|
Home > Archive > Backup Software > February 2007 > Looking for backup program
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Looking for backup program
|
|
| doryon 2007-01-30, 1:13 pm |
| I am looking for a WIN XP backup program that will:
1. Back up files and folders of my choice, onto a device of my choice, both
on demand and on a schedule
2. The backup files must be viewable, accessible, and retrievable in Windows
Explorer in the normal format
3. Must be able to do complete and incremental backups.
Any recommendations?
| |
|
|
"doryon" <doryon@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:DfadnZkSM_TcBSLYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@rc
n.net...
>I am looking for a WIN XP backup program that will:
>
> 1. Back up files and folders of my choice, onto a device of my choice,
> both on demand and on a schedule
> 2. The backup files must be viewable, accessible, and retrievable in
> Windows Explorer in the normal format
> 3. Must be able to do complete and incremental backups.
>
> Any recommendations?
>
For Complete `backups ?` you need
Acronis True Image (found by www.google.com)
And for regular file/folder backup/or/sync`ing you
can use the Free SyncBack at
http://www.dirfile.com/downloadnow_...k_freeware.html
bw..
| |
| doryon 2007-01-30, 7:15 pm |
| I have Acronis and it doesn't do what I want - you need Acronis to access
the backrd up files; can't see them with Windows Explorer. Besides, when I
had an unrecoverable system crash Acronis failed to recreate the system, and
when I restored individual folders it worked unreliably.
As for SyncBack, it seems to back up to another ssystem in real time, which
isn't what I want.
"1932" <xxxx@xxxx.com> wrote in message
news:ceNvh.82708$HV6.15790@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "doryon" <doryon@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:DfadnZkSM_TcBSLYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@rc
n.net...
> For Complete `backups ?` you need
> Acronis True Image (found by www.google.com)
> And for regular file/folder backup/or/sync`ing you
> can use the Free SyncBack at
> http://www.dirfile.com/downloadnow_...k_freeware.html
>
> bw..
>
>
| |
|
|
"doryon" <doryon@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:ab-dnS7iBIBnOCLYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@rcn.net...
>I have Acronis and it doesn't do what I want - you need Acronis to access
>the backrd up files; can't see them with Windows Explorer. Besides, when I
>had an unrecoverable system crash Acronis failed to recreate the system,
>and when I restored individual folders it worked unreliably.
>
> As for SyncBack, it seems to back up to another ssystem in real time,
> which isn't what I want.
>
Acronis works perfectly for me
You can configure SyncBack to do what you want,
And on a schedule !.
| |
| (PeteCresswell) 2007-01-30, 7:15 pm |
| Per doryon:
>1. Back up files and folders of my choice, onto a device of my choice, both
>on demand and on a schedule
>2. The backup files must be viewable, accessible, and retrievable in Windows
>Explorer in the normal format
>3. Must be able to do complete and incremental backups.
Does it need tb smart enough to maintain multiple backup sets?
i.e. If you are backing up to, say, three portable disc drives and rotating the
drives between home and work, does it need to know that as far as drive 2 is
concerned file XYZ has changed and needs tb backed up - even though it was
backed up to drive 1 yesterday?
Seems like some backup utilities just work with the "Archive" bit. If it's set,
they back up the file and then clear the bit. If somebody else wants to check
the file for an incremental backup, tough darts....
My copy of Retrospect 6.0, miserable and arcane as the UI is - and pathetic as
Dantz's support is - does this. My understanding is that some backup utilities
do not.
--
PeteCresswell
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2007-01-30, 7:15 pm |
| "doryon" <doryon@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:ab-dnS7iBIBnOCLYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@rcn.net...
> I have Acronis and it doesn't do what I want - you need Acronis to access
> the backrd up files; can't see them with Windows Explorer. Besides, when
I
> had an unrecoverable system crash Acronis failed to recreate the system,
and
> when I restored individual folders it worked unreliably.
All backup programs are going to compress and store files in a format not
used by Windows.
The only alternative is to duplicate the files to another volume. Not really
useful.
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2007-01-30, 7:15 pm |
| "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:02evr2l32bk761a8nrd98plf7s68dgjf03@
4ax.com...
> Per doryon:
both[vbcol=seagreen]
Windows[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Does it need tb smart enough to maintain multiple backup sets?
>
> i.e. If you are backing up to, say, three portable disc drives and
rotating the
> drives between home and work, does it need to know that as far as drive 2
is
> concerned file XYZ has changed and needs tb backed up - even though it was
> backed up to drive 1 yesterday?
>
> Seems like some backup utilities just work with the "Archive" bit. If
it's set,
> they back up the file and then clear the bit. If somebody else wants to
check
> the file for an incremental backup, tough darts....
>
> My copy of Retrospect 6.0, miserable and arcane as the UI is - and
pathetic as
> Dantz's support is - does this. My understanding is that some backup
utilities
> do not.
