The title pretty much says it all. I've been going through the various backup options for windows, but I do not understand the difference between these two. They seem to have the same purpose in mind(backing up files, I've even read that file history was intended to replace backup and restore), except the former is automated and limited to what it can backup while the latter is manual but more comprehensive. Is this correct?
@downvote(s) I don't have any flash drives to try these methods myself, but I have been looking up/reading about these backup options myself. Here is what I know:
- Was meant to replace backup and recovery
- Only backups personal files/libraries
- more user friendly/ streamlined
Backup and recover
- predecessor of file history, same basic idea
- freedom to backup whatever files you want
- option to create a system image
From what I've read I think both options can schedule automated backups, the only thing that really sticks out here to me is backup and recovery's option to create a system image. From this info I want to say that backup and recovery and file history do the same thing(backup files periodically), but backup and recovery can do more of the same. My question is, am I missing something here, Is there good reason to use file history over backup and restore besides ease-of-use?