Really? Ever managed to buy a disk pre-fomatted in NTFS?

Again you seem blistfully unaware that cloning software is capable of
partioning, indeed thats' what it's creating when it does a restore!

Many use cloning software to transfer to a new virgin hardisk and don't call
up any additional software to do it.

It would appear you are not keeping up with the latest software tehcnology!

In message , John Russell
writes

Really? Ever managed to buy a disk pre-fomatted in NTFS?

Again you seem blistfully unaware that cloning software is capable of
partioning, indeed thats' what it's creating when it does a restore!

Many use cloning software to transfer to a new virgin hardisk and don't call
up any additional software to do it.

It would appear you are not keeping up with the latest software tehcnology!

Care to give us the benefit of your vast knowledge and experience then,
and identify a specific "latest software technology" product that
supports physical (cluster/sector) backup and restore that will allow
the restore to a different filesystem?

You keep on exercising your ego with your disparaging, but fail to
identify a product in this particular context. What you say is certainly
true where the directory/file structure is backed up/restored - but I'm
waiting for something that does what you say using a *physical* image
backup/restore. Or are you simply trying to start an argument?
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , John Russell
writes

Really? Ever managed to buy a disk pre-fomatted in NTFS?

Again you seem blistfully unaware that cloning software is capable of
partioning, indeed thats' what it's creating when it does a restore!

Many use cloning software to transfer to a new virgin hardisk and don't
call
up any additional software to do it.

It would appear you are not keeping up with the latest software
tehcnology!

Care to give us the benefit of your vast knowledge and experience then,
and identify a specific "latest software technology" product that
supports physical (cluster/sector) backup and restore that will allow
the restore to a different filesystem?

You keep on exercising your ego with your disparaging, but fail to
identify a product in this particular context. What you say is certainly
true where the directory/file structure is backed up/restored - but I'm
waiting for something that does what you say using a *physical* image
backup/restore. Or are you simply trying to start an argument?

Your the one who came back with the orignal long winded durge as if you
wanted an argument knocking imaging as a backup system. I have never said
that a single product can restore to different file system using imaging,
your the one who brought that up as if that was an essential requirement
when it's a monority interest. If someone did need to do that (as if!) then
they would know that any modern partitoning product would quite happily
change it without destrying the data.

In the real world thousands of users are using imaging in preference to
file based systems.

In message , John
Russell writes

Snipped....

Your the one who came back with the orignal long winded durge as if you
wanted an argument knocking imaging as a backup system.

I simply outlined a coherent backup policy and procedures.

I have never said that a single product can restore to different file
system using imaging,

You certainly implied it. Do read just what you have said (e.g.'Again
you seem blistfully unaware that cloning software is capable of
partioning, indeed thats' what it's creating when it does a restore!'.

And I'm still waiting for you to cite a product that transparently
formats, partitions and restores a raw image backup.

your the one who brought that up as if that was an essential
requirement when it's a monority interest. If someone did need to do
that (as if!) then they would know that any modern partitoning product
would quite happily change it without destrying the data.

Now you're talking partitioning product(s) and not backup/restore
product(s). Just what product will transparently format, partition and
restore a raw image backup?

In the real world thousands of users are using imaging in preference
to file based systems.

Care to name such a product? I know the work "image" is sometimes used -
but in the context of directory/file backup - and not cluster/sector
which in this case is the context.

None of Veritas, Yosemite, NetVault, Dantz or Legato products image the
clusters/sectors. Nor does Disk Image. Nor does Ghost.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , John Russell
writes

Really? Ever managed to buy a disk pre-fomatted in NTFS?

Again you seem blistfully unaware that cloning software is capable of
partioning, indeed thats' what it's creating when it does a restore!

Many use cloning software to transfer to a new virgin hardisk and don't
call
up any additional software to do it.

It would appear you are not keeping up with the latest software
tehcnology!

Care to give us the benefit of your vast knowledge and experience then,
and identify a specific "latest software technology" product that
supports physical (cluster/sector) backup and restore that will allow
the restore to a different filesystem?



You arent "restoring it to a different file system", you are wiping whatever
was there before with the copy you took.

You keep on exercising your ego with your disparaging, but fail to
identify a product in this particular context. What you say is certainly
true where the directory/file structure is backed up/restored - but I'm
waiting for something that does what you say using a *physical* image
backup/restore. Or are you simply trying to start an argument?
--
Norton Ghost or Drive Image (though I have never used the latter) will do
this, I've used NG several times to recover from a virus, from a few
software screwups, and to xfer my C drive to a larger disk. Whatever is on
the disk being restored to is irrelevant, whether its empty or has a FAT,
FAT32 or EXT3 file system. Its history after you start the restore.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , John
Russell writes

Snipped....

Your the one who came back with the orignal long winded durge as if you
wanted an argument knocking imaging as a backup system.

I simply outlined a coherent backup policy and procedures.

I have never said that a single product can restore to different file
system using imaging,

You certainly implied it. Do read just what you have said (e.g.'Again
you seem blistfully unaware that cloning software is capable of
partioning, indeed thats' what it's creating when it does a restore!'.

