rb said:
What is the difference between creating a backup image of my disk, and
cloning it?
If you successfully clone your hard drive (that is, if you clone the
contents ot your hard drive to another hard drive), you could remove
your old hard drive and put in the clone and boot from it and not notice
any difference (assuming both hard drives are identical). Put another
way, cloning results in bootable *media*.
If you were to create an image of your hard drive and store this image
on another medium (e.g., CDs, DVDs, or an external hard drive), you
could eventually use the same software you used to create this image to
restore it back to the original hard drive. Or you could remove the hard
drive if it's faulty, put a new one in, and *then* restore the image to
the new hard drive. In this case, although the image itself is not
bootable, once it is restored, the *hard drive* is bootable.
Again, once you have a clone, it is instantly bootable -- no additional
software is required. The image, however, is not bootable unless you
restore it -- so you need software.
If you cloned it, wouldn't that make the backup drive a new drive C?
Backing up is a vague, generic term. Instead, use the terms above
(cloning and imaging, wihch are types of backups). If I use the term
"back up," I'm talking about backing up specific data (like Word
documents, spreadsheets, MP3s, etc.). You can use good ol' Windows
Explorer for this. Or use Windows's ntbackup program. Of course, if you
image or clone your drive, *everything* (including your data) is backed
up.
HTH.