Can't boot. Trying recovery console. How long to 'examine disk'?

[Bill in Co.]

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

Well, not so relatively rare for me, as I often try things out, and then
find I want to go back to a clean system. THAT is my main use. So maybe
that's the point that was overlooked here (my apologies for the
misunderstanding). I mess around with my system quite a bit, trying out
various software programs, and sometimes find I want to go back to a clean
system, and use the image restore capability of TI to do that, and not all
that infrequently! THAT was my point.

And, if I understand this right, using a disk *cloning* program just to do
that (i.e., NOT with the primary intent of *making a bootable backup drive*)
is a bit "tangential" to its main purpose - since with a *cloning* program
like Casper, you would always be recloning the backup partition BACK to the
source drive partition for a restore operation, IF you intend to use this
program as I have indicated. Is that not correct?

But also, as I understand it, you CAN do that restore operation with Casper
(for JUST the C: partition) on a multi-partition drive, by recloning that
partition (previously cloned over to the external USB drive) BACK to the
source drive partition (replacing it after rebooting).

But it seems to me that the normal method for this purpose (of what I use it
for - testing out programs, and restoring a backup) would be imaging.

 

[Anna]

(The issue here is Bill's questioning as to the effectiveness of a
disk-cloning program vs. a disk-imaging program for the purpose of restoring
a system, presumably because of a defective HDD or a corrupted or otherwise
dysfunctional HDD).

Well, not so relatively rare for me, as I often try things out, and then
find I want to go back to a clean system. THAT is my main use. So
maybe that's the point that was overlooked here (my apologies for the
misunderstanding). I mess around with my system quite a bit, trying out
various software programs, and sometimes find I want to go back to a clean
system, and use the image restore capability of TI to do that, and not all
that infrequently! THAT was my point.

And, if I understand this right, using a disk *cloning* program just to do
that (i.e., NOT with the primary intent of *making a bootable backup
drive*) is a bit "tangential" to its main purpose - since with a *cloning*
program like Casper, you would always be recloning the backup partition
BACK to the source drive partition for a restore operation, IF you intend
to use this program as I have indicated. Is that not correct?

But also, as I understand it, you CAN do that restore operation with
Casper (for JUST the C: partition) on a multi-partition drive, by
recloning that partition (previously cloned over to the external USB
drive) BACK to the source drive partition (replacing it after rebooting).

But it seems to me that the normal method for this purpose (of what I use
it for - testing out programs, and restoring a backup) would be imaging.

Bill:
Let me say, as I've said repeatedly, that I have no problem with those users
who prefer a disk-imaging program for backup/restoration purposes rather
than a disk-cloning program such as the Casper program I've been
recommending. But it's my belief that as a general proposition for the vast
majority of PC users the disk-cloning approach is a more practical approach
for establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup system that will be
used on a routine basis.

Getting to your specific points...

There is *no* problem - *no* obstacle in using a disk-cloning program for
the purpose you have indicated, i.e., "(returning) to a clean system". In
our line of work which involves testing out various programs &
configurations, hardly a day goes by where we're not using a disk-cloning
program to do precisely that. What would give you the idea that a
disk-cloning program (as opposed to a disk-imaging program) would be
incapable of doing so or be inadequate to that task? Or somehow inferior in
time or effectiveness in doing so? That is simply not the case and I can't
imagine how you concluded that.

A clone is a clone is a clone. Using the Casper program as an example the
user can clone the contents of one HDD to another HDD either on a
partition-by-partition basis or the entire disk in one fell swoop.

Why do you conclude that "the normal method for this purpose (testing out
programs and restoring a backup) would be imaging", inferring that somehow
the disk-cloning "method" is "abnormal" for this purpose?
Anna

 

[Bill in Co.]

(The issue here is Bill's questioning as to the effectiveness of a
disk-cloning program vs. a disk-imaging program for the purpose of
restoring
a system, presumably because of a defective HDD or a corrupted or
otherwise
dysfunctional HDD).

