HDD Image Backup Restore Software Recommendations

[N. Miller]

I did not do anything..... sorry to disappoint you. Everything is the same as it always has been.

Used a different computer? Different Windows User Account? Different MSOE
Profile?

It is as Daave says, your posting headers show you shifting from
"Quoted-Printable" to "7bit", and then back. "Quoted-Printable" has a
horrendous wrap; your current post exceeds the common Usenet usage of 72 to
76 characters by 25 characters, or so (101 characters on a line, viewed in a
news reader which doesn't force a wrap you did not format, forces a reader
have to scroll left and right to view the entire message). MIME encoding
"None" is preferable to MIME encoding "Quoted-Printable".

 

[Pete B]

Yes, well, that method is essentially the same as invoking the BIOS during startup, and doing the same thing. Point is, again, there is only one physical boot device, whatever you select. All your procedure does is make it easy to get to the BIOS (wish the Intel BIOS was that easy to invoke). You are basically still just running software to do everythinbg after you have selected the boot device.

My experience was that, no matter which HDD you booted from, you could not see the non-boot HDD if it was configured with a primary Windows boot partition. But maybe the other steps suggested would bypass that.

 

[Pete B]

***I*** didn't do anything to my PC at all between the first post he complained about and the second one he said was OK. I think perhaps the problems/changes occur when you folks **read** the posts. Like I said, I never have seen anything like you describe at all in any of my posts here since I have been posting to newsgroups for years back.

 

[Daave]

Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:

Some of this matters to me since I have some apps expecting
certain drive letters). My source drive now has 4 partitions
(C, D, E, F), and my backup drive used to store images only has
one partition (G). (The E: and F: partitions are for (the rather
large) music and video files, respectively).

That seems to me to be a very convoluted partitioning system.

No, not really.

I beg to differ.

Data is data. I see no reason to segregate music, video, and
other data files.

The reason is simple. Let's say I have 40 GB of music data (on
E and 40 GB of video data (on F,

Let's also say I have 40 GB reserved for C: (with ALL programs,
apps, and data, EXCEPT for the large stuff above). (but
actually it comes to only 20 GB total for me in actual use, so I
only need to image or clone that amount).

Now let's say I want to make a system backup. I can image (or
clone) the C: partition (with about 20 GB in use) in very little
time, and restore it, if needbe.

Can you imagine how long it would take if I had ALL of the above
on C:?

Only your first image would take a very long time. Subsequent
*incremental* images wouldn't, though.

I don't use incremental images. I prefer making a fresh and
complete image, not one relying on incrementals at the time I decide
to make a backup. It doesn't take that long (10 minutes in my case,
for a completely new image)

Your choice, of course. But Acronis gives you this option, and you
can certainly take advantage of it if you choose to do so. It's easy
and you could even use one partition as was dicussed earlier.

That being said, I do see the value of keeping data separate from
your OS and apps.

Furthermore, it would make *much* more sense to have the following
scenario (if you are interested in minimizing imaging/restoring
time): C: would contain OS and apps *only*

D: would contain *all* your data -- large or small, doesn't matter

I disagree. I don't want my personal documents (which change
frequently) stored with my large music and video (which I rarely
need to backup).

That is your choice. But it's still easier to keep all your data
together.

Data can be backed up incrementally, too.

But the personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with
the respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C.

No, it doesn't. Data does not need to reside on the same partition as
your programs. This is part of the convoluted part! You only *think*
it needs to be there. And this leads to the other convoluted
part where your "apps [are] expecting certain drive letters." It
does *not* have to be this way! *That's* the convoluted part!

By "personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with the
respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C." I mean for
me. "Needs to be" is probably the wrong phrase - sorry.

What I was trying to say is that it's a bit foolish to try and save
JUST the programs on one partition, and all the programs
configuration and data (and the stuff in the \Program Files
directories, etc, by implication), on another.

But...

It is not foolish to have the OS and programs and associated
configurations on one partition and have the data (*any* data --
actually *all* data) on another partition. In fact, it is wise to do
just that. A usefeul backup strategy in this situation is to regularly
image the first partition and simply make sure the data in the other
partition is regularly backed up -- either by something as simple as
Windows Explorer (not my recommendation, but it would work) or a backup
program. Acronis backs up data nicely, and believe it or not, Windows's
own ntbackup does a decent job, too (assuming we're backing up to
another hard drive). And as mentioned earlier, these data backups can be
quick if done incrementally.

 

[Daave]

If that's the case, how come your header information has changed again?
Currently:

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You are doing something. I just don't know what it is!

 

[Daave]

Have a look, Pete:

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/4512/petebspost.jpg

What does yours look like?

Keep in mind your posts are the only ones that are problematic. We are
not doing anything different. It must be something in your settings.
That's not to say that I disagree with your assertion that you didn't do
anything. But something in your settings is awry.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:

Some of this matters to me since I have some apps expecting
certain drive letters). My source drive now has 4 partitions
(C, D, E, F), and my backup drive used to store images only has
one partition (G). (The E: and F: partitions are for (the rather
large) music and video files, respectively).

That seems to me to be a very convoluted partitioning system.

No, not really.

I beg to differ.

