Clone or Backup?

Discussion in 'Acronis True Image Product Line' started by photogman, Sep 13, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. photogman

    photogman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Posts:
    35
    I just installed TI 10 Home. My first impression: it seems alot like the freeware versio Maxtor MaxBlast 5, however, I'm very certain there are many, many more features MaxBlast doesn't have. I used it to perform a simple backup the other night and it worked flawless as I had hoped. Anyway, getting to my question.....

    I plan on reinstalling my system and applications on my hard drive and then make a "copy" of it so from time to time I can either clone the copy or use the copy if it is a backup, to restore my C: drive. I tend to like to operate from a clean copy of C: system and apps about every 3-6 months. My computer seems to operate much more efficiently and faster. What do you think is the way to go: clone or backup/restore?

    Thanks again for your advice!
     
  2. shieber

    shieber Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Posts:
    3,710
    The Maxblast is a stripped down version of ATI.

    With a clone, on the target disk you get a single copy of the source drive.

    With image backups, you can usually same many images, allwoing you to havve a rotating supply of backup, which is generally considered to be a more comprehensive backup policy. For example, something goes wonky on your source drive. You replace with a clone and find that the wonk occured before the clone was made -- you're screwed. If you had a supply of images from over a period of days or weeks, then it's more likely that one of them would be pre-wonk and let you get you back in business.
     
  3. photogman

    photogman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Posts:
    35
    What I want is a virgin copy of my C: drive before I start using it. I plan on doing other additional backup on a weekly basis when I start using the computer. The copy I want will be fresh....so would a clone or backup be better for that?
     
  4. MudCrab

    MudCrab Imaging Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Posts:
    6,483
    Location:
    California
    A backup image of the drive would be better. It takes up a lot less space and you don't waste an entire drive.
     
  5. shieber

    shieber Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Posts:
    3,710
    The main advantage of cloning a disk onto another disk is that you can start up with the clone in as much time as it takes to swap drives and reboot. The disadvantage is that you use up an entire drive for just one "copy" of the source drive. Usually, the source drive is not entirely used and you really only need to save the used sectors, which is what happens when you make a backup image -- so you can fit multiple backups one the target drive. Backup file sounds liek the best idea, especially if you want to save one of the images long term as the original image yet have backups subsequently of the source drive at later times.

    Some folks will clone the source and set that aside and then make backup image files thereafter. I guess, so that they have the option of a fast restasrt by swapping drives. Personally, out-of-date never appealed to me so I make a full mbackup every night and keep as many of the backup files as will fit on the target drive. This way I can go back as far as a couple fo weeks if it turns out something was wonky onthe source drive when I made subsequent backups -- but 99 times out a 100, I never have to go farther back than last night's image or maybe a day or two before.

    I'd rather not have to start up with an old image or clone and have to redo all the updates since the old image/clone was made.

    But it's a personal choice; there's no right or wrong about which way to go.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.