Simple way to move "users" folder to another partition in Vista?

I find it kind of dumb in this day and age that Microsoft keeps forcing your default directory where you should store all your data in the "users" directory on the same partition or drive as your OS.

So far, other than changing the destination for each folder in the user profile to a new location, there's no way to point the users folder to a new location.

It seems to be the same way for Windows 7.

Is there some fairly simple way to have your "users" folder on a different partition or drive?

I found this article, but it looks like there's too much room for error and botching up your system:

http://joshmouch.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/change-user-profile-folder-location-in-vista/

And this article for a simple registry edit, but it only applies to new users:

http://www.windows7hacker.com/index...e-user-profile-default-location-in-windows-7/

 

I agree.

If you don't mind reinstalling, then I think you could create a dummy user in the install process, use it to do that simple registry change, then create the real user(s) you want, and then delete the dummy user.

As for an existing installation... I haven't attempted this so I don't know what the best method is.

 

Well considering 99% of all computers out have one partition, it makes PERFECT sense to me.

There is a statistic Microsoft published. Only 2% of all Word users ever change the default layout of their toolbars and menus. About half of those only change at most two buttons.

Should you cater to the 99% or to the 1%, who will customize something regardless of the difficulty.

 

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus; and yes, htwingnut, there is a simple way to move your user files to a different partition. Under the "properties" for the relevant folders, you'll find a "Move..." button that will allow you to put the folder elsewhere, as discussed on this webpage: http://www.vista4beginners.com/Move-user-files-folders-to-another-partition

If doing that manually is too slow for you, write a batch file or script (e.g., in Powershell, which is specifically made for doing things along these lines) that will do the moving for you.

 

But that is not the same thing as moving the USERS directory. Sure you can move some of the the "relevant folders", but there is a lot of, shall we say, "irrelevant folders" that are not easily moved but sure would be nice for those of us in the "data and programs should never be in the same partition" camp. The "app data" folder is one I would REALLY like to be able to move. But there is other stuff there too like the user hive of the registry.

I have to agree for those calling for an easy way to move EVERYTHING, just like Microsoft did, back when they finally implemented a way to move SOME of the user specific stuff.

Gary

 

Well, what about taking a system snapshot, making the moves that MS has provided functionality for, and then taking another system snapshot to see exactly what has, and what has not, changed? That should provide key insights needed to move everything else.

Also, why not use Microsoft's own too-cutesy behaviour against it by putting those folders where you want them to be, and then replacing the existing folders with junctions/hardlinks so that the system basically ends up "thinking" it's still in the original location when it's really in your new location? MS uses junctions for the purpose of "fooling" certain XP-based apps into thinking that some files are still where they "expect" them to be, so why not run that same trick back against _Vista itself?

 

And maybe statistics don't mean squat when you don't make the option available to anyone. That's like asking how much a car costs and the dealer tells you 95% of drivers don't use their automatic headlamps (little do they know they have them). It's useless information anyhow.

Why is it any question I have about Vista here, I get met with resistance basically saying "you don't need it"? I haven't asked it because I need to know statistics that Microsoft collected. I'm asking if/how to do it. If you don't know, kindly ignore the post.

It seems every notebook I've purchased the past several years have two partitions on it too. So do most store purchased desktops. I don't have statistics, but I know from personal experience and as a PC purchaser for my family, this is true. I can look up statistics if need be.

Additionally, why not make it standard. I mean Microsoft forces other odd things on the user, why not force something that actually makes sense? If Vista required two partitions, then well, PC's that needed to be "Vista ready" would come with two partitions or hard drives. And make it an OPTION to put in on your C: drive?

 

Did you read my post/header? What part of "simple" don't you understand?

Yes, Shyster1, did you even read my original post? I said:

"So far, other than changing the destination for each folder in the user profile to a new location, there's no way to point the users folder to a new location."

Which is exactly what you just so kindly reiterated and linked to.

 

The 1% cause we're right!:laugh:

Seriously though, I too wish there was a simpler way to move the entire Users directory. I've gone the way of moving the individual folders like documents, pictures etc. to save space on my 32Gig SSD. All that stuff goes to my HDD instead. I'm starting to get use to ensuring programs get installed where I want them to be.

 

I apologize for having given you credit for being something more than just simplistic; I'll not make that mistake in future, eh.

