News Blog

The survey section where the percentages were taken out--the numbers just don't justify what Acronis said in its report.

(Credit: Acronis)

Acronis, a major vendor of backup software, released a report earlier this week stating that about 87 percent of computer users back up their data once every two or three months--way less frequently than recommended. This suggests that most of us live dangerously when it comes to backing up.

The survey was widely reported in the press, but it turns out the numbers didn't seem to go well with Acronis' report.

The percentages released to the media were taken from the question "How often do you back up your hard drive or files?" Results include: 48 percent for "once a week (or more)"; 55 percent for "2-3 times a month"; 81.5 percent for "once a month"; 86.8 percent for "every 2-3 months", 91.4 percent for "2-3 times a year", 94.6 percent for "once a year or less"; and 25.5 percent for "never."

It may be that I'm Asian and extra good with math, but I couldn't help but notice that when added up, the numbers total around 500 percent. Other ways to interpret the chart didn't justify the reported 87 percent, either. So maybe you're not as bad at backing up as some media reports told you you were.

A post earlier this year by CNET News.com's Stephen Shankland pondering how he should store photos while traveling got me thinking about the same question.

I can't claim to have come up with "the answer," but I've thought about the issues, read through some discussions about what people consider best practices, and have tried to roughly quantify relative failure rates. What's right for you will depend on priorities and circumstances, but hopefully the following will offer some food for thought.

Real-world failure rates are hard to come by. However, having been the owner of a variety of laptops and other devices with hard disk drives, a 1:100 drive failure rate in a portable device over the course of a month's vacation doesn't seem out of line. Flash memory fails too. Anecdotal information from a couple of dealers (based on product returns) suggests that a 1:1000 rate is a reasonable stake in the ground--10x the reliability of disk. Further complicating the story is that some errors are recoverable, but you'd probably better stop using the card when you have a problem.

That's the hardware. Then there's the wetware--i.e. you.

This one's even harder to quantify. However, speaking for myself, I'm always misplacing loose memory cards. Furthermore, procedures that involve a lot of multi-step copying, editing, and so forth offer lots of potential to erase something that you thought you backed up or for an operation to otherwise fail without your knowledge. Or you might, like me, sometimes just do something really dumb. Also, consider theft and other forms of loss beyond your control.

Add it all up and my guess is that, for most people, minimizing the possibility of human error is more important than incrementally reducing the impact of a potential hardware failure.

With those reliability estimates and human realities as a baseline, here are my thoughts for some reasonable practices:

• If at all economically feasible, carry enough flash memory to hold all your photos. Flash has a good 10x the reliability of hard disks, more when you consider that it's probably going to be OK even if you drop it or run it through the washing machine.
• Common wisdom is that name brands are, in the aggregate, more reliable, and some higher-end cards also come with data recovery software. This seems reasonable. However, I've never seen actual data to bolster this belief--only random stories about crappy off-brand cards purchased on eBay. One data recover company notes that differences in build quality are indeed part of the reliability story but goes on to say it doesn't correlate in any consistent way to brand.
• Because photos can sometimes be recovered from memory cards after they've had a problem, it's a good idea to have at least one backup card. That way, if there's a problem, you can take the card out of the camera and work on it when you get home. Messing with it in the field is a recipe for losing data that could otherwise have been retrieved.
• A lot of people advocate putting fewer eggs in one basket. That is, they suggest using multiple smaller cards rather than one or two larger ones. This is hard to argue against so long as you develop a good system to ensure you don't lose the spare cards or accidentally erase or otherwise mess something up while you're swapping them around. Given overall flash reliability, I don't see this as a particular win--and may even be a net loss if taken to the extreme of some complicated scheme of rotating cards in and out of the camera.
• Although I tend not to bother, making a periodic hard disk backup of your memory cards is good belt-and-suspenders practice. If you're traveling with other people, a hard disk is also a good way to trade pictures. A computer is one possibility. Hard disk-based media players or portable devices specifically designed for the purpose are others.
• If you can't keep everything on flash, then you obviously need to copy it somewhere. Based on the numbers I threw out above, I wouldn't trust a single hard disk backup as my only copy of anything I really cared about. In this case, I'd want either a second hard disk or a way to burn a copy to DVD. (One advantage of making DVDs is that you can potentially mail a copy to yourself at home. (Laptop and DVDs were the solutions that Shankland eventually decided on.) If you have a bunch of spare thumb drives of reasonable capacity laying around, that may be another possibility.
• Cameras break too--maybe more so than any of the other parts we're talking about here, especially if you're in harsh conditions. I'm not sure of the final digital camera mortality rate on the Grand Canyon boating trip I took a couple of years back, but a fair number bit the dust. So definitely consider a backup camera. Sharing memory card format and/or batteries between main and backup is nice, if feasible.

