Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Using Acronis Imaging Software with XP advice required.`

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
June 19, 2005 12:01:50 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi,

I have been reading the forums and I have noticed a few guys here are using
Acronis software to backup their windows XP systems.

I have a question concerning this.

If I make an Acronis backup copy of my freshly installed XP, and after this
at some point in the future get a virus.

How reliable is this kind of "image" with regard to using it to replace and
save doing a manual installation of windows XP.

I am basically installing a copy of the original version, does this in
anyway "increase the chances of errrors" .

Assume that I had my Acronis image verified by the Acronis software.

So is this as good as the real thing? Or is it to be used only as a
temporary emergency.

How do other people use this "images of installations" and how much can you
trust them to be accurate. Then what happens if you make a backup of that
backup, then essentially you are making copies of copies of copies each time
you back it up.

Is this allways as good as the original method of manually doing an
installation from the Windows XP CD? This method seems almost to good to be
true, so I am fishing around to see how others use this Acronis imaging
system?

It would save me absolutely hours of work reinstalling everything if it
truly can be relied upon to be as good as the original installation.

All advice greatly appreciated and all experiences welcomed.

Thankyou for reading my queries
Samantha
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:01:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <d91r30$vs0$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Sam <sam@privatemail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have been reading the forums and I have noticed a few guys here are using
>Acronis software to backup their windows XP systems.
>
>I have a question concerning this.
>
>If I make an Acronis backup copy of my freshly installed XP, and after this
>at some point in the future get a virus.
>
>How reliable is this kind of "image" with regard to using it to replace and
>save doing a manual installation of windows XP.
>


If you do a full restore you're booting a CD that was created when you
installed TI and which contians only Acronics software and runs Linux
which means that it is imposible for the boot CD to have or catch a
virus.

If you restore from an image that doesn't have a virus, you're OK.


>I am basically installing a copy of the original version, does this in
>anyway "increase the chances of errrors" .
>
>Assume that I had my Acronis image verified by the Acronis software.
>
>So is this as good as the real thing? Or is it to be used only as a
>temporary emergency.
>
>How do other people use this "images of installations" and how much can you
>trust them to be accurate. Then what happens if you make a backup of that
>backup, then essentially you are making copies of copies of copies each time
>you back it up.
>
>Is this allways as good as the original method of manually doing an
>installation from the Windows XP CD? This method seems almost to good to be
>true, so I am fishing around to see how others use this Acronis imaging
>system?
>

I don't you mean by copies of copies...

Always do a verify/readback aif an image fter a backup to make sure
it's readable.

If possible, test the recovery preceedure in as realistic a way as
possible. The best case is on a new system. Install the OS, install
the backup software, make an image backup and attempt to to do a bare
iron recovery. Unless you've tested a bare iron recovery you never
know for sure if your plan will work.

I like and use TI. I've revered a couple systems after disk crashes
with it.






--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:01:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

The first thing you need to understand is the only correct way to save
an image is to another drive. What good is it going to be if your drive
crashes and the image was on that drive. Drives are cheap compared to
the time it takes to reinstall Windows and all software.

Second you have to make an image of the entire drive (all partitions) to
guarantee it will boot. It seems True Image only saves the MBR (Master
boot record) when imaging the entire drive. If you restored the image to
the same drive the operating system is on (because of something like a
virus) you could probably get away with just an image of the Windows
partition.

I have tested True Image twice. I made an image to a second drive and
restored the image to a totally different drive and it was perfect.
Everything exactly like the original.
Related resources
June 19, 2005 12:01:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Sam" <sam@privatemail.com> wrote in message
news:D 91r30$vs0$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> I have been reading the forums and I have noticed a few guys here are
> using Acronis software to backup their windows XP systems.
>
> I have a question concerning this.
>
> If I make an Acronis backup copy of my freshly installed XP, and after
> this at some point in the future get a virus.
>
> How reliable is this kind of "image" with regard to using it to replace
> and save doing a manual installation of windows XP.
>
> I am basically installing a copy of the original version, does this in
> anyway "increase the chances of errrors" .
>
> Assume that I had my Acronis image verified by the Acronis software.
>
> So is this as good as the real thing? Or is it to be used only as a
> temporary emergency.
>
> How do other people use this "images of installations" and how much can
> you trust them to be accurate. Then what happens if you make a backup of
> that backup, then essentially you are making copies of copies of copies
> each time you back it up.
>
> Is this allways as good as the original method of manually doing an
> installation from the Windows XP CD? This method seems almost to good to
> be true, so I am fishing around to see how others use this Acronis imaging
> system?
>
> It would save me absolutely hours of work reinstalling everything if it
> truly can be relied upon to be as good as the original installation.
>
> All advice greatly appreciated and all experiences welcomed.
>
> Thankyou for reading my queries
> Samantha

Samantha later adds...
I was asking the question with concerns about the "accuracy and
quality of the backup",
I am storing it on a separate partition on one drive, however, this can be
stored away from the computer if you get my point.
I am only concerned with how accurate the backup copy is and how complete
this is compared to a proper installation of
Windows.

Eg. can this be used as a complete windows installation or is it lacking in
some way? This is the essence of the question I am trying to find an answer
to.

Is (an image of the entire drive) needed? I have one disc, but I have four
partitions and an operating
system on one drive only. It is that drive I am concerned with.

Hi Rob, this is exactly what I plan to do. I was allways under the
impression that when you transfer digital media it is allways perfect. I
plan to back it up on DVDR media or CDR media
whichever has the biggest storage capacity.

I have sometimes copied things to my CDR's only to find that somehow
something went wrong. So I guess my question is how can I be certain
that the image is 100% accuarate. Is there any danger that sometimes an
image can "verify ok" but then suddenly turn out to be not good.

Eg. for example a few times in the past I backed up email onto a CDR and
thought it was OK, then later when I formatted my drive and went to
"reinstall" the digital media backed up on the CDR only to find that there
was something wrong with it.

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.
2. If you clone your day-to-day working HD to another *internal* HD, that
destination drive will be an exact copy (for all practical purposes) of your
working drive. As such, it is bootable just like the source drive.
3. In my view you should use the Acronis program (or other disk imaging
program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost) to make a disk-to-disk clone to
either another internal drive or a USB/Firewire external HD. It's about as
ideal a backup system the average user can use. There's really no need to
create disk images on removable media such as CD/DVDs where your exclusive
interest is creating a near failsafe backup system. The advice you received
from Rod Williams about using another drive to make a disk image, i.e.,
clone, of your working drive is sound in my view.
4. The advantage of cloning your working drive to a external HD is that the
external drive is detached from your machine which naturally affords another
layer of security. The disadvantage is that the external HD with the cloned
copy of your working drive is *not* bootable. However, you can clone the
contents of the external HD *back* to your internal drive for restoration
purposes.
5. Even where you have multiple partitions on your working drive, it's a
comparatively simple matter to make a disk-to-disk copy (clone) of that
drive, rather than cloning individual partitions.

I've probably cloned drives more than a thousand times over the years. In so
doing I've found this process a ideal system for backing up one's HD. The
process is simple, straightforward, and effective. Up to recently I've used
the Norton Ghost program, however, I've recently been using the Acronis
program which by & large performs just about the same. Its advantage,
however, over the Ghost program is its speed of cloning. It's considerably
faster.

If you need further details, please so indicate.
Anna
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:01:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:D 91r30$vs0$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk,
Sam <sam@privatemail.com> typed:

> I have been reading the forums and I have noticed a few guys
> here are
> using Acronis software to backup their windows XP systems.
>
> I have a question concerning this.
>
> If I make an Acronis backup copy of my freshly installed XP,
> and
> after this at some point in the future get a virus.
>
> How reliable is this kind of "image" with regard to using it to
> replace and save doing a manual installation of windows XP.
>
> I am basically installing a copy of the original version, does
> this in
> anyway "increase the chances of errrors" .
>
> Assume that I had my Acronis image verified by the Acronis
> software.
>
> So is this as good as the real thing? Or is it to be used only
> as a
> temporary emergency.


I have four comments for you:

1. Practice safe computing, use a good anti-virus program, use a
firewall, install and use several good anti-spyware programs,
keep all of these programs current, don't open executable
attachments, and your chances of getting a virus or other malware
will be small.

2. If you get a virus, you should use a virus removal tool to get
rid of it. Reinstalling Windows or restoring a backup is almost
always severe overkill.

3. That said, the Acronis backup should be fine.

4. If the backup is made immediately after installing Windows,
you will save very little by restoring the backup instead of
reinstalling Windows. Installing Windows doesn't take much time
or effort to do. What takes the time and effort is installing all
the applications, installing all their updates, setting their
customization options the way you like them, restoring your data
backups, etc.

It doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
June 19, 2005 12:01:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Ken Blake wrote:

> 3. That said, the Acronis backup should be fine.

