finishes. It's a matter of
choosing the lesser of two evils. If someone wants to use imaging - I don't
deny them that - I warn them that it takes more fore thought and effort than
scheduling a backup to external media - including system files - so they can
make up their own mind.
In every example you gave - other than SP2 - I can see most people not
bothering to make a ghost image of their machine so the backup would be
current. Matter of fact - in my experience - if a normal user backs up
their machine at all - it's a miracle. And even those who do - if they do
it more than once a month - it's amazing. I would say that most - including
some very experienced users - trust their hardware too much - trust their
experience too much - until the worst happens. In that case - a ghost
backup made 30 days ago would be all but worthless unless supplemented by a
nightly backup regime. And again - a 30 day old ghost image is optimistic
at most.
I realize that Norton Ghost 2003 is greatly improved - and can do some
things "automagically" - but I still say that "it would be worthless to do
for MOST people." I phrased that carefully originally and I still stand by
it. Most people do not have 3GHz machines with 250GB hard drives and an
external 250GB they are willing to set aside for just ghost images. Most do
not have some server they can back up to. Many have multiple machines they
would need to backup. For most people - it's just not doable. For those
for whom it is - I happily volunteer the name of those applications capable
of doing it. It wasn't until mere months ago that it started become an
offering from Dell and such companies to have what they phrase as a "hidden
hard drive" - which is actually a mirrored RAID setup. In my opinion - that
beats imaging hands-down - but still does not substitute for a periodic file
backup to external media. And I certainly would never want anyone to think
because they have a ghost backup or a mirrored drive - they were safe from
data loss. *smile*
Q
q_q_anonymous
not a win xp q
clone the whole hdd eg norton ghost or acronis or free equivalent
Correction. In retrospect, *I think* it images individual partitions.
Not the whole hard disk
Which is fine - you can image each partition separately, but that
distinction is important.
A
Anna
(SNIP...)
A lot of people have wondered about how to completely backup their system so
that they would not have to go through the trouble of a reinstall..
I'm going to voice my opinion here and say that it would be worthless to do
for MOST people. Unless you plan on periodically updating the image backup
of your system (remaking it) - then by the time you use it (something goes
wrong) - it will be so outdated as to be more trouble than performing a full
install of the operating system and all applications.
Having said my part against it, you can clone/backup your hard drive
completely using many methods - by far the simplest are using disk cloning
applications:
Symantec/Norton Ghost
http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/
Acronis True Image
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage
BootItT NG
http://terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html"
Anna responds...
Shenan:
You're obviously a very experienced (and I assume, competent) PC user so I
find your negative comment re using a disk imaging program for conducting
routine backups of one's system very puzzling. (All the more so since you
later list a number of disk cloning software applications for precisely this
purpose).
In my view, for the vast majority of PC users, the most effective backup
system one can employ is using a disk imaging program (such as the ones you
mentioned) to routinely & systematically back up one's system. The enormous
advantage of "cloning" one's working HD to another HD cannot be
overestimated. For all practical purposes, the resultant "clone" is a
bit-for-bit copy of one's source disk and, again in my view, is a near-ideal
backup system for most users. By creating this "clone" of one's day-to-day
working HD, the user has at hand an exact copy of his or her operating
system, registry/configuration settings, *all* their programs &
applications - in short, *everything* that's on their source disk. What
backup system can be better? And an added crucial advantage is that where
the recipient of the clone is another internal HD, that drive will be
bootable. (While the recipient of the clone can be a USB/Firewire external
HD, that device is not ordinarily bootable in an XP environment, although
its cloned contents can be re:cloned to an internal HD for restoration
purposes should that need arise).
The disk imaging programs you mentioned, i.e., Symantec's Norton Ghost and
Acronis True Image (I'm not experienced enough with the BootIt NG program to
comment on it) are basically simple to use, relatively fast in carrying out
their disk cloning function and most important in all, effective in their
results. Cloning speed will vary, of course, depending upon the user's
system. Given modern processors and internal HDs, data transfer speed will
be in the range of 800 MB/min to 1.5 GB/min (and up). Cloning to & from a
Firewire/USB external HD will be slower - in the order of 450 MB/min to 800
MB/min.
