copying vs backing up using retrospect

[rookie1010]

Hi
I just got an external USB/firewire hard drive. I tried backing up using retrospect, retrospect seems to be so slow and i found that one of the entries on my hard drive was not valid after 8 hours of backup(perhaps i am doing something wrong).

i then tried the normal copy, i found that faster.

is there any benefit in backing up over copying?

 

[horris1st]

Once a priliminary backup has been made the second backup only backs up the files which have changed.

I use a different program and it does this, but im not sure about retrospect. I find it much faster to use the backup program then copy the files but then again i have got in excess of 3GB of work files, and 15 more GB of other stuff i would not like to lose.

What type of backup are you doing a network backup??? Or just to another partition? And if your doing a network what gear have you got??

 

[Demalii]

Eh.. I just copy all the files I need whenever I backup.. which are like 20g in music and another 10-15g in application files, but having a program that replaces only the changed files seems kinda like a raid setup.. but without the raid lol

 

[rookie1010]

i got the same as demaili, abotu 45 gigs of data in different partitions on an internal drive. I wanted to copy them to an external USB drive.

i think copying the data is a faster option. I am using this retrospect software, i dont find it user friendly, i was hoping for a drag and drop kind of environment(why dont they do them in all applications)