Backup program needed

[Bill in Co]

VanguardLH wrote:
> Henry wrote:
>
>> Running WinXP Pro SP2 on Dell with 3G CPU and 2G RAM.
>>
>> I bought a Seagate external hard drive for backup purposes and now I'm
>> looking for a good backup program. The one that came with the Seagate
>> isn't very good because it makes you backup on a schedule rather than
>> when you want and Microsoft's SyncToy is worthless because I don't
>> have all of my folders under My Documents so I have to make folder
>> pairs for each folder.
>>
>> If there is something free out there that would be great. I'd like to
>> be able to have the program run and only change the folders/files that
>> have changed since the last time I backed up.
>
> http://www.paragon-software.com/home/db-express/
>
> Doesn't do incremental image backups but will do differential image
> backups.
>
> If you have 5 incremental backups since the prior full backup, all 6
> backups must be available and usable to do the image restore; i.e., you
> need full + incr1 + incr2 + incr3 + incr4 + incr5. Incrementals consume
> the least disk space but only record the changes made since the prior
> incremental backup. The longer the chain of backups the more vulnerable
> you are to loss if one of the incrementals is not usable.
>
> Differentials track changes made since the full backup, not from a prior
> incremental or differential backup. Differentials consume more space
> than incrementals but are smaller than full backups. Each differential
> backup gets progressively larger since it records changes between now
> and the last full backup. Restore only need 2 backups: full + diff.
>
> Other free imaging programs usually only let you save full images.
> Paragon is the only that I know of (so far) where its free version also
> does something less than a full image, like a differential. I don't
> know of a free one that does incremental image backups.

But why bother with the incremental or differential backups, and their
limitations as mentioned, if a full and complete image backup only takes
about 10 minutes (at least over here, for 20 GB of data on C.

 

[VanguardLH]

Bill in Co wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>> Henry wrote:
>>
>>> Running WinXP Pro SP2 on Dell with 3G CPU and 2G RAM.
>>>
>>> I bought a Seagate external hard drive for backup purposes and now I'm
>>> looking for a good backup program. The one that came with the Seagate
>>> isn't very good because it makes you backup on a schedule rather than
>>> when you want and Microsoft's SyncToy is worthless because I don't
>>> have all of my folders under My Documents so I have to make folder
>>> pairs for each folder.
>>>
>>> If there is something free out there that would be great. I'd like to
>>> be able to have the program run and only change the folders/files that
>>> have changed since the last time I backed up.
>>
>> http://www.paragon-software.com/home/db-express/
>>
>> Doesn't do incremental image backups but will do differential image
>> backups.
>>
>> If you have 5 incremental backups since the prior full backup, all 6
>> backups must be available and usable to do the image restore; i.e., you
>> need full + incr1 + incr2 + incr3 + incr4 + incr5. Incrementals consume
>> the least disk space but only record the changes made since the prior
>> incremental backup. The longer the chain of backups the more vulnerable
>> you are to loss if one of the incrementals is not usable.
>>
>> Differentials track changes made since the full backup, not from a prior
>> incremental or differential backup. Differentials consume more space
>> than incrementals but are smaller than full backups. Each differential
>> backup gets progressively larger since it records changes between now
>> and the last full backup. Restore only need 2 backups: full + diff.
>>
>> Other free imaging programs usually only let you save full images.
>> Paragon is the only that I know of (so far) where its free version also
>> does something less than a full image, like a differential. I don't
>> know of a free one that does incremental image backups.
>
> But why bother with the incremental or differential backups, and their
> limitations as mentioned, if a full and complete image backup only takes
> about 10 minutes (at least over here, for 20 GB of data on C.

A full image consumes more disk space. If you are doing backups, it is
highly unlikely that you want only 1 backup. If all you want is 1
backup than use cloning. Typically you want a history of backups from
which to choose. For example, if you find that you are infected, it is
likely that several of your backups may be just as infected and you have
to walk back further to find a clean backup. Well, the more disk space
that gets consumed per backup means the less backups you can store on
your storage media for those backups. Incremental and differential
backups give you a greater depth in history of backups from which to
select a restore. Despite being cheap[er], disk space isn't free. If
getting more into the same size storage constrainment wasn't an issue,
utilities to compress multiple files into a .zip, .tar, .rar or other
archival filetype would never had showed up.

