Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> nemo_outis wrote:
> > Backing up to tape, CDs, or DVDs, while feasible, is a PITA.
> > Tedious and tiresome procedures are the enemy of the iron
> > self-discipline needed to regularly make backups. For that
> > reason, I put convenience high on the list. Accordingly I
> > recommend backing up to HD - preferably a removable one (either
> > get a "caddy" HD system for $25 or so, or, even better, use an
> > external USB drive - it's best to store the drive offsite or at
> > least some distance from the computer).
> That has got to be one of the dumbest paragraphs you've typed to date.
> First you claim traditional backup methods are a PITA, when they're
I disagree--Nemo's dead on on this -- the traditional methods ARE at
PITA. That's why no one does them.
Why? Because windows doesn't include reasonable backup software
that's usable for folks, and people even with dvd writers, aren't keen
on swapping 10 or more DVD's through their system to backup, and not
to mention all external media devices writing to tape or optical disks
tend to be slow. Hell, does windows backup even deal with multiple
disks? I haven't even checked lately, that's how much I've given up
on windows backup. And the general user populace just isn't willing
to spend money on backup software, even if we all agree that htey
Hard drives with true one-button backup are making it convenient
enough for people to take periodic fulls ystem backups without the
hassle of additional media swapping.
Remember, I'm talking about the general user populace here. Among all
things, they're lazy, and hard drive backup is really hte lowest
barrier thing we've seen on the market to date that I can consistently
talk a 50-something-year-old proprietor of a 2-5 man shop (who has all
sorts of other things to worry about) to do regularly.