em21 said:
Edith:
Just a few comments with respect to Twayne's comments comparing the
differences between the disk-cloning & disk-imaging approaches with respect
to these comprehensive backup programs such as the ones we've discussed
during a similar thread. To be perfectly frank my comments are directed to
others, as well as to you, who are who are considering employing this type
of program.
In my previous posts re this issue (the thread had the same subject-name
sans the "2" designation) I pointed out that in my view the vast majority of
PC users (especially home PC users) would be better served by a disk-to-disk
cloning program rather than a disk-imaging program. I won't repeat in any
detail the reasons I gave for arriving at this conclusion except to state
that the disk-cloning program I strongly recommended is the Casper 5
program.
(If anyone may be interested in my more-or-less detailed recent comments
directed to Edith re this issue, he or she may want to see them in the
"Backup" thread that recently appeared in this newsgroup).
First of all, let me state at the outset as I try to do in nearly every post
of mine while discussing these backup programs that a potential user seeking
a comprehensive backup program should try to experiment with as many
different programs as they possibly can to determine which one (or type)
best meets their needs. Nearly all of these programs have demo or trial
versions available so it's possible for a potential user to gain at least
some insight as to whether this or that program would best serve their
interests & objectives. I suppose it goes without saying that no one should
rely on my suggestions or the suggestions of anyone else (especially in
these newsgroups).
To put it as short & sweetly as I can...it's difficult for me to imagine a
better backup system for the great majority of PC users than having a
precise copy of their day-to-day working HDD at their hand. A copy where
*all* the data on their "source" HDD is instantly available. A copy that
needs no restoration or recovery process of any kind in order to access its
data instantly. A copy that is completely bootable & functional (should it
be another internally-connected HDD or an eSATA-connected external HDD)
without the need to perform any recovery/restore process.
Using the Casper 5 disk-cloning program as I have previously related - when
the program is used on a routine basis (say, once a week or more frequently)
the user will be confident that he/she has at hand an up-to-date *complete*
copy of their system, and should the need arise to restore their system
because of a failed HDD or a corrupted OS that results in an unbootable
system or the system is dysfunctional in any way, the system can be easily
restored in reasonably short order using the cloned HDD either to directly
replace the failed/defective/dysfunctional day-to-day HDD or (in the more
usual type of case) clone the contents of the "good" cloned HDD back to the
internal HDD.
Twayne mentions the need for "moving hard drives around (in) a case" with
respect to "clone replacement". Please understand, as I have insinuated
above, that this is (in my experience) the more unusual technique when
restoring a system from the cloned HDD, i.e., the drive serving as the
recipient of the contents of the user's internal HDD. In most cases the user
will simply use the *identical* backup process he or she used when routinely
cloning the contents of their source HDD, i.e., clone back to the internal
HDD the contents of the cloned ("destination") HDD assuming the internal HDD
is non-defective. If the internal HDD has failed, the user would simply
replace that HDD with a new one and again clone the contents of the
destination HDD back to the new drive. To be sure, the user has the
*additional* option, should he or she choose to use it, of replacing the
failed HDD with the cloned HDD. So there's a great degree of flexibility
here, is there not?
Twayne also raises the issue of time expenditure insofar as it involves the
time it takes to restore his system from a disk image and points out that,
as he puts it, "Moving hard drives around in my case at least is highly
unpreferred and would take more than 23 minutes to accomplish a clone
replacement." First of all, see my comment above that in the great majority
of cases (in my experience) where restoration of a system is necessary, it's
usually not because of a defective HDD, rather it's a case of a
dysfunctional OS that needs restoration. And even when the HDD needs to be
replaced the user can easily clone the contents of the "destination" HDD to
the new "source" HDD. So it's completely unnecessary for the user to "move
hard drives around in (their) case", unless one chooses to do so.
In any event - and this is the most important point - the expenditure of
user's time in restoring his or her system is *not* the most significant
factor or even a terribly important one for most users insofar as choosing a
disk-cloning (or disk-imaging) program. What *is* important is the amount of
time the user will be expending when routinely *backing up* his or her
system. In the real world, the great majority of users will be backing up
their systems many, many times before the need arises to restore their
system through one process or another. Whether is takes 23 minutes or 45
minutes or 1 hour to restore one's system is, as a practical matter,
inconsequential. What's truly important is that the program carries out this
function precisely and without any problems, not the amount of time it takes
to do so.
And it is precisely this "expenditure of backup time" feature that, in our
view, makes the Casper 5 so superior when compared with other
disk-cloning/disk-imaging programs, including the Acronis program. As I have
tried to consistently point out when discussing the Casper 5 program - when
the program is used on a routine, frequent basis (roughly no less than
once-a-week), the amount of time it will take for the user to complete the
entire backup process comes close to being trifling. Because Casper 5 has
the unique ability to create *incremental* clones it takes the program only
a few short minutes to complete most disk-cloning operations. And understand
that the result is a *complete* clone of the user's "source" HDD - a precise
copy of such, *not* an "incremental" file.
There is, however, one area that Twayne mentions in his comments where the
user may prefer a disk-imaging program, such as the Acronis one, rather than
a disk-cloning program. Should the user have a strong or vital interest in
maintaining "generational" (multiple) copies of his or her system at
particular points-in-time, then generally speaking a disk-imaging program
(in most cases) would be more suitable to that objective. While the Casper 5
(or probably most other disk-cloning programs) could maintain such
generational copies of one's system - depending upon the size of the
contents of the source drive and the disk space available on the destination
drive and the number of needed generational copies - it doesn't lend itself
as readily to that objective as would a disk-imaging program.
Generally speaking (again, in our experience) the average PC home user
(unlike commercial entities) has no or minimal interest in maintaining
generational copies of their system. In the overwhelming number of cases the
user is simply interested in maintaining an up-to-date current backup of
his/her system. And there is nothing to prevent the user from employing the
Casper 5 disk-cloning program to maintain such generational copies of one's
system, assuming it's a reasonable number of such instances and adequate
disk-capacity is available.
Anna
