From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

My exernal drive has back up files from my primary computer, the new
laptop, but also from a year ago from the previous laptop and the
desktop, but I only use the last two for browsing the web now. I don't
do email or newsgroups or write anything myself except on the new
computer.

Is there any point in saving the backups to the older two computers? If
an SSD failed, I'd just reinstall windows and start fresh. I wouldn't
want to use these backups anyhow. Or should I be making regular backups
when the only thing that changes is the web browsing history?

I could really use more space on my external drive, but it's so hard for
me to erase anything.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

My exernal drive has back up files from my primary computer, the new
laptop, but also from a year ago from the previous laptop and the
desktop, but I only use the last two for browsing the web now. I don't
do email or newsgroups or write anything myself except on the new
computer.

Is there any point in saving the backups to the older two computers? If
an SSD failed, I'd just reinstall windows and start fresh. I wouldn't
want to use these backups anyhow. Or should I be making regular backups
when the only thing that changes is the web browsing history?

I could really use more space on my external drive, but it's so hard for
me to erase anything.

FWIW, I'm a bit like you with regard to erasing old stuff.

That said, I keep (Macrium) image backup and (important) file backup
of my previous computer. Yes, that takes (external) disk space, but disk
space is cheap, especially on portable (2.5") USB disks. And, as said
before, two copies, one on-site and one off-site. If $50 or less buys me
peace of mind, that's money well spent!
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 2/12/2026 7:06 AM, micky wrote:

My exernal drive has back up files from my primary computer, the new
laptop, but also from a year ago from the previous laptop and the
desktop, but I only use the last two for browsing the web now. I don't
do email or newsgroups or write anything myself except on the new
computer.

Is there any point in saving the backups to the older two computers? If
an SSD failed, I'd just reinstall windows and start fresh. I wouldn't
want to use these backups anyhow. Or should I be making regular backups
when the only thing that changes is the web browsing history?

I could really use more space on my external drive, but it's so hard for
me to erase anything.

You should keep one backup of each machine "to have... no regrets".
The next time you lose your car keys, you'll be opening "all the backups
just in case I left it there".

Backups can be compressed. To do this, I recommend "no compression at all"
when making the original backup, so that one very good compressor does the job when you are compressing the file. Compression takes a long time, unless
you had prepared in advance with a Big Machine :-) The Big Machine does
ultra compression at 50MB/sec. Which means you have to be "Very Patient"
when waiting for it to finish. My partition full of ISOs, it does not
compress at all. It's a total waste of time to compress that one. Whereas
my partition full of iambic pentameter (poetry), that compresses very well.

As Frank Sinatra used to say "extra hard drives are a hell of a drug".
The lazy among us, used to partake of items like this, but the
stock of things like this is a bit dried up.

Internal drive $420

https://www.newegg.com/seagate-ironwolf-pro-st20000nt001-20tb-enterprise-nas-hard-drives-7200-rpm/p/N82E16822185071

External drive $280

https://www.newegg.com/seagate-expansion-16tb-black-usb-3-0/p/N82E16822184959

So really, I have no answer for you at all :-)

Sure, you can install an OS from scratch. Takes no time at all.
It's just the nagging feeling you lost something, that we have
to consider before offering advice.

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

micky wrote on 2/12/2026 5:06 AM:

My exernal drive has back up files from my primary computer, the new
laptop, but also from a year ago from the previous laptop and the
desktop, but I only use the last two for browsing the web now. I don't
do email or newsgroups or write anything myself except on the new
computer.

Is there any point in saving the backups to the older two computers? If
an SSD failed, I'd just reinstall windows and start fresh. I wouldn't
want to use these backups anyhow. Or should I be making regular backups
when the only thing that changes is the web browsing history?

I could really use more space on my external drive, but it's so hard for
me to erase anything.

No.

If the old computer(s) is/are still accessible(boots into Windows,
regardless of the age of the last Windows update) and the content on that
old device(s) is Windows 11 24H2 or earlier with data already on the
newer devices or data backed up elsewher(external device - disk, usb
stick) then those older backups are outdated, close to useless, little value.

