Utility of system image vs. other types of backups for a laptop

[Shin Kairi]

Hi guys,

My question is with regards to the above title. I have read a few things and watched a few videos about system image backup but still cannot wrap my head around it. I might just be too dumb, but I still wanna try.

So, as far as I understood, a system image is good to recover not just personal files but basically how your PC was before (system files, programs and all). I heard it's not ideal, and that a fresh windows install is always preferable, but that it works and is the preferred backup method of most people and companies.

But, I also heard there could be some complications. So, in the event of laptop theft for example, I go and buy a new laptop with new OS license attached to it ofc, in that case, I heard that since the license is different, there could be some complications with system image backup option since it might conflict with new license and also different hardware than previous laptop (I heard it needs same motherboard or something). But a system image was still recommended to me in this situation and I was told that I could just "mount" it as another drive letter instead. Instead of what?

Anyway, I don't get why this backup option was still recommended to me, after the clear known issue of conflict it could cause.

In short, can someone explain to me what I would find in the drive where I "mount" the image? Will I find OS stuff (programs and all) or just personal files? I don't get it.

And why not just use cloud backup? Why does everyone use system image? Is it only desktop PC people who use system image? Thanks

 

[Jimminy]

A system image for a laptop works same as a desktop. It's just an exact copy of every block of data on the drive.

If you restore an image to a new computer, You may find it has no drivers for some of the new hardware, so you might have to let windows download the missing drivers. The licenses stored in the new bios firmware won't match the license on the disk image, so you'd likely need a few extra steps to activate windows again.

If you "mount" the image, it should show up just like the original disk, and you can use, look at, and manipulate all the files, whether just data files, or operating system files.

 

[Shin Kairi]

A system image for a laptop works same as a desktop. It's just an exact copy of every block of data on the drive.

If you restore an image to a new computer, You may find it has no drivers for some of the new hardware, so you might have to let windows download the missing drivers. The licenses stored in the new bios firmware won't match the license on the disk image, so you'd likely need a few extra steps to activate windows again.

If you "mount" the image, it should show up just like the original disk, and you can use, look at, and manipulate all the files, whether just data files, or operating system files.

So, mounting and restoring are two different things?

 

[Jimminy]

So, mounting and restoring are two different things?

YES. "mounting" or "exploring" just shows (all) the files that were on the disk drive you imaged. You can read, copy them, etc. as if it were any disk drive.

Restoring, however, writes that image data (block by block) to another drive you have chosen. It is sort of a "zombie" operation. It will write an exact copy onto the drive you chose. All previous data on that destination drive will be overwritten (destroyed forever). The result is an exact logical duplicate of the original drive which you imaged. Examining the result, you will find it exactly the same, except for the brand, model, etc. of the physical drive.

I think most people do use images as backups, but like I said, if you try to transplant it onto new hardware, you may have to jump through some Microsoft hoops to register your software with uncle Bill. Linus stuff is free, so if you use that, maybe that has no problems.

Good luck.

 

[mindless1]

I do a partition image of my windows partition, and just file backups of everything else, and for important files that happens more frequently than OS partition images.

I should add that I don't put any of these important files on my windows partition, while your OEM PC or laptop probably only has one partition available, so on a laptop the first thing I would do after purchase, is make the partition backup, then repartition the drive into two partitions, then restore the backup onto one of those and leave the other for personal/important files, and as the destination for making automated partition backups, that i later copy off to a flash drive or other external or network storage in the case of a single internal drive, laptop.

Cloud backup requires a working system to access it, is often not helpful in restoring a system to a healthy state, if it has filesystem corruption, malware/virus, OS update or driver causing a problem, etc. In other words my OS partition backup, is to restore the OS, drivers, and apps to a prior state, or in case of drive failure, not so much a backup of personal data.

 

[Shin Kairi]

I should add that I don't put any of these important files on my windows partition, while your OEM PC or laptop probably only has one partition available, so on a laptop the first thing I would do after purchase, is make the partition backup, then repartition the drive into two partitions, then restore the backup onto one of those and leave the other for personal/important files, and as the destination for making automated partition backups, that i later copy off to a flash drive or other external or network storage in the case of a single internal drive, laptop.

