Backup program question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill W
  • Start date Start date
B

Bill W

Guest
My critical files are on my XP computer. For many years I have used 3rd

party backup programs to backup files to an external drive. I also keep a

portable drive in our safe deposit box. With all of the 3rd party backup

utilities available on the market today, I'm concerned that if I ever had to

perform a disaster recovery I might have trouble obtaining a copy of the

software I use.



My question is - what is wrong with using the universal XP backup program?

I guess I really don't know why I opted against it in the first place. It's

readily available and appears to do a good job. My only concern would be

reconciling the latest version of a file from the full and differential

backups in the event of a file restore. I think I'd really like to use the

XP backup. Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.
 
"Bill W" wrote in message

news:4C2AE13C-3F7D-4059-A2DE-B92722894C14@microsoft.com...

> My critical files are on my XP computer. For many years I have used 3rd

> party backup programs to backup files to an external drive. I also keep a

> portable drive in our safe deposit box. With all of the 3rd party backup

> utilities available on the market today, I'm concerned that if I ever had

> to perform a disaster recovery I might have trouble obtaining a copy of

> the software I use.

>

> My question is - what is wrong with using the universal XP backup program?

> I guess I really don't know why I opted against it in the first place.

> It's readily available and appears to do a good job. My only concern

> would be reconciling the latest version of a file from the full and

> differential backups in the event of a file restore. I think I'd really

> like to use the XP backup. Any opinions on this would be greatly

> appreciated.



The native Windows backup program (ntbackup.exe) does a reasonable job but

it has two problems:

- It's not perceived as user-friendly

- It will not run under Windows 7 (but there is a KB download that lets you

extract files from a .bkf file)



My own preference has always been to use robocopy. It requires some

scripting but restoring files is a breeze, no matter what operating system I

use. And when it comes to backing up locked files then hobocopy does an

equally fine job.
 
On Mar 12, 4:40 pm, "Bill W" wrote:

> My critical files are on my XP computer.  For many years I have used  3rd

> party backup programs to backup files to an external drive.  I also keep a

> portable drive in our safe deposit box.  With all of the 3rd party backup

> utilities available on the market today, I'm concerned that if I ever hadto

> perform a disaster recovery I might have trouble obtaining a copy of the

> software I use.

>

> My question is - what is wrong with using the universal XP backup program?

> I guess I really don't know why I opted against it in the first place.  It's

> readily available and appears to do a good job.  My only concern would be

> reconciling the latest version of a file from the full and differential

> backups in the event of a file restore.  I think I'd really like to usethe

> XP backup.  Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.



Windows backup program tends to not be compatible when the levels of

Windows changes.



I would recommend Comodo Backup. It has a simple file copy mode,

which is like the "Copy and Paste" method. With this mode, you would

have a exact copy of the files on the external hard drive in the

original format.
 
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:40:27 -0700, "Bill W" wrote:



> My critical files are on my XP computer. For many years I have used 3rd

> party backup programs to backup files to an external drive. I also keep a

> portable drive in our safe deposit box. With all of the 3rd party backup

> utilities available on the market today, I'm concerned that if I ever had to

> perform a disaster recovery I might have trouble obtaining a copy of the

> software I use.

>

> My question is - what is wrong with using the universal XP backup program?

> I guess I really don't know why I opted against it in the first place. It's

> readily available and appears to do a good job. My only concern would be

> reconciling the latest version of a file from the full and differential

> backups in the event of a file restore. I think I'd really like to use the

> XP backup. Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.





In addition to the answers you've already gotten, I wanted to add a

couple of points:



1. If you are just backing up critical files (data files) you may find

it easier not to use *any* backup program. Simply copy the files to

the external drive.



2. Using differential backup makes it faster to do backups. But it

makes it much slower and harder to do restores. It also increases the

risk of restoring incorrectly. Moreover, one other weakness of a

differential backup is that it doesn't recognize that a file has been

deleted. In most cases that might not matter, but there are situations

where it could matter. So my view is that full backups are much better

than differential ones.



--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
I agree completely with Ken Blake. Complete backups are better than

incremental ones which sometimes turn out to be excremental ones.



I have a 320gig external drive mounted in a Vantec eSATA connected

enclosure, total cost about $80. I use Casper 6.0 to clone my complete "C"

drive to this external drive about once a week.. It's a user friendly

system and is highly reliable. After the first "learning" clone it takes

about 6-8 minutes for subsequent clones.



I can screw around all I want with my "C" system knowing that if I trash it

I have a pristine one available in less than one minute on the external

drive. Really hard to beat if you can afford $80.



=============================================================

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message

news:fc1lp5hgr4obvqajurbiuv9gj6978n9bna@4ax.com...

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:40:27 -0700, "Bill W" wrote:



> My critical files are on my XP computer. For many years I have used 3rd

> party backup programs to backup files to an external drive. I also keep a

> portable drive in our safe deposit box. With all of the 3rd party backup

> utilities available on the market today, I'm concerned that if I ever had

> to

> perform a disaster recovery I might have trouble obtaining a copy of the

> software I use.

>

> My question is - what is wrong with using the universal XP backup program?

> I guess I really don't know why I opted against it in the first place.

> It's

> readily available and appears to do a good job. My only concern would be

> reconciling the latest version of a file from the full and differential

> backups in the event of a file restore. I think I'd really like to use

> the

> XP backup. Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.





In addition to the answers you've already gotten, I wanted to add a

couple of points:



1. If you are just backing up critical files (data files) you may find

it easier not to use *any* backup program. Simply copy the files to

the external drive.



2. Using differential backup makes it faster to do backups. But it

makes it much slower and harder to do restores. It also increases the

risk of restoring incorrectly. Moreover, one other weakness of a

differential backup is that it doesn't recognize that a file has been

deleted. In most cases that might not matter, but there are situations

where it could matter. So my view is that full backups are much better

than differential ones.



--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Thank you all very much for the very valuable information. This is exactly

what I need. Thanks again.





"Bill W" wrote in message

news:4C2AE13C-3F7D-4059-A2DE-B92722894C14@microsoft.com...

> My critical files are on my XP computer. For many years I have used 3rd

> party backup programs to backup files to an external drive. I also keep a

> portable drive in our safe deposit box. With all of the 3rd party backup

> utilities available on the market today, I'm concerned that if I ever had

> to perform a disaster recovery I might have trouble obtaining a copy of

> the software I use.

>

> My question is - what is wrong with using the universal XP backup program?

> I guess I really don't know why I opted against it in the first place.

> It's readily available and appears to do a good job. My only concern

> would be reconciling the latest version of a file from the full and

> differential backups in the event of a file restore. I think I'd really

> like to use the XP backup. Any opinions on this would be greatly

> appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top