Right. More below...

Bill:
Let me say, as I've said repeatedly, that I have no problem with those
users
who prefer a disk-imaging program for backup/restoration purposes rather
than a disk-cloning program such as the Casper program I've been
recommending. But it's my belief that as a general proposition for the
vast
majority of PC users the disk-cloning approach is a more practical
approach
for establishing & maintaining a comprehensive backup system that will be
used on a routine basis.

Getting to your specific points...

There is *no* problem - *no* obstacle in using a disk-cloning program for
the purpose you have indicated, i.e., "(returning) to a clean system". In
our line of work which involves testing out various programs &
configurations, hardly a day goes by where we're not using a disk-cloning
program to do precisely that.

And you mean that having made the clone, one subsequentally copies the
backup clone BACK to the source drive, I presume here.

For some reason I tend to think that is a bit atypical for the normal use of
*cloning* software. I tend to think of *cloning* software being
(principally) used to make a backup disk clone, which will then be pulled
out and swapped with the (bad) source drive, (unlike if one were using
imaging). But maybe that's an incorrect assumption. More on that below.

What would give you the idea that a
disk-cloning program (as opposed to a disk-imaging program) would be
incapable of doing so or be inadequate to that task? Or somehow inferior
in
time or effectiveness in doing so? That is simply not the case and I can't
imagine how you concluded that.

A clone is a clone is a clone. Using the Casper program as an example the
user can clone the contents of one HDD to another HDD either on a
partition-by-partition basis or the entire disk in one fell swoop.

OK - that was one point that I still wasn't sure about - sorry. More
below.

Why do you conclude that "the normal method for this purpose (testing out
programs and restoring a backup) would be imaging", inferring that somehow
the disk-cloning "method" is "abnormal" for this purpose?
Anna

I was just under the impression that a disk *cloning* program was intended
to make the destination *drive* identical to the source *drive* (and not
just a partition), so that you could pull the destination drive out, and
swap it with the (bad) source drive.

And in my case, I can't really do that at the drive level, since my 250 GB
source drive consists of several partitions, and I always ONLY backup the C:
40 GB partition to a much smaller destination drive (80 GB in total) in the
external USB enclosure. So I never can (nor do I want to, anyways) clone
the entire 250 GB source drive completely over to the destination drive in
the external USB enclosure. Nor do I want the other half of that 80 GB
destination drive touched during my backup operation (but I guess it won't
be, from what your saying, as long as I simply elect to do a partition to
partition cloning operation).

So as you said above, Casper can apparently also do JUST do a
partition-to-partition copy (like BootItNG, for example, running in
Maintenance Mode, for partition copying operations). OK then.

So in summary, I guess if we view *cloning* as a partition-to-partition copy
operation, and not necessarily a *drive-to-drive* copy operation, then I
guess there is no real practical difference here, EXCEPT that, of course, if
one uses *imaging*, one cannot ever bootup that backup drive, of course.

Anyway, maybe I've got it straight by now. (if not, pse let me know).

Thanks,
Bill

 

[Anna]

(SNIP)

So in summary, I guess if we view *cloning* as a partition-to-partition
copy operation, and not necessarily a *drive-to-drive* copy operation,
then I guess there is no real practical difference here, EXCEPT that, of
course, if one uses *imaging*, one cannot ever bootup that backup drive,
of course.

Anyway, maybe I've got it straight by now. (if not, pse let me know).

Thanks,
Bill

Bill:
Yes, you have it "straight" now. The Casper disk-cloning program can clone
the contents of one partition on a multi-partitioned "source" HDD to another
partition on a multi-partitioned "destination" drive. And when the need
arises, do the same in reverse.

Taking your specific example of your 250 GB HDD which contains a number of
partitions including a 40 GB partition that contains your operating system
and perhaps other data, i.e., your C: partition, and you want to clone
*only* the contents of that specific partition to your 80 GB USBEHD
"destination" drive, but you don't want to use the entire 80 GB of disk
space on that drive to contain that 40 GB of data, but just another 40 GB
partition on that destination drive...