It should be MORE THAN FINE.

I've used GHOST for years, and more recently I paid for a registered
version and used IMAGE FOR WINDOWS.

NEITHER of these can compare to Acronis True Image in flexibility and
ease of use.

PERIOD.

I regularly use Acronis True Image to clone my boot drive to an
internal slave drive and to create images of my boot drive to an
external USB drive.

I have my Acronis Boot CD at the ready to take care of whatever might
happen in the event of a catastrophe.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:01:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"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.
> 2. If you clone your day-to-day working HD to another *internal* HD, that
> destination drive will be an exact copy (for all practical purposes) of your
> working drive. As such, it is bootable just like the source drive.
> 3. In my view you should use the Acronis program (or other disk imaging
> program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost) to make a disk-to-disk clone to
> either another internal drive or a USB/Firewire external HD. It's about as
> ideal a backup system the average user can use. There's really no need to
> create disk images on removable media such as CD/DVDs where your exclusive
> interest is creating a near failsafe backup system. The advice you received
> from Rod Williams about using another drive to make a disk image, i.e.,
> clone, of your working drive is sound in my view.
> 4. The advantage of cloning your working drive to a external HD is that the
> external drive is detached from your machine which naturally affords another
> layer of security. The disadvantage is that the external HD with the cloned
> copy of your working drive is *not* bootable. However, you can clone the
> contents of the external HD *back* to your internal drive for restoration
> purposes.
> 5. Even where you have multiple partitions on your working drive, it's a
> comparatively simple matter to make a disk-to-disk copy (clone) of that
> drive, rather than cloning individual partitions.
>
> I've probably cloned drives more than a thousand times over the years. In so
> doing I've found this process a ideal system for backing up one's HD. The
> process is simple, straightforward, and effective. Up to recently I've used
> the Norton Ghost program, however, I've recently been using the Acronis
> program which by & large performs just about the same. Its advantage,
> however, over the Ghost program is its speed of cloning. It's considerably
> faster.
>
> If you need further details, please so indicate.
> Anna
>
Hello, Thank You for your post.
Need some information concerning Acronis True Image v8.0 "cloning".
Have a external firewire drive single partition 40gb fat32. Would like to
clone my single partition 120gb ntfs drive (17gb used space) to the external
drive. Wiil the external drive need fat32 changed to ntfs?
What method of transfer do you reccommend? Automatic or Manual.
Partition transfer method? As Is, Proportional, or Manual.
Will use the external drive only for the clone image.
Thank You again for the information already supplied.
beamish.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:01:53 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"=?Utf-8?B?YmVhbWlzaA==?=" <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:BDC34DC4-2CF5-4E8C-89BA-D2CA8539EDAE@microsoft.com:
>>
> Hello, Thank You for your post.
> Need some information concerning Acronis True Image v8.0 "cloning".
> Have a external firewire drive single partition 40gb fat32. Would like
> to clone my single partition 120gb ntfs drive (17gb used space) to the
> external drive.

> Wiil the external drive need fat32 changed to ntfs?

That depends on what you end up doing. TI can make a backup image file of
a partition or it can clone a partition. There's a difference. An image
file will need to be restored before it can be used. The newly cloned
disk is ready to use as is. If you make an image file then it doesn't
matter how the target partition is formatted, the file is written to the
disk the same as any other file is.

On the other hand, if you clone the source partition then TI will
"format" the target partition to be the same as the source partition,
after all that's what cloning is.

One other thing to be aware of. If you create an image file of say, a
FAT32 partition, and then later restore it. I believe TI will only
restore it as a FAT32 partition. In other words if you try restore this
file to an NTFS partion TI will either change the NTFS to FAT32 or carve
out a new FAT32 partition from space in the NTFS partition.( You'll have
a restored FAT32 partition and smaller NTFS partition.) Vice Versa
applies.

This is based on my experience - YMMV.



> What method of transfer do you reccommend? Automatic or Manual.

I do a complete manual backup once a month and an automatic incremental
backup every night. I'm sure others will tell you something different.

> Partition transfer method? As Is, Proportional, or Manual.
> Will use the external drive only for the clone image.
> Thank You again for the information already supplied.
> beamish.

I currently use TI to backup all 5 of my FAT32 partitions to a USB drive
formatted in NTFS. Have also done a number of restores. So far everything
works as advertised.

David
June 19, 2005 12:22:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 91rlo$8s$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <d91r30$vs0$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Sam <sam@privatemail.com> wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>I have been reading the forums and I have noticed a few guys here are
>>using
>>Acronis software to backup their windows XP systems.
>>
>>I have a question concerning this.
>>
>>If I make an Acronis backup copy of my freshly installed XP, and after
>>this
>>at some point in the future get a virus.
>>
>>How reliable is this kind of "image" with regard to using it to replace
>>and
>>save doing a manual installation of windows XP.
>>
>
>
> If you do a full restore you're booting a CD that was created when you
> installed TI and which contians only Acronics software and runs Linux
> which means that it is imposible for the boot CD to have or catch a
> virus.
>
> If you restore from an image that doesn't have a virus, you're OK.
>
>
>>I am basically installing a copy of the original version, does this in
>>anyway "increase the chances of errrors" .
>>
>>Assume that I had my Acronis image verified by the Acronis software.
>>
>>So is this as good as the real thing? Or is it to be used only as a
>>temporary emergency.
>>
>>How do other people use this "images of installations" and how much can
>>you
>>trust them to be accurate. Then what happens if you make a backup of that
>>backup, then essentially you are making copies of copies of copies each
>>time
>>you back it up.
>>
>>Is this allways as good as the original method of manually doing an
>>installation from the Windows XP CD? This method seems almost to good to
>>be
>>true, so I am fishing around to see how others use this Acronis imaging
>>system?
>>
>
> I don't you mean by copies of copies...

Ok let me explain. When you do an "Acronis" backing and create an image you
are therefore creating an Image eg. "copy" of your original
installation. So when you "restore that image" then proceed and perhaps
update something or do an update then "back that up again" you are
essentially
making a copy of a copy. I hope that explains it more clearly.

>
> Always do a verify/readback aif an image fter a backup to make sure
> it's readable.

Yes that was what I was meaning, I was asking if after having done this
and it is a positive "non error" result, then can this image allways be
relied upon to be as good as the original version/installation?
>
> If possible, test the recovery preceedure in as realistic a way as
> possible. The best case is on a new system. Install the OS, install
> the backup software, make an image backup and attempt to to do a bare
> iron recovery. Unless you've tested a bare iron recovery you never
> know for sure if your plan will work.

What do you mean by "new system" Do you mean brand knew computer or fresh
installation on a reformatted partition?

>
> I like and use TI. I've revered a couple systems after disk crashes
> with it.

What does TI mean? Do you use it as a temporary medium or do you use it as
you would have used the original windows installation.

Many Thanks for your help.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
>
> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
June 19, 2005 12:49:53 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:0J_se.15552$qr1.8924@trndny07...
> The first thing you need to understand is the only correct way to save an
> image is to another drive.

Hi Rod, I was asking the question with concerns about the "accuracy and
quality of the backup",
I am storing it on a separate partition on one drive, however, this can be
stored away from the computer if you get my point.
I am only concerned with how accurate the backup copy is and how complete
this is compared to a proper installation of
Windows.

Eg. can this be used as a complete windows installation or is it lacking in
some way? This is the essence of the question I am trying to find an answer
to.

What good is it going to be if your drive crashes and the image was on
that drive. Drives are cheap compared to
> the time it takes to reinstall Windows and all software.

Point taken!
>
> Second you have to make an image of the entire drive (all partitions) to
> guarantee it will boot

Is this needed? I have one disc, but I have four partitions and an operating
system on one drive only. It is that drive I am concerned with.


>
> I have tested True Image twice. I made an image to a second drive and
> restored the image to a totally different drive and it was perfect.
> Everything exactly like the original.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:49:54 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <d91tt6$pcg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Sam <sam@privatemail.com> wrote:
>
>"Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:0J_se.15552$qr1.8924@trndny07...
>> The first thing you need to understand is the only correct way to save an
>> image is to another drive.
>
>Hi Rod, I was asking the question with concerns about the "accuracy and
>quality of the backup",
>I am storing it on a separate partition on one drive, however, this can be
>stored away from the computer if you get my point.
>I am only concerned with how accurate the backup copy is and how complete
>this is compared to a proper installation of
>Windows.
>



The backup is an exact copy of your disk.

You need to test your recovery proceedure if you are to have
confidence in it working when you need it. For starters, do a
readback of the backup image often enough to know that everything is
working. With disk-to-disk backups this is less of an issue. If you
ever switch to CDR/DVDR media it is a BIG issue. IMO.

At the very least, do an image backup then boot the recovery CD and
browse to the backup image and do a readback to make sure it's OK.
That test lots of hardware compatibility stuff.