 

And I apologize for your illiteracy. Obviously you had trouble reading my title and my post. But that's ok. I will use shorter words and sentences next time.

Here is something I found, however, that sounds like it might work:

http://www.keenesoftware.com/blog/post/Move-Vistas-Users-folder-to-a-Different-Drive.aspx

 

Every notebook you've purchased is a good sample to model the greater availability of notebooks out there?

Lets look at Dell's entire home line. One partition. HP's entire home line. One Partition. Gateway's entire line. One partition. Asus's entire line. One partition. Must I go on.....

Why not make it standard? Why bother? It's a poor solution's to most problems.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. In fact I don't see i ever called it a bad idea. It's just you are so defensive when anyone voices a different viewpoint. And it shows with the attitude and content of all your past posts. I'm saying it isn't economically sound. There are about a thousand better features those programming dollars can be geared towards. Like better security, voice recognition, etc etc etc.

 

Ummm, let's see. I have a Dell Vostro - 2 partitions
Compaq (HP) - 2 partitions
Lenovo - 2 partitions
Gateway - 2 partitions
Even many Asus EEE's come with two separate SSD's, granted mainly for cost reasons, but it's still there.

That's a pretty good sampling if you ask me. The point is that it can be done simply and cheaply (partitioning costs nothing).

It is NOT a poor solution, it's easy and for the most part free. Most OEM PC's come with a hidden partition anyhow for restoring the system. Don't deny this fact. How is a separate partition not economically sound?

You indirectly called it a bad idea by spouting out about some statistic that has nothing to do with the suggestion. And you claim it makes perfect sense to YOU. So I guess this means everyone else too? I ask a question and you respond negatively with an answer to a question I didn't ask, and what suits you only.

voice recognition? How many people use voice recognition when compared with need for data integrity? Voice recognition is a gimmick at best.

Security and data integrity is the main selling point of Vista is it not? Well, to me positioning User data on a separate partition is one of the simplest way to improve data integrity and security. Even if you backup frequently, if you reformat or blow away your C: drive, your data is left intact the same way you left it. Otherwise you're stuck with one day, one week, one month or more old data from a backup. And you can secure your data partition without the need to secure the rest of your system.

 

Statistic, pretty funny word. I'll give you an example - you are somewhere with another 99 people. Someone kills you, the others are OK. Are you still cool with the statistics? Don't get me wrong, almost everyone count on the statistics (eBay is great example), but don't count ENTIRELY on it, because when you are this tiny little 1%, for you it means 100%

 

imagine your user profile being on another disk, and the disk goes bad. have fun, then.

there is a reason they have it all on one disk. lower risk of failure.

and, there is no gain in having users on another disk. or, another partition.

and yes, if only one gets killed out of 100, that's statistically fine, and even if it would hit me, i would agree with this (at least, i wouldn't disagree anymore hrrrhrr ).

but the main thing is: if you want to change something that you can't, and no other has problems with, how about rethinking your blocked mind? how about adjusting to the new solution, maybe realising it makes sence, and is even better than your solution?

 

Or, in other words:

I find it kind of dump in this day and age that Users still keep trying to mess around with multiple partitions, and visual disks, instead of creating one big pool where all fits in. may it be a disk, may it be a raid with more than one disk, may it even be some sort of mapped-in NAS, what ever.
doing manual retargeting of files to different drives is unflexible and prone to errors.

 

Nice one

I thought that we are humans, not robots. That's why I responded to the topic, everyone has the right to choose.

 

How 'bout this:

(put in a .bat file and run in c: directory)

Code:

mklink /j users e:\users\

this would create some sort of a virtual folder link (not sure if there is an overhead) so when you open c:\users\ it actually goes to e:\users\

I've tried this (with azureus) because I store a lot of torrents on an external hard drive; I'm not sure if it will work with the users folder, but if you want to try it, you'll have to take your hard drive out and move the users folder with another computer and then put it back and try.

edit: didn't check the link in this post....

edit2: if you do decide to try this out, read this to make sure of what it does, esp the notes for windows versions before Vista.

