backup utility for windows XP home edition

[Guest]

I want to install backup utliity but I do not have a windows XP home CDROM.
The retailer DELL did not supply it with the PC.

 

[Galen]

In javed <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

I want to install backup utliity but I do not have a windows XP home
CDROM. The retailer DELL did not supply it with the PC.

That's the penalty for buying OEM as far as I know. It's up to them what
they deliver so long as they provide a method of restoring the OS to it's
original settings. A better idea, in my opinion, would be to invest in
Acronis True Image or Image for Windows (which I've been playing with lately
and it's not too bad) both of which are available in trial versions but not
free. Both allow true backups and restoration beyond what you're probably
expecting from the backup utility included with XP.

Galen
--

"But there are always some lunatics about. It would be a dull world
without them."

Sherlock Holmes

 

[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 XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| I want to install backup utliity but I do not have a windows XP home CDROM.
| The retailer DELL did not supply it with the PC.

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

In javed <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:


That's the penalty for buying OEM as far as I know. It's up to them what
they deliver so long as they provide a method of restoring the OS to it's
original settings. A better idea, in my opinion, would be to invest in
Acronis True Image or Image for Windows (which I've been playing with
lately and it's not too bad) both of which are available in trial versions
but not free. Both allow true backups and restoration beyond what you're
probably expecting from the backup utility included with XP.

Galen

At the risk of being accused of nitpicking True Image and the like do not
backup but image, there is a significant difference. Backup programs are
suitable for backing up selected files/folders whereas Imaging programs will
only 'image' partitions or drives. Both are valuable tools and users who
need to safeguard data on a daily basis will find a backup program essential
whereas an Imaging program is simply in the 'useful' category. Afterall you
can always restore the OS and Programs from the original disks albeit with
some inconvenience. However once original data is gone it is forever lost.

 

[Anna]

At the risk of being accused of nitpicking True Image and the like do not
backup but image, there is a significant difference. Backup programs are
suitable for backing up selected files/folders whereas Imaging programs
will only 'image' partitions or drives. Both are valuable tools and users
who need to safeguard data on a daily basis will find a backup program
essential whereas an Imaging program is simply in the 'useful' category.
Afterall you can always restore the OS and Programs from the original
disks albeit with some inconvenience. However once original data is gone
it is forever lost.

In my view, most PC users would be well-served to employ a disk imaging
program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True Image as their
routine, day-in day-out backup system. By & large the simplicity of using
these programs to effectively and reasonably quickly "cloning" the contents
of one's working HD to another HD is an enormous advantage over backup
programs that simply backup one's created data.

By using a disk imaging program, the user can easily, routinely, and in a
relatively short period of time create a clone of his/her HD. The clone (on
another internal or external disk) will contain the *entire* contents of the
drive that is being cloned. This includes the operating system, registry
settings, programs, user created data -- in short *everything* that's on the
source disk will be on the destination disk. For all practical purposes, an
exact duplicate of one's day-to-day working HD. What better backup system
can one have? And assuming the created clone resides on an internal HD,
another critical advantage is that the cloned drive is bootable and can be
used for restoration purposes in a relatively short period of time. (I
should mention that in the XP environment a USB/Firewire external HD is
*not* bootable, however, if it is the recipient of the clone, the contents
of the the EHD can be "re:cloned" back to the internal drive for restoration
purposes. Again, a simple, relatively quick, and effective process).

Using medium to high-powered processors and modern HDs, cloning speed will
be in the neighborhood of 1.5 GB per minute. And bear in mind that when
using a disk imaging program such as the ones mentioned, the cloning process
proceeds for the most part without user intervention or even attendance. A
few simple keyclicks at the beginning to identify the source & destination
drives and the cloning process "does its thing" without the user even being
present. What could be more simple or straightforward? There's absolutely no
reason why a user cannot use this disk-to-disk cloning process on a daily
basis or whatever frequency he or she desires.

Edward admits that when using what I guess we can call "traditional" backup
programs, i.e., programs that simply back up the user's created data files &
folders, it's of course necessary to reinstall the operating system and
programs from the original disks, and this is a cause of "some
inconvenience". Some inconvenience, all right! Can you think of a more
onerous task than reinstalling your XP OS, fishing out all your programs'
installation CDs, resinstalling those programs, then manually re:configuring
your preferred settings, etc., etc. It's certainly nothing I would look
forward to and I daresay few users would. Contrast that with the disk
cloning process we have been describing.

I should like to add that all that I've said does not negate for one moment
a user's option to back up this or that file or folder at any given time. Of
course it may be desirable to do so in many instances. But for creating &
maintaining a routine, day-in & day-out backup system, serious consideration
should be given to using a disk imaging program as we have descibed.
Anna

 

[Galen]

In Edward W. Thompson <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

At the risk of being accused of nitpicking True Image and the like do
not backup but image, there is a significant difference. Backup
programs are suitable for backing up selected files/folders whereas
Imaging programs will only 'image' partitions or drives. Both are
valuable tools and users who need to safeguard data on a daily basis
will find a backup program essential whereas an Imaging program is
simply in the 'useful' category. Afterall you can always restore the
OS and Programs from the original disks albeit with some
inconvenience. However once original data is gone it is forever
lost.

An Imaging application backs up ALL data enabling a complete restore without
the need of re-installing anything. Incrimental backups/images if you wish
are also an option as are scheduled backups so it could be automated and
allowing a complete restore to the last imaging point without the need of
even re-installing the OS or anything else. Given my choice I'd much rather
completely restore the OS and all data (other than pagefile and hiberfile
normally) than to have to re-install anything or activate anything or enter
the keys for purchased applications again. You can stick with a simple
backup application if you'd like but the efforts are the same and the
results from imaging far more beneficial in my opinion. By the way, I
welcome nitpicking. Thanks for sharing your insights and opinions.

Galen
--

"But there are always some lunatics about. It would be a dull world
without them."

Sherlock Holmes