How to backup your computer

[espns]

Backing-up my system volume only, with Acronis using a core i7 which translates into a 30 GB .tib file on a 7,200 rpm HDD takes approximately about 14 to 22 minutes - a restore of the same takes me about 11 to 16 minutes.

Caution Note:--

The above info. was meant just for educational purposes - every User who places the time factor before reliability will come to grief sooner than later.

In the sector of backup/restore, choosing a solution based on the time factor is the most foolish decision a prospective new Entrant to this segment, can possibly make - it will reward the User with the most sorrowful penalty, indeed.

You seem to have tried many stuff and have experience. Just a quick question

What if I want to backup 12 PCs but want a centralized backup (Backup+Restore) on a Network Server! Would Acronis be good or are the other freeware good?

Thanks

[dcs18]

Backing-up my system volume only, with Acronis using a core i7 which translates into a 30 GB .tib file on a 7,200 rpm HDD takes approximately about 14 to 22 minutes - a restore of the same takes me about 11 to 16 minutes.

Caution Note:--

The above info. was meant just for educational purposes - every User who places the time factor before reliability will come to grief sooner than later.

In the sector of backup/restore, choosing a solution based on the time factor is the most foolish decision a prospective new Entrant to this segment, can possibly make - it will reward the User with the most sorrowful penalty, indeed.

You seem to have tried many stuff and have experience. Just a quick question

What if I want to backup 12 PCs but want a centralized backup (Backup+Restore) on a Network Server! Would Acronis be good or are the other freeware good?

Thanks

ATM, I am trying out Acronis 2015 and 2016 (ATI) against Macrium Reflect 6 (Server Edition — Technician Build) — yes, have been testing out these backup/restore solutions but have discarded the free ones since they are quite lame in their features.

As far as your question on Acronis is concerned — yes, they have always had the option to backup/restore on a Network Server.

[dcs18]

I am more confused at what method to use, backup image or backup sync to secondary hard drive. Then a choice can be made. Good to see these suggestions though.

Backup and synchronization are 2 differently distinct functions — though appearing to be similar, they have different uses.

A backed-up image is useful when (for example) one wishes to restore the volume/disk/partition or even the entire computer — a synchronized backup is more relevant when only certain selective parts/files/directories are to be restored.

Personally, I use both forms of back-up, on a regular basis — for purpose of synchronization, one can check out the "Default Locations Where Configurations & Settings Are Stored"

[212eta]

Macrium Reflect Free is all you need.

What if they want a product that automatically backs up their data offsite or the "cloud".

I didn't see anything about that with this product.

Depending on what you are backing up most people are going to want to do something offsite

for disaster recovery or use a service that provides storage for you backups incase their disc they are backing up to fails.

I do Not like/trust *Cloud* services,

as I use Hardware (e.g. external Hard Disks/USB Flash)

for Backing up my Data.

[Michael*]

Why is my Acronis BootCD missing their Disk Director Partition Manager? I used to have it ....

[DKT27]

I am more confused at what method to use, backup image or backup sync to secondary hard drive. Then a choice can be made. Good to see these suggestions though.

Backup and synchronization are 2 differently distinct functions — though appearing to be similar, they have different uses.

A backed-up image is useful when (for example) one wishes to restore the volume/disk/partition or even the entire computer — a synchronized backup is more relevant when only certain selective parts/files/directories are to be restored.

Personally, I use both forms of back-up, on a regular basis — for purpose of synchronization, one can check out the "Default Locations Where Configurations & Settings Are Stored"

I am just worried about the reliability of the hard drives and personally have found no reason or use to restore the backup myself, unless the HDD gives problems. Not to forget, the HDD I am wanting to use as a backup already contains restored bad sectors and while it might be a bad choice, it's the most I can get as big HDDs are still too expensive in my view. Then again, I have no experience in this so I'm looking into options available.

[dcs18]

I am more confused at what method to use, backup image or backup sync to secondary hard drive. Then a choice can be made. Good to see these suggestions though.

Backup and synchronization are 2 differently distinct functions — though appearing to be similar, they have different uses.

A backed-up image is useful when (for example) one wishes to restore the volume/disk/partition or even the entire computer — a synchronized backup is more relevant when only certain selective parts/files/directories are to be restored.

Personally, I use both forms of back-up, on a regular basis — for purpose of synchronization, one can check out the "Default Locations Where Configurations & Settings Are Stored"

I am just worried about the reliability of the hard drives and personally have found no reason or use to restore the backup myself, unless the HDD gives problems. Not to forget, the HDD I am wanting to use as a backup already contains restored bad sectors and while it might be a bad choice, it's the most I can get as big HDDs are still too expensive in my view. Then again, I have no experience in this so I'm looking into options available.

