Gary S. Terhune

I answered the OP's question, plain and simple. Copy/Paste is NOT a form of
"backup software." Get your terminology straight.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Harry331" <harryooopotter@hotmail.co_> wrote in message
news:Somtk.227367$gc5.150224@pd7urf2no...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote...
>>
>>Yes, Google is your friend, but only if you are asking the right question,
>>and you have the question wrong. The question was: "Please recommend
>>backup
>>software for xp x64 that is quick."
>
> The OP's context of "quick" was that copy was slowed down by
> failure due to "file in use."
>
> If you use this context of "quick," it will be quicker.
>
>
>

Harry331

Gary S. Terhune wrote...
>
>I answered the OP's question, plain and simple. Copy/Paste is NOT a form of
>"backup software." Get your terminology straight.

Google "definition backup software."

http://www.google.ca/search?
hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Backup+software&sa=X&oi=glo ssary_definition&ct=title

Definitions of Backup software on the Web:

Backup software is software designed to backup data for the purpose
of having a second copy of an original source in case of damage to
the ...

Copy/Paste does not contradict this definition.

Why don't you get your terminology straight?
The laugh is on you!

Gary S. Terhune

Nope. Not interested in a stupid
dictionary-definitions-versus-real-world-usage argument.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"Harry331" <harryooopotter@hotmail.co_> wrote in message
news:sbqtk.228113$gc5.159936@pd7urf2no...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote...
>>
>>I answered the OP's question, plain and simple. Copy/Paste is NOT a form
>>of
>>"backup software." Get your terminology straight.
>
> Google "definition backup software."
>
> http://www.google.ca/search?
> hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Backup+software&sa=X&oi=glo ssary_definition&ct=title
>
> Definitions of Backup software on the Web:
>
> Backup software is software designed to backup data for the purpose
> of having a second copy of an original source in case of damage to
> the ...
>
> Copy/Paste does not contradict this definition.
>
> Why don't you get your terminology straight?
> The laugh is on you!
>
>
>

mscotgrove@aol.com

On Aug 27, 7:51*pm, wrreisen2 <wrreis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please recommend backup software for xp x64 that is quick. I have been
> using the built in Windows backup software but it is so slow in
> comparison to just copying and pasting folders onto a backup disk. The
> problem with just copying and pasting is that this process is often
> interupted because the occasional file in these folders can be in use
> and stops the copying process. Is there software that is as fast as
> just copying and pasting folders in explorer but isn't likely to be
> interupted?
>
> Thanks for any advice?

To overcome the copy and paste problem use a DOS window and xcopy. I
do this as part of my backup procedure by scheduling a call to a batch
file that does an xcopy of critical files to a different PC.

Backup speed is only part of the equation. The most important aspect
is that backup must be done on a very regular basis. Anything added
or changed between backups can be lost. I would therefore rate
automation before speed. I often get customers saying they were going
to backup their system next week.

I am very found of the many online backup systems one can get. They
monitor 24x7 and backup your selected files automatically. Unless you
are generating large video files, online backup, once the main part is
loaded, is reasonably quick. An initial upload may take a few weeks.

You need two levels of backup to cope with a total drive failure. The
first is an image of your drive such as generated by Ghost or Acronis,
then you need a responsive, very up to date incremental backup of
your data files that are changing. One copy of the data should always
be in a different location eg home, office, mother in law, online
storage, always subject to any security issues on the data

Michael
www.cnwrecovery.com

Llanzlan Klazmon

On Aug 28, 9:31*pm, "mscotgr...@aol.com" <mscotgr...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 7:51*pm, wrreisen2 <wrreis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Please recommend backup software for xp x64 that is quick. I have been
> > using the built in Windows backup software but it is so slow in
> > comparison to just copying and pasting folders onto a backup disk. The
> > problem with just copying and pasting is that this process is often
> > interupted because the occasional file in these folders can be in use
> > and stops the copying process. Is there software that is as fast as
> > just copying and pasting folders in explorer but isn't likely to be
> > interupted?
>
> > Thanks for any advice?
>
> To overcome the copy and paste problem use a DOS window and xcopy. *I
> do this as part of my backup procedure by scheduling a call to a batch
> file that does an xcopy of critical files to a different PC.
>
> Backup speed is only part of the equation. *The most important aspect
> is that *backup must be done on a very regular basis. *Anything added
> or changed between backups can be lost. *I would therefore rate
> automation before speed. *I often get customers saying they were going
> to backup their system next week.
>
> I am very found of the many online backup systems one can get. *They
> monitor 24x7 and backup your selected files automatically. *Unless you
> are generating large video files, online backup, once the main part is
> loaded, is reasonably quick. *An initial upload may take a few weeks.
>
> You need two levels of backup to cope with a total drive failure. The
> first is an image of your drive such as generated by Ghost or Acronis,
> then you need a responsive, very up to date incremental backup *of
> your data files that are changing. *One copy of the data should always
> be in a different location eg home, office, mother in law, *online
> storage, always subject to any security issues on the data
>
> Michaelwww.cnwrecovery.com

