Simple Backup for Customers

[Porthos]

For myself, I'm far more concerned that clients have a full system image backup than a simple user data backup, though I like them to have both if they will do both. But I can always get user data back from a restored image, but I can't get a fully functioning "ready to rock and roll" system setup precisely as they've always known it unless I have a system image backup. That's what I want most if disaster strikes and, based on experience, so do they.

Not that they're not grateful if they've got all their user data, but they're more grateful if they've got their entire system, which may include multiple users and the data for all of them.

Exactly. Images are not hard to do. Data is great but having the installed OS and software is better. If the image is a little old, in a lot of cases you can pull current data from the drive with Fabs before the restoration of the image.

 

[HCHTech]

Does it possess the ability to create a full system image backup?

No - file backup only. I've had a few residential customers that bought into the image backup idea, but for most of them, their eyes glaze over when you even start explaining it. I don't push it as the "normal" way to do backups, only as the 201 course. Once your files are covered, if you'd like to get fancier, we can talk about images. You have to (or at least you are better off if you) purchase software, you need (likely) a larger external drive, and it takes longer. Only the folks who get serious about backups, or express a particular need, are candidates, IMO.

It's all cost/benefit, of course. I'd love it if everyone had image backups, but I don't see that as a realistic possibility for most folks.

 

[Philippe]

Furthermore, most residential customers will buy a new laptop after an hard disk crash or that kind of disasters.
Without talking of those switching from Mac to PC and vise-versa.
So robocopy for me / data only & full OS reinstall & tweaking in case of a HDD crash.

 

[britechguy]

Furthermore, most residential customers will buy a new laptop after an hard disk crash or that kind of disasters.

I am not making any attempt to deny your personal experience. But it is diametrically opposed to my own.

I have had people way more inclined to try to revive systems that should have been trashed years ago than I have rushing to buy new ones even when it's long overdue. I have a lot more clients these days that I'm telling to buy new systems and then have me do data transfer and set them up than I am repairs (which is somewhat of a shift, and it may shift back).

@HCHTech: I don't attempt to explain the subtleties of user data only versus system image backups. I always configure the backup software, and always use imaging software. Then I show them the very few steps necessary to actually take the backup on a regular interval. I don't even discuss the restore side of things, as the vast majority of them will glaze over and, more importantly, would never even consider, for a second, attempting a recovery as a DIY thing. I get the call that something has gone horribly wrong, and if that something is a drive failure then I'm called in to replace the drive and do the recovery, which is precisely what I do. I pitch to a given client only what I believe they're ready and willing to hear, and that always means some level of simplification to get understanding and buy-in. I don't feel one iota of either guilt or lack of professionalism for taking that approach. It's a value-added feature of my personal service from my perspective and seems to be from theirs, too, if history is any indication.

 

[Fred Claus]

If you want offline backups to an external hard drive, I would suggest Macrium Reflect. If you are looking for a tool that allows them to start in the cloud, I would say Backblaze if it's just one machine or iDrive if it's multiple machines.

 

[HCHTech]

I don't attempt to explain the subtleties of user data only versus system image backups.

Oh, yeah - I see your point, of course. I just can't make myself take that approach. I just have to explain things - I wish I could stop myself, it would make my life easier - haha.

 

[britechguy]

Data is great but having the installed OS and software is better.

And I can't say, "Amen!," more loudly.

I have seen people be literally slack-jawed the first time they've seen a restore done after catastrophic failure and everything, absolutely everything, coming right back exactly as it was at the moment the backup had completed.

Given the amount of time and effort, even if it's in tiny dribs and drabs, that most put into tweaking things about Windows to their liking, and forgetting exactly what you've done and when, getting an "out of the box" version of Windows is just disconcerting. That's even if you get all of your programs reinstalled and user data restored. It is nowhere near as convenient (or satisfying) as having "the Windows World I Know and Love" just magically (or seemingly so) reappear.

If I have to choose either or between full system image and user data backups, it's the former without question. And if a machine has multiple users that becomes even more so. I don't want to be doing multiple individual user data backups (and, yes, I know there are ways to avoid doing them individually, but those are still less convenient than imaging the system as a whole in one step).

 

[Fred Claus]

And I can't say, "Amen!," more loudly.

I have seen people be literally slack-jawed the first time they've seen a restore done after catastrophic failure and everything, absolutely everything, coming right back exactly as it was at the moment the backup had completed.