Data is data. I see no reason to segregate music, video, and
other data files.

The reason is simple. Let's say I have 40 GB of music data (on
E and 40 GB of video data (on F,

Let's also say I have 40 GB reserved for C: (with ALL programs,
apps, and data, EXCEPT for the large stuff above). (but
actually it comes to only 20 GB total for me in actual use, so I
only need to image or clone that amount).

Now let's say I want to make a system backup. I can image (or
clone) the C: partition (with about 20 GB in use) in very little
time, and restore it, if needbe.

Can you imagine how long it would take if I had ALL of the above
on C:?

Only your first image would take a very long time. Subsequent
*incremental* images wouldn't, though.

I don't use incremental images. I prefer making a fresh and
complete image, not one relying on incrementals at the time I decide
to make a backup. It doesn't take that long (10 minutes in my case,
for a completely new image)

Your choice, of course. But Acronis gives you this option, and you
can certainly take advantage of it if you choose to do so. It's easy
and you could even use one partition as was dicussed earlier.

That being said, I do see the value of keeping data separate from
your OS and apps.

Furthermore, it would make *much* more sense to have the following
scenario (if you are interested in minimizing imaging/restoring
time): C: would contain OS and apps *only*

D: would contain *all* your data -- large or small, doesn't matter

I disagree. I don't want my personal documents (which change
frequently) stored with my large music and video (which I rarely
need to backup).

That is your choice. But it's still easier to keep all your data
together.

Data can be backed up incrementally, too.

But the personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with
the respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C.

No, it doesn't. Data does not need to reside on the same partition as
your programs. This is part of the convoluted part! You only *think*
it needs to be there. And this leads to the other convoluted
part where your "apps [are] expecting certain drive letters." It
does *not* have to be this way! *That's* the convoluted part!

By "personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with the
respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C." I mean for
me. "Needs to be" is probably the wrong phrase - sorry.

What I was trying to say is that it's a bit foolish to try and save
JUST the programs on one partition, and all the programs
configuration and data (and the stuff in the \Program Files
directories, etc, by implication), on another.

But...

It is not foolish to have the OS and programs and associated
configurations on one partition and have the data (*any* data --
actually *all* data) on another partition. In fact, it is wise to do
just that. A useful backup strategy in this situation is to regularly
image the first partition and simply make sure the data in the other
partition is regularly backed up -- either by something as simple as
Windows Explorer (not my recommendation, but it would work) or a backup
program.

But why bother with needing to keep track of TWO operations like that?
That is, backing up the system AND then backing up the personal data.
That's TWO things to constantly need to keep track of in terms of updates,
and it's not necessary. More on that concept below...

Acronis backs up data nicely, and believe it or not, Windows's
own ntbackup does a decent job, too (assuming we're backing up to
another hard drive). And as mentioned earlier, these data backups can be
quick if done incrementally.

I still believe that word documents and the like are best saved on the C:
partition along with the system, since when I backup and restore that
partition, I get EVERYTHING backed up and/or restored in ONE convenient
operation. Just one. The whole enchilada, and it takes very little time.

What's the point in having to keep track of, and save and restore, two
separate partitions, one for programs and the other for data, when both
change so often and need to be routinely backed up? I don't want to be
bothered with having to keep track of both separately.

Another (but different) general point regarding partitioning is that when a
program is installed, it makes lots of entries into directories C:\Program
Files, C:\Application Data, C:\Windows, etc, and some people advocate only
storing windows and the operating system on one partition, and their
programs and data on another, which again makes little sense to me.

 

[bobster]

Bill,

Am I missing something here??

If one can clone a complete "C" drive to another internal or external
bootable "hot spare" HD in 6-8 minutes (after one or two "learning" passes
of 15-20 minutes each) using Casper 6 or other cloning agents, why all the
fuss about partial or incremental backups or multipartitioned drives? Why
bother with them when such complete disk clones can be scheduled and even
can be made while the computer is being used? 300+ gig HDs can be had for
about $40. If one has a computer that has a boot drive select option during
startup (like the F12 key in a Dell) rebooting into the hot spare is a 45
second operation. If your computer doesn't have such an option, entering
the BIOS at startup and temporarily re-ordering the start list to boot to
the hot spare is a pretty simple thing to do - 5 minutes at worst.

The times quoted are for my Dell 530 XP using Casper 6 as the cloning agent
with about 40 gigs of "stuff" on my 320 gig "C" drive. YMMV

==================================================================

Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:

Some of this matters to me since I have some apps expecting
certain drive letters). My source drive now has 4 partitions
(C, D, E, F), and my backup drive used to store images only has
one partition (G). (The E: and F: partitions are for (the rather
large) music and video files, respectively).

That seems to me to be a very convoluted partitioning system.

No, not really.

I beg to differ.

Data is data. I see no reason to segregate music, video, and
other data files.

The reason is simple. Let's say I have 40 GB of music data (on
E and 40 GB of video data (on F,

Let's also say I have 40 GB reserved for C: (with ALL programs,
apps, and data, EXCEPT for the large stuff above). (but
actually it comes to only 20 GB total for me in actual use, so I
only need to image or clone that amount).

