Windows 7 backup vs. extra software

[Callistra]

Why would anyone choose extra ghosting software over Windows 7 built in backup system w/ system image option? Is there some benefit to this?

 

[pparks1]

Why would anyone choose extra ghosting software over Windows 7 built in backup system w/ system image option? Is there some benefit to this?

Yes there is more functionality in the 3rd party products. For example, the Windows system image can only be restored to a drive that is the same size or larger. It however cannot restore to a smaller drive...while 3rd party utils can.

Software like Acronis True Image 2010 has a feature called "try and decide", which allows you to take a snapshot of your system, then you can install things, patches, software, etc and see how they work. Once you are done, you can go back to Acronis and decide to either keep the changes since the snapshot and actually commit them to disk...or you can scrap them and it puts your computer back exactly the way it was when you took the snapshot.

I've used the System Image utility and it works great. It's never left me disappointed. But I've also invested in Acronis True Image Home 2010 as it only cost me $23.99 and offers some additional functionality that is a nice to have.

 

[SIW2]

Yes,

The limitation of Windows System Image is that it doesn't allow you much choice over which partitions to back, or where to restore them to.


There is also a danger that it may lose track of where it's images are . You will be unable to restore in that case.

Other software will let you select any partition or combination to make images of.

They allow you to restore any of those images to any location you choose.

They also let you browse the drive manually and pick up the images , even if they have moved, or the name has changed, or the backup image is no longer listed in it's own database.

Even the free versions will do that:

Paragon Backup & Recovery 10 Free Edition


Macrium Reflect FREE Edition - Information and download

 

[nate42nd]

Yes,

The limitation of Windows System Image is that it doesn't allow you much choice over which partitions to back, or where to restore them to.

SIW, Windows 7 lets me choose your partitions, but when you restore, you had better have them all checked, or it will destroy the partitions you don't have backed up.

As long as you check all partitions, Windows 7s tool will work for a lot of people. It's so easy to use, I think it's worth a look first, then if you need more functionality, move to a 3rd party tool.

 

[SIW2]

Yes, it will be fine for some people. Just answering the question of why people would use anything else.

It lets you choose your partitions from the GUI ? It doesn't do that for me. It forces you to image the system and boot partition - you can add others.

I don't want to do that. I want to back up , for example , only my G partition - an o/s partition that I am not currently booted into.

Later I may ONLY want to restore the G partition . In fact , I may want to restore it somewhere else entirely.

when you restore, you had better have them all checked, or it will destroy the partitions you don't have backed up.

Does it? It's a good job I haven't tried a restore with Win Sys Image.

That would be crazy. It would mean people will image the system and boot partitions ( because they are forced to ).

Then if they restore - their other (e.g. data) partitions would be deleted.

Are you sure it does that?

 

[nate42nd]

Yes, it will be fine for some people. Just answering the question of why people would use anything else.

It lets you choose your partitions from the GUI ? It doesn't do that for me. It forces you to image the system and boot partition - you can add others.

I don't want to do that. I want to back up , for example , only my G partition - an o/s partition that I am not currently booted into.

Later I may ONLY want to restore the G partition . In fact , I may want to restore it somewhere else entirely.

when you restore, you had better have them all checked, or it will destroy the partitions you don't have backed up.

Does it? It's a good job I haven't tried a restore with Win Sys Image.

That would be crazy. It would mean people will image the system and boot partitions ( because they are forced to ).

Then if they restore - their other (e.g. data) partitions would be deleted.

Are you sure it does that?

Hey SIW, you're the last guy I will argue with...haha you know your stuff.

You're right, Windows does make you back up the "system" partitions then choose from there. I have done restores with Windows 7 imaging tool onto a disk that was bigger than the image. It creates a partition the same size as the image and leaves the rest "Unallocated" so I mis-spoke. Your answer was GREAT as usual. If there were already 2 partitions on the bigger drive....it would probably leave the partition alone you are not restoring to....

SIW is correct, compared to these 3rd party tools, Windows 7 imaging lacks functionality.

If all you want to do is back up your "system" and maybe a "storage" drive like a lot of people do......Windows 7 imaging tool will be fine.

 

[Wishmaster]

Although there are many free alternatives that do backup better than Windows built in one :

IMO, the Acronis Try & Decide makes it worth it paying for. I use it often & love it.

Still, the free choices suggested are equally as good as Acronis with everything else & superior to Windows built in one IMHO.

 

[nate42nd]

I consider myself a power user but I DON'T have a lot of data. I have about 40-50GB of music and video. I have tried the 3rd party tools, and when I got Vista Ultimate, I started using Windows tool included. I think MS improved it in Windows 7 and it's all I use now.

I use SSDs so I have "more" of a chance (maybe) that my HD will fail. (I had one fail and was prepared with my Windows image)

Windows 7s tool is all I need. That MAY change some day, but I the extra features are not enough to make me want to switch. It depends on personal preference I suppose.

SIW is right.....he answered the OPs question. What's the benefit? There are benefits to 3rd party tools.

 

[SIW2]

Windows Sys Image could be a lot better. Ms could have included more options in the GUI.

I believe they didn't because they didn't want inexperienced people to mess it up.