Consider the multitude of postings to this and similar newsgroups, the vast
majority of posts pleas of help from users who have run into one problem or
another, for example...
"I just installed SP2 and now my computer won't boot. It was working
perfectly before."
"All of a sudden I get this blue screen with some gibberish on it and now my
computer won't boot. It was working fine till I installed this "Soup Up Your
PC" program yesterday."
"A friend recommended I make this registry change which I did and now my
computer won't boot."
"The other day I mistakenly deleted some important personal files and now I
can't get them back. They're not in my Recycle Bin. What do I do now?"
This never-ending list goes on & on doesn't it? Yes, in some cases the
System Restore utility will return the system to a functional state. And
hopefully the user has maintained some sort of backup program so that his or
her data files can be retrieved. But consider the number of times the System
Restore function and simple data backup schemes are unable to restore the
system to its previous workable state.
As you may know from my prior postings on this subject, I am a strong
proponent of the Norton Ghost 2003 disk imaging program for carrying out the
disk cloning process. I find that program superior to the later Norton Ghost
programs in terms of ease of use for basic disk-to-disk cloning operations.
My experience with the Acronis program (version 8) has been positive as
well. If any reader is interested in seeing step-by-step instructions for
using either of these programs, I'll be glad to post them.
But whatever disk imaging program a user chooses, the point remains that
basic disk-to-disk cloning is a practical, day-in-day-out near-failsafe
backup system for most PC users.
Anna
Shenan responds...
Most users will not keep up with it and will not bother to make an image
right before what they assume to be a harmless patch. They do not have the
technical fore-thought to have investigated SP2 (or other patches) to know
that one may mess up their system. They do not think that uninstalling
Norton Internet Security might disable the systems ability to boot. They do
not know that they downloaded that movie and it was actually a virus that
might wipe out their system.
I never said "DON'T use these systems" - I gave my opinion that for most
people - they would not be using the tool to its fullest potential - mostly
because people do not have the resources to do so or - in their mind - the
one to two hours to wait while their 14GB backup finishes. It's a matter of
choosing the lesser of two evils. If someone wants to use imaging - I don't
deny them that - I warn them that it takes more fore thought and effort than
scheduling a backup to external media - including system files - so they can
make up their own mind.
In every example you gave - other than SP2 - I can see most people not
bothering to make a ghost image of their machine so the backup would be
current. Matter of fact - in my experience - if a normal user backs up
their machine at all - it's a miracle. And even those who do - if they do
it more than once a month - it's amazing. I would say that most - including
some very experienced users - trust their hardware too much - trust their
experience too much - until the worst happens. In that case - a ghost
backup made 30 days ago would be all but worthless unless supplemented by a
nightly backup regime. And again - a 30 day old ghost image is optimistic
at most.
I realize that Norton Ghost 2003 is greatly improved - and can do some
things "automagically" - but I still say that "it would be worthless to do
for MOST people." I phrased that carefully originally and I still stand by
it. Most people do not have 3GHz machines with 250GB hard drives and an
external 250GB they are willing to set aside for just ghost images. Most do
not have some server they can back up to. Many have multiple machines they
would need to backup. For most people - it's just not doable. For those
for whom it is - I happily volunteer the name of those applications capable
of doing it. It wasn't until mere months ago that it started become an
offering from Dell and such companies to have what they phrase as a "hidden
hard drive" - which is actually a mirrored RAID setup. In my opinion - that
beats imaging hands-down - but still does not substitute for a periodic file
backup to external media. And I certainly would never want anyone to think
because they have a ghost backup or a mirrored drive - they were safe from
data loss. *smile*
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
Anna responds...
Shenan:
Let me respond to the points you've made...