 

[choro]

Bob CP wrote:
> On 8/1/2010 9:55 AM, choro wrote:
> ...
>> Thanks. I will try to give xxclone a try. I am already using xcopy
>> by going to the DOS command center after copying and pasting one of
>> the appropriate xcopy commands with the required parameters from a
>> word .doc file for which I have put a shortcut on my desktop. This
>> enables me to copy folders and subfolders from the appropriate
>> partitions on any of the hard disks which I have installed on my
>> computer.
>
> Note that I mentioned xxcopy (http://www.xxcopy.com/xcpymain.htm), not
> xcopy. xxcopy has a /clone switch that will duplicate the source
> exactly, including deleting any files on the destination disk that
> aren't on the source. Since my computers are all networked, I back up
> critical data between them on a daily basis (not to mention the usual
> external stuff...).
>>
>> ...I guess I am put off by having to reinstall all the
>> programs I have already installed on my old faithful and all the
>> tweaks I have made on my old faithful which incidentally is now a
>> full 10 years old. It was and remains my first true love!
>
> It's not perfect, but I've used PC Mover
> (http://www.laplink.com/pcmover) to transfer many programs to a new
> box.

I haven'ty tried any such software but I must admit they scare me. All those
DLLs on the old hard disk to go with the old motherboard, graphics card,
printer etc etc. Surely they will clash with the new drivers. And I am
eventually moving from WinXP to Win7 (which is installed on my new homebuilt
PC anyway) and which will require new drivers etc anyway. It scares the
shits out of me. I might be a chicken but I prefer a clean install. At least
I won't have old drivers incompatible with Win 7. It can't be all that much
more hassle to clean install everything and thus avoid any possible
pitfalls.

But thanks all the same. But I'll keep it in mind and may be try
http://www.laplink.com/pcmover with another Hard Disk. I am a glutton for
punishment, as a friend once told me.
--
choro
*****

 

[choro]

choro wrote:
> Bob CP wrote:
>> On 7/31/2010 8:26 PM, choro wrote:
>>> Anthony Buckland wrote:
>>>> "choro"<choro@tvco.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:g925o.9506$zo4.6203@hurricane...
>>>>> Gerald Ross wrote:
>>>>>> Gerald Ross wrote:
>>>>>>> Henry wrote:
>>>>>>>> Running WinXP Pro SP2 on Dell with 3G CPU and 2G RAM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I bought a Seagate external hard drive for backup purposes
>>>>>>>> and now I'm looking for a good backup program. The one that
>>>>>>>> came with the Seagate isn't very good because it makes you
>>>>>>>> backup on a schedule rather than when you want and
>>>>>>>> Microsoft's SyncToy is worthless because I don't have all of
>>>>>>>> my folders under My Documents so I have to make folder pairs
>>>>>>>> for each folder. If there is something free out there that
>>>>>>>> would be great. I'd
>>>>>>>> like to be able to have the program run and only change the
>>>>>>>>
>>> No, I wouldn't want to restore My Documents or any of its
>>> sub-folders. But I might want just to have a look at My Personal
>>> Phone List for example by connecting an external 2.5" SATA disk to
>>> my friend's computer. I can't help but wonder why things cannot be
>>> made as simple as possible.
>>
>> As I said in the first reply, xxclone will do exactly what you want.
>> If you want to back up only certain folders, use xxcopy in a batch
>> file.
>
> Thanks. I will try to give xxclone a try. I am already using xcopy by
> going to the DOS command center after copying and pasting one of the
> appropriate xcopy commands with the required parameters from a word
> .doc file for which I have put a shortcut on my desktop. This enables
> me to copy folders and subfolders from the appropriate partitions on
> any of the hard disks which I have installed on my computer.
>
> But I feel it is now time to switch over to the new computer I have
> built for myself as the motherboard on my old faithful won't support
> SATA drives. The new motherboard is equipped with a fast four-core
> AMD CPU as well as a very fast DDR3 graphics card plus a generous 4
> GB DDR3 RAM. My old faithful will only take PATA HDs, AGP graphics
> cards and much slower memory modules. But it still is my old
> faithful and I am finding it hard to switch over to my newer
> computer. I guess I am put off by having to reinstall all the
> programs I have already installed on my old faithful and all the
> tweaks I have made on my old faithful which incidentally is now a
> full 10 years old. It was and remains my first true love!
> I also have to admit that I am so happy with my Windows XP/SP3 that I
> hesitate to move over to Windows 7.

One word of advice to those who might want to back up or actually to copy
their user files using the easy peasy xcopy command...

The xcopy command doesn't like blank spaces in folders on the second or
slave hard drive. While it will happily accept " My Documents" (with the
blank space) on the master C drive, it cannot cope with My Old Docs on say
the slave D drive.