Ultimately, it's all a matter of playing the odds of hardware failure, while keeping in mind all the dumb things that we can do to sabotage ourselves.

Most computer users know they should back up the files on their computer, yet many don't. Why not?

Leo Notenboom raised this question recently, see "Why don't people back up?"

No computer techie can answer this question, which is why both Leo and I have to ask. We're computer nerds and, as such, backup is part of our DNA. Techies can't put themselves in the shoes of the millions of computer users who don't back up their computers. We're different.

So, those of you who don't back up your computer, but know full well that you should, tell me what the obstacle is. Send an e-mail to dontbackup at michaelhorowitz dot com.

Organization

One obstacle to any backup scheme is organization. Regardless of the hardware or software involved, you need to be able to point to the files you wanted backed up. This requires some understanding of the file system and I don't see a way around that. It also requires some organization on your part, which may be the fatal flaw for some people. If you save files that you care about all over the place, your only backup option is to copy the entire computer, which is always a pain in the neck.

Back in the days of MS-DOS, I got in the habit of saving all my personal files in a folder called "Mikelet" reflective of the fact that folders could only have eight character names and that my initial PC use was for writing letters. To this day, I keep all my personal files in a folder with the same name (although I have added subfolders for segregating specific types of files). In the years since, Microsoft invented "My Documents" to serve the same purpose. Linux users know this concept as the home folder.

I never liked the name "My Documents." First, having a space in a folder name is asking for trouble. Second, it's meant as a repository for all your personal files, not just "documents" a term normally used to refer to word processing files. So, if you're not yet organized, and your name is Harvey, you may want to start off by creating a folder called "HarveysFiles" to simplify your backups.

But there are likely to be other important files, such as e-mail, that you want to back up. Do you know where your e-mail is on your computer? Some backup programs are smart enough to know the location of e-mail for handful of popular programs, but many of us have to find it the hard way. If you exclusively use Webmail, then your e-mail does not reside on your computer at all. In some ways this is good, but if your e-mail is important, and you want to make a backup copy, you need a totally different scheme than the one employed for files on your computer.

Is it too much to get organized or to take inventory of where the files that you care about reside? Is this what's preventing you from backing up?

Other Reasons

My best guess for why people don't back up their computers is that they haven't found a simple, short introduction to the topic. Many of the comments at ask-leo.com were from computer users who simply didn't know where to begin.

Other people noted that they tried to read the documentation for their backup program but were confused by the terminology and/or jargon.

One person suspected that computer users with no training are afraid that they may accidentally screw up the computer and they'll have no idea how to fix it. I feel like that when driving a car--what I know about engines could fit on the head of a pin. Fortunately for me, cars are much more reliable than personal computers. Is the fear of screwing things up holding you back?

Is picking a backup program too much for you? There are, after all, hundreds to chose from. Is deciding on the backup media too difficult? Or, is the choice of local backups vs. remote off-site backups the stumbling block? (Mozy users may want to read "Everybody likes Mozy--except me, Part 1").

Those of you who do back up, please don't tell me what your backup scheme is. There are so many combinations of needs, software, and hardware that there is no one right answer for anyone. There isn't even one right approach for me. I use one scheme for my main desktop computer and another for my laptop which I take when traveling.

Perhaps you've heard this before: there are only two types of hard disks--those that have failed and those that will.

See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.

There's simply no reason for any computer user to lose important data.

My hat is off to the tech companies that provide the hardware, software, and services we rely on every day. From Microsoft's Shadow Copy feature in Windows Vista (though only partially implemented in the Home Edition), down to the smallest Web start-ups offering free and easy online storage (though you have to pay for unlimited storage capacity), they have made tremendous strides in helping to keep our valuable data safe. Now it's up to us to take advantage of these great products and services.

For full backups, image is everything
Start with a complete image backup of your hard drive using a program such as Acronis True Image Home. The program is so much easier to use than the backup utility built into Windows Vista and XP that it's worth spending $50 to keep it beyond the 15-day trial period. I create an image backup of the hard drives on three of the five PCs on my home network once or twice a year, depending on how much use they're getting. (The other two are test systems that are constantly reset to their defaults anyway.)

