External Hard drive

[BillW50]

In M.I.5¾ typed on Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:01:07 +0100:

Ho hum. Data Backup (select files/folders) and occasionally Disk
Utilities are the other two that I use.

I am glad you like them. Although I don't see the point after you do a
full backup anyway. And I don't backup my data per se anyway. I sync
them with SyncBack (free). Maybe someday I will see some value of the
full version, but I don't see it yet. As the WD Edition is very easy to
backup and restore. The full version you have to fill in so much extra
stuff just to make it to work for each time you use it. For example, why
does it need to know your user name and password for? The WD Edition
doesn't play these kind of games.

 

[BillW50]

In SC Tom typed on Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:41:53 -0400:

I concur 100%. I have an external WD I use for backups, and had a real
problem doing a restore from Drive Image XML (the freebie). I
downloaded TrueImage for WD today, created the boot CD, backed up my
C: drive, replaced the C: with another hard drive, and restored it,
all in about 2-1/2 hours. The replacement drive booted up with
absolutely no problems. Amazing! TrueImage is my new best friend, and
it's free!! I highly recommend it.
SC Tom

I am glad you like it Tom. It is indeed a jewel out there. <vbg>

 

[Roy Smith]

In M.I.5¾ typed on Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:01:07 +0100:

I am glad you like them. Although I don't see the point after you do a
full backup anyway. And I don't backup my data per se anyway. I sync
them with SyncBack (free). Maybe someday I will see some value of the
full version, but I don't see it yet. As the WD Edition is very easy to
backup and restore. The full version you have to fill in so much extra
stuff just to make it to work for each time you use it. For example, why
does it need to know your user name and password for? The WD Edition
doesn't play these kind of games.

The reason why it asks for a username and password is because you can
schedule a backup to occur at a specific time. It asks for that so that
when the scheduled time for the backup arrives, it can logon using your
username and password to perform the task regardless if you are logged
on or not. Now I agree with you that it's pointless to ask for a
username and password when you click the Backup button from the main screen.

 

[M.I.5¾]

In M.I.5¾ typed on Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:01:07 +0100:

I am glad you like them. Although I don't see the point after you do a
full backup anyway. And I don't backup my data per se anyway. I sync them
with SyncBack (free). Maybe someday I will see some value of the full
version, but I don't see it yet. As the WD Edition is very easy to backup
and restore. The full version you have to fill in so much extra stuff just
to make it to work for each time you use it. For example, why does it need
to know your user name and password for? The WD Edition doesn't play these
kind of games.

I have never had to provide my TrueImage with any username or password or
anything else when I use it. It just fires up and works.

 

[BillW50]

In M.I.5¾ typed on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:07:20 +0100:

I have never had to provide my TrueImage with any username or
password or anything else when I use it. It just fires up and works.

It does if you schedule it. Even if you run it once like right now.

And I almost posted a message yesterday how Acronis True Image
Incremental backups were taking as much room as full backups were. But I
did more testing and this is true if the full backup was done with a
different build number. Although using the same build number it is okay.
Sad isn't it?

 

[Teflon]

I recommend Acronis True Image.

You also might like to read this article on backup I recently wrote:
"Back Up Your Computer Regularly and Reliably" athttp://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=314

Ken,

I appreciate your responses in my post, 'Backups versus Images', have
gone the ATI route per your recommendation in this thread and the
reports of others in my post, plus I read your article - good stuff.
However, I still have some confusion.

In this, or another thread, I seem to recall you (perhaps it was
someone else), making an observation that using ATI to back up data
files was a lot of useless bother - overkill. Yet, in reading all of
these threads about backing up stuff, it seems the terms 'Backups' and
'Images' keep getting used interchangeably and have become nearly
synonymous. 'Clones' are still 'Clones' - to most folks.

So, how does a data file 'Backup' produced with Syncback (as an
example) or a simple copy/paste, differ from an 'Image' produced by
ATI or Ghost? And why is one better (or worse) than the other for
backing up data files that only change when new data items are added
to the file, like songs, pictures, etc, and not revisions, like
documents, financial data, spreadsheets, etc.?

Thanks Ken, hate to be a bother.

 

[BillW50]

In
Teflon typed on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:31:49 -0700 (PDT):

Ken,

I appreciate your responses in my post, 'Backups versus Images', have
gone the ATI route per your recommendation in this thread and the
reports of others in my post, plus I read your article - good stuff.
However, I still have some confusion.

