Re: Using Acronis Imaging Software with XP advice required.`
- From: NoStop <nostop@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:34:42 GMT
Anna wrote:
>> Anna wrote:
>>
>>> Samantha:
>>> For what it's worth, let me give you my recommendations based upon the
>>> experience I've had with various disk imaging programs, including
>>> Acronis True Image...
>>>
>>> 1. For all practical purposes, a disk imaging program such as ATI can
>>> "clone" the contents of one drive to another drive. So that the "cloned"
>>> drive is, in effect, a bit-for-bit copy of the source drive.
>
>
> "NoStop" <nostop@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Pzfte.1739715$Xk.90285@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Why do you prefer cloning the hard drive as opposed to making an image of
>> the hard drive? It seems to me that imaging would be better in that one
>> can
>> then make incremental backups of the hard drive being imaged, with the
>> result that backups are faster AND one can choose how far back to go when
>> restoring an image.
>>
>> Another advantage of doing a complete hard drive image is that if one
>> needs
>> to install a larger hard drive to replace a broken one, the image can be
>> restored to the new drive and TI will automatically expand the new
>> partitions to accomodate the new larger hard drive.
>>
>> Another advantage is one can designate the size of each image file, so
>> that
>> they can then be burned to CD or DVD and offer even more protection by
>> taking the CD/DVD offsite.
>>
>> And lastly the advantage of a drive image is that it can be done over a
>> LAN
>> to another computer.
>
>
> My reasons for preferring a direct disk-to-disk clone of one's working
> hard drive is basically two-fold...
> 1. It's a simple process.
As is making a disk image.
> 2. It's effective.
>
Unless of course your latest and one and only backup is a backup of your
hard disk that contains some serious problems. I still think incremental
backups are more effective as it gives one more options in terms of what
one wants to restore.
> The cloning process is relatively quick. Using Acronis True Image as an
> example, I've found data transfer speed to be in the order of 1.5 GB per
> minute using a medium-power processor and modern internal hard drives.
Not as quick as incremental backups after a full backup has taken place.
> (Cloning to a external HD takes somewhat longer). Thus, for the average
> user there's really little or no need to make incremental backups since
> it's a simple, straightforward, and relatively quick process for a user to
> simply clone the *entire* contents of his or her HD whenever he or she
> wants. This can be twice a day, daily, once a week, twice, a week, etc.
> etc. The process is simple and relatively quick.
>
And as I said, could leave one with a backup that one doesn't necessarily
want to have. For example, relying on your method could leave one with a
backup that contained a serius virus whereas using incremental backups
could give the user the option to possibly restore to a point previous to
the virus infection.
To each his own, but I felt it was necessary to tell the OP there are other
options when using TI and imho, a better option than the one you appear to
favour.
--
Get Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
"A must-have for your Toy Operating System"
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Need SP2 cd
- Next by Date: Re: Need SP2 cd
- Previous by thread: Re: Using Acronis Imaging Software with XP advice required.`
- Next by thread: Re: Using Acronis Imaging Software with XP advice required.`
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