Now let's say I want to make a system backup. I can image (or
clone) the C: partition (with about 20 GB in use) in very little
time, and restore it, if needbe.

Can you imagine how long it would take if I had ALL of the above
on C:?

Only your first image would take a very long time. Subsequent
*incremental* images wouldn't, though.

I don't use incremental images. I prefer making a fresh and
complete image, not one relying on incrementals at the time I decide
to make a backup. It doesn't take that long (10 minutes in my case,
for a completely new image)

Your choice, of course. But Acronis gives you this option, and you
can certainly take advantage of it if you choose to do so. It's easy
and you could even use one partition as was dicussed earlier.

That being said, I do see the value of keeping data separate from
your OS and apps.

Furthermore, it would make *much* more sense to have the following
scenario (if you are interested in minimizing imaging/restoring
time): C: would contain OS and apps *only*

D: would contain *all* your data -- large or small, doesn't matter

I disagree. I don't want my personal documents (which change
frequently) stored with my large music and video (which I rarely
need to backup).

That is your choice. But it's still easier to keep all your data
together.

Data can be backed up incrementally, too.

But the personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with
the respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C.

No, it doesn't. Data does not need to reside on the same partition as
your programs. This is part of the convoluted part! You only *think*
it needs to be there. And this leads to the other convoluted
part where your "apps [are] expecting certain drive letters." It
does *not* have to be this way! *That's* the convoluted part!

By "personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with the
respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C." I mean for
me. "Needs to be" is probably the wrong phrase - sorry.

What I was trying to say is that it's a bit foolish to try and save
JUST the programs on one partition, and all the programs
configuration and data (and the stuff in the \Program Files
directories, etc, by implication), on another.

But...

It is not foolish to have the OS and programs and associated
configurations on one partition and have the data (*any* data --
actually *all* data) on another partition. In fact, it is wise to do
just that. A useful backup strategy in this situation is to regularly
image the first partition and simply make sure the data in the other
partition is regularly backed up -- either by something as simple as
Windows Explorer (not my recommendation, but it would work) or a backup
program.

But why bother with needing to keep track of TWO operations like that?
That is, backing up the system AND then backing up the personal data.
That's TWO things to constantly need to keep track of in terms of updates,
and it's not necessary. More on that concept below...

Acronis backs up data nicely, and believe it or not, Windows's
own ntbackup does a decent job, too (assuming we're backing up to
another hard drive). And as mentioned earlier, these data backups can be
quick if done incrementally.

I still believe that word documents and the like are best saved on the C:
partition along with the system, since when I backup and restore that
partition, I get EVERYTHING backed up and/or restored in ONE convenient
operation. Just one. The whole enchilada, and it takes very little time.

What's the point in having to keep track of, and save and restore, two
separate partitions, one for programs and the other for data, when both
change so often and need to be routinely backed up? I don't want to be
bothered with having to keep track of both separately.

Another (but different) general point regarding partitioning is that when a
program is installed, it makes lots of entries into directories C:\Program
Files, C:\Application Data, C:\Windows, etc, and some people advocate only
storing windows and the operating system on one partition, and their
programs and data on another, which again makes little sense to me.

 

[Twayne]

In

Although my current desktop still has an A: floppy drive, I never use
it any more. But perhaps five or ten years ago, my computer had both
an A: floppy drive (3.5") and a B: (5.25"). The B: was there just in
case I ever needed to get something off an old 5.25" diskette I had
laying around.

So your point is well taken; very few people still have two diskette
drives. But you don't have to go back anywhere near as far as 1987 to
find computers like that.

And for Bobster: both the A: and B: drive letters are reserved for
floppy drives and can't be used for anything else.

Right.
In early XP, pre SP2, couldn't you still ask for drive B and get the floppy
to be B? I just tried it with SP3 and nope, no matter what I do it always
says it can't find the drive. Hmm, maybe it's a BIOS setting. Or I'm just
remembering the pre-XP days maybe but I don't think so.

Twayne

 

[Daave]

Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:

Some of this matters to me since I have some apps expecting
certain drive letters). My source drive now has 4 partitions
(C, D, E, F), and my backup drive used to store images only
has one partition (G). (The E: and F: partitions are for (the
rather large) music and video files, respectively).

That seems to me to be a very convoluted partitioning system.

No, not really.

I beg to differ.

Data is data. I see no reason to segregate music, video, and
other data files.

The reason is simple. Let's say I have 40 GB of music data (on
E and 40 GB of video data (on F,

Let's also say I have 40 GB reserved for C: (with ALL programs,
apps, and data, EXCEPT for the large stuff above). (but
actually it comes to only 20 GB total for me in actual use, so I
only need to image or clone that amount).

Now let's say I want to make a system backup. I can image (or
clone) the C: partition (with about 20 GB in use) in very little
time, and restore it, if needbe.

Can you imagine how long it would take if I had ALL of the above
on C:?

Only your first image would take a very long time. Subsequent
*incremental* images wouldn't, though.

I don't use incremental images. I prefer making a fresh and
complete image, not one relying on incrementals at the time I
decide to make a backup. It doesn't take that long (10 minutes
in my case, for a completely new image)

Your choice, of course. But Acronis gives you this option, and you
can certainly take advantage of it if you choose to do so. It's
easy and you could even use one partition as was dicussed earlier.

