C
Char Jackson
I wondered if someone besides me would notice and capitalize on that.I've never seen it said with such pride before.
Well said, as usual.
I wondered if someone besides me would notice and capitalize on that.I've never seen it said with such pride before.
It was fair and very reasonable comment and on the contrary shows humility.Stan Brown said:I've never seen it said with such pride before.
If anything your thoughts show humility to give him the benefit. Hisblank said:It was fair and very reasonable comment and on the contrary shows
humility.
When I responded to his accusation that no one had been able to use Acronis"I have zero interest in one-upmanship with anybody. I could be wrong a
zillion times in a row and that isn't important to me. What is important to
me is the truth comes out by somebody. Who exactly I frankly don't care."
Thanks. The line was not originally mine, but was adapted from anI wondered if someone besides me would notice and capitalize on that.
Well said, as usual.
If you don't use USB external hard drives, you will never see thisChar said:Agreed, that's the usual approach.
It's not that often that I can find something to agree with you on,
but I agree that backups should be tested. Until you do, you're really
gambling that they'll work when needed.
Having said that, I've never had an Acronis failure in any version of
the program that I've used, going back to about 2003. Have I just been
lucky? The primary reason I've stayed with it this long is that it
just works.
Most people don't make backups period. I know. But I also admit someNot quite. Cloning is equally reliable, not far more reliable, and
cloning does an equal job, not a far better job. The claim that it
takes less time (to restore) is probably valid, but it takes more
drives. That's a very expensive trade-off, one most people wouldn't
make.
May I offer a better solution than Acronis?Hi, folks! I've got TI Home 2011, and you've seen me posting some of
my beefs with it. It does the basic job, but it's confusing and
annoying to use.
Here's the $20 question: Is TI 2012 enough better to make it worth
spending on the upgrade? For one thing, is it faster? For another,
is the user interface better? Could any of you who have upgraded
from 2011 to 2012 share whether you think it was a good move or not,
and why? $20 for the upgrade isn't that much to spend, these days,
but I'd rather not go through the upgrade exercise without some
reason to believe it will actually be better. We all know by now
that "it's newer, so it must be better" is a fallacy.
Anybody wants to comment on *Paragon*? What's it like? I am moreMay I offer a better solution than Acronis?
Get the free Macrium Reflect imaging software and you will never go back
to Acronis. The paid version of Macrium has every bell & whistle you
could want, I am still on the free version.
I used Acronis for a few years and hated it even though it could be made
to work as I wanted. Macrium just works, no BS.
Wilby
I installed a 2nd HDD in my PC and also used (free) Macrium Reflect toAnybody wants to comment on *Paragon*? What's it like? I am more
interested in cloning a disk or rather partition (where I keep my OS and
programs) that will enable me to just to swap the HD (in my case if my
C:\ HD gives up the ghost one day) rather than making a single-file
backup of it, and just carry on as if nothing had happened just by
connecting the normally backing up HD as my master HD and disconnecting
the faulty HD.
I back up my user files regularly or rather copy them to an external
hard disk which I find far more practical as this enables me to access
any file instantly, some of them xcopied of xxcopied from my now retired
though not quite defunct desktops.
I understand that making a single file backup of say the C:\ drive does
not guarantee that you will be able to get it up and running again as
things can go wrong. But a cloned drive, as I understand it, is less of
a hassle to get going.
-- choro
I have lots of experience with Paragon products. And they have lots ofchoro said:Anybody wants to comment on *Paragon*? What's it like?
I've used many different backup methods. And by far the best is cloning.I am more interested in cloning a disk or rather partition (where I
keep my OS and programs) that will enable me to just to swap the HD
(in my case if my C:\ HD gives up the ghost one day) rather than
making a single-file backup of it, and just carry on as if nothing had
happened just by connecting the normally backing up HD as my master HD
and disconnecting the faulty HD.
I back up my user files regularly or rather copy them to an external
hard disk which I find far more practical as this enables me to access
any file instantly, some of them xcopied of xxcopied from my now
retired though not quite defunct desktops.
I understand that making a single file backup of say the C:\ drive
does not guarantee that you will be able to get it up and running
again as things can go wrong. But a cloned drive, as I understand it,
is less of a hassle to get going.
-- choro
That's interesting to know, because that's exactly what I intend to do.I installed a 2nd HDD in my PC and also used (free) Macrium Reflect to
clone it. I then checked it by unplugging my main drive and booted. It
worked like a charm but every month or so when I clone it, I always
check it.
I haven't found a cloning program that didn't work, so if your choiceWhat I am thinking of is to open up the old machine, pull out the unused
unconnected 2 TB HD and install it in my Win 7 machine and use that HD,
or rather a partition on it, to clone the C:\ partition on my Win 7
machine where I keep just the OS + my installed programs.
I wouldn't expect the xxcopy "clone" to be bootable since it's notBut in
the meantime I was wondering whether XXcopy cloning the C:\ drive or
rather partition could do the job too? And why not? Though I understand
that the OS has got certain folders and files that are not visible at
all and which would NOT therefore get XXcopied. Hence, if this is the
case, the project would not work.
