Anna said:
D. Currie:
Let us be clear about what we are discussing...
We're discussing a poster's query as to how he can transfer the contents
of a (presumably) failing laptop drive to another drive for backup
purposes and then after receiving another poster's recommendation that he
consider a disk imaging program to accomplish this, the OP muses over the
possibility of also using such an approach to backup his "other PCs".
I recommended that employing a disk imaging program such as the ones
mentioned to "clone" the contents of the laptop's drive to a USB/Firewire
external hard drive would be, in my view, an ideal way to achieve his
objective. And that furthermore, he would be well-served by using those
programs in a routine manner to establish & maintain a systematic backup
system for *all* of his PCs.
Contrary to your statements, the programs mentioned are relatively simple
to use and not beyond the skill of most personal computer users. Indeed, I
have taught 10 year olds how to effectively use the Ghost 2003 program to
clone hard drives in not much more time than their age in years. Is it
helpful for inexperienced users to have some guidance in this area? Of
course. Hopefully, that's the kind of help forums like this will provide.
As a matter of fact I indicated in a previous posting that if anyone
desires or is interested in step-by-step instructions in using the Ghost
2003 program, I would be pleased to post them.
I agree that the OP seems to have some experience, but I see no problem with
pointing out cautions and offering other suggestions. And while the software
is simple to use, it's also simple to make mistakes. I've seen
"professionals" accidentally copy the wrong partition or format the wrong
drive. It's one reason I purchased some expensive data retrieval software --
I can fix other people's mistakes.
The point we disagree on is the skills of "most" personal computer users. My
opinion of what the average personal computer user is comes from many years
in computer retail and service.
A small percentage of people that I knew from my business were the ones who
knew what they were doing, and came in for parts and supplies. Another small
percentage were people who were still learning, but willing to try to fix
things themselves. They would buy parts, then ask for advice on what to do
and how to do it. A larger percentage had enough knowledge to be dangerous.
These were people who more often than not messed things up more when trying
to install parts or do their own repairs. These people weren't afraid to
work on the computer, they just weren't very good at it yet. Eventually,
these people either got better or they gave up doing their own repairs, and
just paid for our serivce when needed.
The majority were people who came in for upgrades and repairs, and were more
than willing to pay for the service. They simply had no interest in
attempting their own repairs, and would never even consider opening the case
or installing parts. A small minority were able to to no more than operate
the computer in the way they had been taught. They used the computer with
the software that was originally installed, and they never patched, upgraded
or installed anything new. And they weren't about to deal with hardware
issues. Maybe in your area, users are more saavy, but in my experience, in
this area the average computer user simply wants to use the computer and
isn't very interested in simple maintenance, much less repairs.
I'm not saying that these people are stupid or incompetent, simply that the
majority had no interest in learning how to maintain their computers beyond
some very basic things. Many of my customers are professionals who have
small offices or home offices. For them, it's more cost effective to drop
the computer off by me to do the work a couple times a year than it is to
learn to do the work themselves and take time out of their workday to do the
work.
We are not talking about users repairing automobiles or undertaking auto
lubrication jobs where (in most cases) vehicle owners find it necessary or
more practical to let an "expert" perform the work.
It's interesting that you say that owners would find it necessary or more
practical to have a professional change the oil in a car (which was my
example) and that seems perfectly fine to you, but then you find it so hard
to believe that anyone would have trouble with disk cloning to the point
where calling a professional is "necessary or more practical." Perhaps it's
because you're more familiar with one than another. Changing the oil in a
car isn't difficult given the right tools. It can be messy, and you've got
to dispose of the oil properly, but it's not particularly mentally
challenging.
I state again - there is
simply no need for most PC users to engage the services of a computer
technician to perform a disk-to-disk copying function such as the one
we're discussing here.And surely the cost of having such work done every
time a user decided to backup his/her system would be outside the economic
reach of virtually every user, no?
That's assuming that these users are doing the backups. I agree that they
should, but most people don't. And while you think a disk-to-disk copy
operation is simple, I know plenty of people who couldn't identify which
piece is the hard drive. And they don't want to learn. They want to see the
correct things on the monitor, and that's that.