What if your drive fails and you then find the online backup company
went out of business the day before?

mscotgrove@aol.com

On Aug 28, 10:45*am, Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 9:31*pm, "mscotgr...@aol.com" <mscotgr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 7:51*pm, wrreisen2 <wrreis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Please recommend backup software for xp x64 that is quick. I have been
> > > using the built in Windows backup software but it is so slow in
> > > comparison to just copying and pasting folders onto a backup disk. The
> > > problem with just copying and pasting is that this process is often
> > > interupted because the occasional file in these folders can be in use
> > > and stops the copying process. Is there software that is as fast as
> > > just copying and pasting folders in explorer but isn't likely to be
> > > interupted?
>
> > > Thanks for any advice?
>
> > To overcome the copy and paste problem use a DOS window and xcopy. *I
> > do this as part of my backup procedure by scheduling a call to a batch
> > file that does an xcopy of critical files to a different PC.
>
> > Backup speed is only part of the equation. *The most important aspect
> > is that *backup must be done on a very regular basis. *Anything added
> > or changed between backups can be lost. *I would therefore rate
> > automation before speed. *I often get customers saying they were going
> > to backup their system next week.
>
> > I am very found of the many online backup systems one can get. *They
> > monitor 24x7 and backup your selected files automatically. *Unless you
> > are generating large video files, online backup, once the main part is
> > loaded, is reasonably quick. *An initial upload may take a few weeks.
>
> > You need two levels of backup to cope with a total drive failure. The
> > first is an image of your drive such as generated by Ghost or Acronis,
> > then you need a responsive, very up to date incremental backup *of
> > your data files that are changing. *One copy of the data should always
> > be in a different location eg home, office, mother in law, *online
> > storage, always subject to any security issues on the data
>
> > Michaelwww.cnwrecovery.com
>
> What if your drive fails and you then find the online backup company
> went out of business the day before?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It is why you need multiple backups. The same case applies if you
backup to an external drive and they both fail, or you have a
lightening strike taking them both out.

The more backups, the less likely it is that they will all fail the
same time. Not getting round to backing up is in my opinion the
greatest risk, hence the requirement for automation.

Michael

observer

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:46:23 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>Nope. Not interested in a stupid
>dictionary-definitions-versus-real-world-usage argument.

Valid point but in this case, there is a difference. Copy/paste may
miss hidden files or open files, etc.. . Regardless tho, every is
entitled to backup (or not) files as they choose whether or not it is
the correct method.

Twayne

> Gary S. Terhune wrote...
>>
>> Yes, Google is your friend, but only if you are asking the right
>> question, and you have the question wrong. The question was: "Please
>> recommend backup software for xp x64 that is quick."
>
> The OP's context of "quick" was that copy was slowed down by
> failure due to "file in use."
>
> If you use this context of "quick," it will be quicker.

Ghost 14 is the quickest I've seen. True Image was good too but not as
fast; I tried them both & opted for Ghost since they had their update
campaign still going ($50).

Anything used to back up the system that cannot use the shadow copy
services does not produce a system backup.

Unknown

Shear hogwash! Ever hear of BounceBack?
"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:eZ7IXwSCJHA.4576@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote...
>>>
>>> Yes, Google is your friend, but only if you are asking the right
>>> question, and you have the question wrong. The question was: "Please
>>> recommend backup software for xp x64 that is quick."
>>
>> The OP's context of "quick" was that copy was slowed down by
>> failure due to "file in use."
>>
>> If you use this context of "quick," it will be quicker.
>
> Ghost 14 is the quickest I've seen. True Image was good too but not as
> fast; I tried them both & opted for Ghost since they had their update
> campaign still going ($50).
>
> Anything used to back up the system that cannot use the shadow copy
> services does not produce a system backup.
>

Memnoch

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:19:15 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>There's no such thing as a FAST backup utility, but Acronis is certainly
>faster than Windows Backup. And more secure, easier to restore whole
>partitions or just versions of files, etc. And, as you'll note here, the
>Home version supports 64-bit.
>http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing...uirements.html
>
>Try the 15-day trial (though it certainly isn't long enough to decently work
>out a backup system, it will give you an idea of what speeds you might
>attain), and if you decide to buy, get it here. Cheaper:
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...onis&x=15&y=26
>
>TinyURL for above link = http://tinyurl.com/5cad33
>
>Another one I'd consider is:
>Image for Windows
>http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/image-for-windows.htm
>However, note this line at the bottom of the product description:
>"Compatible with Win64 (x64) (AMD64/EM64T) but not with IA64, GPTs, nor
>Dynamic Drives."
>
>And while I hate Symantec to an unhealthy degree, many users swear by Ghost.

I'll second Acronis. I use True Image Echo Workstation, both in live mode
while the OS is loaded and from a memory stick. First class solution and so
much better than Ghost, which I use at work.