I am not Ken, but did you get the ATI free versions? Or did you pay for
the paid version?

In this, or another thread, I seem to recall you (perhaps it was
someone else), making an observation that using ATI to back up data
files was a lot of useless bother - overkill. Yet, in reading all of
these threads about backing up stuff, it seems the terms 'Backups' and
'Images' keep getting used interchangeably and have become nearly
synonymous. 'Clones' are still 'Clones' - to most folks.

So, how does a data file 'Backup' produced with Syncback (as an
example) or a simple copy/paste, differ from an 'Image' produced by
ATI or Ghost? And why is one better (or worse) than the other for
backing up data files that only change when new data items are added
to the file, like songs, pictures, etc, and not revisions, like
documents, financial data, spreadsheets, etc.?

Thanks Ken, hate to be a bother.

Here are the answers to some of your questions until Ken response.

ATI backup files are only useful if you have ATI. Otherwise nothing else
can use them. The advantage? It uses less space like about half of the
space then copying the files and folders manually or by SyncBack.
Although a compressed folder (ZIP) can save as much space too.

By the way, this method doesn't normally work for files that are in use.
Most data files are not, but most of the system files are. So bad choice
if you want to backup system files. A boot CD can copy them all though.
Well some boot CDs can anyway.

Ghost files is the same deal as ATI files. Smaller foot print and only
useful with Ghost up and running. Do you have Ghost? If so, you really
don't need ATI. Does basically the same thing, but a different company
and not compatible with one another.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken,

I appreciate your responses in my post, 'Backups versus Images', have
gone the ATI route per your recommendation in this thread and the
reports of others in my post, plus I read your article - good stuff.
However, I still have some confusion.

In this, or another thread, I seem to recall you (perhaps it was
someone else), making an observation that using ATI to back up data
files was a lot of useless bother - overkill.

It wasn't me. I like Acronis True Image better than any other such
program I've trued, and I recommend it.

Yet, in reading all of
these threads about backing up stuff, it seems the terms 'Backups' and
'Images' keep getting used interchangeably and have become nearly
synonymous. 'Clones' are still 'Clones' - to most folks.

You're likely get different opinions from different folks, but here's
mine: images and clones are both *types* of backups.

 

[Teflon]

InTeflon typed on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:31:49 -0700 (PDT):



I am not Ken, but did you get the ATI free versions? Or did you pay for
the paid version?

Since I have a WD External HDD, I got the WD Edition. Funny, I have
an older 'FREE' version of ATI - V7.0, and the size of the downloaded
install package for it is 22MB. The download for the WD Edition was
123GB. And it is a 'stripped-down' version? Wonder how big the 'full-
boat' version is? Unfortunately, was not able to get the V7.0 edition
to run on XP, but hoping to use it on a 98SE machine to first create a
backup image, then a clone when I free up a HD so I can upgrade the
98SE HD.

Here are the answers to some of your questions until Ken response.

ATI backup files are only useful if you have ATI. Otherwise nothing else
can use them. The advantage? It uses less space like about half of the
space then copying the files and folders manually or by SyncBack.
Although a compressed folder (ZIP) can save as much space too.

Thanks, I decided to use ATI to make an image of the C: drive and an
associated service partion. That went well. Verified the image.
Will repeat after each major update, install or addition to the C:
drive.

Will use ATI to create an image of the external HDD that holds all app
data on a periodic basis. Maybe once a month.

Will use SyncBack to back up the media HD's, which I keep adding items
to. SyncBack seems to have the ability to insert new items in the
exisitng backup, versus creating a series of intermediate backups.

By the way, this method doesn't normally work for files that are in use.
Most data files are not, but most of the system files are. So bad choice
if you want to backup system files. A boot CD can copy them all though.
Well some boot CDs can anyway.

Which method are you talking about in the above comments?

Ghost files is the same deal as ATI files. Smaller foot print and only
useful with Ghost up and running. Do you have Ghost? If so, you really
don't need ATI. Does basically the same thing, but a different company
and not compatible with one another.

I have Ghost 10.0. May fire it up just to see how it differs from
ATI. I would suspect for my minimal needs, they are about the same.

Anyway, I am now backed up and totally recoverable (hopefully).

