| Product: |
Backup Software in general |
| Date: |
19.12.02 (1060 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: Back up saves time and possibly money, Sense of smug security
Disadvantages: Time consuming, but not as much as starting from scratch!
I am writing this opinion specifically to mirror my experience with Windows XP, but much of what I have penned should still be relevant for many other systems, particularly in the Windows 9x family.
Out of all the things you CAN do with a computer, backing "your stuff" up, as the makers of ZIP drives will insist on calling it, is probably the least sexy, and therefore the least likely to get done, particularly in a domestic environment.
After all, I'll ONLY be glad I did, IF the hard disk gets corrupted or some other calamity befalls me, and according to the man in PC World, this never happens, particularly to people who have shelled out £300 for a five-year warranty, right?
Wrong - hard disks, where your data is filed, do fail, and not necessarily after a long period either, despite what the manufacturers will tell you about their MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) running into hundreds of thousands of hours. This probably means that some discs will fail fairly soon, and that others will outlast the rest of the PC, and still be in working order as they become landfill. Other factors, like how often they are switched on and off come into it. A home PC is likely to go through many more of these cycles than an office PC, by implication increasing its fallibility.
WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT?
The need to back up vital PC data has become more important as people become more computer-literate and depend on their PC for all kinds of household details, home banking for example. Imagine the chaos that could be caused by your hard disk drive throwing in the towel, if, like me, you use Quicken or MS Money. Not only will you lose track of your current balance position (usually on a knife-edge in my case!), but also of all your direct debits and standing orders too. OK, I know that Quicken can also be backed-up to a floppy disk (ah yes, I remember those!) but it couldn't hurt to have the data stored in three places, not
two.
We don't realise just how much TEDIOUS time and effort we have invested in the setting up of our PC's to a level where we have them just how we want them, rather than how Bill Gates THINKS we want them. Then of course there's all the software that would need reloading. Reassuring yourself that you've got the Windows and MS Office software disks if need be, is no comfort whatsoever when it comes to trying to recover the contents of a corrupted documents directory for which no rescue plan exists. Think of all the lost opinions for one thing!
I HATE TYPING - I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO DO IT TWICE!
Let's assume that the contents of your "My Documents" are the subject.
To be assured of only a much-reduced risk of losing everything, a duplicate copy on some form of alternative drive or record-able medium would suffice. This then acts as an insurance policy against C:drive failure. If kept physically separate from your PC, then even better, since you have now protected your data from catastrophe (fire, coffee spillage, theft etc) in the immediate vicinity of your PC.
A simple solution that I have devised is to fit my PC with a second (D:) drive, in what is known as a drive caddy. This is a pull out drawer containing the drive, which saves "getting to bonnet lid up", when removal to a safe place is needed.
If this second drive is big enough, i.e. the same capacity as C:, then it would be tempting to think that, by using Windows Explorer, you could "drag 'n' drop" the entire contents of C: to D:, and have done with it.
However, anyone who has tried this will tell you that the process grinds to a halt at the first sign of a file being in use, possibly by Windows itself.
WINDOWS BACKUP
To achieve a whole system approach, you need "proper" back-up software that is able to work around this.
One such example is Win
dows Backup, a utility normally nesting in the Accessories, System Tools directory, unless, a) someone has moved it, or b) it is not yet installed. The latter can normally be rectified, by using the "Add or Remove Programs" facility within Control Panel. The former can only be rectified by chopping your kids' hands off!
Not many people have a good thing to say about Windows Backup compared say to a third-party bit of software, and this is true of a lot of Windows' utilities - they work but they are not of the best. Defragmenter is another example.
However, if it's free (or rather, you've already paid for it), it's got to be worth investigating for that reason alone
The Backup utility as implemented in XP has three main purposes, if also you count being able to restore "stuff" following a catastrophe.
1. To create a selective backup. This gives you the ability using a typical browser screen to choose specific directories/sub-directories for back up, and then have them recorded to another drive. In creating the backup, a single file is produced of the *.bkf type. This has advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that, like a .zip file, this is compressed, so even if recording to a 650mbyte CD-R, it should be possible to parcel up about 1gbyte of data, and in the case of a My Documents file, that will probably cover a large proportion of my readers' needs. Selective backup can also be set to copy only those files that have changed since your last backup, which obviously makes subsequent jobs somewhat quicker. The first time, unlike losing your virginity, will always be the slowest.
The downside is that restoring requires the use of the same software, which at the time of the need to do this, may not be available, depending on the reason for the emergency. I'm no great fan of compressed files, which may or not be "backwards compatible" with other systems, an
d therefore limit you to restoring the contents to the same place in effect. One of the reasons why I like to squander disk space by merely copying actual files from one drive to another, is that I have a further C: drive in the wings, loaded up with Windows 98, and like a Minuteman, ready to roll at a moment's notice in case my wife has urgent need to use the PC (resignations to write etc). This usually coincides with my having tinkered where I shouldn't and put Windows XP off line for hours while I reload it! So you see, backing up is not just for saving time and effort - it's for saving lives too!