The only special procedure I'm aware of is to avoid Win 7's HomegroupTrouble with having a mix of Win 7 and Win XP machines is that I will
have to reset up the network which is very easy if you have all Win 7
machines though it does tend to get a bit more complicated and requires
a special procedure for a mix of Windows machines. But there is a HOW TO
page on the internet which I have noted somewhere and saved as a file on
my HD -- IF I can find it, that is! :-(
I can't believe RealPlayer is still around, (RM content died out atAnd BTW, don't waste your money on the paid version of RealPlayer. There
are freebies and other software for far less that will do the job
better. I couldn't even install it on my laptop after installing it on
my desktop. Presumably they will want more $$$ to let me install it on a
second machine which is ridiculous as nowadays even MS Office you can
install on 3 machines with just one home license now. Ridiculous!
I no longer check every backup because over time I've built a certainThe reason why I say backups are less reliable are for many reasons. One
is you don't know if each one is reliable until you actually go through
all of the trouble to restore. And most won't do it.
Since the first days of Norton Ghost, all the way till now, backupPlus the majority
of backup software stores the backups in a proprietary format. Thus if
something goes wrong with the backup software, you can't restore
anything. When cloning, you have access to everything.
I remain unconvinced, but like I said, I'm glad your way works forAnd if you dig deep enough on Acronis website. They tell you if you
update your build, older build backups might not restore. I sure hate to
learn this after the fact. And after doing this stuff for years, I've
found that archived backups isn't that hot of an idea. Although cloned
drives are very reliable for many reasons.
I use Casper with Win 7 and XP on internal and external USB connectedAnybody wants to comment on *Paragon*? What's it like? I am more
interested in cloning a disk or rather partition (where I keep my OS and
programs) that will enable me to just to swap the HD (in my case if my
C:\ HD gives up the ghost one day) rather than making a single-file
backup of it, and just carry on as if nothing had happened just by
connecting the normally backing up HD as my master HD and disconnecting
the faulty HD.
I back up my user files regularly or rather copy them to an external
hard disk which I find far more practical as this enables me to access
any file instantly, some of them xcopied of xxcopied from my now retired
though not quite defunct desktops.
I understand that making a single file backup of say the C:\ drive does
not guarantee that you will be able to get it up and running again as
things can go wrong. But a cloned drive, as I understand it, is less of
a hassle to get going.
-- choro
Actually, I haven't found that to be the case. Starting with WindowsChar Jackson said:Remember to disconnect the clone once
the cloning operation is complete. Windows doesn't like having two
drives pretending to be system drives at the same time, or at least
that's the impression I have.
Cool, that's good to know. I've had trouble in the past when I'veActually, I haven't found that to be the case. Starting with Windows
XP at least, it doesn't seem to care. We use a setup with two
internal drives and clone the primary drive to the secondary
automatically on a regular basis and Windows doesn't complain at all.
If the primary dies, it can be disconnected (or in some cases, just
disabled in the BIOS) and we can boot to the secondary. Note that
this isn't a backup strategy, we keep regular rotated and off-site
backups as well, it is more of a recovery method in the event of a
primary drive failure. Our software also monitors the secondary drive
availability so if it fails it can be replaced.
I guess I'd have to see it to understand what might be happeningChar Jackson said:Cool, that's good to know. I've had trouble in the past when I've
slaved a Windows system drive into a running system, but in those
cases the two system drives weren't clones. Windows would get all
confused, running some programs from one drive and others from the
second drive. With a clone, I guess it would be transparent.
I go along with you re RealPlayer. It is not too bad but definitely notI wouldn't expect the xxcopy "clone" to be bootable since it's not
really a clone. Not a big deal if you're prepared for it, but what
else did xxcopy skip? One wonders.
The only special procedure I'm aware of is to avoid Win 7's Homegroup
feature when dealing with a mix of Win 7 and previous Windows
versions. Beyond that, it's pretty easy and straightforward. Holler if
you get stuck.
I can't believe RealPlayer is still around, (RM content died out at
least a decade ago), and that they have the balls to charge for their
player when RealPlayer Alternative is free and works better. On top of
that, you say they bundled a crappy download manager, as well? You
could have done a lot better by going with FreeDownloadManager, which
of course is free, and is as good or better than any paid DM. You can
get it at www.freedownloadmanager.org.
Re: Casper for cloningI use Casper with Win 7 and XP on internal and external USB connected
drive enclosures.
I love it. Simply love it.
Agreed. You'd think that would be how it works.I guess I'd have to see it to understand what might be happening
there, but it seems odd that Windows would behave that way since
everything is based on drive letters.
It's not a drive letter issue. Windows seems to scan the second systemOn the other hand, if you left
a drive in the system after cloning and hadn't had one in there
before, it might change your drive letters and cause mayhem - we start
with the two drives and force the drive letters so that isn't an issue
for us.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.