|
Posted by John Pollard on May 19, 2008, 9:17 am
Please log in for more thread options
Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> John Pollard wrote:
>>> The whole concept of "restored" here in this Quicken example
>>> is
>>> foolish. There is no restore happening, there's simply a
>>> copying of
>>> data. Most restore processes archive, compress or otherwise
>>> change
>>> the storage format of what they are backing up.
>> Seems to me you're interchanging the terms "backup" and
>> "restore".
>> "Restore" would "de-compress" the data if the
>> "backup" had "compressed" it.
> But that's the point - there is no difference between a backed
> up
> Quicken database and a regular Quicken database.
Logically, it does not matter.
>> But that has nothing to do with the comments I made. My
>> contention
>> is that both backups and restores are essentially
>> logical "copies" of the data (so a "restored" file should be
>> an exact
>> duplicate of the file originally backed up), and that the
>> "backup" file name, is the name given to the "restored" file
>> ...
>> regardless of whether there was any data compression utilized
>> in the
>> backup.
> But you see that's the whole point that I was making that you
> seem to
> miss. It's not that they are 'logical" copies of the data
> rather they
> are *exact* copies of each other. No other backup software
> that I know
> does that - none.
>>> Take ntbackup for example. You can use it to back up your
>>> whole
>>> computer - I do so nightly. What you'll get on the other
>>> end is one
>>> large file, which is hardly the same as the original files.
>> Logically: you have exact copies of all the original files.
> No, *actually* you have exact copies of the original files in
> the case
> of Quicken and not in the case of ntbackup and that's the
> point I was
> making.
>> It may look like one file to Windows, but for all intents and
>> purposes, it's multiple files to the backup/restore software.
> Again, this is totally different and in keeping with how most
> backup
> software or functionality works. Quicken's the odd ball here.
>> For purposes of my comments in this discussion, it would make
>> no
>> difference at all if the Quicken backups were compressed:
>> when the
>> backup is restored, the restored file: a.) is an exact copy
>> of the
>> originally backed up file (assuming
>> you've never opened the backup, and it has not been
>> corrupted); and
>> b.) has the exact same name as the backup file name.
>>
>> That is true for every backup/restore in my experience.
> No, every backup restore software changes the format of the
> original
> files into another format.
A.) You are wrong.
B.) You didn't even address what I said. Your claim does not
matter to the concept of "backup" and the concept of "restore"
A backup is no less a backup just because it is an exact
physical copy of the original file. And a restore is no less a
restore just because the backup file is an exact physical copy
of the original file.
This is the end of my participation in this discussion; it no
longer has any bearing on the original theme, nor any interest
to me.
--
John Pollard
First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com
Please reply to newsgroup
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap