Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I recently installed Windows 7 and I now want to set up a backup schedule. Previously, I had been using Norton 360's backup facility, but I was wondering if it was advisable to use the built-in Windows Backup system instead.

What are the differences between the two? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Is one a clearly better choice than the other?

share|improve this question
3  
theregister.co.uk/2010/06/22/windows_7_backup I read this article the other day which is pretty scathing, you might find this interesting. –  Richard Jun 29 '10 at 5:47
    
@Richard: You should post this as an answer. –  Jeff Yates Jun 29 '10 at 12:37

5 Answers 5

I read this article the other day which is pretty scathing, you might find this interesting. Register : Windows 7 Backup

(Reposted as an answer rather than a comment)

share|improve this answer

Windows 7 backup is great - low overhead, can restore from bare metal from a CD, and has some degree of file level recovery. Its a full system backup as well. It does some degree of differencial backup so its fairly fast after the initial backup

Norton 360 is a file level backup - it isn't meant for bare metal restores. More critically it comes with a whole load of other software, and well, norton isn't very well thought of, since its traditionally slowed down systems, been a pain to remove, and as such mainly used by people who don't know better.

I personally go for the built in windows 7 backup. Its simple, troublefree (i set it for the middle of the night, plug in my backup media, and forgetaboutit).

share|improve this answer

As a minimalist, I'd say always used built-in tools when possible unless those tools prove to be inadequate.

Give it a try. If it's not what you want, continue with N360.

share|improve this answer

I have used the full image backup in Vista and W7, it works very well and was very fast but is not flexible at all, I guess I could say it is better than nothing, If you are happy with Norton backup, stick with it.

share|improve this answer

I worked in the data protection and management field for 6 years in a previous incarnation. I am also exploring the Norton 360 backup solution. What is very scary is that Norton selects files for backup by file type (extension). This means that if you have critical files of a file type that Norton does not know about or regard as vital, then they are not going to be included in the backup. How many people will discover this at recovery time? I am much more comfortable with a "traditional full" backup that includes everything, and then incrementals (resets the backup flag and captures changed data since last incremental) or differentials (does not reset the backup flag and captures changed data since last full). Norton does not seem to be capable of that strategy. Does anyone know different?

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.