How-to back-up files on an external HD to be readable (ie not .bkf)
I want to use the program to back-up only "My documents" on my PC to a USB-connected SATA docking station, see below.
If all you want is copying, why not just use the Windows copy command in Explorer? If that's not sophisticated enough there are a few backup programs that are essentially fancied-up copy programs -- google and ye shall find.
Hoever, you can do "My Data" backups with ATI, where you can specify just what files you want, and then you can open those backups with Explorer and copy out files via Explorer if you want to.
You also hav e the option to backup into a zip format but that doens't really get you much more flexibility.
Scott is up his arse again here, as i'm sure you are aware of copying stuff.
Ti is not what you want from what you say but simple backups as might be provided by Winzip.
I use SyncBackSE but there are others such as Karens Replicator and probably Teracopy (never used it) etc and they can be found by Googling. Winzip, TI, BMPC, and lots of other stuff the files into container files which you said you don't want although the zip format is pretty universal. WIndows Explorer is great but it doesn't allow doing an incremental backup without clicking on a a bunch of "Don't Replace" messages or careful selection.
I use SyncBack in incremental mode where it saves any new or modified files and leaves the others alone. The original folder structure is preserved and it will also do a read-check after copying which can be comforting - Windows Explorer tends to find bad files when you read the file not when you create it! I use the SE version of SyncBack so it will do versioning, Versioning can be quite important since PC file systems don't version. Say you edit a file and then save it. Overnight your backup runs and the backup file is replaced with the edited file. You come in the next morning and open your file and find your edits were wrong and the file is ruined. You go to your backup but it now has been replaced by the edited bad file. With a versioning, the previous one would be saved as well. SyncBack is not the only program that has these features.
Winzip Pro has the same features
Seekforever, as usual, has offered some good options. There are some other progs around so it might be worth doing some research and shopping if you are particular about the features you want and how much, if anything, you want to pay. Otherwise, you should find enough in the suggestions above to suit you -- from as simple as Windows Explorer copy, Windows xcopy (from the command prompt), to a full bore disk imaging program, of which there are also many. The simplest progs won't pack copies of the source files into an archive file.
SyncbackSE generally gets very good reviews. Karen's Replicator is resonably popular, partly because it's free.
Winrar, in free and pay versions is another compressor archiver -- there are lots of others around including open-code progs (e.g. 7-zip) that are free for home use.
[Not to mention, Windows usually has a bckup program built into it, although I've never met anyone that liked it.] ;)
thanks to all above, I tried using Karen's Replicator and it seems to work OK but it takes 50 hours plus to basically copy "My documents" to my SATA docking station HD.
I first tried TeraCopy but it crashed/errored in the middle of the back-up. I then tried Karen's Replicator and although it took almost three days to copy my 300GB+, it did it diligently, without a murmur, albeit there is no way for me to check the integruty, I think that the copied folder was slightly bigger (!) than the source...
Anyway, after Karen's Replicator finished, I wanted to shove the results (on the back-up, external HD) into a different folder, forgot that I designated TeraCopy as the "defaulr copier program", so it started working on this, and screwed up completely the copy, many error messages etc. So now I am using Karen's again, hopefully it will finish in a day or two - into the right folder...
last question - it seems that it is important to people to back-up into a single huge back-up file. why is it better than to make a cloned copy of the files?
...
last question - it seems that it is important to people to back-up into a single huge back-up file. why is it better than to make a cloned copy of the files?
I'm not so sure it is important to people to have the single file but it is how a lot of backup programs work. Note that these programs often have database functions associated with them for handling the archives and it is easier to do if the files are in a container. I would sooner just have a copy of my folder structure and no need to have a special program to handle them. Also, you reduce the risk of losing a lot of files if one of the archive files goes bad - there has been more than one post about an unreadable archive holding the users complete music or photo collection.
last question - it seems that it is important to people to back-up into a single huge back-up file. why is it better than to make a cloned copy of the files?
Those backups are probably of the entire drive - which is the feature for which True Image is best. This is used in case your hard drive dies unexpectedly. You can then restore this kind of backup onto a new drive.
Seekforever and DwnNDrty - tks!
Whether it's better depends on your goals. Streaming into a single large file can be faster than making mulitple copies of files. Also, having a single archive can make it easier to sort and move around your archived (ior copied) files -- well it was easier before ATI 12/2009, since then yo have to do such things within ATI instead of being able to just use Windows Explorer. Otoh, as dwnndirty points out, if you want fast access to the archived (or copied) files without having to open up an archive file first, then copying file one by one probably fits your bill better.
Cloning is one way to archive (or make backup copies) without putting the file copies all in one big file. Unfortuantely you only get to make one clone per target hdisk, so it's not very efficient except in special circumstances when all you want is one copy -- in most circumstances it's generally not a good backup strategy as you need another hdisk for every backup. Other backup methods usually let you store many backups on a single hdisk, whether the file copies are all in one big archive file or not.
last question - it seems that it is important to people to back-up into a single huge back-up file. why is it better than to make a cloned copy of the files?