No problem. Using the Casper disk-cloning program it would be a simple
matter to clone the contents of that 40 GB partition on the source HDD to a
similar-sized partition or whatever other partition size you may have
established on the destination drive.

And should you do this on a rather frequent basis - say every few days or
once a week or even more frequently - it would probably take you not much
more than two (2) or three (3) minutes to complete the entire cloning
operation because of Casper's "SmartClone" capability.
Anna

 

[Bill in Co.]

(SNIP)


Bill:
Yes, you have it "straight" now. The Casper disk-cloning program can clone
the contents of one partition on a multi-partitioned "source" HDD to
another
partition on a multi-partitioned "destination" drive. And when the need
arises, do the same in reverse.

And for me, that would always be the case.

Taking your specific example of your 250 GB HDD which contains a number of
partitions including a 40 GB partition that contains your operating system
and perhaps other data, i.e., your C: partition, and you want to clone
*only* the contents of that specific partition to your 80 GB USBEHD
"destination" drive, but you don't want to use the entire 80 GB of disk
space on that drive to contain that 40 GB of data, but just another 40 GB
partition on that destination drive...

No problem. Using the Casper disk-cloning program it would be a simple
matter to clone the contents of that 40 GB partition on the source HDD to
a
similar-sized partition or whatever other partition size you may have
established on the destination drive.

And should you do this on a rather frequent basis - say every few days or
once a week or even more frequently - it would probably take you not much
more than two (2) or three (3) minutes to complete the entire cloning
operation because of Casper's "SmartClone" capability.
Anna

But if I did that AND recloned it back (from the *external* USB backup drive
back to the *internal* source drive), it would surely take more than 3
minutes. Right? And that's the only way I would use the program.

Something else I'm not sure about is: just how reliable relying exclusively
on the Smart Cloning (or incremental in TI) feature is.

For some reason, it seems safer to me to (every time) do the FULL partition
backup cloning (or imaging), rather than RELY on any incremental technology
being able to keep proper track of ALL changes (with 100% certainity).

Of course, this method takes longer. Just to give you some idea, I have
about 20 GB of actual data (programs, data, windows, etc) on my 40 GB C:
partitition.

When I use True Image to make a backup image, it takes about 15 minutes (for
that 20 GB of actual data). (I am using a 1.6 GHz computer here, probably
considered a bit slow these days .

However, to restore it back to the source drive, takes almost an HOUR (but
that includes it first verifying the image, etc). And at the end, it
reboots, of course (since it's my Active partition. I presume it would
have to do the same using Casper).

I presume if I used Casper, it would take about the same time, UNLESS I used
the Smart Cloning bit, and *relied* on that. I'm curious about the total
time it would take however, if you have any rough ideas from your
experiences (either using or not using the Smart Cloning feature).

Thanks again,
Bill

 

[Anna]

But if I did that AND recloned it back (from the *external* USB backup
drive > back to the *internal* source drive), it would surely take more
than 3 minutes. Right? And that's the only way I would use the
program.

Something else I'm not sure about is: just how reliable relying
exclusively on the Smart Cloning (or incremental in TI) feature is.

For some reason, it seems safer to me to (every time) do the FULL
partition backup cloning (or imaging), rather than RELY on any incremental
technology being able to keep proper track of ALL changes (with 100%
certainity).

Of course, this method takes longer. Just to give you some idea, I have
about 20 GB of actual data (programs, data, windows, etc) on my 40 GB C:
partitition.

When I use True Image to make a backup image, it takes about 15 minutes
(for that 20 GB of actual data). (I am using a 1.6 GHz computer here,
probably considered a bit slow these days .

However, to restore it back to the source drive, takes almost an HOUR (but
that includes it first verifying the image, etc). And at the end, it
reboots, of course (since it's my Active partition. I presume it would
have to do the same using Casper).