And I'm still waiting for you to cite a product that transparently
formats, partitions and restores a raw image backup.

your the one who brought that up as if that was an essential
requirement when it's a monority interest. If someone did need to do
that (as if!) then they would know that any modern partitoning product
would quite happily change it without destrying the data.

Now you're talking partitioning product(s) and not backup/restore
product(s). Just what product will transparently format, partition and
restore a raw image backup?

In the real world thousands of users are using imaging in preference
to file based systems.

Care to name such a product? I know the work "image" is sometimes used -
but in the context of directory/file backup - and not cluster/sector
which in this case is the context.

None of Veritas, Yosemite, NetVault, Dantz or Legato products image the
clusters/sectors. Nor does Disk Image. Nor does Ghost.
--

All I know is that NG lets me take an image of my disk and restore it to
another disk or partition, overwriting whatever was there before. Whats your
problem with that?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

In message , Tumbleweed
writes
Snipped...

All I know is that NG lets me take an image of my disk and restore it
to another disk or partition, overwriting whatever was there before.
Whats your problem with that?

Absolutely nothing. What I challenged was someone's recommendation to do
a cluster/sector byte-by-byte backup in preference to a directory/file
backup. In fact the latter is the way is invariably done - and I
challenged the proposer to name a backup client that did it the way that
*he* proposed.

The "image" is an image of the directories/files and not (as
recommended) a cluster/sector image.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

In message , Tumbleweed
writes
Snipped....

but I'm
waiting for something that does what you say using a *physical* image
backup/restore. Or are you simply trying to start an argument?
--
Norton Ghost or Drive Image (though I have never used the latter) will
do this,

No they do NOT. They both image the directory/files and not the physical
clusters/sectors. And that is the reason that you can restore to any
filesystem (within the constraints of the same OS)..

I've used NG several times to recover from a virus, from a few software
screwups, and to xfer my C drive to a larger disk. Whatever is on the
disk being restored to is irrelevant, whether its empty or has a FAT,
FAT32 or EXT3 file system.

Exactly. But if you have an image based on cluster/sector then you can
be in deep trouble.

I'd perhaps remind you that this dispute was because I challenged
someone who suggested that a physical (aka cluster/sector) backup was
made in preference to a logical (aka directory/file) backup.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , Tumbleweed
writes
Snipped....

but I'm
waiting for something that does what you say using a *physical* image
backup/restore. Or are you simply trying to start an argument?
--
Norton Ghost or Drive Image (though I have never used the latter) will
do this,

No they do NOT. They both image the directory/files and not the physical
clusters/sectors. And that is the reason that you can restore to any
filesystem (within the constraints of the same OS)..

I've used NG several times to recover from a virus, from a few software
screwups, and to xfer my C drive to a larger disk. Whatever is on the
disk being restored to is irrelevant, whether its empty or has a FAT,
FAT32 or EXT3 file system.

Exactly. But if you have an image based on cluster/sector then you can
be in deep trouble.

I'd perhaps remind you that this dispute was because I challenged
someone who suggested that a physical (aka cluster/sector) backup was
made in preference to a logical (aka directory/file) backup.


Dont they go down a bit deeper, in that they copy stuff such as boot sectors
(maybe thats the only thing they copy that meets this criteria that isnt a
'file'.
And if we are being accurate here, is it true to say they restore 'to' a
file system? AFAIK all they do is overwrite what was there with the data
they have. So, for example, if you had a partition C that was, say FAT32,
and you restored from a NTFS-partition image of another disk C, you'd end up
with an NTFS partition that looked exactly like the original? You certainly
wouldnt be restoring *to* the FAT32 filesystem, just *over* it.

--

Remove my socks for email address

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
.. .

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , Tumbleweed
writes
Snipped....

but I'm
waiting for something that does what you say using a *physical* image
backup/restore. Or are you simply trying to start an argument?
--
Norton Ghost or Drive Image (though I have never used the latter) will
do this,

No they do NOT. They both image the directory/files and not the physical
clusters/sectors. And that is the reason that you can restore to any
filesystem (within the constraints of the same OS)..

I've used NG several times to recover from a virus, from a few software
screwups, and to xfer my C drive to a larger disk. Whatever is on the
disk being restored to is irrelevant, whether its empty or has a FAT,
FAT32 or EXT3 file system.

Exactly. But if you have an image based on cluster/sector then you can
be in deep trouble.

I'd perhaps remind you that this dispute was because I challenged
someone who suggested that a physical (aka cluster/sector) backup was
made in preference to a logical (aka directory/file) backup.


Dont they go down a bit deeper, in that they copy stuff such as boot
sectors
(maybe thats the only thing they copy that meets this criteria that isnt a
'file'.
Here is a link for an old article on benefits of using imaging over file
backups.
http://www.m-support.co.uk/BEI.htm

Of course to a certain other gentleman this article is load of crap and
products such as Drive Image, Ghost and Acronis true image are really file
backup systems in disguise!