Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Computer Learning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gottfried who wrote (33834)	4/17/2003 2:00:53 PM
From: Esteban	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110653

Well Gottfried, if your primary reason for going either route is to store backup images, I'd look more carefully at the new pc from the image perspective before taking the leap. I've found network imaging to be cumbersome, and am going to buy a second hard drive to install locally primarily for this reason. But like I said before, the newer versions of the software may make network images more practical. Since my system drive is unique and not typical, perhaps someone else with network image experience will post about the topic. My system is spread across 2 drive partitions, because of the way I unwittingly installed XP. Other than making backup images, the system works well this way. The result is I have to make one image of both partitions, and the image size is quite large. I think images are best for backing up system drives, including installed programs. Data, which is not subject to registry entries etc. can be kept on a different partition and backed up using an archiver for better compression and flexibility. For simplicity's sake and peace of mind, however, just imaging the whole physical drive works best for many. But this can be cumbersome to do with large hard drives over the network. Hopefully you can get more input about this. Esteban