It can take five or more 4.7GB DVD discs to back up a big-capacity hard drive, so you may want to consider buying an external hard drive to simplify the process. Just remember to keep the external drive in a location other than next to your PC to prevent both being damaged or stolen at the same time.

Go casual for your day-to-day file backups
Over the years I have gotten into the habit of duplicating my important files on a regular basis: either by e-mailing them to myself and setting my mail server to save copies of all mail after it is downloaded to the PC; sending them in batches via ftp to the Web-server storage that's included in my ISP account; or burning a copy of the 1GB USB thumb drive I use as my primary file-storage location to a DVD. (Adding the storage folders on the thumb drive to my Save As dialog boxes in Office took only a couple of minutes.)

Online backup fills in the gaps
You might think that these occasional image backups and regular, informal file backups would have me covered. But recently I faced a situation where neither backup approach was appropriate. One of my three XP machines is showing signs of old age and may be ready to cash in its chips. I have gotten more than my money's worth out of this trusty, old hunk of metal, which served as my primary work system for three years before being converted to a test PC about three years ago. In that capacity it has been through the wringer: I've downloaded, installed, and uninstalled dozens of programs onto its 30GB hard drive.

Before I consign it to a shelf in the garage with the other PC wrecks, I need to get my personal files off its hard drive (which I'll probably pound a few nails through before I take it to our local electronics recycler). I've plugged at least two different digital cameras into this system, and several different audio players, all of which seem to use their own software. I've also used at least a dozen other applications at one time or another. Who knows where all these programs have put my images, audio files, and various documents and spreadsheets?

Instead of hunting down all these files before pulling the plug on the PC, I signed up for a free account at IDrive, which makes it easy to ferret out these files. The free version of the service gives you 2GB of storage with no limitations on the number of backups and restores. It also lets you perform continuous backups as frequently as every 10 minutes, and it doesn't delete your files on its servers after a period of time, as other free backup services do.

In the past, I have tried many online-backup services, including industry-leaders XDrive (now owned by AOL) and Mozy, both of which offer free limited-storage versions. But IDrive is the most straightforward of the three to sign up for and use.

Getting started with IDrive requires only a name, an e-mail address, and a password. You're given the option to use IDrive's encryption key, or to create your own based on a separate password of your own devising. After you download the client program used for your backups, you select the file locations and types you want to back up, or choose the service's automatic option, which includes the usual file-storage folders on your system.

Choose IDrive's default encryption for your backup files, or devise a key (password) of your own.

(Credit: IDrive)

Backing up the personal files on my old XP PC went smoothly, though it took just over five hours to transmit 450MB of files to the service. Ultimately, I decided that I wanted to use more than the 2GB available for the free account, so I upgraded to the IDrive Pro service, which costs $5 a month or $50 a year. The Pro account lets you manage several accounts with a single log-in and from one console, though each PC has to have its own account. The exception to this is if you need to restore the backup of a crashed PC to another (the scenario I'm anticipating I'll have to use someday).

View the progress of your IDrive online backup as it proceeds, including the estimated time remaining.

(Credit: IDrive)

While the initial IDrive backup can take several hours if you're saving hundreds of megabytes of data, subsequent backups are much faster, and the service's automatic-backup settings make them nearly transparent. You can also sync online files with your local PC, and view your files and other account information from any Internet-connected PC via its Web interface.

Tomorrow: registry freeware you shouldn't compute without.

A few days ago, David Strom wrote an article in The New York Times about making off-site file backups over the Internet. There is no one right answer when it comes to making backups, but I'd like to expand on a few points he raised.

At the beginning of the article, Strom says that "for a few hundred dollars a year you can buy inexpensive protection." Hopefully, readers weren't scared off by the price. Many off-site storage companies will hold backup copies of your files for much less money. Personally, I started out paying $10 a year for 1 gigabyte of off-site storage. Now, I pay $20 a year for 2 gigabytes.

Mozy is one of the off-site storage companies mentioned in the article. I wrote a two-part review of Mozy back in July. Perhaps the most important point about Mozy is that it will, at times, delete your backup files. Anyone who mentions Mozy and leaves out this fact has not done their homework.

The sentence in the article that most prompted this posting was this:

"It's a good idea to try out a service to see how long it takes to make a complete backup of each computer you want to protect."

Off-site storage is not the appropriate medium for complete backups of a computer. Off-site backup is only appropriate for your important files. For most broadband users, uploading large files is slow, drastically slower than downloads (the exceptions being fiber, SDSL and T1 connections). And the cost of off-site storage usually increases with the amount of data stored.