Retrospect is quite obsolete, and given the report I saw in some forum,
perhaps even here, EMC has drastically reduced folkes working on
Retrospect.
And it's reliance on the "system state" makes restores even more difficult
as individual files in the system state cannot be retrieved.
| |
| doryon 2007-01-30, 7:15 pm |
| I downloaded SyncBack and indeed it does everything exactly as I want!
Thanks for the suggestion.
Regards, Yon
"1932" <xxxx@xxxx.com> wrote in message
news:MRNvh.83020$UC.65195@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "doryon" <doryon@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:ab-dnS7iBIBnOCLYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@rcn.net...
> Acronis works perfectly for me
> You can configure SyncBack to do what you want,
> And on a schedule !.
>
>
| |
| doryon 2007-01-30, 7:15 pm |
| Well, SyncBack does (if you want) store the files uncompressed in Window
Explorer format, so you don't need any software to retrieve it.
"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> wrote in message
news:epoiim$25m2$1@pyrite.mv.net...
> "doryon" <doryon@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:ab-dnS7iBIBnOCLYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@rcn.net...
> I
> and
>
> All backup programs are going to compress and store files in a format not
> used by Windows.
> The only alternative is to duplicate the files to another volume. Not
> really
> useful.
>
>
| |
| (PeteCresswell) 2007-01-30, 7:15 pm |
| Per Howard Kaikow:
>And it's reliance on the "system state" makes restores even more difficult
>as individual files in the system state cannot be retrieved.
Could somebody amplify on what "system state" is?
If it's something to do with backing up/restoring the OS, I'd say that's a
misuse of any backup utility anyhow. For the OS, I'd always use an imaging
utility. To me, backup utilities are for data, not the system.
--
PeteCresswell
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2007-01-31, 7:13 am |
| "doryon" <doryon@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:jL2dnRDJmuB0SCLYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@rc
n.net...
> Well, SyncBack does (if you want) store the files uncompressed in Window
> Explorer format, so you don't need any software to retrieve it.
That is just duplicating files.
| |
| doryon 2007-01-31, 1:12 pm |
| And what is wrong with that? Sure, I can do it manually, but it's nice to
be able to automate it. And I can retrieve my files on any Windows
computer, regardless of what software it has.
Regards, Yon
"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standards.com> wrote in message
news:epph87$2eip$1@pyrite.mv.net...
> "doryon" <doryon@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:jL2dnRDJmuB0SCLYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@rc
n.net...
>
> That is just duplicating files.
>
>
| |
| louise 2007-02-02, 1:16 am |
| (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per doryon:
>
>
> Does it need tb smart enough to maintain multiple backup sets?
>
> i.e. If you are backing up to, say, three portable disc drives and rotating the
> drives between home and work, does it need to know that as far as drive 2 is
> concerned file XYZ has changed and needs tb backed up - even though it was
> backed up to drive 1 yesterday?
>
> Seems like some backup utilities just work with the "Archive" bit. If it's set,
> they back up the file and then clear the bit. If somebody else wants to check
> the file for an incremental backup, tough darts....
>
> My copy of Retrospect 6.0, miserable and arcane as the UI is - and pathetic as
> Dantz's support is - does this. My understanding is that some backup utilities
> do not.
I agree - I keep sticking with Retrospect for this very
reason. And I couldn't agree more about the UI but in the
end, I've not lost a single piece of data and over the last
5 years, I've lost two hard drives - one to mechanical
failure and one to some unknown trojan that wrecked everything.
Louise
| |
| louise 2007-02-02, 1:16 am |
| Howard Kaikow wrote:
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
> news:02evr2l32bk761a8nrd98plf7s68dgjf03@
4ax.com...
> both
> Windows
> rotating the
> is
> it's set,
> check
> pathetic as
> utilities
>
> Retrospect is quite obsolete, and given the report I saw in some forum,
> perhaps even here, EMC has drastically reduced folkes working on
> Retrospect.
> And it's reliance on the "system state" makes restores even more difficult
> as individual files in the system state cannot be retrieved.
>
>
Not true - I can retrieve individual files from various
"snapshots" (various dates) for at least as long as a a
month or two. I'm using version 7 but I did it with 6 as well.
Louise
| |
| Howard Kaikow 2007-02-02, 7:13 pm |
| "louise" <louise@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:52g1adF1nhrl8U2@mid.individual.net...
> Not true - I can retrieve individual files from various
> "snapshots" (various dates) for at least as long as a a
> month or two. I'm using version 7 but I did it with 6 as well.
Not in version 6, if the file is part of the "system state".
I doubt that version 7 is any different.
| |
| (PeteCresswell) 2007-02-02, 7:13 pm |
| Per louise:
> I keep sticking with Retrospect for this very
>reason. And I couldn't agree more about the UI but in the
>end,
I'm still running 6... been thinking about 7...