Bill, thanks for your comments.

 

[Teflon]

It wasn't me. I like Acronis True Image better than any other such
program I've trued, and I recommend it.

You're likely get different opinions from different folks, but here's
mine: images and clones are both *types* of backups.

Thanks for clearing that up Ken - "What did he say, Ollie?"
JK, Thanks.

 

[Unknown]

Did you spend your entire IBM career in San Francisco?

It wasn't me. I like Acronis True Image better than any other such
program I've trued, and I recommend it.

You're likely get different opinions from different folks, but here's
mine: images and clones are both *types* of backups.

Thanks for clearing that up Ken - "What did he say, Ollie?"
JK, Thanks.

 

[BillW50]

In
Teflon typed on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:40:29 -0700 (PDT):

In,

Since I have a WD External HDD, I got the WD Edition. Funny, I have
an older 'FREE' version of ATI - V7.0, and the size of the downloaded
install package for it is 22MB. The download for the WD Edition was
123GB. And it is a 'stripped-down' version? Wonder how big the
'full- boat' version is?

Believe it or not, it is about the same size with more features. lol

Unfortunately, was not able to get the V7.0
edition to run on XP, but hoping to use it on a 98SE machine to first
create a backup image, then a clone when I free up a HD so I can
upgrade the 98SE HD.

Sounds good to me.

Thanks, I decided to use ATI to make an image of the C: drive and an
associated service partion. That went well. Verified the image.
Will repeat after each major update, install or addition to the C:
drive.

Will use ATI to create an image of the external HDD that holds all app
data on a periodic basis. Maybe once a month.

Will use SyncBack to back up the media HD's, which I keep adding items
to. SyncBack seems to have the ability to insert new items in the
exisitng backup, versus creating a series of intermediate backups.

Yes true.

Which method are you talking about in the above comments?

Backup programs like Acronis True Image, Paragon, Ghost, etc. can backup
everything. Explorer (file manager), SyncBack (free version), etc. can't
backup files that something like the OS or applications are using at the
time.

I have Ghost 10.0. May fire it up just to see how it differs from
ATI. I would suspect for my minimal needs, they are about the same.

Anyway, I am now backed up and totally recoverable (hopefully).

Good deal!

Bill, thanks for your comments.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

 

[SC Tom]

InTeflon typed on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:31:49 -0700 (PDT):



I am not Ken, but did you get the ATI free versions? Or did you pay for
the paid version?

***************************
Since I have a WD External HDD, I got the WD Edition. Funny, I have
an older 'FREE' version of ATI - V7.0, and the size of the downloaded
install package for it is 22MB. The download for the WD Edition was
123GB. And it is a 'stripped-down' version? Wonder how big the 'full-

I assume you meant 123MB?
***************************



boat' version is? Unfortunately, was not able to get the V7.0 edition
to run on XP, but hoping to use it on a 98SE machine to first create a
backup image, then a clone when I free up a HD so I can upgrade the
98SE HD.

Here are the answers to some of your questions until Ken response.

ATI backup files are only useful if you have ATI. Otherwise nothing else
can use them. The advantage? It uses less space like about half of the
space then copying the files and folders manually or by SyncBack.
Although a compressed folder (ZIP) can save as much space too.

Thanks, I decided to use ATI to make an image of the C: drive and an
associated service partion. That went well. Verified the image.
Will repeat after each major update, install or addition to the C:
drive.

Will use ATI to create an image of the external HDD that holds all app
data on a periodic basis. Maybe once a month.

Will use SyncBack to back up the media HD's, which I keep adding items
to. SyncBack seems to have the ability to insert new items in the
exisitng backup, versus creating a series of intermediate backups.

By the way, this method doesn't normally work for files that are in use.
Most data files are not, but most of the system files are. So bad choice
if you want to backup system files. A boot CD can copy them all though.
Well some boot CDs can anyway.

Which method are you talking about in the above comments?

Ghost files is the same deal as ATI files. Smaller foot print and only
useful with Ghost up and running. Do you have Ghost? If so, you really
don't need ATI. Does basically the same thing, but a different company
and not compatible with one another.

I have Ghost 10.0. May fire it up just to see how it differs from
ATI. I would suspect for my minimal needs, they are about the same.

Anyway, I am now backed up and totally recoverable (hopefully).

Bill, thanks for your comments.