I presume if I used Casper, it would take about the same time, UNLESS I
used the Smart Cloning bit, and *relied* on that. I'm curious about the
total time it would take however, if you have any rough ideas from your
experiences (either using or not using the Smart Cloning feature).

Thanks again,
Bill

Bill:
With respect to your first question re the cloning (or what you might call
the "re:cloning") of the contents of the USBEHD back to the internal HDD to
restore a dysfunctional HDD or return the system to its state at the time
the contents of that internal HDD was previously cloned to the USBEHD as a
backup of the system...

No, the amount of time that would be expended re that "re:cloning" process
would be similarly relatively slight in most cases. Naturally it would
depend upon when the USBEHD was the recipient of the cloned contents of the
internal HDD, i.e., how close to the time when the clone was created, and of
course the amount of data to be cloned.

Again, taking the kind of situation that you've indicated you frequently
engage in...

Let's say, for example, that you want to experiment with a program with
which you've had no experience to determine whether that program meets a
particular need. But because you're wisely cautious about installing and
working with that new untested program on your day-to-day working HDD you
want to back up your present system in the event things go awry after you've
installed that new program, or you find the program is unsuitable for your
needs and you don't want to leave the usual garbage/debris in your registry
or other parts of your system even after you've uninstalled the program. And
you & I know that frequently happens.

So you do the wise thing and, using Casper in this example, you back up your
system through the disk-cloning process to your USBEHD before installing
that new program. After working with that new program for a couple of days
or so you find yourself dissatisfied with it and want to return to the
previous state of your system before you installed the program. So you clone
the contents of the USBEHD back to the internal HDD. By & large, in the
example you've cited, it would probably take you a couple of minutes to do
so, most likely not much more than four minutes. In effect, the SmartClone
process will kick in.

Now as to the reliability of the SmartClone feature (in effect, an
"incremental" disk-cloning process that Casper incorporates in its
program)...

All I can tell you is that over the two years or so that we've been working
with Casper, and have personally used the program or participated with
others in using or observing the program -- involving hundreds of
disk-cloning operations, we've found it extraordinarily reliable. And that,
of course, includes its SmartClone feature. I won't say the program is
flawless, no program is or ever has been in my experience, but I can't
recall a single instance where use of the program resulted in a corruption
or loss of data. Simply stated, the program *always* seems to "work" without
problems. Of course I'm relating all this to an XP environment since my
experience with Vista is minimal. But I'm also aware of many Casper users
who work primarily or exclusively with Vista and they have reported the
program works just fine in that operating system.

Please bear in mind as I have tried to continually emphasize that this
"incremental" cloning feature results in a *complete* clone of the source
HDD. It's an integral part of the program and, as a practical matter, cannot
be separated from the program by the user. Understand that there is no user
option to select a "full clone" or an "incremental clone". A clone is a
clone is a clone. The SmartClone feature is completely integrated in the
program and thus always present when using the program. I trust I've made
that clear.
Anna

 

[Bill in Co.]

Bill:
With respect to your first question re the cloning (or what you might call
the "re:cloning") of the contents of the USBEHD back to the internal HDD
to
restore a dysfunctional HDD or return the system to its state at the time
the contents of that internal HDD was previously cloned to the USBEHD as a
backup of the system...

No, the amount of time that would be expended re that "re:cloning" process
would be similarly relatively slight in most cases. Naturally it would
depend upon when the USBEHD was the recipient of the cloned contents of
the
internal HDD, i.e., how close to the time when the clone was created, and
of
course the amount of data to be cloned.
OK.

Again, taking the kind of situation that you've indicated you frequently
engage in...

Let's say, for example, that you want to experiment with a program with
which you've had no experience to determine whether that program meets a
particular need. But because you're wisely cautious about installing and
working with that new untested program on your day-to-day working HDD you
want to back up your present system in the event things go awry after
you've
installed that new program, or you find the program is unsuitable for your
needs and you don't want to leave the usual garbage/debris in your
registry
or other parts of your system even after you've uninstalled the program.
And
you & I know that frequently happens.