Did the UI get any better going from 6 to 7?
Does 7 have any features that made it worth going to?
--
PeteCresswell
| |
| louise 2007-02-03, 1:12 pm |
| (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per louise:
>
> I'm still running 6... been thinking about 7...
>
> Did the UI get any better going from 6 to 7?
>
> Does 7 have any features that made it worth going to?
The UI is still the most frustrating and unnecessarily
confusing of almost anything I've encountered.
But - 7 does have an excellent feature they refer to as
"grooming". You can choose the settings and when your
backup disk starts getting full, you can have Retrospect get
rid of the old backups - but it has a very sophisticated
system of doing so. I don't remember the details but it
essentially gets rid of all but the last xx (maybe 20)
snapshots AND it keeps one snapshot from every month or week
or whatever, from before that.
I hope this is at all clear - I fear I sound like the
Retrospect UI ;-) If not, please email me and I will try to
take a screenshot and send it to you for a better idea of
what I mean. louise250 at nyc dot rr dot com and use the
subject Retrospect so that my spam filter doesn't eat it.
I remember deciding this was an advance worth upgrading for.
Louise
| |
| (PeteCresswell) 2007-02-18, 1:12 pm |
| Per louise:
>But - 7 does have an excellent feature they refer to as
>"grooming". You can choose the settings and when your
>backup disk starts getting full, you can have Retrospect get
>rid of the old backups - but it has a very sophisticated
>system of doing so. I don't remember the details but it
>essentially gets rid of all but the last xx (maybe 20)
>snapshots AND it keeps one snapshot from every month or week
>or whatever, from before that.
I've begun flirting with SecondCopy v7.0.
So far, it *seems* to have everything that I currently get from Retrospect 6 or
would get from Retrospect 7 plus some significant improvements.
To wit:
-------------------------------------------------------
- Incremental versions are available for restore.
- It supports unattended, automated scripts.
- Seems reasonably solid so far (cross fingers...)
- It does de-facto grooming by virtue of a script's
supporting up to "N" additional copies - where the
user can specify "N".
- The functional equivalent of snapshots is available
via a script that backs up to a .ZIP file in a specified
location and which is scheduled to run weekly or monthly
or whatever period is desired.
-------------------------------------------------------
The improvements that I see:
-------------------------------------------------------
- Vastly, hugely, homongously better UI. A veritable
quantum leap.
- The scripts are *much* easier to create/maintain/view.
- When it comes time to restore/recover, the user is not
dependent on having some product or another installed
on the PC that files are tb recovered on. This is
quite significant IMHO. Nothing like losing one's
PC to a fire or destructive burglary or something
only not to have the Retrospect install CD and/or
the password...
- Apparently (I haven't explored it...) an option to
back up via FTP to some other PC over the internet.
This seems to put it's functionality/UI right up
there with Carbonite - with the additional option
of backing up to local drives.
- None of Retrospect's nonsense about the single-user
version not working over a LAN connection.
- The user can see what they have available just by
browsing directory lists.
- There seems tb less of a corruption issue. I've had
files backed up by Retrospect come up as "corrupted"
(and un-restorable) when I went to retrieve them
- eMail notification when scripts run into a problem.
This plus the little red "E" that shows up over the
tray icon is a major improvement over Retrospect's
closing down the application and leaving that "Open
Retrospect and look..." message.
-------------------------------------------------------
The only nit I can pick so far with SecondCopy is the naming convention they use
for incremental copies of the backed up files.
It's too long - something like 23 characters of additional name text, which
makes it more likely for some source files' renamed versions to exceed Windows'
255 limit.
Also, it's concatonated to the beginning of the file name instead of the end,
making it inconvenient to find out what versions of a given file are available
via a simple Windows directory window.
A DOS window and "Dir *.Whatever.*", no problem.... but it would be nice if
the user could specify the content and placement of that qualifier.
Unless I'm missing something, I can't see a reason why I shouldn't dump
Retrospect altogether.
Single user. Win XP Pro SP2. Less than 100 gigs tb backed up. A stack of
USB-wrappered drives available.
Perhaps greater minds than mine can comment on this.
-
--
PeteCresswell
| |
| (PeteCresswell) 2007-02-18, 1:12 pm |
| Per (PeteCresswell):
>The improvements that I see:
One more:
-------------------------------------------------------
- If the user happens to have another removable drive available,
there's no hassles with scripting.
Just tell windows to assign the same drive letter to that drive
as is used for the other drive(s) referenced by existing SecondCopy
scripts.
Once that's done, SecondCopy does the rest - creating the
needed directory structures on the new disk and backing
up transparently. It even senses the disk insert event
and asks the user if they want to run the scripts immediately
instead of waiting for their scheduled times.
----------------------------------------------------------
--
PeteCresswell
|
|
|
|
|