 

sure, everyone has. but everyone who chooses otherwise than the given and suggested way has to bite the apple of doing the wrong choise maybe

 

This was my point exactly. It's a poor solution for protecting your data. Rather than backing up one disk, you have to backup two disks. These gimmicks don't "protect" your data. They just give you the sense of security. Most instances of data corruption occur during software installation. Your data could be in ten different partitions and could still get corrupted then. The solution is to streamline a backup solution that is unintrusive.

 

Imagine your OS crashing and taking all your data with it on that partition is a more likely scenario.

It's all opinion and personal choice. Just because Microsoft says so, doesn't make it the best solution. And I never said another DISK! I said another partition. You'd be stupid not to back up your data anyhow. This option would just lead to more flexibility.

I don't have a problem with it, merely asking a simple way to do something, but I'm told that there's no reason to, because someone else doesn't have a problem with it. That's a closed mind. "I'm fine with it so everyone else should be too" is the attitude.

I am not the only one that would like to do this just based on responses here. Do a google, and you will find many people looking for the same solution. The one I linked seems to be the most straight forward.

I appreciate the helpful responses from everyone here.

 

omg, the os crashing and taking all my data happened like..... NEVER. hdd crashes happened like, 1 time a year, 2 times? fact is, multiple partitions are stupid. and even then, there is a simple way: move your subfolders.

if your os messes up, you can't use your profile anymore anyways (except your own folders, which you CAN move).

your profile is bound to your installation (all the stuff in AppData, in AppData \ Local and AppData \ LocalLow as well as the ones directly in your user folder, a.k.a. the registry-stripouts). if you move that to another partition, it's completely useless. it's bound to your system partition stuff => it should be there. if that partition dies, your user profile dies with it. but that is the way it goes all the time. else, you would have an async registry with your os, and you don't want that.

so, now i gave you some reason on why "there's no reason to". often, when people ask something, they have some idea in mind, which may be wrong. this is such a case.

multiple partitions don't gain you anything. they make you think you have more control over your os, as "you set it up that way". but it's a placebo. data corruption in any form doesn't care about partitions at all.

backup is essential, but that is so obvious, it should not be mentoyed. and for a good backup solution, partitions don't matter, as it does it differential for fast transfer to the backup media (winhomeserver f.e. does).

 

Fine. I did not come here to argue or cause undue distress. Regardless of what someone else finds ideal it doesn't always fit the bill. I'm clearly not alone with this issue, so it obviously has some merit. It's not like I'm asking to cut through a steel I-beam with a putty knife.

Some application settings are stored in the user profile that are not in some user folder (i.e. Documents) that can be lost.

Additionally every time a new user folder is created by some program you have to remember to manually change the store path.

Either way, I believe I've found my answer.

Despite the bickering, I do thank everyone here for their input. I know most of you are brilliant users that have something to offer, regardless of opinion!

 

and i still don't have any point from you on the why, which would at least be interesting. espencially as you use a homeserver, and there, the lower the amount of partitions, the more easy to handle the backups.

 

btw, if this is for some strange sort of group station, then i'd suggest you to try steadystate. first of all, unimportant of that userfolder thing, steadystate is great for that for other reasons. but (at least in xp) one can have the user profiles at a different partition. no clue if that feature is still there in vista, but it would at least be a real, microsoft given way.

and i really want to know why it's worth the hazzle. i see no point => you have to enlighten me

 

I use Vista as a home server, not a server with a domain (i.e. Server 2003). I keep all my photos, documents, etc on a separate hard drive, and that is backed up periodically. On more than one occasion I have stupidly reformatted and reinstalled Windows thinking I had everything backed up but did not. Mainly files and settings related to different programs I use, stored in the Documents and Settings folder (XP).

Bottom line, I'd prefer to be able to wipe my C: drive clean and do a fresh install without ever having to worry about backing anything up, or that I didn't back up everything that I should have. That's my ultimate goal.

I don't like Vista's backup because I don't really know if it's backed up everything because you have zero flexibility indicating or even seeing exactly what files and folders are being backed up. Acronis has given me issues with corrupted backups, even doing a backup with verify. Plus I prefer to do a file by file backup using sync software so I can directly access the files without having to go through a third party software to read the files.

Trust me. I've used numerous methods and every one has failed me except doing folder copies to an external source.

