> The problem with doing it that way is that it doesn't examine the file
> structure on, say, an NTFS partition. So even files that you've deleted
> still get backed up. Conseqently, the image file is likely to be much
> larger than with Ghost and would probably take make much longer to
> backup/restore. Am I right?
I guess you are, but it's a decent method to restore a "vanilla install"
that should not have too many deleted files on it yet. Also, the bzip
compression will probably do a good job of compressing the image at a
ratio of 0.5 or even better, considering your vanilla install drive will
be mostly empty (and every disk block will end up in the backup, not
just the used ones, so yes, image creation will take longer and use up
more space than strictly necessary, but you get a 1:1 partition image
that way).
All the best, uwe
--
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
