Image your system with free Macrium

I would suggest you use differentials rather than incrementals. The reason is that there are fewer files to get corrupted. A long incremental chain can be destroyed by just one corrupt file.

I don't even bother with incrementals or differentials anymore. My system images are only 26GB big and I only keep the last few (and the one I made when I first set up the computer) so I don't have to worry about how much space I need or the amount of time it takes to make an image; it takes only ten minutes to make an image and verify it. I make an image only once a week and before making any changes to the system.

LF, That's the way to go. I do the same. It is a lot less messy.

I also just keep full images. My problem is I probably keep too many of them. It's a bit like the junk that clutters up your house because "You may need it one day".

Just to be different I do weekly full images and daily differentials.

mjf said:

I also just keep full images. My problem is I probably keep too many of them. It's a bit like the junk that clutters up your house because "You may need it one day".

I hear you! I don't know about the free version, but the Pro version of Macrium Reflect can be set to either discard older images based on age or keep only the latest images up to a certain number. If I didn't have mine set to keep only the last eight images (four to eight weeks worth, depending on how many a week I make), I would have an obscene number on my computer.

My System files don't change all that much over a week's time (and most of the changes aren't critical) so a weekly full image is fine for me (and even that is probably overkill; I just want to maintain a habit of doing so). If I do make a change that could cause an issue, like trying out a new program or making a major configuration change, I just make a full image just before making the change. No fuss, no muss.

mjf said:

I also just keep full images. My problem is I probably keep too many of them. It's a bit like the junk that clutters up your house because "You may need it one day".

I have several TBs of backup images (some are backups of the backup images) on external HDDs.

I have had:

• A couple of images become unusable for no apparent reason.
• Some corrupted backup images on one of my internal HDDs, because the HDD happened to lose some sectors in that area (typical).

Having "too many" copies seems worthwhile.

lehnerus2000 said:

mjf said:

I also just keep full images. My problem is I probably keep too many of them. It's a bit like the junk that clutters up your house because "You may need it one day".

I have several TBs of backup images (some are backups of the backup images) on external HDDs.

I have had:

• A couple of images become unusable for no apparent reason.
• Some corrupted backup images on one of my internal HDDs, because the HDD happened to lose some sectors in that area (typical).

Having "too many" copies seems worthwhile.

You are as anal as I am. I have four HDDs—two locals and two offsite—for each HDD I have installed and in use in my machine (I'm sort four HDDs so one of my installed HDDs is not in use right now; I'm hoping for a good sale before I pull the trigger on the four).

I've never had an image fail to restore. I did have one fail verification; I reran the image and that one verified. That's a good argument for verification.

mjf said:

I also just keep full images. My problem is I probably keep too many of them. It's a bit like the junk that clutters up your house because "You may need it one day".

You can never have too many. I just was able to fix a problem on one of my laptops with an image from early 2013 - anything younger would not do.