First of all, we're talking about computer users who have an interest in
backing up their systems in some orderly, systematic, comprehensive manner
that is reasonably simple to undertake & reasonably quick to undertake. If
you start off with the premise, as you apparently have, that most users are,
for one reason or another, uninterested in backing up their systems and
therefore will not perform *any* backup system, then, of course, the
discussion ends right there. But we're trying to reach those users who *do
have* an interest in determining what sort of routine backup system they
should employ. To that end we believe they should give serious consideration
to employing a disk imaging program to routinely & systematically clone the
contents of their working HD to another HD.
You mention an example (presumably related to the disk imaging programs
under discussion) that a 14 GB backup will take one or two hours to
complete. You have grossly overestimated the processing time in most cases
where the user is working with reasonably modern equipment. The actual data
transfer speed (disk cloning speed) would be rather in the order of 12 to 25
minutes with internal HDs and somewhat longer cloning to a USB/Firewire
external HD. The disk cloning process is, by & large, not an onerous task to
undertake either in time or difficulty.
The frequency with which a user will or should use a disk imaging program to
clone the contents of one HD to another HD will, of course, depend upon what
he or she determines to be reasonably effective and practical in their
particular circumstances. In many cases, once a week would be sufficient.
Some users might prefer to do this daily or somewhat more frequently than
once a week. In most cases there is no need to constantly perform the disk
cloning operation just prior to installing a new program although there is
no harm in doing so should this be the user's inclination.
With respect to your comments about the reluctance of users to "set aside"
another HD for purposes of using that drive as the recipient of the "clone",
is this really an overriding issue at this point in time? Hardly a week
passes where one or another of the Office or other mass merchandise stores
(let alone online vendors!) aren't hawking large-capacity hard drives for as
little as 20 to 30 cents (cents!) per gigabyte. Surely at this time the cost
of purchasing another HD for this purpose imposes no great financial
hardship for most users.
Please understand I have no problem with users employing other backup
strategies to safeguard their precious data. The use of flash (jump, thumb,
etc.) drives and CD/DVDs to store created data is certainly desirable in
most cases. But I believe these backup devices should be an adjunct or
supplement to a basic backup system that employs a disk imaging program to
routinely clone the contents of one HD to another HD. Is the use of a disk
imaging disk-to-disk cloning program a guaranteed failsafe backup system? Of
course not. But it comes closer than any other system I've used.
Anna
A lot of people have wondered about how to completely backup their system so
that they would not have to go through the trouble of a reinstall..
I'm going to voice my opinion here and say that it would be worthless to do
for MOST people. Unless you plan on periodically updating the image backup
of your system (remaking it) - then by the time you use it (something goes
wrong) - it will be so outdated as to be more trouble than performing a full
install of the operating system and all applications.
Having said my part against it, you can clone/backup your hard drive
completely using many methods - by far the simplest are using disk cloning
applications:
Symantec/Norton Ghost
http://www.symantec.com/sabu/ghost/
Acronis True Image
http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage
BootItT NG
http://terabyteunlimited.com/bootitng.html
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html"
Anna responds...
Shenan:
You're obviously a very experienced (and I assume, competent) PC user so I
find your negative comment re using a disk imaging program for conducting
routine backups of one's system very puzzling. (All the more so since you
later list a number of disk cloning software applications for precisely this
purpose).
In my view, for the vast majority of PC users, the most effective backup
system one can employ is using a disk imaging program (such as the ones you
mentioned) to routinely & systematically back up one's system. The enormous
advantage of "cloning" one's working HD to another HD cannot be
overestimated. For all practical purposes, the resultant "clone" is a
bit-for-bit copy of one's source disk and, again in my view, is a near-ideal
backup system for most users. By creating this "clone" of one's day-to-day
working HD, the user has at hand an exact copy of his or her operating
system, registry/configuration settings, *all* their programs &
applications - in short, *everything* that's on their source disk. What
backup system can be better? And an added crucial advantage is that where
the recipient of the clone is another internal HD, that drive will be
bootable. (While the recipient of the clone can be a USB/Firewire external
HD, that device is not ordinarily bootable in an XP environment, although
its cloned contents can be re:cloned to an internal HD for restoration
purposes should that need arise).
