JohnKenn
Thanks abacab.
Still fuzzy on the difference and had seen a reference like you said to having multiple "images" on a disc.
From the standpoint of recovering from a meltdown where you may have to transfer an image or a clone to say a new hard drive, any advantages one over the other?
Clueless in Seattle (or close to there anyway)
John
You don't 'transfer' a clone. A cloned drive is a one for one physical drive. You can swap a cloned drive with the original, for example, by physically unplugging the cables and moving things around.
Having an 'image' is a way of storing the complete contents of a drive in a file container. When you restore an image file to a new or exiting disk, you will then have a clone of the source drive, but only once you have completed the 'restore' job with your chosen app.
So for upgrading disk hardware, the 'cloning' method is the most direct way to go.
For system backup and recovery however, drive 'imaging' is more practical. You can store multiple versions of the drive image file on a large external drive. For example, full daily, weekly, & monthly images can be scheduled and retained, while setting limits on the max number of each before the oldest gets deleted. That helps you manage the space on the backup drive.
I have used several programs for this over the years, including Acronis and the built in Windows 7 image. But currently I am using Macrium Reflect Free, which fully meets my needs.
A nice feature here is that you can directly mount any Macrium image as a virtual drive with a Windows drive letter (by double clicking the image file name), allowing you to browse the files & folders in an image file, and copy them anywhere with drag and drop. Since I take daily images, I can skip file backups this way, and recover anything I might want from an image file without restoring it.