Given the amount of time and effort, even if it's in tiny dribs and drabs, that most put into tweaking things about Windows to their liking, and forgetting exactly what you've done and when, getting an "out of the box" version of Windows is just disconcerting. That's even if you get all of your programs reinstalled and user data restored. It is nowhere near as convenient (or satisfying) as having "the Windows World I Know and Love" just magically (or seemingly so) reappear.

If I have to choose either or between full system image and user data backups, it's the former without question. And if a machine has multiple users that becomes even more so. I don't want to be doing multiple individual user data backups (and, yes, I know there are ways to avoid doing them individually, but those are still less convenient than imaging the system as a whole in one step).

Would you recommend in that case a full-image backup instead of just a file based backup?

 

[britechguy]

Would you recommend in that case a full-image backup instead of just a file based backup?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "in that case." I recommend a full system-image backup as the first (and, on occasion, only) option in all cases.

Separate user data backups can be taken if they are desired, and if someone happens to be creating rafts of new user data with some frequency, they may wish to take user data backups at more frequent intervals than a full system image backup.

For myself, and on my machines, if I happen to have an "off-cycle" influx of data, say uploading a thousand pictures from the vacation I just returned from that I'd not ever want to lose, I just do an off-cycle full system image backup immediately afterward.

I like File History, run on demand, for straight user data backups, as the versioning feature is very nice indeed, though you do need to do some adjusting to its initial settings if you don't want to keep every version of every file "forever." It's a bit of a PITA to use if you're trying to transfer to another machine, but the instructions for doing so are out there and they work. I keep hoping that Microsoft will put some effort into making the UI for this more user friendly and "intuitive." Right now, it's not.

 

[fincoder]

I keep hoping that Microsoft will put some effort into making the UI for this more user friendly and "intuitive." Right now, it's not.

Strangely, in Windows 11 "Windows Backup" is nowhere to be found in Settings. At least I can't find it. Search for "backup" doesn't find it. Search for "File History" finds it in the old Control Panel, currently the only way to activate it! So the File History UI has reverted back to that in Windows 8.

Interestingly Microsoft's help page for Backup & Restore in Windows 11 only describes restores using Control Panel > File History. No description of how to backup!

Back up your Windows PC - Microsoft Support

Learn how to back up apps, settings, files, photos, and Microsoft Edge favorites and preferences on your Windows PC.

support.microsoft.com

Personally I still use the Control Panel File History UI anyway, and it's the only way to get a shortcut onto a customer's desktop in Windows 10. I just think it's a bit shabby that Microsoft removes features from Settings in Windows 11, presumably because they're still working on it.

 

[britechguy]

Backup & Restore was deprecated all the way back in version 1709, so it's no surprise it's nowhere to be seen in Windows 11. I've been hoping it would disappear for years now.

Microsoft Announcement of Deprecated Features, including SIB [Backup and Restore (Windows 7), V1709]

I've always used the Control Panel UI to set up File History, too. I think it's going to be a very, very long time before Control Panel disappears completely. I happen to really like Settings, and its search feature, but for what I'm already really familiar with under Control Panel I tend to gravitate there.

 

[fincoder]

Backup & Restore was deprecated all the way back in version 1709, so it's no surprise it's nowhere to be seen in Windows 11

Sorry I didn't actually mean "Backup and Restore (Windows 7)". That still exists in Windows 11's Control Panel, as it does in Windows 10. I assume it's kept for compatibility with older backups, and because of it's ability to do system images.

That help page I linked to is about how to backup or restore in Windows.

 

[britechguy]

No apology necessary.

I still keep hoping that "Backup and Restore (Windows 7)" will finally, at long last, be removed. The minute Microsoft deprecates something, and furthermore tells you to use a third party solution, that's precisely what you should be doing.

We're long past the time that any backup that should have been taken with that utility (which was never great to begin with) would ever need to be restored on a modern version of Windows. And if you're still running Windows 7 or earlier, that utility is never going away (and you're just asking for trouble if you're remaining in contact with cyberspace).

This is another example of Microsoft encouraging people to avoid doing what needs to be done by maintaining something that they should have given a hard "drop dead date" for years ago.

 

[fincoder]

It's also an example of Microsoft building a feature (e.g. Backup and Restore, Windows Live Mail) then instead of enhancing it, while maintaining backwards compatibility or providing conversion tools, they build a new feature (e.g. File History, Mail app) that isn't compatible.

 

[carmen617]

Microsoft has never had a good, free, included backup solution. I support both PC and Macs, prefer PCs for many reasons, but the one absolute killer advantage Mac has over PC is Time Machine. I never work on a Mac without doing a full TM backup first, and every single client I have with a Mac is advised to just pick up a cheap external and keep it connected with TM on. Although this thread has come up with lots of good suggestions, nothing for a PC is as easy and reliable as that, and it's just a shame that Microsoft doesn't care enough about their retail clients to include a good backup solution.