Exactly the reason why so many Home Users get shafted — they do not see the reason or use for a backup/restore and then suddenly discover that the System Restore built into Windows fails to work.

Lack of HDD reliability is just one of so many other reasons why one should back-up — BTW, the options you seek neither conflict with each other nor do they depend on each other . . . . . . . . . . . imaging and synchronization are in fact, not options (they are both show-stopping essentials.)

[DKT27]

Exactly the reason why so many Home Users get shafted — they do not see the reason or use for a backup/restore and then suddenly discover that the System Restore built into Windows fails to work.

Lack of HDD reliability is just one of so many other reasons why one should back-up — BTW, the options you seek neither conflict with each other nor do they depend on each other . . . . . . . . . . . imaging and synchronization are in fact, not options (they are both show-stopping essentials.)

The build-in System Restore is the last thing I would used. Disabled it long ago. While I have not had many uses for it, I have had trojans hidden in it's backup folders.

Well, if you say, I can consider both but then the size of the HDD comes, the backup HDD might well be one forth size of the normal HDD.

Unless, you are suggesting something else.

[dcs18]

The build-in System Restore is the last thing I would used. Disabled it long ago. While I have not had many uses for it, I have had trojans hidden in it's backup folders.

The problem with System Restore built into Windows is that it has a will of its own — it backups in the form of restore points which it creates when it wishes to and does not (cannot) discriminate between the infected and non-infected state of your system. Little wonder, the adorable Trojans get backed-up, too — not your fault, blame that on the automation of Windows System Restore.

Well, if you say, I can consider both but then the size of the HDD comes, the backup HDD might well be one forth size of the normal HDD.

Unless, you are suggesting something else.

After taking into account the present size of the system partition and after factoring for massive future Windows Update . . . . . . then, allowing at least 13% of free space for the volume to be able to breathe and hence to also prevent fragmentation, I would say about 65 GBs storage should be legit. for just the system partition (C:\ Drive.)

With the above math, a Macrium backup would aggregate to about 32 GBs (without compression) while one by Acronis would be even lower in weight — to backup this size, is peanuts considering the generous storage space available nowadays at throwaway rates.

[DKT27]

Never liked it personally. Always disable it. Have found it somehow get enabled automatically not sure by itself or because of some other 3rd party software.

I will consider giving it a try.

[dcs18]

Never liked it personally. Always disable it. Have found it somehow get enabled automatically not sure by itself or because of some other 3rd party software.

[espns]

Never liked it personally. Always disable it. Have found it somehow get enabled automatically not sure by itself or because of some other 3rd party software.

How would you review this //www.nsaneforums.com/topic/248900-giveaway-get-o-o-diskimage-9-professional-edition-for-free/

If good can get a grab :showoff:

[dcs18]

Never liked it personally. Always disable it. Have found it somehow get enabled automatically not sure by itself or because of some other 3rd party software.

How would you review this //www.nsaneforums.com/topic/248900-giveaway-get-o-o-diskimage-9-professional-edition-for-free/

If good can get a grab :showoff:

I am done using these freeware backup/restore solutions — they are too handicapped for professional use, when it comes to UEFI and cross-pollination of GPT/MBR. :(

[Ghazi]

Never liked it personally. Always disable it. Have found it somehow get enabled automatically not sure by itself or because of some other 3rd party software.

@dcs what is this software name??

[dcs18]

Never liked it personally. Always disable it. Have found it somehow get enabled automatically not sure by itself or because of some other 3rd party software.

@dcs what is this software name??

Ghazi, that software is Yamicsoft Windows Manager. ^_^

[Airstream_Bill]

Backing-up my system volume only, with Acronis using a core i7 which translates into a 30 GB .tib file on a 7,200 rpm HDD takes approximately about 14 to 22 minutes - a restore of the same takes me about 11 to 16 minutes.

Caution Note:--

The above info. was meant just for educational purposes - every User who places the time factor before reliability will come to grief sooner than later.

In the sector of backup/restore, choosing a solution based on the time factor is the most foolish decision a prospective new Entrant to this segment, can possibly make - it will reward the User with the most sorrowful penalty, indeed.

Darn!! I have been doing it right all along. Ha ha ha.

[Airstream_Bill]

I have found that Windows 8.1 System Image Backup is VERY Reliable. It uses about 30% more disk space for the Image Backup than Acronis does. For those of you who do not know about it here is Link to edify yourself. It is Simple. http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/windows-81-tip-use-system-image-backup

I use ACRONIS and Windows Image Backup in Windows 8.1.

[Chiitus]

Thanks everyone!!! I will try all possibilities and choose the best one.

Again, thanks!