You'd be better off spending time on cleaning out data that you no longer need(on the external and current two devices, make images of your current
two devices and keep a pattern of imaging Windows(full, not incremental-System, MSR, Windows, Recovery) on a cycle(monthly,
quarterly), and copy or transfer new data saved on the new devices to the external(disk, usb).

-i.e. clean house, get rid of old Windows images, don't save what you
don't need, or even remember why you saved it(this latter category has a tendency to grow over time and offering little long term value).
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2026-02-12 17:34, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 2/12/2026 7:06 AM, micky wrote:

Backups can be compressed. To do this, I recommend "no compression at all" when making the original backup, so that one very good compressor does the job
when you are compressing the file. Compression takes a long time, unless
you had prepared in advance with a Big Machine :-) The Big Machine does
ultra compression at 50MB/sec. Which means you have to be "Very Patient"
when waiting for it to finish. My partition full of ISOs, it does not compress at all. It's a total waste of time to compress that one. Whereas
my partition full of iambic pentameter (poetry), that compresses very well.

Fast compression is almost as fast as the hard disk, say 150 MB/S. It
may not be worth it to use high compression.

If you are using NTFS, you can simply mark a directory as compressed,
and write everything to it. It should be fast. I don't remember if you
can adjust compression ratio.

On Linux, the only filesystem that does r/w transparent compression is
btrfs. Others announced it but never implemented it (ext3).
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On Thu, 2/12/2026 2:26 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

On 2026-02-12 17:34, Paul wrote:

On Thu, 2/12/2026 7:06 AM, micky wrote:

Backups can be compressed. To do this, I recommend "no compression at all" >> when making the original backup, so that one very good compressor does the job
when you are compressing the file. Compression takes a long time, unless
you had prepared in advance with a Big Machine :-) The Big Machine does
ultra compression at 50MB/sec. Which means you have to be "Very Patient"
when waiting for it to finish. My partition full of ISOs, it does not
compress at all. It's a total waste of time to compress that one. Whereas
my partition full of iambic pentameter (poetry), that compresses very well.

Fast compression is almost as fast as the hard disk, say 150 MB/S. It may not be worth it to use high compression.

If you are using NTFS, you can simply mark a directory as compressed,
and write everything to it. It should be fast. I don't remember if you
can adjust compression ratio.

On Linux, the only filesystem that does r/w transparent compression is btrfs. Others announced it but never implemented it (ext3).

7Z Ultra is about the best compression you can get, but it's expensive.

7Z also has a Fast, which is fast, and can achieve quite high rates.
It is useful for some purposes. It's even possible that isn't an
arithmetic compressor (to get that kind of speed).

The trashy compressions, the LZ4-quality methods, IDK, those are
just a crazy choice. They can save something, but the cost is
way too high for the effort. If you're going to do a thing,
do it once and do it right. There are lots of situations where
the really bad compressors only save 1%, and then the operator
will have a scowl on their face. My partition full of downloaded
ISO files, that doesn't compress at all.

When you compress a material, you should not compress a compressed thing. Switching on (default) Macrium "medium" compression followed by 7Z Ultra,
does not give the best result. You would set Macrium to "none" and
then do your 7Z Ultra. There is even a claim, that 7Z on eight cores
does not make as compact an archive as 7Z on two cores or one core sort
of thing, but I haven't spent the time to compare them.

This is a taste thing. Salt to taste.

This is never going to save a lot of space. But if you have a 1TB
Macrium file in front of you, it will make the space you need to
save a few picture files. And you still need the "space to work" to
do this. A 1TB file needs a 1TB hole, to attempt the compression.
(Then you delete the original and are left with a 1.3TB hole,
you have "gained" from the process.) You can sometimes see early
in a compression, that the meter reads "80%" and maybe you're not
getting enough compression to be bothered to finish the run and
you can abort it. But some compression runs, if it says "30%",
then you stand to make a significant saving by carrying this out.

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2