That laptop trick part is quite smart. Although it sounds way too complicated for me. And the main advantage of doing that is?

Edit: I'm gonna take a guess and say that what you're recommending is basically the equivalent of someone on a desktop PC with two drives for example, putting their important and personal files on the drive that is not the C: drive. That way in case something happens with Windows OS, his files are fine and he doesn't need to go through the trouble of restoring them from a backup. Correct?

 

[mindless1]

^ It covers several different potential scenarios, and as mentioned, I generate important files, more often than I need more recent windows partition backups. Yes if something happens to windows I can just restore that, and it makes for smaller backup image files than if I were imaging partitions with games or videos installed to them.

It need not be two physical drives, on a desktop you could also partition a single SSD into two or more partitions, though on the desktop I use for productivity, I do have more than two SSDs, have a backup on one as well as a bootable USB flash drive, and on a network store.

 

[mikeymikec]

Entire system images involve a lot of entirely replaceable data and take longer to do such a backup. IMO the important bit is the personal data and also IMO the quicker a backup can be accomplished, the more likely the user is going to run it as often as is ideal for their needs. Also, the smaller the backup, the more backup sets can practically be kept. From a security POV, personal-data-only backups and clean installs are less problematic too.

I can see why some people would prefer to go with system images. For example, resetting up their computer from scratch may be complicated, they lack the skills/confidence to handle 'come what may' with doing a clean install, etc. Also - christ, if I used Microsoft Outlook for my e-mail needs I'd consider system images! I've spent hours re-doing a customer's Microsoft Outlook configuration from scratch, it's so freaking tedious. With Thunderbird I don't think I've needed to configure it from scratch for at least ten years, I just pick up the data profile and drop it on the new OS setup, even from Windows to Linux and back again, make a couple of edits to a config file and it's good to go.

 

[mindless1]

^ It takes me days to get a system set up from scratch exactly the way I want it, then further refined over weeks more. Granted not every hour of every day, but when I want to spend the time.

Whole OS partition, I have it automated, can still use system while it takes only a few (single digit) minutes to do (or restore) and the storage is about 30GB per and don't need to keep all of them... a drop in the bucket compared to my video storage.

Thunderbird, I use the portable version and whole folder with everything is backed up as personal data, isn't on the OS partition.

 

[Commodus]

I'm a Mac user, so I just use Time Machine. Plug in an external drive, tell the OS to use it as a Time Machine drive and then it automatically backs up once an hour (or whenever you plug in, if you've disconnected the drive for long enough). It's not a system image — rather, it's a snapshot. I can upgrade to a new Mac or restore my old one without hiccups, provided I'm willing to wait for everything to copy over.

Windows 10/11 has a rough counterpart called File History... would that work?

Cloud backup is helpful, but you don't want to rely exclusively on a third-party service that requires an internet connection. If the company goes bust, if you can't afford the subscription for enough space, if you need to restore your system ASAP but don't have fast/reliable internet access... you get the idea. Ideally, it's just one part of your safety net — you have a physical backup you can restore at any time and a cloud backup in case the local drive is damaged or stolen.

 

[sdifox]

I would just backup personal files. Not like it takes long to do a fresh install these days.

 

[bigboxes]

I would just backup personal files. Not like it takes long to do a fresh install these days.

I've done a lot of customization to Windows that would be a real pain to recreate. Not saying it's not possible, but why go through all that if you don't have to? That being said, I have yet to create an image myself. I need to do that. I do back up my personal data, like you said.

 

[mindless1]

I would just backup personal files. Not like it takes long to do a fresh install these days.

It's not the fresh install that takes the time, rather the configuration, drivers, apps install & config.

I couldn't even install 1/10th of the apps, in the time it takes to do a partition image restore, and that's with them all quickly found on a NAS opposed to physical media or the developers' websites. It would take me longer just to tweak madVR for video playback than it takes to restore an OS partition image.

 

[mikeymikec]

I don't think it's particularly helpful arguing as if one approach is best for everyone.

 

[mindless1]

^ Yet it might be particularly helpful to point out issues that can make a difference in which approach one chooses.