I recommend printing ut the manual. Put the PDF on a CDR aand take it
to Kinkos. They print and bind at a fair price. It might be too late
when your system is dead.





--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
June 19, 2005 1:06:14 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 91ua6$cen$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <d91tt6$pcg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Sam <sam@privatemail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>"Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>news:0J_se.15552$qr1.8924@trndny07...
>>> The first thing you need to understand is the only correct way to save
>>> an
>>> image is to another drive.
>>
>>Hi Rod, I was asking the question with concerns about the "accuracy and
>>quality of the backup",
>>I am storing it on a separate partition on one drive, however, this can be
>>stored away from the computer if you get my point.
>>I am only concerned with how accurate the backup copy is and how complete
>>this is compared to a proper installation of
>>Windows.
>>
>
>
>
> The backup is an exact copy of your disk.
>
> You need to test your recovery proceedure if you are to have
> confidence in it working when you need it. For starters, do a
> readback of the backup image often enough to know that everything is
> working. With disk-to-disk backups this is less of an issue. If you
> ever switch to CDR/DVDR media it is a BIG issue. IMO.

Hi Rob, this is exactly what I plan to do. I was allways under the
impression that when you transfer digital
media it is allways perfect. I plan to back it up on DVDR media or CDR media
whichever has the biggest storage
capacity.

I have sometimes copied things to my CDR's only to find that somehow
something went wrong. So I guess my question is how can I be certain
that the image is 100% accuarate. Is there any danger that sometimes an
image can "verify ok" but then suddenly turn out to be not good.

Eg. for example a few times in the past I backed up email onto a CDR and
thought it was OK, then later when I formatted my drive and went to
"reinstall" the digital media backed up on the CDR only to find that there
was something wrong with it.
>
> At the very least, do an image backup then boot the recovery CD and
> browse to the backup image and do a readback to make sure it's OK.
> That test lots of hardware compatibility stuff.
>
> I recommend printing ut the manual. Put the PDF on a CDR aand take it
> to Kinkos. They print and bind at a fair price. It might be too late
> when your system is dead.

Thanks for valuable input. It builds confidence just talking to other users.
I have actually heard many good things about this software.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
>
> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 1:06:15 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <d91urs$9lh$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Sam <sam@privatemail.com> wrote:
>
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:D 91ua6$cen$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <d91tt6$pcg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Sam <sam@privatemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>>news:0J_se.15552$qr1.8924@trndny07...
>>>> The first thing you need to understand is the only correct way to save
>>>> an
>>>> image is to another drive.
>>>
>>>Hi Rod, I was asking the question with concerns about the "accuracy and
>>>quality of the backup",
>>>I am storing it on a separate partition on one drive, however, this can be
>>>stored away from the computer if you get my point.
>>>I am only concerned with how accurate the backup copy is and how complete
>>>this is compared to a proper installation of
>>>Windows.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The backup is an exact copy of your disk.
>>
>> You need to test your recovery proceedure if you are to have
>> confidence in it working when you need it. For starters, do a
>> readback of the backup image often enough to know that everything is
>> working. With disk-to-disk backups this is less of an issue. If you
>> ever switch to CDR/DVDR media it is a BIG issue. IMO.
>
>Hi Rob, this is exactly what I plan to do. I was allways under the
>impression that when you transfer digital
>media it is allways perfect. I plan to back it up on DVDR media or CDR media
>whichever has the biggest storage
>capacity.
>
>I have sometimes copied things to my CDR's only to find that somehow
>something went wrong. So I guess my question is how can I be certain
>that the image is 100% accuarate. Is there any danger that sometimes an
>image can "verify ok" but then suddenly turn out to be not good.
>
>Eg. for example a few times in the past I backed up email onto a CDR and
>thought it was OK, then later when I formatted my drive and went to
>"reinstall" the digital media backed up on the CDR only to find that there
>was something wrong with it.
>>
>> At the very least, do an image backup then boot the recovery CD and
>> browse to the backup image and do a readback to make sure it's OK.
>> That test lots of hardware compatibility stuff.
>>
>> I recommend printing ut the manual. Put the PDF on a CDR aand take it
>> to Kinkos. They print and bind at a fair price. It might be too late
>> when your system is dead.
>
>Thanks for valuable input. It builds confidence just talking to other users.
>I have actually heard many good things about this software.
>>
>>

You need to d/l the eval version and play with it to see how it works.

There is a readback/verify function that test the image and media. If
you boot the TI recovery CD and do a readback you are in pretty good
shape. If you have a hard disk that required extra drivers when you
set up XP, such as a raid array, you'd have other issues.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
June 19, 2005 3:15:36 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

> "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.
>> 2. If you clone your day-to-day working HD to another *internal* HD, that
>> destination drive will be an exact copy (for all practical purposes) of
>> your
>> working drive. As such, it is bootable just like the source drive.
>> 3. In my view you should use the Acronis program (or other disk imaging
>> program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost) to make a disk-to-disk clone to
>> either another internal drive or a USB/Firewire external HD. It's about
>> as
>> ideal a backup system the average user can use. There's really no need to
>> create disk images on removable media such as CD/DVDs where your
>> exclusive
>> interest is creating a near failsafe backup system. The advice you
>> received
>> from Rod Williams about using another drive to make a disk image, i.e.,
>> clone, of your working drive is sound in my view.
>> 4. The advantage of cloning your working drive to a external HD is that
>> the
>> external drive is detached from your machine which naturally affords
>> another
>> layer of security. The disadvantage is that the external HD with the
>> cloned
>> copy of your working drive is *not* bootable. However, you can clone the
>> contents of the external HD *back* to your internal drive for restoration
>> purposes.
>> 5. Even where you have multiple partitions on your working drive, it's a
>> comparatively simple matter to make a disk-to-disk copy (clone) of that
>> drive, rather than cloning individual partitions.
>>
>> I've probably cloned drives more than a thousand times over the years. In
>> so
>> doing I've found this process a ideal system for backing up one's HD. The
>> process is simple, straightforward, and effective. Up to recently I've
>> used
>> the Norton Ghost program, however, I've recently been using the Acronis
>> program which by & large performs just about the same. Its advantage,
>> however, over the Ghost program is its speed of cloning. It's
>> considerably
>> faster.
>>
>> If you need further details, please so indicate.
>> Anna


"beamish" <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BDC34DC4-2CF5-4E8C-89BA-D2CA8539EDAE@microsoft.com...
> Hello, Thank You for your post.
> Need some information concerning Acronis True Image v8.0 "cloning".
> Have a external firewire drive single partition 40gb fat32. Would like to
> clone my single partition 120gb ntfs drive (17gb used space) to the
> external
> drive. Wiil the external drive need fat32 changed to ntfs?
> What method of transfer do you reccommend? Automatic or Manual.
> Partition transfer method? As Is, Proportional, or Manual.
> Will use the external drive only for the clone image.
> Thank You again for the information already supplied.
> beamish.


beamish:
You can use the ATI program to clone the 17 GB contents of your 120 GB
internal drive to your 40 GB Firewire external drive. The cloning process
will overwrite the present contents of the external drive so that the
external drive will contain the contents of your source disk including its
NTFS file system following the cloning operation.

With your external HD connected, simply double-click the Disk Clone icon on
the ATI opening screen and the Disk Clone Wizard will open. Choose the
Automatic option and proceed through the Wizard ensuring that your source
and destination disks are correctly selected. Choose the "Delete partitions
on the destination hard disk" option and finish up with the Wizard. Only a
few simple steps and the cloning process will proceed.