So change the folder name on the second slave drive to " My_Old_Docs " (with
no blank spaces).
--
choro
*****

 

[Daave]

VanguardLH wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>> Henry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Running WinXP Pro SP2 on Dell with 3G CPU and 2G RAM.
>>>>
>>>> I bought a Seagate external hard drive for backup purposes and now
>>>> I'm looking for a good backup program. The one that came with the
>>>> Seagate isn't very good because it makes you backup on a schedule
>>>> rather than when you want and Microsoft's SyncToy is worthless
>>>> because I don't have all of my folders under My Documents so I
>>>> have to make folder pairs for each folder.
>>>>
>>>> If there is something free out there that would be great. I'd
>>>> like to be able to have the program run and only change the
>>>> folders/files that have changed since the last time I backed up.
>>>
>>> http://www.paragon-software.com/home/db-express/
>>>
>>> Doesn't do incremental image backups but will do differential image
>>> backups.
>>>
>>> If you have 5 incremental backups since the prior full backup, all 6
>>> backups must be available and usable to do the image restore; i.e.,
>>> you need full + incr1 + incr2 + incr3 + incr4 + incr5.
>>> Incrementals consume the least disk space but only record the
>>> changes made since the prior incremental backup. The longer the
>>> chain of backups the more vulnerable you are to loss if one of the
>>> incrementals is not usable.
>>>
>>> Differentials track changes made since the full backup, not from a
>>> prior incremental or differential backup. Differentials consume
>>> more space than incrementals but are smaller than full backups.
>>> Each differential backup gets progressively larger since it records
>>> changes between now and the last full backup. Restore only need 2
>>> backups: full + diff.
>>>
>>> Other free imaging programs usually only let you save full images.
>>> Paragon is the only that I know of (so far) where its free version
>>> also does something less than a full image, like a differential. I
>>> don't know of a free one that does incremental image backups.
>>
>> But why bother with the incremental or differential backups, and
>> their limitations as mentioned, if a full and complete image backup
>> only takes about 10 minutes (at least over here, for 20 GB of data
>> on C.
>
> A full image consumes more disk space. If you are doing backups, it
> is highly unlikely that you want only 1 backup. If all you want is 1
> backup than use cloning. Typically you want a history of backups from
> which to choose. For example, if you find that you are infected, it
> is likely that several of your backups may be just as infected and
> you have to walk back further to find a clean backup. Well, the more
> disk space that gets consumed per backup means the less backups you
> can store on your storage media for those backups. Incremental and
> differential backups give you a greater depth in history of backups
> from which to select a restore. Despite being cheap[er], disk space
> isn't free. If getting more into the same size storage constrainment
> wasn't an issue, utilities to compress multiple files into a .zip,
> .tar, .rar or other archival filetype would never had showed up.

Excellent explanation.

 

[Bill in Co]

VanguardLH wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>> Henry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Running WinXP Pro SP2 on Dell with 3G CPU and 2G RAM.
>>>>
>>>> I bought a Seagate external hard drive for backup purposes and now I'm
>>>> looking for a good backup program. The one that came with the Seagate
>>>> isn't very good because it makes you backup on a schedule rather than
>>>> when you want and Microsoft's SyncToy is worthless because I don't
>>>> have all of my folders under My Documents so I have to make folder
>>>> pairs for each folder.
>>>>
>>>> If there is something free out there that would be great. I'd like to
>>>> be able to have the program run and only change the folders/files that
>>>> have changed since the last time I backed up.
>>>
>>> http://www.paragon-software.com/home/db-express/
>>>
>>> Doesn't do incremental image backups but will do differential image
>>> backups.
>>>
>>> If you have 5 incremental backups since the prior full backup, all 6
>>> backups must be available and usable to do the image restore; i.e., you
>>> need full + incr1 + incr2 + incr3 + incr4 + incr5. Incrementals consume
>>> the least disk space but only record the changes made since the prior
>>> incremental backup. The longer the chain of backups the more vulnerable
>>> you are to loss if one of the incrementals is not usable.
>>>
>>> Differentials track changes made since the full backup, not from a prior
>>> incremental or differential backup. Differentials consume more space
>>> than incrementals but are smaller than full backups. Each differential
>>> backup gets progressively larger since it records changes between now
>>> and the last full backup. Restore only need 2 backups: full + diff.
>>>
>>> Other free imaging programs usually only let you save full images.
>>> Paragon is the only that I know of (so far) where its free version also
>>> does something less than a full image, like a differential. I don't
>>> know of a free one that does incremental image backups.
>>
>> But why bother with the incremental or differential backups, and their
>> limitations as mentioned, if a full and complete image backup only takes
>> about 10 minutes (at least over here, for 20 GB of data on C.
>
> A full image consumes more disk space. If you are doing backups, it is
> highly unlikely that you want only 1 backup. If all you want is 1
> backup than use cloning. Typically you want a history of backups from
> which to choose. For example, if you find that you are infected, it is
> likely that several of your backups may be just as infected and you have
> to walk back further to find a clean backup. Well, the more disk space
> that gets consumed per backup means the less backups you can store on
> your storage media for those backups. Incremental and differential
> backups give you a greater depth in history of backups from which to
> select a restore. Despite being cheap[er], disk space isn't free. If
> getting more into the same size storage constrainment wasn't an issue,
> utilities to compress multiple files into a .zip, .tar, .rar or other
> archival filetype would never had showed up.