That being said, I do see the value of keeping data separate from
your OS and apps.

Furthermore, it would make *much* more sense to have the
following scenario (if you are interested in minimizing
imaging/restoring time): C: would contain OS and apps *only*

D: would contain *all* your data -- large or small, doesn't
matter

I disagree. I don't want my personal documents (which change
frequently) stored with my large music and video (which I rarely
need to backup).

That is your choice. But it's still easier to keep all your data
together.

Data can be backed up incrementally, too.

But the personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with
the respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C.

No, it doesn't. Data does not need to reside on the same partition
as your programs. This is part of the convoluted part! You only
*think* it needs to be there. And this leads to the other
convoluted part where your "apps [are] expecting certain drive
letters." It does *not* have to be this way! *That's* the
convoluted part!

By "personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with the
respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C." I mean for
me. "Needs to be" is probably the wrong phrase - sorry.

What I was trying to say is that it's a bit foolish to try and save
JUST the programs on one partition, and all the programs
configuration and data (and the stuff in the \Program Files
directories, etc, by implication), on another.

But...

It is not foolish to have the OS and programs and associated
configurations on one partition and have the data (*any* data --
actually *all* data) on another partition. In fact, it is wise to do
just that. A useful backup strategy in this situation is to regularly
image the first partition and simply make sure the data in the other
partition is regularly backed up -- either by something as simple as
Windows Explorer (not my recommendation, but it would work) or a
backup program.

But why bother with needing to keep track of TWO operations like that?
That is, backing up the system AND then backing up the personal data.
That's TWO things to constantly need to keep track of in terms of
updates, and it's not necessary. More on that concept below...

I never said it was necessary. You can easily keep everything on one
partition. Image everything. Then make incremental images. (Or clones,
for that matter. And because nothing is convoluted, the process is as
easy as pie.)

*You* are the one who said you like to have more than one partition. And
this is okay, too. Yes, it is an extra step to backup your data. But the
benefit is a much speedier image (and restore) of the OS/apps.

You seem to be using a hybrid approach which is messy. Granted, it gets
the job done, and I'm glad you do it. But it is not simple and elegant.
It is unnecessarily complex. There's nothing horrible about it. But by
your own admission, your apps seem to think partitions should have
certain designations. (Then again, I'm not sure why this would be the
case.)

I still believe that word documents and the like are best saved on
the C: partition along with the system, since when I backup and
restore that partition, I get EVERYTHING backed up and/or restored in
ONE convenient operation. Just one. The whole enchilada, and it
takes very little time.

The one partition method works, too. And incremental images (or Casper's
clones for that matter) don't take long.

What's the point in having to keep track of, and save and restore, two
separate partitions, one for programs and the other for data, when
both change so often and need to be routinely backed up? I don't
want to be bothered with having to keep track of both separately.

Again, this is an advantage to having only one partition. I can see more
than one partition, say if you are multibooting with Linux. But if your
goal is simplicity, and if you are not multi-booting, it doesn't get any
simpler than one partition.

And I still don't see why you need to segregate "rather large" music and
video files into separate partitions. Like I said, data is data.

Granted, your small amount of data like Word documents won't make your
imaging/restoring process that much longer. I'll even give you that. But
I fail to see the value in a music partition and a video partition.

Another (but different) general point regarding partitioning is that
when a program is installed, it makes lots of entries into
directories C:\Program Files, C:\Application Data, C:\Windows, etc,
and some people advocate only storing windows and the operating
system on one partition, and their programs and data on another,
which again makes little sense to me.

You're preaching to the choir, there, son. In fact, what you just
described in the paragraph above is *far* more convoluted than anything
you do.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Bill,

Am I missing something here??

Possibly. It depends on your viewpoints and personal preferences.

If one can clone a complete "C" drive to another internal or external
bootable "hot spare" HD in 6-8 minutes (after one or two "learning" passes
of 15-20 minutes each) using Casper 6 or other cloning agents, why all the
fuss about partial or incremental backups

I never do those.
But I do use imaging, to save several, different dated, system and program
backups on one backup drive, in one partition, and they are readily
accessible, if I want them. They're each in a separate backup image file.

or multipartitioned drives?

Because my other partitions are used to store large multimedia files that I
don't want or need to waste time routinely backing up, since most of the
time I'm messing around with the system and various software programs.

Why bother with them when such complete disk clones can be scheduled and
even
can be made while the computer is being used? 300+ gig HDs can be had for
about $40. If one has a computer that has a boot drive select option
during
startup (like the F12 key in a Dell) rebooting into the hot spare is a 45
second operation.

Actually, I rarely need to bother with that. If I want to fix my C: system
partition, I simply restore my image backup to it.

Granted, if the C: drive physically died, I'd have to change things around,
for at least that one time.

If your computer doesn't have such an option, entering
the BIOS at startup and temporarily re-ordering the start list to boot to
the hot spare is a pretty simple thing to do - 5 minutes at worst.

True. But my Dell does have that boot option, so no biggie even there.