Strom warns that "in some cases, the first backup will take hours, if not days." If it takes you days to make a backup, take it as a hint you're barking up the wrong tree. Complete backups, those that include the operating system and applications, are best done with a disk imaging program to an external hard disk or DVDs. Fedex is what I suggest for any complete backups you might want to store off-site.

Features and services

In choosing an off-site storage company, software that automates the backup process may sound like a good thing, but there is a downside--automation can go too far. Last year, Business 2.0 magazine almost didn't publish an issue because they lost all their files. Their automated backups were a bit too automated; the backups hadn't been running and no one noticed.

Many file storage companies provide you with software. Just say no. For one thing, using their software makes it harder to switch companies in the future. Also, there is no way to have real security if the same organization is both encrypting your files and storing them. Finally, it may limit you when it comes time to restore files, and, in your hour of need, that's the last thing you'll want to deal with.

Any off-site backup company should let you upload and download files from any computer connected to the Internet, using nothing more than a Web browser. Not all do. Charging customers based on the amount of data being stored is eminently fair. Charging based on the number of computers those files came from, strikes me as a rip-off.

Finally, anyone considering off-site backups for the first time should read Ed Foster's article, "Backup Service EULAs Warrant a Closer Look," from last February in which he discusses the End User License Agreement from Mozy, Iron Mountain, Carbonite, Xdrive, and SOSonlinebackup. Even expecting the worst, it's shocking.

So few people back up the files on their computers; you don't want to start off on the wrong foot.

See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.

There's something about Microsoft Outlook that reminds me of the old Soviet Union: the program wants to centralize everything and store it in one big PST file that only it can access. There may be advantages to this approach to managing your e-mail, contacts, tasks, and calendar, but you know what can happen when you put all your eggs in one basket.

That's why it makes sense to move copies of your important Outlook files to folders that live outside the Office system. Saving messages and other data to local storage is relatively easy, whether you move them one at a time or in bunches. Note that this is different than backing up (or archiving) the messages, which I'll also describe.

To save a single message to a local folder, open it, and in Outlook 2003, click File > Save As, or in Outlook 2007 click the Office button and choose Save As twice. In both versions, navigate to the folder you want to use, choose a file type in the Save as type drop-down menu, and click Save. Note that in Outlook 2003, the message subject becomes the file name, but in Outlook 2007 you have to give the file a name.

The two most common formats for e-mail are HTML (.htm or .html) and Text Only (.txt): the former opens the message in a browser and preserves the look of the original, but the latter ensures that the message will open in just about any program.

You can also save multiple messages simultaneously by Ctrl-clicking to select them, or Ctrl-A to save them all, and then choosing File > Save As in Outlook 2003, or the Office button and Save As twice in Outlook 2007. They'll all be saved as a single text file, and you'll have to give the file a name. Each message in the file begins with the word "From".

To move an entire folder to your hard drive or other local storage, click File > Import and Export, choose Export to a file, click Next, select Comma Separated Values (Windows), click Next again, choose the folder you want to export, click Next yet again, browse to the location you want to store the folder (unless you want to go with the folder and file name Outlook chose), give the file a name, click Next once more, and then Finish.

Export the contents of an Outlook folder via the Import and Export wizard.

You could also choose to export the folder as a single Excel or Access file, but using either Comma Separated Values (Windows) or Tab Separated Values (Windows) makes the file much easier to read in Word.

Back up the Outlook way via archiving. You may also want to protect your mail, contacts, tasks, and calendar entries within Outlook by archiving your data. The primary advantage of archiving is that everything is backed up with a single action. The disadvantage is that everything lives in a single file, and the data is accessible only in Outlook.

To archive in Outlook 2003, click File > Archive > Personal Folders (or select individual folders, if you wish), enter the date, choose a location for your archive file, give it a name (or go with Outlook's default in both cases), and click OK. You can ensure that your archive includes everything by checking Include items with "Do Not AutoArchive" checked.

Archive all your Outlook data by choosing Personal Folders and the current date in the Archive dialog box.

You may also want to note the folder Outlook uses to store this and other files by default, because Microsoft does a good job of making the location impossible to guess. In XP, the path is C:\Documents and Settings\your login name\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Outlook. In Vista, it's C:\Users\your login name\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Outlook.