 

Sorry, but you could not be more wrong. The concept of separation of executables and data is pervasive throughout the entire history of IT. So why should it NOT apply to personal machines as well. The segregation of the two allows for targeted, specific backup strategies for these two types of information. For executables, it would make no sense, for example, to use a versioning backup strategy. For the data, however it makes a lot of sense. And that it just ONE example of why one should treat the two types of information differently.

Now before you lecture me on the fact that the folder structure would allow for such differentiation in information storage and backup strategies, let me suggest that partitions are nothing more than a folder layer on top of the file systems we use. And if partitions are properly implemented from day one on a users machine, the ease of having these separate information management strategies is palpable.

Because I have always maintained my data separately from my executables, I have no need to do a daily backup of the executables. But I most assuredly do have the need to do a daily backup of my data. Likewise the style of backup is different. Because the executables change so little from day to day, a compressed image backup suits my needs. If I need to recover the executables, I want to recover the entire image intact. I certainly would not want an end user to have to pick and choose which dll's and exe's they need to restorer. I tell 'em "slam the last image backup in the drive and restore the whole damn thing." For the data, I want and NEED a file by file backup. I trust that the user can determine which data files, or folder of files, they to restore when the need arises.

To dismiss the notion of partitioning as a viable and valuable solution flies in the face of the fact that some of use use it and have used it for a long time to implement a solid, thought out information management strategy. Maybe you don't use it, that's fine, don't. But please don't tell the rest of us "there is no gain in having users on another disk. or, another partition". We know there is, for us, and exploit that fact every day.

Gary

 

And why are you the arbiter of what the wrong choice is? Throughout this discussion you have been totally dismissive of those of us who use partitioning, instead of stating it is a matter of choice.

Gary

 

Thanks ScuderiaConchiglia. That's more or less what I'm trying to get at. My past attempts at separating data from executables has failed with loss of data. These days I do a pretty good job of storing data on a completely different disk, with the exception of my notebooks, but I even use a separate partition, and back up more frequently. Albeit my most critical data always remains on my desktop anyhow. Notebooks are just an extension of my work environment for the most part, and just allow for portability.

 

That is ONE solution. But one size does not fit all. The "gimmick" is not about protecting the data. It is about the ability to treat the data differently from the executables. They ARE different. They DO require a different information management strategy. Take, for example, my note to dave. In the event that something is needed from a backup, how do you enable and end user to restore? If it is a users data file, no big deal. They can certainly figure out what file needs to be recovered. If it is an executable, good luck with your one size fits all strategy. For the hundreds of clients where I have implemented the weekly image backup for executables and daily file level backup for data, the executable recovery is a 'no-brainer", just restore everything. The end user can't sort out what bits and pieces are needed or the potential resulting screw up of the inter-relationship of the dll files and their corresponding registry entries.

But again, that is just ONE strategy. One size does NOT fit all.

Gary

 

Oh look who's back!

I'm with Gary on this!

 

OMG, this thread is still going....... And it went off the tracks a long long time ago.

 

no, but I'm against trying to reconfigure the default settings of the os, which are there for a reason?

 

I don't get that at all. There are no such problems?! Weird statement, sorry.

 

Children. Why don't we all just go get OSX and let it think for us. Done deal.

 

oh man, it's really sad. I still don't see any of all of your partitioning-is-soo-cool-arguments. There is no proof that you gain anything from it. It's just much more hazzle for 0 gain, so ?!

this has nothing to do with mac osx, which is really crap. But I just think you're mostly all brainfreezed in some "I've done it years ago it has to be the right thing, and I'm more geek when I mess with my system".

There is no difference between the os and the data. If you use a simple backup solution like windows home server, you can easy and quickly restore individual data, or the whole system. Big Data is better stored directly on the server anyways for easy access in the media center, all families laptops etc.

This solution works. And I've tested quite some solutions. This works best, and ist the least of the hazzle.

I've always seen the argument about messing up the os partition. This is just not happening. The only thing that happens from time to time (in xp world at least) ist messing up the masterbootrecord, and that can be so easily fixed it's not even worth writing that much about it actually.

IF you know your systems, and most of you do from what I've seen in here, you should not, EVER, have the problems you state in here. by using the default config, and just one partition, VISTA JUST WORKS BEST. Backups work best, Restore works best.

It's such a nobrainer I'm actually shocked how such knowledgeable people like you in here don't get it.