The times quoted are for my Dell 530 XP using Casper 6 as the cloning
agent with about 40 gigs of "stuff" on my 320 gig "C" drive. YMMV

Well yeah, they most certainly would. For one thing, I'm only
using a somewhat older 1.6 GHz computer, so my times would be appreciably
larger.
But backing up and restoring my 20 GB of programs and data takes very little
time as it is, and each backup is a completely new and fresh backup image -
no incremental stuff, and no background monitoring stuff is going on before
or when I make the new image backup.

Consider a possibly potential case of where power goes out or the system
crashes as Casper (or any other such smart monitoring program) is updating
its system base info; who knows what the status of the next clone would be.
The way I'm doing it, I know for a fact that the only time the system is
being monitored is right at the time I make the new and fresh image, which
takes only 10 minutes here. I can wait 10 minutes for a new and fresh, and
completely independent of any previous activity shanangans, image backup.

=================================================

Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:

Some of this matters to me since I have some apps expecting
certain drive letters). My source drive now has 4 partitions
(C, D, E, F), and my backup drive used to store images only has
one partition (G). (The E: and F: partitions are for (the rather
large) music and video files, respectively).

That seems to me to be a very convoluted partitioning system.

No, not really.

I beg to differ.

Data is data. I see no reason to segregate music, video, and
other data files.

The reason is simple. Let's say I have 40 GB of music data (on
E and 40 GB of video data (on F,

Let's also say I have 40 GB reserved for C: (with ALL programs,
apps, and data, EXCEPT for the large stuff above). (but
actually it comes to only 20 GB total for me in actual use, so I
only need to image or clone that amount).

Now let's say I want to make a system backup. I can image (or
clone) the C: partition (with about 20 GB in use) in very little
time, and restore it, if needbe.

Can you imagine how long it would take if I had ALL of the above
on C:?

Only your first image would take a very long time. Subsequent
*incremental* images wouldn't, though.

I don't use incremental images. I prefer making a fresh and
complete image, not one relying on incrementals at the time I decide
to make a backup. It doesn't take that long (10 minutes in my case,
for a completely new image)

Your choice, of course. But Acronis gives you this option, and you
can certainly take advantage of it if you choose to do so. It's easy
and you could even use one partition as was dicussed earlier.

That being said, I do see the value of keeping data separate from
your OS and apps.

Furthermore, it would make *much* more sense to have the following
scenario (if you are interested in minimizing imaging/restoring
time): C: would contain OS and apps *only*

D: would contain *all* your data -- large or small, doesn't matter

I disagree. I don't want my personal documents (which change
frequently) stored with my large music and video (which I rarely
need to backup).

That is your choice. But it's still easier to keep all your data
together.

Data can be backed up incrementally, too.

But the personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with
the respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C.

No, it doesn't. Data does not need to reside on the same partition as
your programs. This is part of the convoluted part! You only *think*
it needs to be there. And this leads to the other convoluted
part where your "apps [are] expecting certain drive letters." It
does *not* have to be this way! *That's* the convoluted part!

By "personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with the
respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C." I mean for
me. "Needs to be" is probably the wrong phrase - sorry.

What I was trying to say is that it's a bit foolish to try and save
JUST the programs on one partition, and all the programs
configuration and data (and the stuff in the \Program Files
directories, etc, by implication), on another.

But...

It is not foolish to have the OS and programs and associated
configurations on one partition and have the data (*any* data --
actually *all* data) on another partition. In fact, it is wise to do
just that. A useful backup strategy in this situation is to regularly
image the first partition and simply make sure the data in the other
partition is regularly backed up -- either by something as simple as
Windows Explorer (not my recommendation, but it would work) or a backup
program.

But why bother with needing to keep track of TWO operations like that?
That is, backing up the system AND then backing up the personal data.
That's TWO things to constantly need to keep track of in terms of updates,
and it's not necessary. More on that concept below...

Acronis backs up data nicely, and believe it or not, Windows's
own ntbackup does a decent job, too (assuming we're backing up to
another hard drive). And as mentioned earlier, these data backups can be
quick if done incrementally.

I still believe that word documents and the like are best saved on the C:
partition along with the system, since when I backup and restore that
partition, I get EVERYTHING backed up and/or restored in ONE convenient
operation. Just one. The whole enchilada, and it takes very little
time.

What's the point in having to keep track of, and save and restore, two
separate partitions, one for programs and the other for data, when both
change so often and need to be routinely backed up? I don't want to be
bothered with having to keep track of both separately.

Another (but different) general point regarding partitioning is that when
a
program is installed, it makes lots of entries into directories C:\Program
Files, C:\Application Data, C:\Windows, etc, and some people advocate only
storing windows and the operating system on one partition, and their
programs and data on another, which again makes little sense to me.

 

[bobster]

Bill,

Whatever floats yer boat or, different strokes for different folks.
Individuality makes the world interesting.

Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Bob -- really_ here_ in Redmond

Bill,

Am I missing something here??

Possibly. It depends on your viewpoints and personal preferences.

