Is Microsoft Doing Away with Backup and Restore (Windows 7)?

[Ketchup]

This would be on Windows 10. The facts that it is only available in the Control Panel and that it has Windows 7 in parenthesis isn't very reassuring.

The reason I ask is that #1 I like it, and #2 I just set up a backup for a second computer and if I am going to have to find something to replace it, I'd rather have some time to plan ahead (rather than run a Windows update one day and "poof" it's gone), The only thing that gives me some reassurance is that after skimming through the summary of changes for Preview 17063 I don't see anything mentioned about it.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

You raised an interesting question, Ketchup, and I checked the "Settings" link. I'm still running the Creators Build 1703. But the "Backup" link from "Settings" has a "Back up using File History" link which should create a backup -- with a link to "Add a drive."

Windows 7 is mentioned in the second link under "Backup": "Looking for an older backup? [If you created a backup using the Windows 7 Backup and Restore tool, it'll still work in Windows 10."

There is also a link that says "Go to Backup and Restore (Windows 7)." Not completely sure about it, but that would seem to mean that the old version from Windows 7 of the backup utility is available there.

I don't think it necessarily follows from your observations that they're getting rid of the backup feature.

There are situations where I'd prefer to use the Windows utility over another software program. It seemed convenient for backing up my WHS '11 server OS-boot disk. And -- I could be wrong -- it always seemed that Windows Backup would commandeer and entire drive for its exclusive use.

I've had the opportunity to use at least a couple backup programs bundled with other software. For instance, Roxio Creator came bundled with a backup solution -- from Sonic Software, I think. Or -- Roxio and Sonic are one and the same.

I'd tried Acronis True Image for its backup solution, and it didn't float my boat. Then I tried Macrium Reflect -- a licensed version so I could have incremental as well as differential and full backup options.

Macrium rocks! Macrium rules! It's the Moh-Troh! Even the documentation in searchable PDF is tremendous.

Very robust software -- the caliber you'd expect from some other company like Intuit. But Macrium targets corporate IT folks in its paid licenses, even for offering a $70 "Home" version.

 

[JackMDS]

I'd tried Acronis True Image for its backup solution, and it didn't float my boat. Then I tried Macrium Reflect -- a licensed version so I could have incremental as well as differential and full backup options.

Macrium rocks! Macrium rules! It's the Moh-Troh! Even the documentation in searchable PDF is tremendous.

I fully agree that the some of the 3rd party are far better than the "Primitive" BackUp Recovery that is native to Windows (and macOS).

I was using for years Acronis but the move to subscription is not to my taste.

Would you please elaborate in Technical way the contrast between Acronis and Marcuim.

Sadly just using verbal "Dissing" or and "Superlative" does not porviding the info that is needed to make a decision.

I found this page https://comparisons.financesonline.com/acronis-backup-recovery-vs-macrium-reflect

But I rather get some invivo info from an Enthusiast that really uses them.

 

[razel]

I like it too. It's simple, easy, built-in, creates VHD that you can load in Disk Manager and pull individual files from and with preview build 17074 it is still there. Like yourself though I'm not sure how much longer. However ever since Win8 'Backup and Restore' has always been buried.

 

[WilliamM2]

It has said "backup and restore (Windows 7) since the first version of Windows 8.0, long before Windows 10 came out.

I don't think it's going anywhere. I much prefer it to Acronis, as it's about 10 times faster to create or restore an image. And unlike Acronis, it has never failed me.

 

[mikeymikec]

I don't think it's going anywhere either. IMO it wasn't a great implementation (requiring the same disk/partition IDs AFAIK) to begin with, and a complete overhaul would be what's needed to make it an order of magnitude more useful.

On a not particularly related note, one thing I seem to have found recently is that the 'copy profile' functionality in System Properties seems to have been gutted in Win10 (not sure which version). The UI is still present but the copy option seems to be greyed out no matter what. While I can get around it by robocopy'ing the profile while logged in as another user, in order not to end up with a completely borked copy I have to exclude NTFS junctions, and there are a fair few in a modern Windows profile.

 

[Ketchup]

Appreciate the feedback folks.

....IMO it wasn't a great implementation (requiring the same disk/partition IDs AFAIK) to begin with.....

Can you explain this comment? Both of my setups are to a different computer on the network.

 

[mikeymikec]

Appreciate the feedback folks.

Can you explain this comment? Both of my setups are to a different computer on the network.

AFAIK, you can't get Win7 B&R to do a system image and restore it on to a different disk or partition. Assuming I'm correct, IMO it's a limitation that would seem more at home in the days of Win9x when the need to reinstall for reasons other than drive failure were commonplace.

 

[WilliamM2]

AFAIK, you can't get Win7 B&R to do a system image and restore it on to a different disk or partition. Assuming I'm correct, IMO it's a limitation that would seem more at home in the days of Win9x when the need to reinstall for reasons other than drive failure were commonplace.

You can put the image on a new disk, I've done it many times. But the new disk must be as large, or larger than the old disk.

You can even image a system to a smaller disk, as long as you shrink the partition of the old disk before creating the image. I've done this when updating systems from 1TB mechanical drives to smaller SSD's. Obviously it's too late to do that if the old drive failed.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I fully agree that the some of the 3rd party are far better than the "Primitive" BackUp Recovery that is native to Windows (and macOS).

I was using for years Acronis but the move to subscription is not to my taste.

Would you please elaborate in Technical way the contrast between Acronis and Marcuim.

Sadly just using verbal "Dissing" or and "Superlative" does not porviding the info that is needed to make a decision.

I found this page https://comparisons.financesonline.com/acronis-backup-recovery-vs-macrium-reflect

But I rather get some invivo info from an Enthusiast that really uses them.

I briefly experimented with Acronis TI 2014 on my WHS 2011 server before I made a final choice to back up the OS-boot-system disk with the built-in Windows backup, and I chose syncback SE to manually back up my data. Ordinarily, someone might prefer an automated backup for the latter, but it is stored on a drive-pool and duplicated at the folder level.

I couldn't pass judgment on a technical basis of Acronis over Macrium, but Macrium Free version allows you to create scheduled backups for Full and Differential, even if it omits Incremental backup. [But that's why I purchased my license, so I could make incremental backups.]

I think either one of those SW backup apps allow you to inspect the image files through Windows Explorer and manipulate them as you would any files.

I'm just happy with Macrium. It manages the backup files and the hard disk space of the backup disk, and I never have to give it special attention more than the occasional disk scan that I make for all my drives.