 

Sir, I, and millions of other users like me (not necessarily handsome like me), do not back-up our data everyday, or ever, for reasons ranging from not having an extra disk to back-up, or not having time/energy to do so.

So let's say, 1 have only 1 partition, and due to some unGodly reason, Windows won't boot, and a format and re-install is the only way to go. What happens now? I lose my precious data.

On the other hand, if I do have an extra partition, all my data is on one parition, while I can reformat and install the OS on another drive, with knowledge in my kind heart that my data is safe!

Performance gain, I don't whether I do get any, but in terms of peace of mind, it goes a long way.

Please pardon my intrusion.

Thank you!

 

yup, if you have no backup solution, then yes, something like partitioning is the only way to go. doesn't change the fact that it's the worst and most stupid solution, now, does it?

hdd dying is much more often than a non-repairable windows installation. jup, out of my head, with around 8 years of experience doing home support and corporate support.

 

Shut it Dave.

 

what? having no backup on another hdd IS JUST STUPID. espencially on a NOTEBOOK FORUM.

you can't DENY THAT FACT.

 

The fact is that buying external hard disks costs money, and not all of us have that. And even if I do, I don't have to spend it on that when a simple partitioning does the same FOR me, for free.

Stop being so condescending.

 

if you have money for a notebook, you have money for a (tiny) external disk or usb stick to store your data on it).

partitioning is 0 savety when you kill your hdd. and chances to do so are VERY BIG with a notebook. 4 dead hdds with some of my friends only since January.

if you buy a notebook and don't have money left for a small external storage to backup to, then you're setting wrong priorities.

and even if you do it that wrong way, doesn't make it a GOOD way.

stop being so condescending yourself?

not having a backup solution that you can rely on doesn't make partitioning suddenly a good backup solution, no, sorry, no. there's no way around that fact, no matter how often you post it otherwise.

doesn't mean it sometimes is more or less the only solution. but it's NOT the solution that should, ever, get suggested.

 

Really? You're a my money manager now too?

Well, I haven't had a single HDD die on me ever since I've been using computes. The desktop I bought 9 years ago is still working great, and so's it's HDD!

Maybe your friends should not buy crap and look into what they're buying before buying!

 

you had damn good luck, then. my friends don't buy crap. hdd's die, that's what you get for moving stuff.

well, a notebook is from 700$ to 3000$. spending 50$ less on the notebook, and buy some external disk with it should not be hard, now?

 

Buy one for me?

 

no, i somehow guess you allready have one. no clue where i've read that.. maybe in an older post of you?

 

Then you have had really good luck, at least with your notebooks. I've got several desktops around that still have their original hard drives, with no problems whatsoever, and an ancient Thinkpad (pre-lenovo) that I "rescued" from the garbage with a P3 (tells you how old it is) and still runs the original 12GB hdd.

On the other hand, my late, unlamented Sony VAIO Z1A managed to chew through 3 hdds, and was starting in on its 4th when I finally dumped it. I believe that most of that had to do with the placement of the hdd - under the thinnest part of the left palmrest - and the lack of adequate air movement around the hdd (I keep the thing nice and dust-bunny free, so it wasn't just a case of clogged air vents).

So, your results most likely come down to the systems you've owned, with a bit of good luck thrown in for good measure. That being said, your results are rather atypical, and are not going to hold for most people, so keeping a basic backup of at least one's most valuable documents would be the more prudent course of action - if a hdd physically kills itself, the fact that you had data segregated from OS on different partitions will be of very cold comfort.

 

Ok, boy genius. I'll see you 8 years of experience and raise you another 32. I owned the first computer store in Cincinnati in 1976 and have been dealing with all things microprocessor since personal computers were sold as a bag of parts you had to solder yourself. I have been a consultant to Fortune 500 companies since 1980. So don't start with the experience card if you got nothing else in your had to play. OK?