If one can clone a complete "C" drive to another internal or external
bootable "hot spare" HD in 6-8 minutes (after one or two "learning" passes
of 15-20 minutes each) using Casper 6 or other cloning agents, why all the
fuss about partial or incremental backups

I never do those.
But I do use imaging, to save several, different dated, system and program
backups on one backup drive, in one partition, and they are readily
accessible, if I want them. They're each in a separate backup image file.

or multipartitioned drives?

Because my other partitions are used to store large multimedia files that I
don't want or need to waste time routinely backing up, since most of the
time I'm messing around with the system and various software programs.

Why bother with them when such complete disk clones can be scheduled and
even
can be made while the computer is being used? 300+ gig HDs can be had for
about $40. If one has a computer that has a boot drive select option
during
startup (like the F12 key in a Dell) rebooting into the hot spare is a 45
second operation.

Actually, I rarely need to bother with that. If I want to fix my C: system
partition, I simply restore my image backup to it.

Granted, if the C: drive physically died, I'd have to change things around,
for at least that one time.

If your computer doesn't have such an option, entering
the BIOS at startup and temporarily re-ordering the start list to boot to
the hot spare is a pretty simple thing to do - 5 minutes at worst.

True. But my Dell does have that boot option, so no biggie even there.

The times quoted are for my Dell 530 XP using Casper 6 as the cloning
agent with about 40 gigs of "stuff" on my 320 gig "C" drive. YMMV

Well yeah, they most certainly would. For one thing, I'm only
using a somewhat older 1.6 GHz computer, so my times would be appreciably
larger.
But backing up and restoring my 20 GB of programs and data takes very little
time as it is, and each backup is a completely new and fresh backup image -
no incremental stuff, and no background monitoring stuff is going on before
or when I make the new image backup.

Consider a possibly potential case of where power goes out or the system
crashes as Casper (or any other such smart monitoring program) is updating
its system base info; who knows what the status of the next clone would be.
The way I'm doing it, I know for a fact that the only time the system is
being monitored is right at the time I make the new and fresh image, which
takes only 10 minutes here. I can wait 10 minutes for a new and fresh, and
completely independent of any previous activity shanangans, image backup.

=================================================

Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:

Some of this matters to me since I have some apps expecting
certain drive letters). My source drive now has 4 partitions
(C, D, E, F), and my backup drive used to store images only has
one partition (G). (The E: and F: partitions are for (the rather
large) music and video files, respectively).

That seems to me to be a very convoluted partitioning system.

No, not really.

I beg to differ.

Data is data. I see no reason to segregate music, video, and
other data files.

The reason is simple. Let's say I have 40 GB of music data (on
E and 40 GB of video data (on F,

Let's also say I have 40 GB reserved for C: (with ALL programs,
apps, and data, EXCEPT for the large stuff above). (but
actually it comes to only 20 GB total for me in actual use, so I
only need to image or clone that amount).

Now let's say I want to make a system backup. I can image (or
clone) the C: partition (with about 20 GB in use) in very little
time, and restore it, if needbe.

Can you imagine how long it would take if I had ALL of the above
on C:?

Only your first image would take a very long time. Subsequent
*incremental* images wouldn't, though.

I don't use incremental images. I prefer making a fresh and
complete image, not one relying on incrementals at the time I decide
to make a backup. It doesn't take that long (10 minutes in my case,
for a completely new image)

Your choice, of course. But Acronis gives you this option, and you
can certainly take advantage of it if you choose to do so. It's easy
and you could even use one partition as was dicussed earlier.

That being said, I do see the value of keeping data separate from
your OS and apps.

Furthermore, it would make *much* more sense to have the following
scenario (if you are interested in minimizing imaging/restoring
time): C: would contain OS and apps *only*

D: would contain *all* your data -- large or small, doesn't matter

I disagree. I don't want my personal documents (which change
frequently) stored with my large music and video (which I rarely
need to backup).

That is your choice. But it's still easier to keep all your data
together.

Data can be backed up incrementally, too.

But the personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with
the respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C.

No, it doesn't. Data does not need to reside on the same partition as
your programs. This is part of the convoluted part! You only *think*
it needs to be there. And this leads to the other convoluted
part where your "apps [are] expecting certain drive letters." It
does *not* have to be this way! *That's* the convoluted part!

By "personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with the
respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C." I mean for
me. "Needs to be" is probably the wrong phrase - sorry.

What I was trying to say is that it's a bit foolish to try and save
JUST the programs on one partition, and all the programs
configuration and data (and the stuff in the \Program Files
directories, etc, by implication), on another.

But...

It is not foolish to have the OS and programs and associated
configurations on one partition and have the data (*any* data --
actually *all* data) on another partition. In fact, it is wise to do
just that. A useful backup strategy in this situation is to regularly
image the first partition and simply make sure the data in the other
partition is regularly backed up -- either by something as simple as
Windows Explorer (not my recommendation, but it would work) or a backup
program.

But why bother with needing to keep track of TWO operations like that?
That is, backing up the system AND then backing up the personal data.
That's TWO things to constantly need to keep track of in terms of updates,
and it's not necessary. More on that concept below...

Acronis backs up data nicely, and believe it or not, Windows's
own ntbackup does a decent job, too (assuming we're backing up to
another hard drive). And as mentioned earlier, these data backups can be
quick if done incrementally.