2. Automated System Recovery. This routine is best left to the Wizard that drives it. The whole contents of C: drive is bundled into one *.bkf (big klunky file?) including those files that the normal copying process refuses to handle because they are in use. In addition, a Recovery floppy is also created to "drive" the full restoration process should the worst happen. The only real input from you, apart from OK-ing a few options is to choose the target drive for the output of the data. In my case, the only drive I have large enough to swallow a file this size would be my alternative D: drive. However there is one drawback. To house a *.bkf file of this magnitude, let's say around 8gbytes (from 12gbytes of uncompressed data), a hard drive cannot be formatted to be compatible with Windows 98 AND Windows XP. The former needs disks of the "FAT32" format, which limits individual file size to 4-point-something gbytes, thereby ruling out its use as a common link between Windows XP and 98. The full system back-up process seems to be geared to the use of a single medium capable of handling the whole *.bkf file in one go. This rules out CD-Rs, and even DVR-R's once the compressed file size starts approaching 5gbytes.
I guess if I was really flush, I'd use another drive caddy for an extra D: drive in the "NTFS&quo
t; format that Windows XP prefers, for whole system back-ups, and continue to copy across my "Documents And Settings" directory to the other FAT32 drive, from whence the files can be read from Windows 98 if need be.
However, don't let me put you off - these are just local hindrances caused by my need to play at "smart-arse".
In practice, any form of backup helps as long as you give some thought to why you are doing it.
REASONS TO BE FEARFUL, ONE, TWO, THREE......
1. As a bare minimum, I would recommend that, on a regular basis, you take a back up of your entire My Documents directory, your e-mail address book, your internet Favourites list and any back up files for items like Quicken for MS Money. Also, don't forget any software downloads that you have invested line-time and effort to obtain. If it's software you have paid for, beware, you may have to pay again in some cases if you attempt another download - this isn't often the case but it can happen.
I would also recommend that you don't overwrite the old data, as this will prevent you from recovering older versions of documents, which may have been altered since their original production. A CD-RW machine may be a boon here, since blank CD-R disks are so cheap (say around 50p) that it won't break the bank to carry out this operation every week. Users of XP are in luck since most of what you would consider vital is contained within the "Documents & Settings" directory, including Outlook Express' Address Book and your Internet Favourites.
There's nothing to stop you using your CD-RW's own software here, as long as you don't exceed the data capacity of a single CD-R. The software should tell you before wasting a CD-R on this venture.
Remember to label all back-up CD-R's with their date, so that you can treat them like an archive of "snapshots".
2. Slightly less
often, depending on how important your PC is to you, you might want to take a full system back-up using a utility like Windows Backup or a (probably) superior third party item. For a home user, this could be quite costly, involving either an extra hard drive to be installed, or one of the proprietary devices specifically designed to handle back-up data, usually referred to as "tape streamers". There won't be many users whose entire system can be bundled into one file that will even fit a DVD-R disk, let alone a CD-R, so a large medium like a streamer it has to be I'm afraid.
3. Whilst not specifically a backup issue, the prospect of fitting a new and larger hard drive to a PC fills no one with any glee. The mere thought of reinstalling all that software is enough to make anyone wary of the process. Fear not, software exists that will let you copy entire drives from old to new. All it needs, is the ability to "have the bonnet lid up", and to follow a sequence of instructions. If this is the kind of copying you want, then look to PQ DriveCopy or for cheapskates, Hard Drive Copy from http://www.webmasterfree.com/software/2173.html as a free download.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Personally, I'm not that bothered about "full system back-ups" as I'm semi-retired with the time to reload software. What does worry me is the thought of losing all my hard work (well it's hard when typed with 2 fingers!). I also like to be able to see my duplicate files in Windows Explorer on my D: drive as and when I want them, for example, when running my machine with an alternative C: drive in place, for example, Windows 98 or Linux.
A useful utility, which I have found, that copies whole tracts of directory structure from one drive to another is BASK, which can be downloaded from http://swoosiesoftware.homestead.com/. It is not exactly free, but you are at liberty to make a "zero donation" if you
are that tight. Unlike merely dragging and dropping files in Windows Explorer, this one does not baulk at copying system files that are in use. It merely lists them as missing files in the backup, which is fine as long as you don't expect to rescue your whole system from this process. One of the best features of this utility is that it doesn't compress files, they are there for all to see, and the disc can remain as a FAT32 volume so that Windows 98 and Linux can read it. Likewise, the ease with which an entire disk (less those missing system files) can be copied means that I don't have to worry about having excluded something that I could live to regret. If this cheap bit of software sounds like a utility for utilities sake, don't be tempted to cut corners even further and dust off all your old knowledge of DOS commands, thinking that these will do the same job. Some of the DOS commands relevant to copying files are only compatible with the old "8.3" format for filenames, like CHRISDOC.doc. As you probably know by now, Windows allows for 256-character filenames, which are only partially "backwards compatible" with DOS. For example, a Windows 9x file name like "My Life History Part 1.doc" will convert to MYLIFE~1.doc and end up stuck that way! This is fine if you wrote your life history in chronological order, but if you didn't DOS will put the "~1" tag on the oldest file. I've been forced to rescue a disk one file at a time from file names like this, and I wouldn't want to do it twice!
Coming back to Windows Back-Up, the utility, I suppose it's fit for purpose, but unless you've got a tape streamer or other "proper" backup device, it doesn't really do much more than the software that comes with your CD-RW, or in some cases, as in Windows XP, you can write direct to a CD-R or CD-RW disc straight from Windows Explorer, just as if they were bl*****' large floppy disk
s.
Summary:
|
Last comment:
 |
Astro - 07.01.03 Good op. Nomination on the way.
I back up to CDR and an external HD, once bitten..... |
View all
6
comments
|
