You make an image of the system so if you chose to start fresh it's that much less painful. Meaning all your apps are installed, things are the way you like it, OS is completely up to date, etc. They're useful for creating a "baseline" image of your system after you have it setup "just so". This is what we use Acronis & ImageX for - duplicating servers. They're extremely useful for cloning systems. Here's MYHO on the subject of image backups. I don't ever have anything to do with RAID or spanned disks, and I can't imagine when I'd bear to redeploy one system's image to another system's entirely - I would much, much rather just do a reinstall of the OS, and then selectively restore from the image.Īny comments on if you (personally) might use either of these features, and when they might come in handy? But I don't know if these would be very useful, in my experience. Pro comes with the ability to do dynamic disks, and also the ability to redeploy images to dissimilar hardware.
Having to boot into a WinPE environment to image is tedious (unless you have it scripted out on a recurring schedule).Īdditionally - I'm torn between potentially buying the Standard or Pro edition. Or at least, it happens less often than it should. Otherwise, it's far less likely to happen (even to the best of us! ). Much better, IMHO, is to target specific folders where important files/programs will be, and then have those backed up incrementally, on a frequent basis.īackup needs to be a quick and easy process that happens often and with little effort or intervention required on the user's part.
Sure, imaging is a lot easier - set it and forget it - but it's backing up massive amounts of extraneous files and garbage. I'm by no means a backup-pro, but my feeling is that the file/folder backup method is a much more effective approach over imaging (at least for a home user, and not businesses).
0 kommentar(er)