I agree that a system image offers tremendous value to clients. File History doesn't offer one. Windows 7 Backup, which does, is deprecated and will go away. None of the pay cloud options I have seen also include system images, although Carbonite used to. That's why I go with WD drives and their included Acronis software, but Macrium is good too - just not as simple to use. For clients with Office subscriptions (a good percentage of my base) the combination of OneDrive backup and Acronis is about as close as I can get them to Time Machine.

 

[Sky-Knight]

The problem is Microsoft does have a good, free, and included backup solution... we just don't have a UI for it!

It's called Volume Shadow Copy (VSS). And without that system component, Macrium, Shadow Protect, Datto, and literally everyone else in this space wouldn't be able to do what they do.

We're selling software to access fundamental Windows capabilities not present because MS never made a UI for them, only an API.

 

[timeshifter]

Microsoft has never had a good, free, included backup solution. I support both PC and Macs, prefer PCs for many reasons, but the one absolute killer advantage Mac has over PC is Time Machine. I never work on a Mac without doing a full TM backup first, and every single client I have with a Mac is advised to just pick up a cheap external and keep it connected with TM on. Although this thread has come up with lots of good suggestions, nothing for a PC is as easy and reliable as that, and it's just a shame that Microsoft doesn't care enough about their retail clients to include a good backup solution.

Absolutely agree with this. Time Machine is top notch and it's a shame there's no equivalent solution for Windows. Some have tried, they're not free and they're not anywhere near as good.

But like other issues with clients, at least mine, telling them to buy a drive and hook it up is a non-starter. On many occasions I've said order this drive and when it comes in just plug it up, answer these two or three prompts and you're good to go. When I go back months later for something else they have the drive... still in the package.

 

[sapphirescales]

But like other issues with clients, at least mine, telling them to buy a drive and hook it up is a non-starter. On many occasions I've said order this drive and when it comes in just plug it up, answer these two or three prompts and you're good to go. When I go back months later for something else they have the drive... still in the package.

Yeah, this is why I offer cloud backups. Most clients are just too incompetent to even remember to plug in their drives, let alone set them up. Synology's Active Backup For Business is so good that I've been thinking lately of finding a way to use it for my clients. I host the NAS, they get to use ABfB without having to own a NAS themselves and pay me a monthly fee. I'm sure Synology's licensing terms forbid this usage, but it sure would be nice.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Yeah, this is why I offer cloud backups. Most clients are just too incompetent to even remember to plug in their drives, let alone set them up. Synology's Active Backup For Business is so good that I've been thinking lately of finding a way to use it for my clients. I host the NAS, they get to use ABfB without having to own a NAS themselves and pay me a monthly fee. I'm sure Synology's licensing terms forbid this usage, but it sure would be nice.

It took me two months, but I managed to get a hold of a senior engineer at Synology, and asked that specific question.

The answer is no, there is nothing stopping you from doing that. They WANT you buying a nice huge Synology device and using it however you see fit. And since this is housing client backups you're probably in for two. Or at least backing one up with their C2 service. Heck your customers could use the C2 service themselves and not need the NAS at all.

C2 for Business is $100 / year for up to 250 users or 5TB and unlimited devices. It's among the cheapest solutions on the shelf for what it is. But I like the idea of my stuff being in a magic box here with me.

 

[sapphirescales]

@Sky-Knight I still need to do more research to make sure I'm securing things properly, but if Synology is okay with me using ABfB that way then this is something I'm definitely going to consider! It's hard to beat Backblaze but there are several downsides to Backblaze that have no remedy at an affordable price:

1. 30 day retention policy sucks
2. Recent price increase to $6/month/device sucks
3. No image backup sucks
4. Restore interface sucks
5. The fact that you can't rebrand their software sucks

I get it. At $6/month for unlimited storage it's hard to complain, but it really sucks for resellers. But for $2,600 I can have my own 8 bay Synology NAS with 8x 14TB hard drives in RAID 10 for a total capacity of 50TB. My average client uses approximately 140GB of data, so that's 357 clients I could have on one of these devices. At $6/month/client, I'd break even after a little more than a month (assuming I fill it up, of course, which will obviously take time).

ABfB has everything you could want in a backup software. I haven't used it with 357 users before, but in my personal use and where I've deployed Synology devices I've had absolutely no problems. Obviously I'd need to stagger backup times so I don't overload the NAS or saturate my connection but that shouldn't be a problem.