The disk imaging programs you mentioned, i.e., Symantec's Norton Ghost and
Acronis True Image (I'm not experienced enough with the BootIt NG program to
comment on it) are basically simple to use, relatively fast in carrying out
their disk cloning function and most important in all, effective in their
results. Cloning speed will vary, of course, depending upon the user's
system. Given modern processors and internal HDs, data transfer speed will
be in the range of 800 MB/min to 1.5 GB/min (and up). Cloning to & from a
Firewire/USB external HD will be slower - in the order of 450 MB/min to 800
MB/min.
Consider the multitude of postings to this and similar newsgroups, the vast
majority of posts pleas of help from users who have run into one problem or
another, for example...
"I just installed SP2 and now my computer won't boot. It was working
perfectly before."
"All of a sudden I get this blue screen with some gibberish on it and now my
computer won't boot. It was working fine till I installed this "Soup Up Your
PC" program yesterday."
"A friend recommended I make this registry change which I did and now my
computer won't boot."
"The other day I mistakenly deleted some important personal files and now I
can't get them back. They're not in my Recycle Bin. What do I do now?"
This never-ending list goes on & on doesn't it? Yes, in some cases the
System Restore utility will return the system to a functional state. And
hopefully the user has maintained some sort of backup program so that his or
her data files can be retrieved. But consider the number of times the System
Restore function and simple data backup schemes are unable to restore the
system to its previous workable state.
As you may know from my prior postings on this subject, I am a strong
proponent of the Norton Ghost 2003 disk imaging program for carrying out the
disk cloning process. I find that program superior to the later Norton Ghost
programs in terms of ease of use for basic disk-to-disk cloning operations.
My experience with the Acronis program (version 8) has been positive as
well. If any reader is interested in seeing step-by-step instructions for
using either of these programs, I'll be glad to post them.
But whatever disk imaging program a user chooses, the point remains that
basic disk-to-disk cloning is a practical, day-in-day-out near-failsafe
backup system for most PC users.
Anna
Shenan responds...
Most users will not keep up with it and will not bother to make an image
right before what they assume to be a harmless patch. They do not have the
technical fore-thought to have investigated SP2 (or other patches) to know
that one may mess up their system. They do not think that uninstalling
Norton Internet Security might disable the systems ability to boot. They do
not know that they downloaded that movie and it was actually a virus that
might wipe out their system.
I never said "DON'T use these systems" - I gave my opinion that for most
people - they would not be using the tool to its fullest potential - mostly
because people do not have the resources to do so or - in their mind - the
one to two hours to wait while their 14GB backup finishes. It's a matter of
choosing the lesser of two evils. If someone wants to use imaging - I don't
deny them that - I warn them that it takes more fore thought and effort than
scheduling a backup to external media - including system files - so they can
make up their own mind.
In every example you gave - other than SP2 - I can see most people not
bothering to make a ghost image of their machine so the backup would be
current. Matter of fact - in my experience - if a normal user backs up
their machine at all - it's a miracle. And even those who do - if they do
it more than once a month - it's amazing. I would say that most - including
some very experienced users - trust their hardware too much - trust their
experience too much - until the worst happens. In that case - a ghost
backup made 30 days ago would be all but worthless unless supplemented by a
nightly backup regime. And again - a 30 day old ghost image is optimistic
at most.
I realize that Norton Ghost 2003 is greatly improved - and can do some
things "automagically" - but I still say that "it would be worthless to do
for MOST people." I phrased that carefully originally and I still stand by
it. Most people do not have 3GHz machines with 250GB hard drives and an
external 250GB they are willing to set aside for just ghost images. Most do
not have some server they can back up to. Many have multiple machines they
would need to backup. For most people - it's just not doable. For those
for whom it is - I happily volunteer the name of those applications capable
of doing it. It wasn't until mere months ago that it started become an
offering from Dell and such companies to have what they phrase as a "hidden
hard drive" - which is actually a mirrored RAID setup. In my opinion - that
beats imaging hands-down - but still does not substitute for a periodic file
backup to external media. And I certainly would never want anyone to think
because they have a ghost backup or a mirrored drive - they were safe from
data loss. *smile*
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
Anna responds...