Yup. But I probably don't test as many as you have (or have seen),
however.

But some of the larger programs I do try out are in the 30+ MB (exe)
installer sizes, which are often somewhat invasive (and generally the much
smaller ones, aren't).
For anything like this, if after I run try it out using a trial version, and
I don't want to keep it, I'll roll back using my backup, as I have learned
not to simply trust the uninstaller on all occasions (particularly these
larger software packages).

So you do the wise thing and, using Casper in this example, you back up
your
system through the disk-cloning process to your USBEHD before installing
that new program. After working with that new program for a couple of days
or so you find yourself dissatisfied with it and want to return to the
previous state of your system before you installed the program. So you
clone
the contents of the USBEHD back to the internal HDD. By & large, in the
example you've cited, it would probably take you a couple of minutes to do
so, most likely not much more than four minutes. In effect, the SmartClone
process will kick in.

Well, that IS quick. Sounds like a LOT quicker than one hour overall, too.

Now as to the reliability of the SmartClone feature (in effect, an
"incremental" disk-cloning process that Casper incorporates in its
program)...

All I can tell you is that over the two years or so that we've been
working
with Casper, and have personally used the program or participated with
others in using or observing the program -- involving hundreds of
disk-cloning operations, we've found it extraordinarily reliable. And
that,
of course, includes its SmartClone feature. I won't say the program is
flawless, no program is or ever has been in my experience, but I can't
recall a single instance where use of the program resulted in a corruption
or loss of data. Simply stated, the program *always* seems to "work"
without
problems. Of course I'm relating all this to an XP environment since my
experience with Vista is minimal. But I'm also aware of many Casper users
who work primarily or exclusively with Vista and they have reported the
program works just fine in that operating system.

I also take it that at least some of these users are also familiar with True
Image, and still prefer it (even if they were using it like I would - to
clone and then reclone back to the source drive after trying something out).

We may have already covered this, but, all this being said, when would YOU
prefer to use *imaging* instead of cloning (in this case, use TI instead of
Casper)? Can you think of any possible case or reason?

Please bear in mind as I have tried to continually emphasize that this
"incremental" cloning feature results in a *complete* clone of the source
HDD. It's an integral part of the program and, as a practical matter,
cannot
be separated from the program by the user. Understand that there is no
user
option to select a "full clone" or an "incremental clone". A clone is a
clone is a clone. The SmartClone feature is completely integrated in the
program and thus always present when using the program. I trust I've made
that clear.
Anna

I see. I didn't know the Smart Cloning was completely integrated.

So, that being said, then evidently the option of backing up the whole thing
afresh (as if it were brand new (i.e., without using Smart Cloning) is not
available, nor even needed, (from what you are saying). And we have to
trust that the program is smart enough to keep FULL track of ALL successive
incremental changes over time, with no lapses, whatsover. (Which seems a
bit amazing to me still (that it can be that foolproof, vs doing the whole
thing afresh, each time).

Well, as I said, I'm just accustomed to using Acronis True Image to always
write the complete backup images as completely new files (i.e., no
incrementals, etc, and often overwriting the previous ones to save disk
space).

But it sounds like Casper has a much quicker approach, as you've been
saying.

I still may try it! (I downloaded it before, version 4.0). Maybe
if I can take a break from trying out other things here.

I think they should sell Casper boxed WITH the program on a bootup restore
CD, like Acronis True Image, however. Of course, it's not too much work
to make one, I guess.

Bill

 

[Anna]

We may have already covered this, but, all this being said, when would YOU
prefer to use *imaging* instead of cloning (in this case, use TI instead
of Casper)? Can you think of any possible case or reason? (SNIP)
I think they should sell Casper boxed WITH the program on a bootup restore
CD, like Acronis True Image, however. Of course, it's not too much work
to make one, I guess.