That is both it's strength and it's weakness. It makes it hard for the inexperienced to image the wrong things - at the same time it prevents choice for the intermediate user.

There is a little extra you can do with it using the command line - but not much (in Win 7).

The command options are much better in Server 2008.

MS would do well to include those command options in 7 Pro and higher.

 

[nate42nd]

Windows Sys Image could be a lot better. Ms could have included more options in the GUI.

I believe they didn't because they didn't want inexperienced people to mess it up.

That is both it's strength and it's weakness. It makes it hard for the inexperienced to image the wrong things - at the same time it prevents choice for the intermediate user.

There is a little extra you can do with it using the command line - but not much (in Win 7).

The command options are much better in Server 2008.

MS would do well to include those command options in 7 Pro and higher.

Good point SIW. I forget MS has to prepare for the inevitable. I am glad this tool is included in Home Premium this time. It's a good step forward. I see your point now more than ever. I have just had so much trouble with Paragon and Macrium.....If I hadn't had these problems, i would probably be using one of them.

You have tried to help me before with these, but I never got them ironed out.

 

[SIW2]

If Win Sys Img does the job for you - that's great. You don't need anything else.

 

[nate42nd]

If Win Sys Img does the job for you - that's great. You don't need anything else.

I still want to say thanks for your help. You help a lot of people including me. I don't want you to have any hard feelings for me SIW.

You are the man, and you know WAY more than I about most subjects.

Thanks for all the help in the past. I hope I can help you or vice versa one day soon.

 

[IggyAZ]

Why would anyone choose extra ghosting software over Windows 7 built in backup system w/ system image option? Is there some benefit to this?

Many opinions here.
1. Windows Backup and imaging software are for someone that doesn't have lots of data and wants it easy. That is what MS imaging and backup can do.
I image my HD every week to another internal HD. If I scewup my HD within 6 minutes I can be back to a good starting point.

2. I also every few weks make an image using Terabytes Unlimted "Image for Windows" which I have been using for years. This is just a backup of MS image.

3. I also manuall save my Documents Directory at least every 2-3 days to my backup HD. So if worse comes I had to do a clean new reinstall of Win7 I still have my documents.
Oh this includes word & excel documents, pictures, favorites and my Outlook.pst file.

I always ask friends that don't backup. If you lost your HD today would you cry about it? Backup and you won't be sorry.

What do you think?


PS Yes I have lost my HD many years ago without a backup and I kicked myself everyday for at least 2 weeks. Then swore it will never happen again.

 

[aem]

Why would anyone choose extra ghosting software over Windows 7 built in backup system w/ system image option? Is there some benefit to this?

For me, it's cos Ghost is through DOS and OS independent. If i want to clone a disk, i just boot to Ghost and do it, without needing to log onto the OS. That said there are other tools that do the same so yeh which ever is easiest and works best at the moment it time i suppose.

 

[ryan7]

The Win7 backup is quite good.

For myself though I use the free True Image 11 from Western Digital because:

• I like to able to put images in specific folders on my other drive so I can keep the organized, not where Windows sees fit.
• I have 3 images and everytime I create a new image with Win7 it overwrites the old one.
• When restoring with the boot CD it tries to locate the image itself, there isn't an option for "browsing" your drives.
• Although Windows backup is quick, it only takes me about 5,6 minutes to create an image with ATI, and about 15 minutes to restore.
• And the big reason, despite having a 1TB internal and 500GB external, the image sizes are about 3-5GB larger. I just use the normal compression with ATI and they are still much smaller than Windows.

Of course having said all that, if there was no True Image or Macrium Reflect, then I'd be pretty happy using the built-in backup.

 

[74me]

Is it just me, or is the fact you can't move the location of the backup once it is created a pain?

What if you backup your system to a network location (ie. to another computer used as a single backup location for all the computers you own). Then you need to restore the Windows 7 disk, but you want to copy the backup image from the network location to an external HDD to make restoring faster. Basically not wanting to restore over the network.

Or still using the example above. I know the chances of 2 hard disks failing is remote. However, if you have data you can't afford to lose and you want to copy the backup image to another additional hard drive, no go? basically if both the Windows 7 drive and first backup image drive crap out, you can't restore from the copy on the second backup drive?

The only way I can see doing the above, is to pick a location for the backup image that is on a RAID disk (for extra redundancy). Or, you have to run two backup processes, one to your network location and another to a second drive elsewhere. Both of these are not very practical implementations esp. if you don't have a RAID controller, or want to waste time backing up twice.

Or maybe I have just been staring at the computer too long and misread something.


Any other thoughts on this?

CL

 

[sunnyarpit123]

Is it just me, or is the fact you can't move the location of the backup once it is created a pain?
CL

Are you sure of that? :huh: :shock:

I haven't tried it yet but I think it should work...

Did you make sure your destination external HD's filesystem was NTFS? Just check...

Normally its FAT by default, which doesn't allow transfer of files greater than 4GB or so. [ Had this problem with a MATLAB image looong ago ]

Maybe thats why? Just check...you might have overlooked this...

If yes, reformat to NTFS and then try to copy to your ext HD...hopefully it'll work