Backup several computers on individual partitions on a single backup disk

YOu don't have to backup to individual partitions. A backup results in a file that contains an image of the disk/partition(s) you have backed up and you can have all your backups on one partition (in separate directories if you wish to keep them organized. Otoh, it doesn't hurt to have them go to diff parrtitions, it's just not necessary.

If you use ATI to restore a backup, say a backup of a single paritition, then the target drive will have the image virtually the same as it was when you backed it up, programs, and all.

I'd suggest doing a full backup for each of the partitions/drives you want to back up. Yo can then restore each of the backup files individually.

Cloning is a bit riskier business, instead of copying an image of a partitin/drive to a file, it copies the image onto another partition/drive. Say you Have partition C: and you make a backup of it to a directory on D:. You can have as many backups as will fit on D:, allowing you to retain a history of images of C:. If you clone C: to D:, then D will have the same image and C: but the next clone will overwrite D: again -- so you only get one "backup" as it were. A clone doesn't have to be restored to be usable; it's ready to go as soon as the cloning is completed. But with backups files, you can have multiple copies of the image in case one gets mucked up and in case you want to reach farther back in time, to an older image.

Thanks Scott,

This gets me considerably closer to understanding this subject but I will have to wait until late October (going to Alaska) before getting back to it. I hope to communicate with you at that time since your explanations are clearly stated.

Cloning Risks:
In theory, there should be no risk to the source drive during cloning as the disk is only read. In practice, however, there has been far too many postings of something going wrong during the process. Sometimes it is the operator choosing the wrong disk and cloning the blank onto the master; other times, the power fails during the process; at other times, the computer freezes and the the drive is lost. Simply stated, why take the risk of cloning when it takes on a few minutes longer to do the restore and the master disk is not even connected. So for many of us, the restore process is preferred process--unless you have substitute backups and can accept the risk. The cloning is a little faster than both restore or cloning will enable you to create a replacement disk--mostly reasonably identical to the original--except for may some cache files. which will be rebuilt.

Remember, when cloning, the target disk assumes all the characteristics of the source drive and no original data or partitions remain on the target disk remains after cloning begins.

Whereas the restore process enables the user to select the effected partitions and leave any existing data (on other partitions) intact. My personal preferences, if I want to duplicate an old disk onto a new or larger disk, I use the Partition Restore method. The only time I use the clone method is to perform some testing. In my opinion, the cloning process has only liabilities when compared to the Partition restore process. Some user use the clone as a backup process--which is fine for them. It's like arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg,etc. Understand the differences and make your choices.

If you choose to use the Partition or Disk restore method, the main and biggest requirement is that the backup be a disk backup which is one that includes all partitions (both boot, hidden & diagnostic) on the system disk. Conversely, It is possible to just make individual backups of each of those multi-partitions but then the restore requires more effort and more skill. To restate: The backup type that provides the most restore options and the least hassle is the one with all partitions on the system disk included in the backup.