I'm still not real clear on this after reading the FAQ. It seems like both options do the same thing. What does cloning do that imaging doesn't? Let's say my main HDD fails or becomes corrupt. If it's cloned onto a USB external HD, I could just boot up right from that external drive, as if everything is normal, correct? Whereas if use imaging, I need a boot disc, and would restore the images to a new HDD. Both options restore everything, including the OS, applications & files without having to reinstall anything, right? I just want to make sure my understanding of this is correct: Imaging is more of a "system restore" type of function, whereas cloning the drive is basically a hardcore "copy & paste", and it would need to be "re-cloned" back onto a new HDD should I need to install one.