I keep several generational image backups (spanning over a year or so) on
one drive, and use a full complete standalone image backup each time (about
20 G. Typically each night I just overwrite the previous day's backup IF
I know it's clean. But I also have a few somewhat older (a month or two
ago) backups on that drive, too, just to cover myself.

I guess it comes down to this: how many backups (and going back how far) is
normally enough? I'd say that a half dozen, spanning a year, would do it,
so disk space isn't much of an issue (5 backups, even at 20 GB, is only 100
G. And after awhile, it's a simple housekeeping matter to remove the
very oldest image backups (like a year old), which you'll never use again
anyway.

I guess the tradeoff is: would you rather put up with the limitations and
potential liabilities of using incrementals and differentials, or rather
have a full and complete (and fresh standalone) single image backup
(admitedly with the disadvantage of having some fewer backups to fall back
on).

 

[Daave]

Bill in Co wrote:

> I guess the tradeoff is: would you rather put up with the
> limitations and potential liabilities of using incrementals and
> differentials, or rather have a full and complete (and fresh
> standalone) single image backup (admitedly with the disadvantage of
> having some fewer backups to fall back on).

As long as the backup archives are validated, I would always opt for
more backups.

 

[Bill in Co]

Daave wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>
>> I guess the tradeoff is: would you rather put up with the
>> limitations and potential liabilities of using incrementals and
>> differentials, or rather have a full and complete (and fresh
>> standalone) single image backup (admitedly with the disadvantage of
>> having some fewer backups to fall back on).
>
> As long as the backup archives are validated, I would always opt for
> more backups.

OK, we'll have to differ on this one. I'd rather use and rely on the
completely self contained and standalone single composite image files,
rather than use and rely on any "hybrids" (i.e., relying on multiple
incrementals or differentials). Sure seems safer to me. (and besides, the
last thing I want to due is depend on or keep track of incrementals or
differentials). But another price I pay for this is, of course, that it
takes longer to write out a completely new image backup file, but then
again, at 10 minutes (for 20 G, I can sure wait.

 

[Doum]

"choro" <choro@tvco.net> écrivait news:Mdf5o.26626$pj7.14261@hurricane:

<snip>

> But I feel it is now time to switch over to the new computer I have
> built for myself as the motherboard on my old faithful won't support
> SATA drives. The new motherboard is equipped with a fast four-core AMD
> CPU as well as a very fast DDR3 graphics card plus a generous 4 GB
> DDR3 RAM. My old faithful will only take PATA HDs, AGP graphics cards
> and much slower memory modules. But it still is my old faithful and I
> am finding it hard to switch over to my newer computer. I guess I am
> put off by having to reinstall all the programs I have already
> installed on my old faithful and all the tweaks I have made on my old
> faithful which incidentally is now a full 10 years old. It was and
> remains my first true love!
>
> I also have to admit that I am so happy with my Windows XP/SP3 that I
> hesitate to move over to Windows 7.

With your new machine, XP-SP3, which is a 32 bits OS, won't use the full 4
gigs of RAM.

Install Windows 7 - 64 bits and you will be using the whole 4 gigs and you
will get the free utilities you want to do your backups the way you want
and even create a system image with all your programs and drivers already
installed to restore your machine in case of serious problems.

Last year I installed XP-32 bits and Seven 64 bits in a double-boot
configuration on a new Core2Quad system with 8 gigs RAM and I rarely boot
in XP anymore. By the way, when I create a system image in Seven, it
detects the double-boot and includes the XP hard disk in the image.

It's your choice...

