New Google phones UK release date | Pixel XL price, new features, specifications: Pixel X and…
Some may recognise that I had a problem over the weekend with an external USB drive that I have. Having resolved this last evening, I did a backup today using the two programmes that I have found to be reasonable at this – or so I thought, as I am now confused and I hope that someone can end this for me.
Because of the trouble I had had I was keeping a beady eye – some may say too beady – on my drive and this caused me to note the differences these programmes have in their results. I must emphasise that I wasn’t trying to get one over the other or anything like that; it is just the result that is causing me this confusion!! As far as I am aware I gave both of them the same thing to do which was a simple backup of ‘C:\’ – which is about 47 GB - with no compression. One programme has produced a pair of files, of which one is 48,897,042 KB and the other 589 KB, whilst the other programme has a single file of 40,158,237 KB.
My confusion is that as these are both non-compressed files why is there such a difference? On ‘C:\’ there is a ‘Recovery’ partition, but as this was on there when I got the machine originally with XP and having had Vista and now Windows 7 I don’t really think it is any use as a ‘Recovery’ partition, and both programmes had this included but I don’t know if both actually backed it up. Even so it is only just over 4 GB and there is over 8 GB between the two programmes. The reason I am asking this forum is that if I ask the firms concerned – and assuming I get a reply – all they will tell me is that their programme does a full and proper backup but are unable to comment on a different programme [ Am I being too cynical about their replies? Probably, but I think I am also being realistic!! ]
So if anyone has any ideas as to the cause of this difference – one programme does a full back including the system, whereas the other one doesn’t for instance – I would really like to hear your ideas. I look at it this way: if I have a back up and need to restore the whole disk – maybe on to a new disk, because the first has gone completely – then what is the use of having only a partial backup, if indeed that is what the smaller file is!!
Many thanks in advance for any ideas/advice/information that you can give me
Fruit Bat /\0/\
Many thanks for your reply. But as far as I know I was doing a backup with both programmes and I got te [ very ] different results I listed, so what I wanted to know is which is the safer/better/more complete backup of the two! With the size differential I find it quite worrying!!!
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.