I use a mixed approach.

For parittions up to and including Windows 2000, I use Norton Ghost (2003, but I also used 2001 and older versions in the past, they all work) on a bootable floppy. I backup the ghost images on a (generally SCSI) extra disk in the same system. They stay there forever for the convenience of quick restores, but I also copy the images thru LAN into my main rig and back them up into external USB drives from there, too.

For partitions with XP and up, I use Acronis True Image bootable CD. There are free versions of it for both WD and Seagate drives - both fully functional, but requires the presence of a WD or Seagate drive respectively in the system or as an USB external). I boot the system up with the bootable CD and create the backup image directly on a USB external backup drive. (hint: Boot the system first with the CD, then connect your USB backup drive after the true Image start rıunning. Otherwise drive letter issues might occur).

Thanks for your response, tayyare. So, to clarify, Norton Ghost 2003 and before for Win2k and before, and Acronis True Image for XP? I'll add that to the list. 😀

the_ultra_code wrote:

Thanks for your response, tayyare. So, to clarify, Norton Ghost 2003 and before for Win2k and before, and Acronis True Image for XP? I'll add that to the list. 😀

To be more specific:

- Lets say 2001 and 2003 (these are what I have and use nowadays). Older versions was good for W9x /NT 4.0 and older, but I'm not sure about Windows 2000.

- Acronis True Image is for XP and up. I use it for Windows 7 and Windwos 10 regularly, besides XP. And used in the past for 8.1 also.

Got it! Thanks!

WinXP: use Roadkil's sector editor to dump a disk image or the Raw Copy program to copy directly to another HDD
http://www.roadkil.net/listing.php/C2/Disk%20Utilities
(of course you can easily muck things up with a sector editor so be careful!)

Linux: not sure but I think the DD command can dump an entire volume

Win10: don't know

I usually prefer Ghost v6.x or v7.x for DOS and Win9x. Ghost v8.x for Win2K & WinXP is very good. Ghost v11.x for WinVista and Win7 is also very good.

I was recently tasked with preserving a client's ancient Ubuntu Linux system and I came across a better way of doing things. Many users here on VOGONS already swear by it; I have just been slow to accept this superior alternative:

CloneZilla

It works flawlessly, is free, OS-neutral, and OS-independent since it runs from a CD/DVD or other bootable device. 32-bit and 64-bit versions are available. Compression and sector-by-sector backup are available if needed. Just read the docs and you'll be fine.

R-Drive can do it too i think

Okay, more Ghost recommendations, and an unheard one (at least by me) - R-Drive.

Oh, and RaVeN, do you know what OSes R-Drive supports?

However...

KT7AGuy wrote:

I was recently tasked with preserving a client's ancient Ubuntu Linux system and I came across a better way of doing things. Many users here on VOGONS already swear by it; I have just been slow to accept this superior alternative:

CloneZilla

It works flawlessly, is free, OS-neutral, and OS-independent since it runs from a CD/DVD or other bootable device. 32-bit and 64-bit versions are available. Compression and sector-by-sector backup are available if needed. Just read the docs and you'll be fine.

KT7AGuy, when I tried using Clonezilla to clone my P3's system's hard drive (has Win98SE on it) to an external hard drive, whenever it was done, and I made it check to see if it was "restorable" (the image of the drive, that is), it said it wasn't, and as a result of running that action, it screwed up the partition on the external drive. I've tried it multiple times, with the same result. Any explanation as to why?

I have a question:

Can somebody both used Acronis True Image (free brand specific versions, not the retail one) and Clonezilla, can please make a pros/cons type of comparison?

What about a Linux live CD and using dd?

Macrium Reflect (currently at v7) is a popular choice - there are licenced versions available but you can get a free basic version here:

https://www.macrium.com/reflectfree

root42 wrote:

What about a Linux live CD and using dd?

Well, I'm sure that might be an option, although I would want to have a Linux expert back that statement up, because it is a Linux option.

PC Hoarder Patrol wrote:

Macrium Reflect (currently at v7) is a popular choice - there are licenced versions available but you can get a free basic version here:

https://www.macrium.com/reflectfree

Noted. 😀

the_ultra_code wrote:

KT7AGuy, when I tried using Clonezilla to clone my P3's system's hard drive (has Win98SE on it) to an external hard drive, whenever it was done, and I made it check to see if it was "restorable" (the image of the drive, that is), it said it wasn't, and as a result of running that action, it screwed up the partition on the external drive. I've tried it multiple times, with the same result. Any explanation as to why?

I'm still quite new to CloneZilla myself. It shouldn't be messing with partition tables unless you're using it to restore an image or clone a drive. I suggest contacting the authors and submitting a bug report.

root42 wrote:

What about a Linux live CD and using dd?