And frankly, there are a lot of things that people are willing to pay for
rather than do themselves. Paying someone to provide a service isn't
something terrible, it's simply a matter of where your priorities and
interests are. I'm willing to pay for oil changes, but I don't pay for
lawnmowing. I pay an accountant to do things that I could do, but it
something I hate doing.
Paying someone to do a daily backup would be insane, unless the backup
person was on the regular payroll. But that wasn't what I was suggesting.
Paying someone to do a one-time disk-to-disk cloning isn't unaffordable, and
for some people it would bring a lot of peace of mind having a professional
do the job.
You mention in a negative sense the additional cost a user would need to
spend for the software/hardware involved in this disk cloning process. For
the disk imaging software, external hard drive (or additional internal
HD), we're probably talking about an expenditure of about $100 - $150 and
possibly considerably less. Not a trivial amount, to be sure, but
certainly not outside the finances of most PC users I would think. And
this "equipment" would be used time & time again for routine backup
operations. It's certainly more economically feasible than continually
purchasing the services of a computer technician, would you not agree?
It's kind of hard to mention spending extra money in a positive sense, isn't
it? But, gee, I don't think I was being negative, I was just pointing out
that depending on the end goal, one option might be less costly than
another. Depends on that goal.
If somebody was actually going to do the backups, it would certainly make
more sense for them to learn how to do it themselves. But if this was a
one-time operation to replace a failing drive, then it's probably not cost
effective to buy the software and tools. And seriously, I know people who
wouldn't have a phillips-head screwdriver to remove the drive. Buying tools,
software, etc., for a one-time operation would seem a waste compared to
paying someone to do the work and then they wouldn't end up with those messy
tools and disks and boxes and whatnot lying around.
The OP certainly seems to have more use for the software, but posts on a
newsgroup reach more than the OP. I see nothing wrong with pointing out
options and pitfalls. People will choose to do what works for them.
Take for example a customer of mine who needed a backup strategy for his
business. This was a smart professional who used some pretty hearty
software, not some timid home user. I went over various options, and the
only thing that was acceptable was if I could come up with a backup that
would run automatically; this person could not even be bothered to click an
icon to start the backup -- it had to all run without any user input. Cost
was not a factor.
By creating a "clone" of one's day-to-day working HD, the user has at hand
an exact
copy of his/her operating system, registry settings, all their programs &
data -- in short *everything* that's on their source drive. What better
backup system can one have? And an added crucial advantage is where the
recipient of one's clone is another internal HD, that drive will be
bootable. (The USBEHD is not bootable in an
XP environment).
It's a fine backup routine.
Now, are there many computer users for whom this disk cloning process is
"overkill"? Of course. We are certainly aware that there are many, many
computer users who use their PCs for the most mundane & trivial tasks
(albeit important to them!) and have little or no interest in maintaining
a backup system. Obviously we're not trying to reach such persons. Just
the ones who seek knowledge in this area or raise plaintive calls for help
on newsgroups such as this one, as Mr. Starin did.
I'm not sure how you can say "obviously we're not trying to reach such
persons." Perhaps you aren't trying to reach them, but on my side, I realize
that a wide variety of people read these groups, and many of them will be
exactly the ones you've noted. If I add a note with a few cautions as to
what might go wrong, what to look out for, and what the options are, maybe
one of those "many many computer users" will consider all of their options
before jumping into something that they aren't ready to tackle.
There are plenty people who read this newsgroup who might not realize that
it could be very cost effective to have someone perform a task like this if
it's going to be a one-time occurence rather than something they'll
incorporate into their normal routine. How they choose to spend their money
is ultimately up to them.
My advice still stands - for a practical, near-failsafe backup system
that's relatively easy to use and effective in its results, users should
consider employing a disk imaging program for disk-to-disk cloning of
their hard drives.
Anna
It's great advice. I wish people would follow it. In reality, most won't,
which is why 98 percent of the computers that come in to me for repair have
no backups at all.
I'm done with this conversation. I really can't see why you found what I
said worth objecting to, but as I said, maybe where you are the mythical
"average computer user" is more interested in home computer repairs than the
ones I know.