Let Outlook do the archiving for you. I get nervous when programs start doing things behind the scenes, but you might prefer to have Outlook archive a folder automatically. To do so, right-click the folder and choose Properties > AutoArchive. If you select Archive items in this folder using the default settings, click Default Archive Settings, and choose your preferred options. Another way to set up auto-archiving is to click Archive this folder using these settings, and make your choices. As far as I can tell, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Make your auto-archive selections in Outlook's AutoArchive dialog box.

Retrieve your archived data. An archive won't do you much good if you can't access it, and Outlook doesn't make the process particularly easy: Click File > Import and Export > Import from another program or file > Next > Personal Folder File (.pst) > Next. Now browse to and select your archive file, click Do not import duplicates, and choose Next > Finish.

Tomorrow: Ubuntu time-saving tips.

(Credit: Best Buy)

One of the nice things about using a notebook is that if there's a sudden power outage, you won't instantly lose your work. Desktop users aren't so lucky, which is why it's essential to plug everything into a battery backup (aka uninterruptible power supply). If the lights go out, you'll still have a few minutes in which to save your work and power down the machine safely.

Best Buy has a CyberPower battery backup on sale for $29.99. It includes six wide-spaced outlets, all of them surge-protected and three of them powered by the battery. The 240-watt backup promises between 8 and 20 minutes of runtime, depending on the power demands of your hardware. It also has a pair of phone/fax/modem ports to keep that gear from getting fried. CyberPower even backs your equipment with a $35,000 warranty. Battery backups can cost a pretty penny; here's your chance to get one on the cheap.

Nearly all broadband Internet accounts come with storage on the ISP's servers, but I'll wager not one in 10 broadband users ever store anything there. That's a shame, especially if you find yourself schlepping a USB thumbdrive or rewritable CD full of your personal files from computer to computer. There are dozens of free utilities out there that make transferring files between your local PC and an FTP or Web server as easy as dragging and dropping. The two I've been using are the open-source FileZilla FTP client, and 2Brightsparks' SyncBack, which is also available in a $30 version called SyncBackSE that adds compression, performance, and security features.

Windows' built-in FTP comes up short
You don't need any added software to send files to an FTP server from Windows: simply type the server address into Windows Explorer's address bar and press Enter to connect and view the files, or open a command prompt and type the address there. If you're working with lots of files in several folders, the Windows approach is like dressing in the dark. FileZilla and other FTP clients give you a clearer view of your file transfers before, during, and after the process.

For example, I use FileZilla to transfer files to a directory on my ISP's FTP server, as well as to update a Web site hosted on one of the company's Web servers. I created a profile for each task and can jump between the two simply by clicking the drop-down menu next to the program's Quickconnect button. FileZilla's multiple windows let me view the folder trees and contents of the local PC and the remote server side by side.

The free FileZilla FTP program lets you compare the contents of folders on your local PC and the remote FTP server.

As simple as FTP transfers are using FileZilla, you can't use it to back up files to an FTP server automatically, nor is it easy to synchronize files between two folders. That's where SyncBack comes in: the program lets you schedule file syncs and backups to FTP servers as well as to local storage devices. And you can run your backup and sync profiles manually with a single click. SyncBack lists the files that appear in the source or destination folder, but not in the other, so you can choose which files to include or exclude from the update.

Back up and sync files on an FTP server as easy as to a local folder with the free SyncBack utility from 2Brightworks.

It may sound like a trifle, but one of the greatest benefits of the FileZilla/SyncBack approach to file syncs and backups is that I no longer have to fumble around trying to plug my thumbdrive into the USB ports on my various PCs. It's also one less gizmo to keep from misplacing. Any programs that simplify my life even a little bit are welcome.

Monday: Getting Ubuntu to play nice with Flash and QuickTime.

(Credit: Symantec)

Are you making regular backups of your PC? Please, don't lie--it just embarrasses both of us. Don't tell me it's because you don't know how or you can't afford pricey backup software. Excuses don't pay the rent (or restore your data).

Buy.com has Norton Save & Restore 2.0, by all accounts a solid backup utility, for a mere $2.99 (shipped!) after a pair of mail-in rebates. Granted, one of them is a competitive upgrade, but just about any utility software qualifies: antivirus, antispam, firewall. You supply the proof of purchase (confirmation e-mail, a page from the manual, or even the CD itself), and Norton supplies the $20.

Save & Restore 2.0 can back up your entire hard drive or selected files and folders. It can also round up specific file types, like digital photos and MP3s. Computer Shopper rated it 7.0 (out of 10), the biggest knock being the price. That's hardly an issue now, right? Do yourself a favor and make regular backups, because hard-drive disaster isn't a matter of if, but when.