Shenan:
Let me respond to the points you've made...
First of all, we're talking about computer users who have an interest in
backing up their systems in some orderly, systematic, comprehensive manner
that is reasonably simple to undertake & reasonably quick to undertake. If
you start off with the premise, as you apparently have, that most users are,
for one reason or another, uninterested in backing up their systems and
therefore will not perform *any* backup system, then, of course, the
discussion ends right there. But we're trying to reach those users who *do
have* an interest in determining what sort of routine backup system they
should employ. To that end we believe they should give serious consideration
to employing a disk imaging program to routinely & systematically clone the
contents of their working HD to another HD.
You mention an example (presumably related to the disk imaging programs
under discussion) that a 14 GB backup will take one or two hours to
complete. You have grossly overestimated the processing time in most cases
where the user is working with reasonably modern equipment. The actual data
transfer speed (disk cloning speed) would be rather in the order of 12 to 25
minutes with internal HDs and somewhat longer cloning to a USB/Firewire
external HD. The disk cloning process is, by & large, not an onerous task to
undertake either in time or difficulty.
The frequency with which a user will or should use a disk imaging program to
clone the contents of one HD to another HD will, of course, depend upon what
he or she determines to be reasonably effective and practical in their
particular circumstances. In many cases, once a week would be sufficient.
Some users might prefer to do this daily or somewhat more frequently than
once a week. In most cases there is no need to constantly perform the disk
cloning operation just prior to installing a new program although there is
no harm in doing so should this be the user's inclination.
With respect to your comments about the reluctance of users to "set aside"
another HD for purposes of using that drive as the recipient of the "clone",
is this really an overriding issue at this point in time? Hardly a week
passes where one or another of the Office or other mass merchandise stores
(let alone online vendors!) aren't hawking large-capacity hard drives for as
little as 20 to 30 cents (cents!) per gigabyte. Surely at this time the cost
of purchasing another HD for this purpose imposes no great financial
hardship for most users.
Please understand I have no problem with users employing other backup
strategies to safeguard their precious data. The use of flash (jump, thumb,
etc.) drives and CD/DVDs to store created data is certainly desirable in
most cases. But I believe these backup devices should be an adjunct or
supplement to a basic backup system that employs a disk imaging program to
routinely clone the contents of one HD to another HD. Is the use of a disk
imaging disk-to-disk cloning program a guaranteed failsafe backup system? Of
course not. But it comes closer than any other system I've used.
Anna
S
Shenan Stanley
Anna said:Let me respond to the points you've made...
First of all, we're talking about computer users who have an interest in
backing up their systems in some orderly, systematic, comprehensive manner
that is reasonably simple to undertake & reasonably quick to undertake. If
you start off with the premise, as you apparently have, that most users
are, for one reason or another, uninterested in backing up their systems
and therefore will not perform *any* backup system, then, of course, the
discussion ends right there. But we're trying to reach those users who *do
have* an interest in determining what sort of routine backup system they
should employ. To that end we believe they should give serious
consideration to employing a disk imaging program to routinely &
systematically clone the contents of their working HD to another HD.
You mention an example (presumably related to the disk imaging programs
under discussion) that a 14 GB backup will take one or two hours to
complete. You have grossly overestimated the processing time in most cases
where the user is working with reasonably modern equipment. The actual
data transfer speed (disk cloning speed) would be rather in the order of
12 to 25 minutes with internal HDs and somewhat longer cloning to a
USB/Firewire external HD. The disk cloning process is, by & large, not an
onerous task to undertake either in time or difficulty.
The frequency with which a user will or should use a disk imaging program
to clone the contents of one HD to another HD will, of course, depend upon
what he or she determines to be reasonably effective and practical in
their particular circumstances. In many cases, once a week would be
sufficient. Some users might prefer to do this daily or somewhat more
frequently than once a week. In most cases there is no need to constantly
perform the disk cloning operation just prior to installing a new program
although there is no harm in doing so should this be the user's
inclination.
