Backup

[halo636]

Hello.

Im going to be backing up around 500-600GB worth of programs, files and folders.
This is because I am upgrading to 64bit windows 7 ultimate instead of a 32bit.
Mainly because of Adobe CS5 Master Collection and the specs I want to upgrade to.

I am going to need to buy a external HDD to store the backup on, but how much would 600GB be backed up into approximately?

I need to backup all the data because most of the programs and files on there, for the retail price is around £10,000 - £20,000, so yeah I need it all!


Sadly its gonna have to be an external HDD over a graphic tablet
Damn 32bit spec restrictions....


Wouldn't it be so much simpler to just say you can use as much ram as you like on a 32bit?

 

[WalkerA WinTeam]

Hi halo636,

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you need to backup 600 GB of data, you'll need at least 600 GB of space... you'll probably find 1 TB drives to be the best deal in that size range. Does that help? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding...

Cheers,

Walker
Windows Outreach Team

 

[HMonk]

Welcome Halo.

You did not post in your specs whose HDD you have. Both Seagate and WD have a free version of Acronis True Image at their respective sites. To be able to use either, you must have one or the other HDD in your system. However, once installed, the Seagate version will work on any HDD and the WD version on any HDD.

OK, my experience. The Acronis version, using the "normal" compression setting will reduce the size of the original by one-half. For example, I have a 100GB OS-only partition on one of my HDDs that presently contains about 60GB of files. The resultant Acronis image backup file is usually around 30GB. The SW permits two additional levels of compression but I have never used them (slows down the backup) so I do not know how much more you could compress the image file.

If you do not have either a WD or Seagate drive, Macrium has a decent free app that, for me, is a bit slower and creates a bit (not significant) larger image files.

Hope that helps.

Monk

 

[SIW2]

I would go with Macrium.

Most importatnt thing is run off the ( Linux based ) boot disc and boot it up to be sure it recognizes everything - that applies to any imaging app. you try.

I am extremely surprised you find Acronis faster on your system. Macrium is acknowledged as the fastest in the industry - it certainly is on my system .

Much more efficient than Acronis, too - lower resource usage and a tiny fraction of the size. It also works with any brand HD.

 

[HMonk]

Been using Acronis for years; first used it with my office system. I got an email notice a while back, I think from TechRepublic, about Reflect new version (still have an archive: version 4.2.2409 if that's the latest) so DLed and tried it. As I recall my OS image file was right at 40GB v. my usual 30GB at the "normal" compression setting. If Macrium behaves like the typical backup app, one could compress the file further but it would take longer to create. Now, as I mentioned in my post, the difference is not significant so it's a matter of working with what I'm used to.

I didn't mention it but my Acronis backups run about 20 minutes for my OS partition. If memory serves me correctly (Ha!) it was almost 50 minutes for the Macrium. Regardless, they both do the job well enough.

Monk

 

[halo636]

Thanks for the help guys it is really appreciated.

Im using a seagate 1TB HDD at the moment so I will check that program acronis out.
I will probably buy a 1TB external HDD just to be on the safe side as it is only an extra £20 for 500GB, thanks for the fast replies and all the help!

 

[whs]

Wouldn't it be so much simpler to just say you can use as much ram as you like on a 32bit?

This is a funny one defying all laws of mathematics. If you can map a number larger than 4GB into 32bit, you'll win the Nobel price.
But back to your question: If you image your data with free Macrium as SIW2 suggests, you need about 55% of disk space relative to the size of your data. Thus your 600GBs would fit easily on a 500GB disk.