I believe DD is a component of CloneZilla. Anyway, DD is a very powerful tool and you better make sure you read up on it before you use it. A healthy understanding of how Linux mounts and identifies drives is also recommended. With the wrong command you can easily wipe out data with DD. It doesn't have cute nicknames like "Data Destroyer", "Disk Destroyer" and "Destroyer of Disks" for no reason.

Also, by itself DD doesn't do any image compression and it always does a sector-by-sector copy. As such, if your source disk is 160GB then your image file will also be 160GB, even if you only have 20GB of data on the source drive. Because of that, destination media must always be larger than source media. There are ways of splitting and compressing images with DD in conjunction with other tools, but it gets messy and complicated pretty quickly. Why not just use a CloneZilla boot disc and spare yourself the headache?

Also, if you don't already use Hiren's Boot CD, you should look into it. There are plenty of tools included for disk imaging, partitioning, etc. I recommend v10.4

Clonezilla is by far the most flexable BUT you need to be comfortable with Linux conventions to get the most of it (drive naming, partition handling etc...)

Generally i avoid USB with cloning, and stick to native interfaces or dump it across a network (however this is a bit more advanced).

Also if it is for backup, I would tend to do a Device to File option in clonezilla and don't forget to capture the MBR when requested!

Also little tip for ppl wanting to clone windows 10 installs, especially if you will be shrinking or expanding partitions (say migrating to a new HAD or SSD) Disable the "fast boot" option in power settings and shutdown/restart a few times before doing the clone...it saves you hassle later as it sets the hibernate flag on the filesystem otherwise

KT7AGuy wrote:

I'm still quite new to CloneZilla myself. It shouldn't be messing with partition tables unless you're using it to restore an im […]
Show full quote

the_ultra_code wrote:

KT7AGuy, when I tried using Clonezilla to clone my P3's system's hard drive (has Win98SE on it) to an external hard drive, whenever it was done, and I made it check to see if it was "restorable" (the image of the drive, that is), it said it wasn't, and as a result of running that action, it screwed up the partition on the external drive. I've tried it multiple times, with the same result. Any explanation as to why?

I'm still quite new to CloneZilla myself. It shouldn't be messing with partition tables unless you're using it to restore an image or clone a drive. I suggest contacting the authors and submitting a bug report.

root42 wrote:

What about a Linux live CD and using dd?

I believe DD is a component of CloneZilla. Anyway, DD is a very powerful tool and you better make sure you read up on it before you use it. A healthy understanding of how Linux mounts and identifies drives is also recommended. With the wrong command you can easily wipe out data with DD. It doesn't have cute nicknames like "Data Destroyer", "Disk Destroyer" and "Destroyer of Disks" for no reason.

Also, by itself DD doesn't do any image compression and it always does a sector-by-sector copy. As such, if your source disk is 160GB then your image file will also be 160GB, even if you only have 20GB of data on the source drive. Because of that, destination media must always be larger than source media. There are ways of splitting and compressing images with DD in conjunction with other tools, but it gets messy and complicated pretty quickly. Why not just use a CloneZilla boot disc and spare yourself the headache?

Also, if you don't already use Hiren's Boot CD, you should look into it. There are plenty of tools included for disk imaging, partitioning, etc. I recommend v10.4

Okay, so my experience might be something worth checking out in the docs, and DD sounds like a very simple yet powerful little program. Noted. 😀

In your OP you say your main system already has Linux Mint so you already have dd. There is also a variant called ddrescue which has extra ability to detect bad sectors and attempt to recover the data or skip the sector. Normal dd stops if it encounters an unreadable sector.
As a long-time Linux user I used to use tar for my backups but then started using dd or ddrescue instead. The benefit of a dd image, for me anyway, is that the images can be opened and mounted by an OS, and sometimes used in a virtual machine. I've been using this technique to experiment with retro rig disk images before writing the image back to the hard drive.

Dracolich wrote:

In your OP you say your main system already has Linux Mint so you already have dd. There is also a variant called ddrescue which has extra ability to detect bad sectors and attempt to recover the data or skip the sector. Normal dd stops if it encounters an unreadable sector.
As a long-time Linux user I used to use tar for my backups but then started using dd or ddrescue instead. The benefit of a dd image, for me anyway, is that the images can be opened and mounted by an OS, and sometimes used in a virtual machine. I've been using this technique to experiment with retro rig disk images before writing the image back to the hard drive.

Noted. However, do the images of some Windows backup programs also make images that can be opened up by an OS as well?

Not sure if any Windows backup programs create images that are compatible with other tools. All of the ones I have tried in the past (many years ago) saved to proprietary formats. IMO this limits your options with the backup image. After I found dd I didn't need anything else. 😜
DD backups are very portable because it is a raw bit-by-bit copy including the partition table and mbr. In Windows FAT16/32 (NTFS?) backups can be opened in UltraISO (or similar), and in Linux using a simple mount command with -o loop. The PCem, 86Box and QEMU emulators can also work with the same raw images.