Bill in Co. said:
I think that being the case, if one does NOT want to swap drives (which is
a real PIA for some external HD enclosures), but, instead, simply wants a
partition backup scheme. Is that a valid assessment? (otherwise you'd
have to use the cloning software to 1) clone the source disk to the
destination and 2) then restore the backup clone partition BACK to the
source drive).
But I expect you can do this with Casper. And maybe(?) the overall
process would be faster due to its smart cloning feature (not sure), but
that's not the way a *cloning* program is intended to be used, as I
understand it.
Bill:
I'm pretty sure we've previously covered this ground so let me respond in a
more generic way...
It seems to me that what the vast majority of PC users desire in a
comprehensive backup program involving either a disk-to-disk cloning (or
partition-to-partition) program or a disk-imaging program is...
1. Effectiveness, i.e., the disk-cloning program will provide a precise copy
of the HDD being cloned, or in the case of a disk-imaging program, a image
in the form of a file (archive) that in effect, is a precise copy of HDD
that's imaged, and the image file or archive thus created can be easily
manipulated so that the system can be restored to a functional state if &
when that need arises.
2. The program - be it a disk-cloning or disk-imaging program - has a
straightforward design and is simple to use.
3. The routine systematic backups of one's system can be undertaken
relatively quickly so that the user is encouraged to back up his or her
system at frequent intervals.
What's *not* important in my view or at least relatively unimportant, is the
speed of the "restoration" process, i.e., the time it takes to restore the
system to a bootable, functional state following the failure of one's
internal HDD or following a dysfunctional operating system due to corruption
of data or other cause not involving defective hardware.
Is it not true that in nearly every case the user will be using his/her
disk-cloning or disk-imaging program to backup their system? And *rarely*
(in comparison with routine backups) will have occasion to utilize the
program to restore his/her system because of one of the events listed above?
So does it really matter whether the restoration process will take 45
minutes or two hours?
What's important, again in my view, is the amount of time it takes to
effectively back up one's system on a routine basis, perhaps daily or weekly
or every few days. As I've indicated, when the user knows that the backup
process he or she will undertake can be achieved in a relatively short
period of time, he or she will have a greater incentive to undertake more
frequent backups than they might otherwise do if they know that their backup
program involves a lengthy time-consuming process.
As I have previously indicated, the major reason we prefer the Casper
program over all other disk-cloning programs that we're familiar with,
including the Acronis True Image program, is its so-called "SmartClone"
feature. Routine backups with this program take only a fraction of the time
as compared with other disk-cloning programs. These "incremental clones" are
complete clones of the source HDD. Obviously the amount of data being cloned
will dictate the time needed to complete the disk-cloning process, but I can
assure you its backup time is far, shorter than any other disk-cloning
program we've ever experienced.
As you know, Casper does not have disk-imaging capability. I fully
understand that there are many users who prefer that approach rather than
disk-to-disk cloning. But our experience with thousands of PC users
convinces us that by & large the disk-to-disk cloning process as a
comprehensive & routine backup system is more practical for the great body
of PC users. But I have no problem with those users who prefer the
disk-imaging backup route.
Frankly, I'm not at all sure I quite understand your current questions &
comments. I assume you're referring to the restoration process involving a
disk-cloning program. It is true that should the user employ a USBEHD as
his/her destination HDD, i.e., the recipient of the clone, and the user
desires to use that HDD as a replacement for his/her internal HDD (perhaps
to replace a failed internal HDD), he or she can do that assuming the HDD
from the USB device can be uninstalled from the enclosure.
On the other hand, the contents of the USBEHD can be simply re:cloned to the
internal HDD (assuming the latter is non-defective) to restore a
dysfunctional system. A simple process, no?
So what's the problem here? These are not terribly complicated or
tremendously time-consuming events. Again, we must bear in mind that
presumably these will be relatively rare events, would they not?
Anna