Bill

Bill:
We rarely use the disk-imaging approach in our day-to-day backups. In
general, when we do use the disk-imaging approach (using Acronis True Image)
it's because of a rather unusual reason that most users would have no need
for.

We frequently have occasion to fresh install the XP OS for a variety of
users with different PCs. And in many instances also install various
programs on these machines. So we like to have copies of those particular
installations in case the user later has problems with the system. Also for
our own reference reasons. To that end the disk-imaging approach better
meets our needs rather than going the disk-cloning route, primarily because
the compression feature of disk-imaging allows us to "store" more different
systems on a multi-partitioned HDD. (We generally work with removable HDDs
so that we store the disk-images on an internal HDD).

Also, when a user is concerned with creating "generational" backups of his
or her system, i.e., individual comprehensive backups of their system at
various points in time, a disk-imaging program is generally considered to be
the program of choice, although depending upon the number of "generations"
desired by the user, the amount of data involved, and the size of the
"destination" HDD, that capability can also be accommodated by a
disk-cloning program such as Casper.

But when all is said & done, we recognize that many users are quite
comfortable with the disk-imaging approach rather than the disk-cloning
approach and simply do not wish to change.

I agree with your comment that the developer should offer a retail, boxed
version of the Casper program - one which, in effect, would include the
"Startup Disk" in the form of the bootable CD that contains the installation
program. Failing that, the "Startup Disk" CD should not be considered an
extra-cost option as it currently is. As I've previously indicated we have
complained to the developer about this since the Startup Disk is obviously
an essential piece of the program.
Anna

 

[Bill in Co.]

Bill:
We rarely use the disk-imaging approach in our day-to-day backups. In
general, when we do use the disk-imaging approach (using Acronis True
Image)
it's because of a rather unusual reason that most users would have no need
for.

We frequently have occasion to fresh install the XP OS for a variety of
users with different PCs. And in many instances also install various
programs on these machines. So we like to have copies of those particular
installations in case the user later has problems with the system. Also
for
our own reference reasons. To that end the disk-imaging approach better
meets our needs rather than going the disk-cloning route, primarily
because
the compression feature of disk-imaging allows us to "store" more
different
systems on a multi-partitioned HDD. (We generally work with removable HDDs
so that we store the disk-images on an internal HDD).

OK. And the assumption here is that the compressed image is significantly
smaller than the actual data, and that is the main reason in this case.
Although there may be another one come to think of it, mentioned below:

Also, when a user is concerned with creating "generational" backups of his
or her system, i.e., individual comprehensive backups of their system at
various points in time, a disk-imaging program is generally considered to
be
the program of choice, although depending upon the number of "generations"
desired by the user, the amount of data involved, and the size of the
"destination" HDD, that capability can also be accommodated by a
disk-cloning program such as Casper.

Right, so what's the big difference here, except that 1) the image is
somewhat smaller than a clone would be, and 2) perhaps it is easier to keep
track of several image files rather than keeping track of several different
clones - because each image just presents itself as a single file to manage,
and NOT the multitude of thousands of directories and files, as it really
is, via the cloning approach.

But when all is said & done, we recognize that many users are quite
comfortable with the disk-imaging approach rather than the disk-cloning
approach and simply do not wish to change.

Well, I'm still thinking about it, if I can get done with some other stuff
I'm messing with here first.

I agree with your comment that the developer should offer a retail, boxed
version of the Casper program - one which, in effect, would include the
"Startup Disk" in the form of the bootable CD that contains the
installation
program. Failing that, the "Startup Disk" CD should not be considered an
extra-cost option as it currently is.

Ooops, I forgot that. I thought you could roll your own CD. My mistake,
there.

 

[Anna]

(POSSIBLY DUPLICATE POST)

We may have already covered this, but, all this being said, when would YOU
prefer to use *imaging* instead of cloning (in this case, use TI instead
of Casper)? Can you think of any possible case or reason? (SNIP)
I think they should sell Casper boxed WITH the program on a bootup restore
CD, like Acronis True Image, however. Of course, it's not too much work
to make one, I guess.