Bear in mind as I mentioned to Samantha that your external drive will *not*
be bootable, however, you can re:clone the contents of that drive back to
your internal HD should the need later arise for restoration purposes.
Anna
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 3:30:33 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <#ij#s0HdFHA.3012@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
Anna <myname@myisp.net> 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.
>>> 2. If you clone your day-to-day working HD to another *internal* HD, that
>>> destination drive will be an exact copy (for all practical purposes) of
>>> your
>>> working drive. As such, it is bootable just like the source drive.
>>> 3. In my view you should use the Acronis program (or other disk imaging
>>> program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost) to make a disk-to-disk clone to
>>> either another internal drive or a USB/Firewire external HD. It's about
>>> as
>>> ideal a backup system the average user can use. There's really no need to
>>> create disk images on removable media such as CD/DVDs where your
>>> exclusive
>>> interest is creating a near failsafe backup system. The advice you
>>> received
>>> from Rod Williams about using another drive to make a disk image, i.e.,
>>> clone, of your working drive is sound in my view.
>>> 4. The advantage of cloning your working drive to a external HD is that
>>> the
>>> external drive is detached from your machine which naturally affords
>>> another
>>> layer of security. The disadvantage is that the external HD with the
>>> cloned
>>> copy of your working drive is *not* bootable. However, you can clone the
>>> contents of the external HD *back* to your internal drive for restoration
>>> purposes.
>>> 5. Even where you have multiple partitions on your working drive, it's a
>>> comparatively simple matter to make a disk-to-disk copy (clone) of that
>>> drive, rather than cloning individual partitions.
>>>
>>> I've probably cloned drives more than a thousand times over the years. In
>>> so
>>> doing I've found this process a ideal system for backing up one's HD. The
>>> process is simple, straightforward, and effective. Up to recently I've
>>> used
>>> the Norton Ghost program, however, I've recently been using the Acronis
>>> program which by & large performs just about the same. Its advantage,
>>> however, over the Ghost program is its speed of cloning. It's
>>> considerably
>>> faster.
>>>
>>> If you need further details, please so indicate.
>>> Anna
>
>
>"beamish" <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:BDC34DC4-2CF5-4E8C-89BA-D2CA8539EDAE@microsoft.com...
>> Hello, Thank You for your post.
>> Need some information concerning Acronis True Image v8.0 "cloning".
>> Have a external firewire drive single partition 40gb fat32. Would like to
>> clone my single partition 120gb ntfs drive (17gb used space) to the
>> external
>> drive. Wiil the external drive need fat32 changed to ntfs?
>> What method of transfer do you reccommend? Automatic or Manual.
>> Partition transfer method? As Is, Proportional, or Manual.
>> Will use the external drive only for the clone image.
>> Thank You again for the information already supplied.
>> beamish.
>
>
>beamish:
>You can use the ATI program to clone the 17 GB contents of your 120 GB
>internal drive to your 40 GB Firewire external drive. The cloning process
>will overwrite the present contents of the external drive so that the
>external drive will contain the contents of your source disk including its
>NTFS file system following the cloning operation.
>
> With your external HD connected, simply double-click the Disk Clone icon on
>the ATI opening screen and the Disk Clone Wizard will open. Choose the
>Automatic option and proceed through the Wizard ensuring that your source
>and destination disks are correctly selected. Choose the "Delete partitions
>on the destination hard disk" option and finish up with the Wizard. Only a
>few simple steps and the cloning process will proceed.
>
>Bear in mind as I mentioned to Samantha that your external drive will *not*
>be bootable, however, you can re:clone the contents of that drive back to
>your internal HD should the need later arise for restoration purposes.
>Anna
>
>


If your C internal disk dies you boot from the TI8 CD and recreate the
disk from the latest backup image. (after replacing the dead disk, of
course.)

TEST TEST TEST. Make sure the Acronis recovery CD can see and read
your USB device. That's why acronis lets you evaluate it before you
buy it.



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 4:51:25 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

An image is like a high quality photograph of the source partition. It's a
good as it gets, as long as is was copied competently and does not get
corrupted after the fact. It IS the same!


--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Sam" <sam@privatemail.com> wrote in message
news:D 91tt6$pcg$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:0J_se.15552$qr1.8924@trndny07...
>> The first thing you need to understand is the only correct way to save an
>> image is to another drive.
>
> Hi Rod, I was asking the question with concerns about the "accuracy and
> quality of the backup",
> I am storing it on a separate partition on one drive, however, this can be
> stored away from the computer if you get my point.
> I am only concerned with how accurate the backup copy is and how complete
> this is compared to a proper installation of
> Windows.
>
> Eg. can this be used as a complete windows installation or is it lacking
> in some way? This is the essence of the question I am trying to find an
> answer to.
>
> What good is it going to be if your drive crashes and the image was on
> that drive. Drives are cheap compared to
>> the time it takes to reinstall Windows and all software.
>
> Point taken!
>>
>> Second you have to make an image of the entire drive (all partitions) to
>> guarantee it will boot
>
> Is this needed? I have one disc, but I have four partitions and an
> operating system on one drive only. It is that drive I am concerned with.
>
>
>>
>> I have tested True Image twice. I made an image to a second drive and
>> restored the image to a totally different drive and it was perfect.
>> Everything exactly like the original.
>
>
June 19, 2005 4:51:29 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:uvVI$sEdFHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> "Sam" <sam@privatemail.com> wrote in message
> news:D 91r30$vs0$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been reading the forums and I have noticed a few guys here are
>> using Acronis software to backup their windows XP systems.
>>
>> I have a question concerning this.
>>
>> If I make an Acronis backup copy of my freshly installed XP, and after
>> this at some point in the future get a virus.
>>
>> How reliable is this kind of "image" with regard to using it to replace
>> and save doing a manual installation of windows XP.
>>
>> I am basically installing a copy of the original version, does this in
>> anyway "increase the chances of errrors" .
>>
>> Assume that I had my Acronis image verified by the Acronis software.
>>
>> So is this as good as the real thing? Or is it to be used only as a
>> temporary emergency.
>>
>> How do other people use this "images of installations" and how much can
>> you trust them to be accurate. Then what happens if you make a backup of
>> that backup, then essentially you are making copies of copies of copies
>> each time you back it up.
>>
>> Is this allways as good as the original method of manually doing an
>> installation from the Windows XP CD? This method seems almost to good to
>> be true, so I am fishing around to see how others use this Acronis
>> imaging system?
>>
>> It would save me absolutely hours of work reinstalling everything if it
>> truly can be relied upon to be as good as the original installation.
>>
>> All advice greatly appreciated and all experiences welcomed.
>>
>> Thankyou for reading my queries
>> Samantha
>
> Samantha later adds...
> I was asking the question with concerns about the "accuracy and
> quality of the backup",
> I am storing it on a separate partition on one drive, however, this can be
> stored away from the computer if you get my point.
> I am only concerned with how accurate the backup copy is and how complete
> this is compared to a proper installation of
> Windows.
>
> Eg. can this be used as a complete windows installation or is it lacking
> in
> some way? This is the essence of the question I am trying to find an
> answer to.
>
> Is (an image of the entire drive) needed? I have one disc, but I have four
> partitions and an operating
> system on one drive only. It is that drive I am concerned with.
>
> Hi Rob, this is exactly what I plan to do. I was allways under the
> impression that when you transfer digital media it is allways perfect. I
> plan to back it up on DVDR media or CDR media
> whichever has the biggest storage capacity.
>
> I have sometimes copied things to my CDR's only to find that somehow
> something went wrong. So I guess my question is how can I be certain
> that the image is 100% accuarate. Is there any danger that sometimes an
> image can "verify ok" but then suddenly turn out to be not good.
>
> Eg. for example a few times in the past I backed up email onto a CDR and
> thought it was OK, then later when I formatted my drive and went to
> "reinstall" the digital media backed up on the CDR only to find that there
> was something wrong with it.
>
> 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.
> 2. If you clone your day-to-day working HD to another *internal* HD, that
> destination drive will be an exact copy (for all practical purposes) of
> your working drive. As such, it is bootable just like the source drive.
> 3. In my view you should use the Acronis program (or other disk imaging
> program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost) to make a disk-to-disk clone to
> either another internal drive or a USB/Firewire external HD. It's about as
> ideal a backup system the average user can use. There's really no need to
> create disk images on removable media such as CD/DVDs where your exclusive
> interest is creating a near failsafe backup system. The advice you
> received from Rod Williams about using another drive to make a disk image,
> i.e., clone, of your working drive is sound in my view.
> 4. The advantage of cloning your working drive to a external HD is that
> the external drive is detached from your machine which naturally affords
> another layer of security. The disadvantage is that the external HD with
> the cloned copy of your working drive is *not* bootable. However, you can
> clone the contents of the external HD *back* to your internal drive for
> restoration purposes.
> 5. Even where you have multiple partitions on your working drive, it's a
> comparatively simple matter to make a disk-to-disk copy (clone) of that
> drive, rather than cloning individual partitions.
>
> I've probably cloned drives more than a thousand times over the years. In
> so doing I've found this process a ideal system for backing up one's HD.
> The process is simple, straightforward, and effective. Up to recently I've
> used the Norton Ghost program, however, I've recently been using the
> Acronis program which by & large performs just about the same. Its
> advantage, however, over the Ghost program is its speed of cloning. It's
> considerably faster.
>
> If you need further details, please so indicate.
> Anna

Just to say thanks very much Anna, for that info, really I was trying to get
a feel for how others used this media,
it seems to be very very safe to use and very reliable. As you say, it is
the most reliable way that single users can backup their data.
>
>
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 4:51:30 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <d92c2k$a8s$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Sam <sam@privatemail.com> wrote:
>
>"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
>news:uvVI$sEdFHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Sam" <sam@privatemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:D 91r30$vs0$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have been reading the forums and I have noticed a few guys here are
>>> using Acronis software to backup their windows XP systems.
>>>
>>> I have a question concerning this.
>>>
>>> If I make an Acronis backup copy of my freshly installed XP, and after
>>> this at some point in the future get a virus.
>>>
>>> How reliable is this kind of "image" with regard to using it to replace
>>> and save doing a manual installation of windows XP.
>>>
>>> I am basically installing a copy of the original version, does this in
>>> anyway "increase the chances of errrors" .
>>>
>>> Assume that I had my Acronis image verified by the Acronis software.
>>>
>>> So is this as good as the real thing? Or is it to be used only as a
>>> temporary emergency.
>>>
>>> How do other people use this "images of installations" and how much can
>>> you trust them to be accurate. Then what happens if you make a backup of
>>> that backup, then essentially you are making copies of copies of copies
>>> each time you back it up.
>>>
>>> Is this allways as good as the original method of manually doing an
>>> installation from the Windows XP CD? This method seems almost to good to
>>> be true, so I am fishing around to see how others use this Acronis
>>> imaging system?
>>>
>>> It would save me absolutely hours of work reinstalling everything if it
>>> truly can be relied upon to be as good as the original installation.
>>>
>>> All advice greatly appreciated and all experiences welcomed.
>>>
>>> Thankyou for reading my queries
>>> Samantha
>>
>> Samantha later adds...
>> I was asking the question with concerns about the "accuracy and
>> quality of the backup",
>> I am storing it on a separate partition on one drive, however, this can be
>> stored away from the computer if you get my point.
>> I am only concerned with how accurate the backup copy is and how complete
>> this is compared to a proper installation of
>> Windows.
>>
>> Eg. can this be used as a complete windows installation or is it lacking
>> in
>> some way? This is the essence of the question I am trying to find an
>> answer to.
>>
>> Is (an image of the entire drive) needed? I have one disc, but I have four
>> partitions and an operating
>> system on one drive only. It is that drive I am concerned with.
>>
>> Hi Rob, this is exactly what I plan to do. I was allways under the
>> impression that when you transfer digital media it is allways perfect. I
>> plan to back it up on DVDR media or CDR media
>> whichever has the biggest storage capacity.
>>
>> I have sometimes copied things to my CDR's only to find that somehow
>> something went wrong. So I guess my question is how can I be certain
>> that the image is 100% accuarate. Is there any danger that sometimes an
>> image can "verify ok" but then suddenly turn out to be not good.
>>
>> Eg. for example a few times in the past I backed up email onto a CDR and
>> thought it was OK, then later when I formatted my drive and went to
>> "reinstall" the digital media backed up on the CDR only to find that there
>> was something wrong with it.
>>
>> 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.
>> 2. If you clone your day-to-day working HD to another *internal* HD, that
>> destination drive will be an exact copy (for all practical purposes) of
>> your working drive. As such, it is bootable just like the source drive.
>> 3. In my view you should use the Acronis program (or other disk imaging
>> program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost) to make a disk-to-disk clone to
>> either another internal drive or a USB/Firewire external HD. It's about as
>> ideal a backup system the average user can use. There's really no need to
>> create disk images on removable media such as CD/DVDs where your exclusive
>> interest is creating a near failsafe backup system. The advice you
>> received from Rod Williams about using another drive to make a disk image,
>> i.e., clone, of your working drive is sound in my view.
>> 4. The advantage of cloning your working drive to a external HD is that
>> the external drive is detached from your machine which naturally affords
>> another layer of security. The disadvantage is that the external HD with
>> the cloned copy of your working drive is *not* bootable. However, you can
>> clone the contents of the external HD *back* to your internal drive for
>> restoration purposes.
>> 5. Even where you have multiple partitions on your working drive, it's a
>> comparatively simple matter to make a disk-to-disk copy (clone) of that
>> drive, rather than cloning individual partitions.
>>
>> I've probably cloned drives more than a thousand times over the years. In
>> so doing I've found this process a ideal system for backing up one's HD.
>> The process is simple, straightforward, and effective. Up to recently I've
>> used the Norton Ghost program, however, I've recently been using the
>> Acronis program which by & large performs just about the same. Its
>> advantage, however, over the Ghost program is its speed of cloning. It's
>> considerably faster.
>>
>> If you need further details, please so indicate.
>> Anna
>
>Just to say thanks very much Anna, for that info, really I was trying to get
>a feel for how others used this media,
>it seems to be very very safe to use and very reliable. As you say, it is
>the most reliable way that single users can backup their data.
>>
>>
>
>


No backup is reliable unless care is taken and proceedures are tested
periodically.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 6:40:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Ok Sam.

Let's say you have four partitions on one drive. (C:,D:,E:,F:) 
F: contains the image of the entire drive.
If your operating system is on C: partition and had a problem you could
restore the c: partition and would have exactly the same sector to
sector C: partition you had when the image was made. One problem, like I
mentioned before, is if your entire hard drive crashes you lost the
partition that contained the image. Acronis however, will not guarantee
that it will boot because the MBR does not get replaced when only
restoring one partition. The only way you can be guaranteed it will boot
is to restore the entire drive. I don't see anyway that can happen since
the drive is wiped clean before the complete drive restore happens
and your image would be wiped out too.
Bottom line is you need a second hard drive, either internal or external
to store the image on. I wouldn't do it any other way.

Here is what I do:
I make a full backup image of my entire drive to a second hard drive.
Then every so often I backup the information that has changed by doing
an "append" to the full backup. That way it only adds what has changed
since I did the first full backup. The image is never recopied. The
changed information just gets added to the full backup as an additional
file. After a month or so I then do another full backup and keep at
least one other full backup in case there is a problem. I can tell you
this method works because I restored to a third hard drive and I had an
exact working copy of my original drive. I did the test twice over a
couple months.

I know this sounds confusing when you try to read it but it really
isn't. The time you spend learning how to use TI and the time to make
the backup images will never equal what it will take to reinstall an
operating system and all of it's software. Not to mention what valuable
files you might lose forever.

Hope this helps.
June 19, 2005 8:25:44 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:TW4te.6200$EH1.58@trndny03...
> Ok Sam.
>
> Let's say you have four partitions on one drive. (C:,D:,E:,F:) 
> F: contains the image of the entire drive.

Thats pretty much how things are set up Rod.


> If your operating system is on C: partition and had a problem you could
> restore the c: partition and would have exactly the same sector to sector
> C: partition you had when the image was made.

Sounds good so far, thats what I had been led to understand that it creates
a complete clone.


One problem, like I mentioned before, is if your entire hard drive crashes
you lost the
> partition that contained the image.

Thats true, but thats not what I am worried about nor asking about, because
as you mentioned before
a person should and can make "external backups" when required.

Acronis however, will not guarantee> that it will boot because the MBR does
not get replaced when only
> restoring one partition.

Now this is getting to an area I was not aware of. I understood that the
"entire C partition" would get cloned
thereby making an identical replication. Meaning that it should be able to
be rebooted again as per normal, otherwise what is it actually copying or
cloning.


> The only way you can be guaranteed it will boot
is to restore the entire drive.

This is not what I had planned to do nor can do as I don't have an external
drive! :(  So now it seems from this new info that I can't
do exactly what I had planned.


I don't see anyway that can happen since the drive is wiped clean
before the complete drive restore happens
> and your image would be wiped out too.

So you mean I can't restore the entire "disc image" from my partitioned
drive when I only have one "main drive" as you mentioned above.

> Bottom line is you need a second hard drive, either internal or external
> to store the image on. I wouldn't do it any other way.

Are you absolutely sure about this? Somewhere in this conversation lays some
contradictions, or most likely its my lack of understanding,
I specifically asked the live help at Acronis and they didn't mention this
point. Then it seems this can't do what I require it to do unless I have two
separate drives in my computer which I do not or an external drive which I
do not. Is this correct?

>
> Here is what I do: I make a full backup image of my entire drive to a
> second hard drive.

Ok, so my understanding is correct at least of what your saying, but I do
not have a second hard drive.

> Then every so often I backup the information that has changed by doing an
> "append" to the full backup.

Yah, I have managed to figure that part out.

That way it only adds what has changed
> since I did the first full backup. The image is never recopied. The
> changed information just gets added to the full backup as an additional
> file. After a month or so I then do another full backup and keep at least
> one other full backup in case there is a problem. I can tell you this
> method works because I restored to a third hard drive and I had an exact
> working copy of my original drive. I did the test twice over a couple
> months.
>
> I know this sounds confusing when you try to read it but it really isn't.
> The time you spend learning how to use TI and the time to make the backup
> images will never equal what it will take to reinstall an operating system
> and all of it's software. Not to mention what valuable files you might
> lose forever.

That really really helps alot, and its not at all difficult to understand.
Basically the only confusing bit for me or the bit I do not understand
is the fact that it does not "copy the boot thingy" that you mentioned on
the C partiion. This is exactly what is the condratictory understanding, I
understood
that Anacronis copied everything, so why not the boot records?

Thanks very much.
>
> Hope this helps.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 8:25:45 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

You can write the .tib file of "C" to another partition on the drive, then copy the files to DVD for storage.

I write the .tib file in CD size chunks (700 MB) then burn 6 of those to a DVD. It is quicker and easier than writing directly to DVD. I create a full image of "C" not incremental. I have restored an image of "C" to a new (RAW) HDD and it booted.

I would highly recommend a 2nd HDD.

--
Just my 2¢ worth,
Jeff
__________in response to__________

"Sam" <sam@privatemail.com> wrote in message news:D 92ojr$cqn$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
|
| "Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
| news:TW4te.6200$EH1.58@trndny03...
| > Ok Sam.
| >
| > Let's say you have four partitions on one drive. (C:,D:,E:,F:) 
| > F: contains the image of the entire drive.
|
| Thats pretty much how things are set up Rod.
|
|
| > If your operating system is on C: partition and had a problem you could
| > restore the c: partition and would have exactly the same sector to sector
| > C: partition you had when the image was made.
|
| Sounds good so far, thats what I had been led to understand that it creates
| a complete clone.
|
|
| One problem, like I mentioned before, is if your entire hard drive crashes
| you lost the
| > partition that contained the image.
|
| Thats true, but thats not what I am worried about nor asking about, because
| as you mentioned before
| a person should and can make "external backups" when required.
|
| Acronis however, will not guarantee> that it will boot because the MBR does
| not get replaced when only
| > restoring one partition.
|
| Now this is getting to an area I was not aware of. I understood that the
| "entire C partition" would get cloned
| thereby making an identical replication. Meaning that it should be able to
| be rebooted again as per normal, otherwise what is it actually copying or
| cloning.
|
|
| > The only way you can be guaranteed it will boot
| is to restore the entire drive.
|
| This is not what I had planned to do nor can do as I don't have an external
| drive! :(  So now it seems from this new info that I can't
| do exactly what I had planned.
|
|
| I don't see anyway that can happen since the drive is wiped clean
| before the complete drive restore happens
| > and your image would be wiped out too.
|
| So you mean I can't restore the entire "disc image" from my partitioned
| drive when I only have one "main drive" as you mentioned above.
|
| > Bottom line is you need a second hard drive, either internal or external
| > to store the image on. I wouldn't do it any other way.
|
| Are you absolutely sure about this? Somewhere in this conversation lays some
| contradictions, or most likely its my lack of understanding,
| I specifically asked the live help at Acronis and they didn't mention this
| point. Then it seems this can't do what I require it to do unless I have two
| separate drives in my computer which I do not or an external drive which I
| do not. Is this correct?
|
| >
| > Here is what I do: I make a full backup image of my entire drive to a
| > second hard drive.
|
| Ok, so my understanding is correct at least of what your saying, but I do
| not have a second hard drive.
|
| > Then every so often I backup the information that has changed by doing an
| > "append" to the full backup.
|
| Yah, I have managed to figure that part out.
|
| That way it only adds what has changed
| > since I did the first full backup. The image is never recopied. The
| > changed information just gets added to the full backup as an additional
| > file. After a month or so I then do another full backup and keep at least
| > one other full backup in case there is a problem. I can tell you this
| > method works because I restored to a third hard drive and I had an exact
| > working copy of my original drive. I did the test twice over a couple
| > months.
| >
| > I know this sounds confusing when you try to read it but it really isn't.
| > The time you spend learning how to use TI and the time to make the backup
| > images will never equal what it will take to reinstall an operating system
| > and all of it's software. Not to mention what valuable files you might
| > lose forever.
|
| That really really helps alot, and its not at all difficult to understand.
| Basically the only confusing bit for me or the bit I do not understand
| is the fact that it does not "copy the boot thingy" that you mentioned on
| the C partiion. This is exactly what is the condratictory understanding, I
| understood
| that Anacronis copied everything, so why not the boot records?
|
| Thanks very much.
| >
| > Hope this helps.
|
|
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 8:25:45 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

> Acronis however, will not guarantee> that it will boot because the MBR
> does
> not get replaced when only
>> restoring one partition.


If I understand you and you are correct, this is exceptionally alarming.
Are you saying that if I have a hard drive with 4 partitions, with the boot
partition C:, and I need to restore only the boot partition, that I cannot
from an image of the boot partition?

Or are you saying if the entire drive failed, and I bought a new drive and
*partitioned it exactly like the previous drive*, and I restored the boot C
partition, it would not work?

Can you explain further?
June 19, 2005 8:49:48 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:%23ij%23s0HdFHA.3012@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> "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...


Hi Anna,

I really appreciate your help, but now I'm slightly confused about one area.
Putting aside disc failure, can you tell me if it is possible to completely
restore my operating system that is on a separate partition eg. C partion
when I have a cloned C partition stored on another partition. This scenario
is with a single disc computer. The image is stored internally on a separate
partition eg. F partition. Only after reading through all the threads I've
seen it mentioned that Acronis does not copy all the "boot data" and I'm a
bit confused about this because I understood that I could completely restore
the operating system.

Thanks for your help.

Samantha

P.S. I thought I had the perfect backup system, but I am wondering if it is
possible to back up without the external hard drive, It seems the gentlemen
below sais I need to copy the entire disc before I can make a complete
reinstallation. Is there any way around this
June 19, 2005 8:49:49 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Sam" <sam@privatemail.com> wrote in message
news:D 92q0u$oda$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
> news:%23ij%23s0HdFHA.3012@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> "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...
>
>
> Hi Anna,
>
> I really appreciate your help, but now I'm slightly confused about one
> area. Putting aside disc failure, can you tell me if it is possible to
> completely restore my operating system that is on a separate partition eg.
> C partion when I have a cloned C partition stored on another partition.
> This scenario is with a single disc computer. The image is stored
> internally on a separate partition eg. F partition. Only after reading
> through all the threads I've seen it mentioned that Acronis does not copy
> all the "boot data" and I'm a bit confused about this because I understood
> that I could completely restore the operating system.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Samantha
>
> P.S. I thought I had the perfect backup system, but I am wondering if it
> is possible to back up without the external hard drive, It seems the
> gentlemen below sais I need to copy the entire disc before I can make a
> complete reinstallation. Is there any way around this


Samantha:
In my view it is *not* desirable (in a backup system) to create disk images
on the same drive where your operating system resides. This simply does not
provide you with the degree of security you need for a viable backup system.
You need one of two things...
1. Another internal hard drive, and/or,
2. A USB or Firewire external hard drive.
(Better yet, are two removable hard drives, but we'll leave that for another
discussion...)

Using a disk imaging program such as Acronis True Image, you simply clone
the contents of your source disk, i.e., your day-to-day working HD to one or
another of the above. That's it. Nothing too terribly complicated. No need
to create "disk images" of this or that partition. You simply make a
disk-to-disk clone.

Please don't make this more complicated than it need be. There's no need to
be concerned about copying "boot data" or partitions. Your ultimate
objective is to create a cloned copy of your working drive so that you can
easily restore the system in the event of a mechanical/electronic failure of
the drive containing your OS or system corruption of that OS. And for that
you use a disk imaging program to simply clone the entire contents of your
working drive to another drive that will serve as the backup.
Anna
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 8:49:49 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Sam, the point is ALL of your stuff is on 1 drive, if that 1 drive fails you have nothing. Having an image of "C" to restore is fine but what about the information on "D, E and F".

I have 4 HDD in my system. Drive 1 is the OS, drive 2 is documents, drive 3 is documents backup and drive 4 is for images of drive 1. In the past 2 weeks I have had 2 drives fail, both were purchased at the same time. One failed after 4 weeks and the other after 5 weeks of use.

See my earlier post for TrueImage info.

--
Just my 2¢ worth,
Jeff
__________in response to__________

"Sam" <sam@privatemail.com> wrote in message news:D 92q0u$oda$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
|
| Hi Anna,
|
| I really appreciate your help, but now I'm slightly confused about one area.
| Putting aside disc failure, can you tell me if it is possible to completely
| restore my operating system that is on a separate partition eg. C partion
| when I have a cloned C partition stored on another partition. This scenario
| is with a single disc computer. The image is stored internally on a separate
| partition eg. F partition. Only after reading through all the threads I've
| seen it mentioned that Acronis does not copy all the "boot data" and I'm a
| bit confused about this because I understood that I could completely restore
| the operating system.
|
| Thanks for your help.
|
| Samantha
|
| P.S. I thought I had the perfect backup system, but I am wondering if it is
| possible to back up without the external hard drive, It seems the gentlemen
| below sais I need to copy the entire disc before I can make a complete
| reinstallation. Is there any way around this
|
|
June 19, 2005 8:51:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote

>
> Here is what I do:
> I make a full backup image of my entire drive to a second hard drive.

I assume both the hard drives are the same size, yes? You couldn't do it
with a 40 gig and an 80 gig, for example?

I really need to get Acronis.

Thanks,

Alias
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 8:51:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <#dvg6mHdFHA.3620@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
Alias <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote:
>
>"Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote
>
>>
>> Here is what I do:
>> I make a full backup image of my entire drive to a second hard drive.
>
>I assume both the hard drives are the same size, yes? You couldn't do it
>with a 40 gig and an 80 gig, for example?
>
>I really need to get Acronis.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alias
>
>

It isn't the size of your disk, it's how much data you have
and how compressible it is.

Depending on what kind of files you keep, the image file created by TI
is half to a third the size, counting only the space used. An XP
system with 7+GB used in C backs up to a 4GB image (max compression)

OTOH, a machine with 53GB of MP3 and JPG files created a 43GB image.

Both on TI maximum compression.


You must keep at least two backup images. If you only have one backup
image and overwrite each time if your C drive dies while it is being
backed up you are f**ked.

I have a machine with a C drive and two other two 200GB disks that I
use for backup. I flipflop between the big disks so and I'm protected
if one dies. I also backup other machines on my LAN to those disk. TI
is great.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:28:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Lets apply some common sense here, OK?

1. You should NOT keep an image you create on the same drive as the source
partition. If the drive fails you have lost everything.

2. You can not create an image of all partitions on a drive and keep it on
the same drive as the multiple sources. The image file would be ever
expanding, if it could copy itself, up until you ran out of room on the
partition where you were storing the image.

This is because the partition you are actively copying is constantly growing
in size, necessitating a larger resulting image file, which increases the
size of the partition which you are copying - etc. etc. etc. to infinity!
The image would fail over, probably without notification. I have not tried
this, nor am I likely to.

3. Even if you could accomplish #2 above, you could NOT restore said image
if you tried to restore all partitions. The partition containing the image
will be wiped out and you will be left with no image to restore from.

I have many times restored a 2nd or third partition without restoring the
first partition which contains the MBR. Why does this work? Because as long
as the MBR is not damaged in any way, what you are restoring in partition 2
is exactly the same, partition table wise (start sector and end sector), as
what was initially there. It WILL work!

Store your images on either external media (CD's, DVD's, USB2-Firewire drive
etc.) or on a second hard drive installed permanently in your computer.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Sam" <sam@privatemail.com> wrote in message
news:D 92ojr$cqn$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:TW4te.6200$EH1.58@trndny03...
>> Ok Sam.
>>
>> Let's say you have four partitions on one drive. (C:,D:,E:,F:) 
>> F: contains the image of the entire drive.
>
> Thats pretty much how things are set up Rod.
>
>
>> If your operating system is on C: partition and had a problem you could
>> restore the c: partition and would have exactly the same sector to sector
>> C: partition you had when the image was made.
>
> Sounds good so far, thats what I had been led to understand that it
> creates a complete clone.
>
>
> One problem, like I mentioned before, is if your entire hard drive
> crashes you lost the
>> partition that contained the image.
>
> Thats true, but thats not what I am worried about nor asking about,
> because as you mentioned before
> a person should and can make "external backups" when required.
>
> Acronis however, will not guarantee> that it will boot because the MBR
> does not get replaced when only
>> restoring one partition.
>
> Now this is getting to an area I was not aware of. I understood that the
> "entire C partition" would get cloned
> thereby making an identical replication. Meaning that it should be able to
> be rebooted again as per normal, otherwise what is it actually copying or
> cloning.
>
>
>> The only way you can be guaranteed it will boot
> is to restore the entire drive.
>
> This is not what I had planned to do nor can do as I don't have an
> external drive! :(  So now it seems from this new info that I can't
> do exactly what I had planned.
>
>
> I don't see anyway that can happen since the drive is wiped clean
> before the complete drive restore happens
>> and your image would be wiped out too.
>
> So you mean I can't restore the entire "disc image" from my partitioned
> drive when I only have one "main drive" as you mentioned above.
>
>> Bottom line is you need a second hard drive, either internal or external
>> to store the image on. I wouldn't do it any other way.
>
> Are you absolutely sure about this? Somewhere in this conversation lays
> some contradictions, or most likely its my lack of understanding,
> I specifically asked the live help at Acronis and they didn't mention this
> point. Then it seems this can't do what I require it to do unless I have
> two separate drives in my computer which I do not or an external drive
> which I do not. Is this correct?
>
>>
>> Here is what I do: I make a full backup image of my entire drive to a
>> second hard drive.
>
> Ok, so my understanding is correct at least of what your saying, but I do
> not have a second hard drive.
>
>> Then every so often I backup the information that has changed by doing an
>> "append" to the full backup.
>
> Yah, I have managed to figure that part out.
>
> That way it only adds what has changed
>> since I did the first full backup. The image is never recopied. The
>> changed information just gets added to the full backup as an additional
>> file. After a month or so I then do another full backup and keep at least
>> one other full backup in case there is a problem. I can tell you this
>> method works because I restored to a third hard drive and I had an exact
>> working copy of my original drive. I did the test twice over a couple
>> months.
>>
>> I know this sounds confusing when you try to read it but it really isn't.
>> The time you spend learning how to use TI and the time to make the backup
>> images will never equal what it will take to reinstall an operating
>> system and all of it's software. Not to mention what valuable files you
>> might lose forever.
>
> That really really helps alot, and its not at all difficult to understand.
> Basically the only confusing bit for me or the bit I do not understand
> is the fact that it does not "copy the boot thingy" that you mentioned on
> the C partiion. This is exactly what is the condratictory understanding, I
> understood
> that Anacronis copied everything, so why not the boot records?
>
> Thanks very much.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>
>
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:38:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <d92q0u$oda$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Sam <sam@privatemail.com> wrote:
>
>"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
>news:%23ij%23s0HdFHA.3012@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> "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...
>
>
>Hi Anna,
>
>I really appreciate your help, but now I'm slightly confused about one area.
>Putting aside disc failure, can you tell me if it is possible to completely
>restore my operating system that is on a separate partition eg. C partion
>when I have a cloned C partition stored on another partition. This scenario
>is with a single disc computer. The image is stored internally on a separate
>partition eg. F partition. Only after reading through all the threads I've
>seen it mentioned that Acronis does not copy all the "boot data" and I'm a
>bit confused about this because I understood that I could completely restore
>the operating system.
>
>Thanks for your help.
>
>Samantha
>
>P.S. I thought I had the perfect backup system, but I am wondering if it is
>possible to back up without the external hard drive, It seems the gentlemen
>below sais I need to copy the entire disc before I can make a complete
>reinstallation. Is there any way around this
>
>

You don't have a perfect backup system until you get copies of the
data that is important to you out of the house to another location
periodically. A two-disk system is fast and convenient but
it isn't a complete system.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 6:47:11 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

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.

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.


--
Get Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/...
"A must-have for your Toy Operating System"
June 19, 2005 6:47:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

> 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@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:p zfte.1739715$Xk.90285@pd7tw3no...
> 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.
2. It's effective.

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.
(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.

Re your example of installing a new HD -- for restoration purposes the
contents of the cloned HD can simply be cloned to that new HD and the user
has once again a functioning system. There's no need for
partitioning/formatting the new HD nor installing an OS, nor installing any
programs. The clone takes care of that in one fell swoop. What can be more
direct or simpler or effective?

Should the user desire to create disk images on removable media such as
CD/DVDs, he or she is free to do so. But for the vast majority of users in
my opinion, there's simply no need to do so when a perfectly good clone of
one's working HD is at hand.

As to your final comment about the value of transmitting disk images over a
network, that could be a consideration for some users. But honestly -- what
percentage of users need that particular capability?

The bottom line to all this is that the overwhelming number of users need a
near-failsafe backup system. One that's simple to employ and effective in
its results. In my opinion using a disk imaging program such as Acronis True
Image or Symantec's Norton Ghost for disk-to-disk cloning is a near-ideal
backup system for most of these users.
Anna
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 10:44:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I am excessively grateful for you response.

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:11ba8sd3ra3g714@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Acronis however, will not guarantee> that it will boot because the MBR
>> does
>> not get replaced when only
>>> restoring one partition.
>
>
> If I understand you and you are correct, this is exceptionally alarming.
> Are you saying that if I have a hard drive with 4 partitions, with the
> boot partition C:, and I need to restore only the boot partition, that I
> cannot from an image of the boot partition?
>
> Or are you saying if the entire drive failed, and I bought a new drive and
> *partitioned it exactly like the previous drive*, and I restored the boot
> C partition, it would not work?
>
> Can you explain further?
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 12:59:56 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Lots of people have said lots of good things, but I think maybe
you're losing the big picture in the details.
`
In planning for backups you are really planning for recovery from
various levels of problems, from inconvenience to disaster. Roughly
speaking, you need to consider which "failure modes" you want to
protect against.

-- Backing up to a partition on the same drive is useless if the
drive dies. In 10 years I've lost three drives.

-- Backing up to another drive, one that's permanently installed on
the same computer, leaves you vulnerable if the computer is lost,
stolen, or destroyed -- and perhaps if it's hit with a power surge.

-- Backing up to an external medium or external drive avoids
problems unless your dwelling is destroyed e.g. by fire. (I assume
for an external drive you disconnect it and put it away except when
actually making a backup.)

-- Backing up to external media stored off site avoids even that
risk, assuming of course that you've tested the recovery method and
it works.

More variations are possible, of course. But, in general, the more
risks a method protects you against, the more work it is. For many
of us, that means it's likely to get done more often.

There's no one-answer-fits-all best practice. It depends on your own
personal assessment of risks against maintenance effort. Myself, I
know I "ought" to store backups off site but that would mean making
duplicate ones(*) and I just don't do it.


(*) Whatever else, never overwrite a backup medium unless you have
at least one more recent backup (preferably more than one. For me,
the number one risk a backup protects me against is updating a file
and then wishing I could revert to the earlier version. This happens
several times a month. Obviously an offsite backup is useless for
that, so for me an offsite backup means duplicate backups onsite.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"My theory was a perfectly good one. The facts were misleading."
-- /The Lady Vanishes/ (1938)
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 1:31:55 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Richard Urban wrote:
> Lets apply some common sense here, OK?
>
> 1. You should NOT keep an image you create on the same drive as the source
> partition. If the drive fails you have lost everything.
>
> 2. You can not create an image of all partitions on a drive and keep it on
> the same drive as the multiple sources. The image file would be ever
> expanding, if it could copy itself, up until you ran out of room on the
> partition where you were storing the image.
>
> This is because the partition you are actively copying is constantly growing
> in size, necessitating a larger resulting image file, which increases the
> size of the partition which you are copying - etc. etc. etc. to infinity!
> The image would fail over, probably without notification. I have not tried
> this, nor am I likely to.
>
> 3. Even if you could accomplish #2 above, you could NOT restore said image
> if you tried to restore all partitions. The partition containing the image
> will be wiped out and you will be left with no image to restore from.
>
> I have many times restored a 2nd or third partition without restoring the
> first partition which contains the MBR. Why does this work? Because as long
> as the MBR is not damaged in any way, what you are restoring in partition 2
> is exactly the same, partition table wise (start sector and end sector), as
> what was initially there. It WILL work!
>
> Store your images on either external media (CD's, DVD's, USB2-Firewire drive
> etc.) or on a second hard drive installed permanently in your computer.
>
Are you responding to my post? Didn't I say what you are saying? Read it
again.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 1:31:56 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

If you follow the thread, this is under Sam's post!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Rod Williams" <rodw@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:fvlte.16637$fa3.13306@trndny01...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> Lets apply some common sense here, OK?
>>
>> 1. You should NOT keep an image you create on the same drive as the
>> source partition. If the drive fails you have lost everything.
>>
>> 2. You can not create an image of all partitions on a drive and keep it
>> on the same drive as the multiple sources. The image file would be ever
>> expanding, if it could copy itself, up until you ran out of room on the
>> partition where you were storing the image.
>>
>> This is because the partition you are actively copying is constantly
>> growing in size, necessitating a larger resulting image file, which
>> increases the size of the partition which you are copying - etc. etc.
>> etc. to infinity! The image would fail over, probably without
>> notification. I have not tried this, nor am I likely to.
>>
>> 3. Even if you could accomplish #2 above, you could NOT restore said
>> image if you tried to restore all partitions. The partition containing
>> the image will be wiped out and you will be left with no image to restore
>> from.
>>
>> I have many times restored a 2nd or third partition without restoring the
>> first partition which contains the MBR. Why does this work? Because as
>> long as the MBR is not damaged in any way, what you are restoring in
>> partition 2 is exactly the same, partition table wise (start sector and
>> end sector), as what was initially there. It WILL work!
>>
>> Store your images on either external media (CD's, DVD's, USB2-Firewire
>> drive etc.) or on a second hard drive installed permanently in your
>> computer.
>>
> Are you responding to my post? Didn't I say what you are saying? Read it
> again.
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 5:34:42 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

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@stopspam.com> wrote in message
> news:p zfte.1739715$Xk.90285@pd7tw3no...
>> 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/...
"A must-have for your Toy Operating System"
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 9:51:09 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Add another thing to all that's been replied to, to date. Never defragment
the partition containing the image information. Leave it alone.

Seek other newsgroups outside MS oriented news server types specializing in
storage for more in-depth information.

"Sam" <sam@privatemail.com> wrote in message
news:D 91r30$vs0$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> I have been reading the forums and I have noticed a few guys here are
using
> Acronis software to backup their windows XP systems.
>
> I have a question concerning this.
>
> If I make an Acronis backup copy of my freshly installed XP, and after
this
> at some point in the future get a virus.
>
> How reliable is this kind of "image" with regard to using it to replace
and
> save doing a manual installation of windows XP.
>
> I am basically installing a copy of the original version, does this in
> anyway "increase the chances of errrors" .
>
> Assume that I had my Acronis image verified by the Acronis software.
>
> So is this as good as the real thing? Or is it to be used only as a
> temporary emergency.
>
> How do other people use this "images of installations" and how much can
you
> trust them to be accurate. Then what happens if you make a backup of that
> backup, then essentially you are making copies of copies of copies each
time
> you back it up.
>
> Is this allways as good as the original method of manually doing an
> installation from the Windows XP CD? This method seems almost to good to
be
> true, so I am fishing around to see how others use this Acronis imaging
> system?
>
> It would save me absolutely hours of work reinstalling everything if it
> truly can be relied upon to be as good as the original installation.
>
> All advice greatly appreciated and all experiences welcomed.
>
> Thankyou for reading my queries
> Samantha
>
>
June 20, 2005 2:40:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Lil' Dave wrote:

> Add another thing to all that's been replied to, to date. Never defragment
> the partition containing the image information. Leave it alone.
>

Why? Is this imaging program specific?

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
June 25, 2005 4:08:59 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Sam" <sam@privatemail.com> wrote in message
news:D 92q0u$oda$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I really appreciate your help, but now I'm slightly confused about one
> area. Putting aside disc failure, can you tell me if it is possible to
> completely restore my operating system that is on a separate partition eg.
> C partion when I have a cloned C partition stored on another partition.
> This scenario is with a single disc computer. The image is stored
> internally on a separate partition eg. F partition. Only after reading
> through all the threads I've seen it mentioned that Acronis does not copy
> all the "boot data" and I'm a bit confused about this because I understood
> that I could completely restore the operating system.

If your hard drive is not damaged you may restore a single partition without
any future boot problem because a MBR is on disk still.
--
éÇÏÒØ ìÅÊËÏ (Igor Leyko) MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
ipigl@redline.ru
òÁÓÓÙÌËÁ "Windows&Office: ÎÏ×ÏÓÔÉ É ÓÏ×ÅÔÙ" ÎÁ www.subscribe.ru
www.redline-isp.ru/~ipl
June 25, 2005 4:22:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea1IepMdFHA.1448@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> 2. You can not create an image of all partitions on a drive and keep it on
> the same drive as the multiple sources. The image file would be ever
> expanding, if it could copy itself, up until you ran out of room on the
> partition where you were storing the image.
>
> This is because the partition you are actively copying is constantly
> growing in size, necessitating a larger resulting image file, which
> increases the size of the partition which you are copying - etc. etc. etc.
> to infinity! The image would fail over, probably without notification. I
> have not tried this, nor am I likely to.
Anyone can create a Acronis security zone on the single CD and save images
of all partitions in the zone without problems.
Restoring will be possible too.

--
éÇÏÒØ ìÅÊËÏ (Igor Leyko) MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
ipigl@redline.ru
òÁÓÓÙÌËÁ "Windows&Office: ÎÏ×ÏÓÔÉ É ÓÏ×ÅÔÙ" ÎÁ www.subscribe.ru
www.redline-isp.ru/~ipl
June 25, 2005 4:28:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:usUV$XYdFHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Add another thing to all that's been replied to, to date. Never
> defragment
> the partition containing the image information. Leave it alone.

I defragmented such partitions.
Nothing special.

P.S. I wrote a TI 7 manual. ;) 
--
éÇÏÒØ ìÅÊËÏ (Igor Leyko) MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
ipigl@redline.ru
òÁÓÓÙÌËÁ "Windows&Office: ÎÏ×ÏÓÔÉ É ÓÏ×ÅÔÙ" ÎÁ www.subscribe.ru
www.redline-isp.ru/~ipl
!