I still believe that word documents and the like are best saved on the C:
partition along with the system, since when I backup and restore that
partition, I get EVERYTHING backed up and/or restored in ONE convenient
operation. Just one. The whole enchilada, and it takes very little
time.

What's the point in having to keep track of, and save and restore, two
separate partitions, one for programs and the other for data, when both
change so often and need to be routinely backed up? I don't want to be
bothered with having to keep track of both separately.

Another (but different) general point regarding partitioning is that when
a
program is installed, it makes lots of entries into directories C:\Program
Files, C:\Application Data, C:\Windows, etc, and some people advocate only
storing windows and the operating system on one partition, and their
programs and data on another, which again makes little sense to me.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Bill,

Whatever floats yer boat or, different strokes for different folks.
Individuality makes the world interesting.

Exactly.

Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Bob -- really_ here_ in Redmond

Same to you, Bob.

Bill,

Am I missing something here??

Possibly. It depends on your viewpoints and personal preferences.

If one can clone a complete "C" drive to another internal or external
bootable "hot spare" HD in 6-8 minutes (after one or two "learning"
passes
of 15-20 minutes each) using Casper 6 or other cloning agents, why all
the
fuss about partial or incremental backups

I never do those.
But I do use imaging, to save several, different dated, system and program
backups on one backup drive, in one partition, and they are readily
accessible, if I want them. They're each in a separate backup image
file.

or multipartitioned drives?

Because my other partitions are used to store large multimedia files that
I
don't want or need to waste time routinely backing up, since most of the
time I'm messing around with the system and various software programs.

Why bother with them when such complete disk clones can be scheduled and
even
can be made while the computer is being used? 300+ gig HDs can be had
for
about $40. If one has a computer that has a boot drive select option
during
startup (like the F12 key in a Dell) rebooting into the hot spare is a 45
second operation.

Actually, I rarely need to bother with that. If I want to fix my C:
system
partition, I simply restore my image backup to it.

Granted, if the C: drive physically died, I'd have to change things
around,
for at least that one time.

If your computer doesn't have such an option, entering
the BIOS at startup and temporarily re-ordering the start list to boot to
the hot spare is a pretty simple thing to do - 5 minutes at worst.

True. But my Dell does have that boot option, so no biggie even there.

The times quoted are for my Dell 530 XP using Casper 6 as the cloning
agent with about 40 gigs of "stuff" on my 320 gig "C" drive. YMMV

Well yeah, they most certainly would. For one thing, I'm only
using a somewhat older 1.6 GHz computer, so my times would be appreciably
larger.
But backing up and restoring my 20 GB of programs and data takes very
little
time as it is, and each backup is a completely new and fresh backup
image -
no incremental stuff, and no background monitoring stuff is going on
before
or when I make the new image backup.

Consider a possibly potential case of where power goes out or the system
crashes as Casper (or any other such smart monitoring program) is updating
its system base info; who knows what the status of the next clone would
be.
The way I'm doing it, I know for a fact that the only time the system is
being monitored is right at the time I make the new and fresh image, which
takes only 10 minutes here. I can wait 10 minutes for a new and fresh,
and
completely independent of any previous activity shanangans, image backup.

=================================================

Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:
Daave wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote:

Some of this matters to me since I have some apps expecting
certain drive letters). My source drive now has 4 partitions
(C, D, E, F), and my backup drive used to store images only has
one partition (G). (The E: and F: partitions are for (the rather
large) music and video files, respectively).

That seems to me to be a very convoluted partitioning system.

No, not really.

I beg to differ.

Data is data. I see no reason to segregate music, video, and
other data files.

The reason is simple. Let's say I have 40 GB of music data (on
E and 40 GB of video data (on F,

Let's also say I have 40 GB reserved for C: (with ALL programs,
apps, and data, EXCEPT for the large stuff above). (but
actually it comes to only 20 GB total for me in actual use, so I
only need to image or clone that amount).

Now let's say I want to make a system backup. I can image (or
clone) the C: partition (with about 20 GB in use) in very little
time, and restore it, if needbe.

Can you imagine how long it would take if I had ALL of the above
on C:?

Only your first image would take a very long time. Subsequent
*incremental* images wouldn't, though.

I don't use incremental images. I prefer making a fresh and
complete image, not one relying on incrementals at the time I decide
to make a backup. It doesn't take that long (10 minutes in my case,
for a completely new image)

Your choice, of course. But Acronis gives you this option, and you
can certainly take advantage of it if you choose to do so. It's easy
and you could even use one partition as was dicussed earlier.

That being said, I do see the value of keeping data separate from
your OS and apps.

Furthermore, it would make *much* more sense to have the following
scenario (if you are interested in minimizing imaging/restoring
time): C: would contain OS and apps *only*

D: would contain *all* your data -- large or small, doesn't matter

I disagree. I don't want my personal documents (which change
frequently) stored with my large music and video (which I rarely
need to backup).

That is your choice. But it's still easier to keep all your data
together.

Data can be backed up incrementally, too.

But the personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with
the respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C.