Bill

Bill:
We rarely use the disk-imaging approach in our day-to-day backups. In
general, when we do use the disk-imaging approach (using Acronis True Image)
it's because of a rather unusual reason that most users would have no need
for.

We frequently have occasion to fresh install the XP OS for a variety of
users with different PCs. And in many instances also install various
programs on these machines. So we like to have copies of those particular
installations in case the user later has problems with the system. Also for
our own reference reasons. To that end the disk-imaging approach better
meets our needs rather than going the disk-cloning route, primarily because
the compression feature of disk-imaging allows us to "store" more different
systems on a multi-partitioned HDD. (We generally work with removable HDDs
so that we store the disk-images on an internal HDD).

Also, when a user is concerned with creating "generational" backups of his
or her system, i.e., individual comprehensive backups of their system at
various points in time, a disk-imaging program is generally considered to be
the program of choice, although depending upon the number of "generations"
desired by the user, the amount of data involved, and the size of the
"destination" HDD, that capability can also be accommodated by a
disk-cloning program such as Casper.

But when all is said & done, we recognize that many users are quite
comfortable with the disk-imaging approach rather than the disk-cloning
approach and simply do not wish to change.

I agree with your comment that the developer should offer a retail, boxed
version of the Casper program - one which, in effect, would include the
"Startup Disk" in the form of the bootable CD that contains the installation
program. Failing that, the "Startup Disk" CD should not be considered an
extra-cost option as it currently is. As I've previously indicated we have
complained to the developer about this since the Startup Disk is obviously
an essential piece of the program.
Anna

 

[Bill in Co.]

Yeah, this was a duplicate post. I guess you missed my last reply so I'll
repost it again.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Reposted for Anna (this was my most recent reply in case you missed it), and
updated a bit.

OK. And the assumption here is that the compressed image is significantly
smaller than the actual data, and that is the main reason in this case.

(In the case of True Image, I've found the image to be compressed down to
about 75% (or so) of the size of the actual data. IOW, reduced BY about
25%, or possibly 30%, in some cases)

Although there may be another one come to think of it, mentioned below:

Right, so what's the real big difference here, except that 1) the image is
*somewhat* smaller than a clone would be, and 2) perhaps it is easier to
keep
track of several image files rather than keeping track of several different
clones - because each image just "presents itself" as a single file to
manage,
and NOT the multitude of thousands of directories and files, as it really
is, as seen in the cloning approach.

Although come to think of it, maybe you can also just see and manage the
clones labeled as just Clone1, Clone2, etc - so that's easy to manage too.
(in which case there is no real difference in this vein)

Well, I'm still thinking about it, if I can get done with some other stuff
I'm messing with here first.

Actually, I took a few minutes out to give it a short test run, and (at
first glance) it looked a bit more user-friendly than True Image, and it
seemed to be pretty straightforward and "friendly" to use.

I did this between some other tests I was running on another drive, but then
later went back to my original backup. So I'll have to try it out more
thoroughly next time, and give it a real test.

 

[Bill Cook]

Wow. It looks like a lot of conversation has happened since I left for
vacation. Kind of confusing with the two Bills, too.

At any rate, this story has a happy ending. I'm now reunited with my files.

The problem ended up being that the disk was too full. Apparently a recent
security patch (or some recent podcast downloading by my son) pushed it over
the edge. You'd think that there'd be some safeguards built in to still
allow the system to boot (or some notification that this was the problem).

At least taking it in to the shop allowed this to be identified, got a
troublesome power switch replaced and got a power plug adapter to get power
into this new SATA drive via an older 'legacy' power connector in my existing
system. Cloning to the larger drive was sufficient to get past the problem.

I also now have a USB case and backup drive that I can (and will) use, and
some cloning/imaging software to do so. I'll look through the dialogue that
has transpired and will give Casper a try as well.

Thanks for your help,

Bill Cook