With respect to your comments about the reluctance of users to "set aside"
another HD for purposes of using that drive as the recipient of the
"clone", is this really an overriding issue at this point in time? Hardly
a week passes where one or another of the Office or other mass merchandise
stores (let alone online vendors!) aren't hawking large-capacity hard
drives for as little as 20 to 30 cents (cents!) per gigabyte. Surely at
this time the cost of purchasing another HD for this purpose imposes no
great financial hardship for most users.
Please understand I have no problem with users employing other backup
strategies to safeguard their precious data. The use of flash (jump,
thumb, etc.) drives and CD/DVDs to store created data is certainly
desirable in most cases. But I believe these backup devices should be an
adjunct or supplement to a basic backup system that employs a disk imaging
program to routinely clone the contents of one HD to another HD. Is the
use of a disk imaging disk-to-disk cloning program a guaranteed failsafe
backup system? Of course not. But it comes closer than any other system
I've used.
All I can say is your customers (non-corporate/business customers, mind you)
must be better off financially and more willing to input time into their
systems than most that I deal with here and in real life. To most of the
users I deal with outside of business (where I completely control the backup
procedures and the likes anyway) - the computer is something they surf the
web on, get email with, maybe do some video/picture editing/storage, play
games on, etc. Most of the users that come to these newsgroups have issues
they want to resolve and that is one part of the many maintenance tasks I
feel they should learn to perform (backups.) I recommend against it in the
spiel (and it is part of a larger spiel) because for these people - they are
not interested in that. They want Game A and Web Page B to work - they
don't care nor want to understand much else. Their toaster is broken, their
cable television only goes up to channel 362 and that clock on the VCR is
still flashing. That may sound a little cynical - but it is what I see
every day.
That's - again - why I recommend against imaging for MOST users - because
they will waste their money and time learning to do something they will do
once or twice and then never do again. I would rather get them setting up a
backup schedule and using it along with properly protecting their system
against everything else than worrying about imaging their PC..
If it stops booting for whatever reason - in my career - I have only come
across 3 out of thousands that was completely unrecoverable. Either by
making an image of the system and pulling the data from the image, booting
with a utility CD and pulling the data off that way - even changing out
circuit boards on a HDD and getting the platters to spin up. I've even had
the occasion to drop a drive to break the platters loose long enough to get
it spinning and keep it that way until I got all the data off I could.
We are *not* disagreeing here on whether or not Ghosting is a fine way to
backup. I use ghost so often - it's ridiculous. And the last time I used
it (last night) on a 3.6GHz machine - 140GB SATA 150 HDD - it took 2 hours
to apply a 14GB uncompressed image over a 100gb network connection. I use
it to push out hundreds of machines ever few months. I heartily agree that
Symantec Ghost is a fine product. It has done more for me than any other
product - including Windows - has. And despite my not recommending it for
MOST users - I leave it in there so that those who are interested - who are
not 'MOST users' - will go ahead an do it. Not to mention - it may just
convert some of the 'MOST users' out of a competitive spirit.. ("why if some
do it, can I not.. sounds neat"..)
What we seem to be disagreeing on is the definition of "most users". You
seem to think that most would be interested in ghosting while I seem to feel
they would not. As there is no definitive way to answer that - we'd just
have to disagree on that opinion - and that is all it boils down to. You
are optimistically giving users credit where I am pessimistically NOT giving
them credit for wanting to do this.
In this particular thread - I grant you - I should have changed the wording
from my spiel. The OP demonstrated patented interest and I should have
taken advantage of that. I neglected to do so out of haste or neglect - I
do not know - and you have me there. However - in the large spiel this is a
part of - I am hesitant to change things because of the audience it is
directed at usual differs from this OP.. =)
However - I am glad we had this discussion and I am glad this thread came
about. You never know - there may be some slightly re-worded spiels coming
out of me soon enough because of this. *grin*
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.