No, it doesn't. Data does not need to reside on the same partition as
your programs. This is part of the convoluted part! You only *think*
it needs to be there. And this leads to the other convoluted
part where your "apps [are] expecting certain drive letters." It
does *not* have to be this way! *That's* the convoluted part!

By "personal data needs to be saved and/or restored along with the
respective programs, and it is, in my case (all on C." I mean for
me. "Needs to be" is probably the wrong phrase - sorry.

What I was trying to say is that it's a bit foolish to try and save
JUST the programs on one partition, and all the programs
configuration and data (and the stuff in the \Program Files
directories, etc, by implication), on another.

But...

It is not foolish to have the OS and programs and associated
configurations on one partition and have the data (*any* data --
actually *all* data) on another partition. In fact, it is wise to do
just that. A useful backup strategy in this situation is to regularly
image the first partition and simply make sure the data in the other
partition is regularly backed up -- either by something as simple as
Windows Explorer (not my recommendation, but it would work) or a backup
program.

But why bother with needing to keep track of TWO operations like that?
That is, backing up the system AND then backing up the personal data.
That's TWO things to constantly need to keep track of in terms of
updates,
and it's not necessary. More on that concept below...

Acronis backs up data nicely, and believe it or not, Windows's
own ntbackup does a decent job, too (assuming we're backing up to
another hard drive). And as mentioned earlier, these data backups can be
quick if done incrementally.

I still believe that word documents and the like are best saved on the C:
partition along with the system, since when I backup and restore that
partition, I get EVERYTHING backed up and/or restored in ONE convenient
operation. Just one. The whole enchilada, and it takes very little
time.

What's the point in having to keep track of, and save and restore, two
separate partitions, one for programs and the other for data, when both
change so often and need to be routinely backed up? I don't want to be
bothered with having to keep track of both separately.

Another (but different) general point regarding partitioning is that when
a
program is installed, it makes lots of entries into directories
C:\Program
Files, C:\Application Data, C:\Windows, etc, and some people advocate
only
storing windows and the operating system on one partition, and their
programs and data on another, which again makes little sense to me.

 

[Mike Easter]

If that's the case, how come your header information has changed

again?

Pete should not be configured to post with OE's QP; in order to play
nicely in an environment with various newsreaders which aren't all OE.

Its wrapping is handled differently by different versions of OE and by
different newsreaders. At its 'best' - interacting with other versions
of OE - QP 'nicely' wraps to the window; at its worst, QP doesn't wrap
at all

In addition, how it behaves in replies depends on which newsreader it is
replying to. Old versions of OE (such as I'm using here) didn't have
format-flowed, which Pete's and Daave's versions have.

Daave is right in his advice to Pete about how to configure the
plaintext:

Tools/ Options/ Send/ NewsSending - Plaintext settings/ check MIME -
select None for the encoding, not QP and automaticially wrap somewhere
around 74.

The thread has posters with Tbird and 40tude besides the OEs.

 

[Pete B]

I do not currently have a second HDD, but I am saving your post permanently for reference if I have to install one, since it sounds very easy. I assume it works with IDE drives? I don;t know much about the various types of HDD drives other than their relative speeds and such, I don't even know if my system could use SATA devices or anything other than IDE and USB.

Thanks all for all the good advice.

 

[Daave]

Thanks for chiming in, Mike.

I wonder why one of his posts had QP turned off when he said he hadn't
changed anything, though.

 

[DrTeeth]

Any ideas/comments welcome....

You need a free piece of software that I would not be without. It is
also very fast indeed and will do what you ask other than the p2p bit.
You need Copywipe from
www.terabytes.comhttp://www.terabyteunlimited.com/copywipe.php.
--

Cheers

DrT

**Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year; and may your God go with you**

 

[DrTeeth]

You need Copywipe from
www.terabytes.comhttp://www.terabyteunlimited.com/copywipe.php.

Sorry for the typo, should be
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/copywipe.php
--

Cheers

DrT

**Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year; and may your God go with you**

 

[DrTeeth]

You need Copywipe from
www.terabytes.comhttp://www.terabyteunlimited.com/copywipe.php.

Sorry for the typo, should be
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/copywipe.php
--

Cheers

DrT

**Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year; and may your God go with you**

 

[Mike Easter]

Thanks for chiming in, Mike.

I wonder why one of his posts had QP turned off when he said he hadn't
changed anything, though.

Since he is acting in a noncompliant manner, I don't necessarily accept
everything he says as fact. It is possible he may have accidentally or
purposely changed something^1 and then changed it back because he
doesn't like it and he wants to (outwardly) choose to take the tack that
he didn't change anything either time.

But in order to research the alternative, IMO it would be too much
trouble to investigate whether it is possible for certain combinations
of replies (OE QP to OE f=f to OE QP) to cause a change in this^1 header
combination.

To me, it is most logical to assume that it^1 was changed and then
changed back, rather than by some magical chemical reaction between
reply sequences.

In a group in which the preferred style is top posting, I don't see
where QP vs f=f format=flowed actually makes very much difference. The
lack of context and trimming seen with top posting and untrimmed
bottomposting is a much bigger problem in the sphere of 'communication'
than how the lines wrap.


^1 Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

to

Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="Windows-1252";
reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit