Acronis v XXClone
Before switching to Windows 7, I always used XXClone to back up Windows XP: unfortunately, it doesn't support Windows 7. I used the incremental procedure and the backup was always exactly the same size as the original. In fact, using XXClone's Quick Boot Disc it was possible to login to either the original or the backup to check for consistency. The Acronis incremental backup, on the other hand, just keeps getting bigger and bigger until the partition is full and there is no way of checking that it operates correctly. Why can't it work like XXClone?
At the end of the day I suspect most people just want to maintain an exact clone of their complete system so that if anything goes wrong they can replace it with the clone, which is what XXClone does for XP. I doubt if they want all the bells and whistles that just make Acronis complicated to use.
Some people (me) like the features Acronis offers.
I think most of us don't want clones; we prefer backups so that we can manage a more comprehensive protocol, including a history of images. But of course, some do; some want incs and some don't need them, etc. Use varies by user so product choice needs to be made accordingly.
I disagree. I think when people have got the system running the way they want, they want to be able to save that so that they don't have the hassle of reinstalling everything and tweaking it in the event of a crash, so that it's back the same way. A clone can do that for you. Then one can use an additional backup for storing changes to eg. documents.
I disagree. I think when people have got the system running the way they want, they want to be able to save that so that they don't have the hassle of reinstalling everything and tweaking it in the event of a crash, so that it's back the same way. A clone can do that for you. Then one can use an additional backup for storing changes to eg. documents.
Whether one clones a disk or makes backup file of the disk image is choice between a slightly speedier restore vs being to more cheaply have mulitple backups (with cloning you need a disk for each saved image while, otoh, if your harddisk physically goes south, then you can rpelace it wtih a clone and not have to spend time doing a restore). So, I'm not saying that cloning can't be useful, jsut that it's not usually apart of a rigorous security/system integrity protocol, simply because handling mulitiple harddisks for mulitple imgaes is expensive and, well, physically cumbersome. If you don't keep multiple copies of the image, then you don't hava all those harddisks to deal with but you face another problem -- Sometimes your system will seem to have gone crazy and you single clone "backup" of the disk was made after things started going wonky. That's when one is glad to have some older backups, which are handily available if one makes backup files o fthe harddisk image; one ca usually stores many of them on a single hard disk.
Many users are not aware that TrueImage provides two methods to create duplicate disks. Both create the same finished product.
Option 1:There is the Acronis "clone" option which copies/transfers an image/copy of an existing disk directly onto a new disk and produces an second identical disk. (The clone can be made larger or smaller than the original--depending upon the cloning procedures used). Performing a clone does have a risk factor which must be considered. See gold colored link below inside my signature.
Option 2 is the Restore method which is the restore of a prior disk option backup which contains a backup of all partitions on the disk to be backed up. /Recover a prior backup either as a Disk Restore (no user resizing but all partitions resized proportionately by software); or each individual partition can be restored and resized as part of the restore procedure. Both methods can produce the same replacement disk but option 2 is the safer method as the master source disk is not attached during the restore method.
ah yes, the safety issue; it's just one of the image backup's virtues, along with better manageablility and greater felxibility is restoration options. Against it is the fact that, on those rare ocassions when you need to replace a harddisk, replacing with a clone is faster.
Whether one clones a disk or makes backup file of the disk image is choice between a slightly speedier restore vs being to more cheaply have mulitple backups (with cloning you need a disk for each saved image while, otoh, if your harddisk physically goes south, then you can rpelace it wtih a clone and not have to spend time doing a restore). So, I'm not saying that cloning can't be useful, jsut that it's not usually apart of a rigorous security/system integrity protocol, simply because handling mulitiple harddisks for mulitple imgaes is expensive and, well, physically cumbersome. If you don't keep multiple copies of the image, then you don't hava all those harddisks to deal with but you face another problem -- Sometimes your system will seem to have gone crazy and you single clone "backup" of the disk was made after things started going wonky. That's when one is glad to have some older backups, which are handily available if one makes backup files o fthe harddisk image; one ca usually stores many of them on a single hard disk.
I'm not sure I follow the argument here. First, it is not necessary to have a separate disk for each clone; each clone can be on a partition within a drive. However, it would be foolhardy to put a backup or a clone on the same drive as that being backed up or cloned. In practice, for the sake of security, each backup (or clone) should be on a separate drive, so where is the advantage of Acronis? Second, Acronis backups actually take more space than a clone. I'm running three different types of Acronis backup on three different drives. In each case, they each grow to the point where I have to clear some of the incremental/differential backups to make space. As I cannot see the result of this, I'm not sure what my backups contain. With clones, each clone is the same size as the original. I can have three clones on the three drives and can sequentially update these so that, say, they cover a peiod of up to three weeks. In that case if the latest clone still has problems I can go back a week or even two weeks. At the same time, I can actually logon to those drives by altering the bootloader so that I can check the integrity of each one before they are needed. With hard drives being so cheap these days, having three drives big enough to clone the operating system drive (~100GB) the cost is minimal. As far as speed is concerned, granted the original backup takes some time to do, but once the full backup is carried out, the incremental backups take a matter of minutes.
Yes, most of what you said is consistent with what Grover and I have pointed out. Except, of course, you can see what's in a backup by Exploring it the same as any dis/partition/volume.
If you've got the money and you have the drives, cloning is one way to go, as already pointed out, so long as you understand the limitations and benefits of the diff methods..
John,
In some ways, we are talking an apples and oranges comparison. We are also talking the same thing except each of us have a different method or description to get to the final result.
You are using Clone to describe a result or a process but when Scott and I refer to the word "clone", we are talking about a specific function performed by the Acronis software.
When the clone option is exercised within TrueImage, the result is a disk sized duplicate. It does require a second disk and all data on the target disk is lost and replaced by all the data from the source disk. It is NOT possible to clone a single partition within TrueImage Software.
However, TrueImage uses the backup and restore procedure to accomplish the same results as you describe for cloning--that is, it is possible to have multiple partitions (clones as you describe) on one disk but it is accomplished not by cloning but by restoring partition backups from the various disks.
I would submit storing a disk option backup takes less space than a cloned disk. The clone is a single snapshot. The disk option backup is also a single snapshot but at compressed sizes. If you add in any additional space used by subsequent backup, you have ceased to compare them a single shot at any given time.
We really have no disagreements here, just a different use of the terms and as we are on an Acronis forum using Acronis software, the term "clone" is a specific process rather than a final result.
Thanks for your contributions. I think we've got to the same place via somewhat different routes.
My apologies regarding Acronis backups. I didn't realise that one could actually explore them. I thought they were saved as.tib files and I hadn't gone deep enough.
Regarding your last comment about price, 100GB drives are very cheap now and many people like myself will still have their old drives knocking about after they upgraded to larger drives. Although I've got two 500GB internal drives I've got several smaller ones that they'd replaced and I use these for backing up patritions.