HTH

 

[choro]

Doum wrote:
> "choro" <choro@tvco.net> écrivait
> news:Mdf5o.26626$pj7.14261@hurricane:
>
> <snip>
>
>> But I feel it is now time to switch over to the new computer I have
>> built for myself as the motherboard on my old faithful won't support
>> SATA drives. The new motherboard is equipped with a fast four-core
>> AMD CPU as well as a very fast DDR3 graphics card plus a generous 4
>> GB DDR3 RAM. My old faithful will only take PATA HDs, AGP graphics
>> cards and much slower memory modules. But it still is my old
>> faithful and I am finding it hard to switch over to my newer
>> computer. I guess I am put off by having to reinstall all the
>> programs I have already installed on my old faithful and all the
>> tweaks I have made on my old faithful which incidentally is now a
>> full 10 years old. It was and remains my first true love!
>>
>> I also have to admit that I am so happy with my Windows XP/SP3 that I
>> hesitate to move over to Windows 7.
>
> With your new machine, XP-SP3, which is a 32 bits OS, won't use the
> full 4 gigs of RAM.
>
> Install Windows 7 - 64 bits and you will be using the whole 4 gigs
> and you will get the free utilities you want to do your backups the
> way you want and even create a system image with all your programs
> and drivers already installed to restore your machine in case of
> serious problems.
>
> Last year I installed XP-32 bits and Seven 64 bits in a double-boot
> configuration on a new Core2Quad system with 8 gigs RAM and I rarely
> boot in XP anymore. By the way, when I create a system image in
> Seven, it detects the double-boot and includes the XP hard disk in
> the image.
>
> It's your choice...
>
> HTH

Thanks for the info. I have already built myself a Win 7 64 bit machine. The
4 Giga DDR3 RAM is on that machine. I call them my chocholate bars! But the
new machine is still sitting under the desk as my number 2 "desktop" though
I hardly ever use it even though I paid top dollar and bought top notch
components to go into my new machine. One of these days I will get round to
moving it on to my desk and hooking it via my KVM as my number 1 machine. It
is already connected to my KVM but as my number 2 machine.

It's got 2 hard disks of 1 GB each. Nothing on the second HD yet. I am
toying with the idea of installing Linux on the second HD. I will still have
my old faithful XP/SP3 machine hooked to my KVM as my number 2 machine this
time.

But I am getting on in years and am not as energetic as when I was even 5
years ago. Another problem is that even though I am retired and at least
theoretically have got all the time in the world, the days are still only 24
hours long. And I love talking to young things in their 20s and early 30s.
Mind you, these are very nice girls I know socially. What attraction I hold
for them I have no idea but they seem to find me interesting. Not for me
meeting girls on the Internet and engaging in dirty talk. YUK!
--
choro
*****

 

[Nucular Reaction]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:24:03 -0500, Henry <wa0goz@arrl.net> wrote:

>Running WinXP Pro SP2 on Dell with 3G CPU and 2G RAM.
>
>I bought a Seagate external hard drive for backup purposes and now I'm
>looking for a good backup program. The one that came with the Seagate
>isn't very good because it makes you backup on a schedule rather than
>when you want and Microsoft's SyncToy is worthless because I don't
>have all of my folders under My Documents so I have to make folder
>pairs for each folder.
>
>If there is something free out there that would be great. I'd like to
>be able to have the program run and only change the folders/files that
>have changed since the last time I backed up.

I just love it. You're too cheap to pay for what is probably the most
critical tool on your PC. Obviously, your data must be worth about
what you are willing to pay for the tool. Or most likely, you are a
tool.

 

[Unknown]

You love what? The backup program that came with the Seagate HD or
Microsoft's Sync Toy?
"Nucular Reaction" <nobody@black.hole> wrote in message
news:dcpl56t5g5mf7haqni934mfd6ehl539hss@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:24:03 -0500, Henry <wa0goz@arrl.net> wrote:
>
>>Running WinXP Pro SP2 on Dell with 3G CPU and 2G RAM.
>>
>>I bought a Seagate external hard drive for backup purposes and now I'm
>>looking for a good backup program. The one that came with the Seagate
>>isn't very good because it makes you backup on a schedule rather than
>>when you want and Microsoft's SyncToy is worthless because I don't
>>have all of my folders under My Documents so I have to make folder
>>pairs for each folder.
>>
>>If there is something free out there that would be great. I'd like to
>>be able to have the program run and only change the folders/files that
>>have changed since the last time I backed up.
>
> I just love it. You're too cheap to pay for what is probably the most
> critical tool on your PC. Obviously, your data must be worth about
> what you are willing to pay for the tool. Or most likely, you are a
> tool.