I never said that partitioning was a replacement for a backup solution. I stated several times it is a PART of a backup strategy. Second, no one ever said YOUR solution which requires a server, another os license etc was wrong or didn't work. So why do you feel the need, or experience, to tell the rest of the world what is the only right way or wrong way? If you want to go on deluding yourself into thinking that your eight years of home and corporate support makes you the expert, fine so be it. But I and my hundreds of clients (in one client alone that accounts for several hundred desktops) won't take your advice and abandon an information management strategy that realizes there is a very real difference between executables and data. A strategy where most of those corporate desktops are cloned from a common image of executables and OS. And where the data is NEVER allowed to exist on the same partition so that if at any time there is a problem with a machine a tech can be dispatched to retrieve a copy of that image and restore the machine to production status in a couple of minutes without affecting any data that might have been created that day. Remind me again how you can accomplish that feat without losing all of the data created since the last home server backup in YOUR plan?

Do you SERIOUSLY think there is no difference between executables and data? That comment just boggles the mind. The lifecycle of the two are VERY different and therefore require a separate information management strategy, expecially in a coporate environment.

The point of all this, is that your strategy may work fine for you. But it is obvious you haven't a clue to the fact that there are other strategies that work equally as well or maybe even better. Even after 40 years in the industry I know that one size does not fit all and I am open to any number of strategies that come along. I think yours is a great solution for a home environment. I think it sucks for a corporate environment as it leaves the possibility of loosing a days work if the executables are all that needs to be restored. (And don't start again with your lecture about how the executables and OS never need to be restored. It was laughable the last time you raised it.) I hope that sometime you get the wisdom to go with your eight years of experience, so that you might understand that other folks in the industry have good ideas too. And even if they don't make sense to you they might actually work for them.

Gary

 

no. sorry, no.

without losing all of the data created since the last home server backup
hm. i can lose half a day of data, yes.

and every good backup solution NEEDS another device, another physical device. be it an usb stick, a hdd, a nas, a server, doesn't matter.


i btw never talk about coorporate solutions. i talk about home solutions.

i never said there aren't other solutions.

i just still say, there is 0, none, nada, no gain at ALL by separating stuff into virtual borders on a hdd. the physical device is one, as such failure can happen on the whole. having a second partition is NO GAIN, THEN.

you need datasavety if the whole device fails. partitioning does NOT give you that. not at ANY time.

and what the user wanted to do here is split the userdata including the whole profile (which is os-dependent) onto another disk. if you have done that before you knew that this would NOT work when you restore c: to some previous image. c: and d: are not in sync anymore, the user profile will not work 100% with the os, and the profile will lead to crashes.

i know you're knowledgeable. still, what gain do partitions give you if the hdd fails? show me that.

if an os fails, repair it. if that doesn't work (very very rare. i work currently at an 8000pc company. had it happen once in 2 years now. we had around 50 hdd crashes no clients in those two years).

so the partitioning ment that one time, i could access d: without caring about c:. i could do that just as well with a bootdisk and copy the data off to an external device.

0 gain.

0.

partitioning does NEVER help. show me a situation that could not as easily work out without partitioning. show me one. i have never ever yet met one. never.

if you can get access to your data, you can access your partitions. hosed os or not. if you can't access your data, you can't access your partitions. having 1 or more partitions don't CHANGE THAT. if the partitioning gets hosed, you need some restore tool. that same restore tool can access your files just as well (a simple free one: recuva, f.e., if your data structure fails completely).

show me how that is not true. show me one situation where you can rescue your data thanks to a partition when you couldn't do it else.

 

Well, my method would allow for ZERO loss of data. And the reality is you could loose a WHOLE day of data. An unacceptable risk for me or my clients.

No kidding, a good information management strategy (which by the way goes BEYOND the simple matter of backup) always requires another physical media. Was there ever ANY question about that in anything I wrote? Of course there wasn't, you are just trying to bring up specious arguments to muddy the water.

Wow Einstein, did you come up with that all by yourself? No one ever said there was any gain in data and executable separation in the event of disk failure. Another or your specious arguments trying to muddy things up so you look like you know what you are talking about.

I totally agree that there are PORTIONS of the user profile which are OS dependent. I have never suggested otherwise. But that is a very small portion of what is in the C:/users directories. It is my contention that Microsoft really OUGHT to separate that stuff out into it's own set of folders. They haven't, so we are stuck with not being able to move the Users directory en masse. That still doesn't negate the fact that some of us choose to take the portions of the USERS folders we CAN move and move them to another partition.

There is none, there never was any claimed. But you know that. So stop bringing it up. It is a red herring and you know it.

I call total BS on your statistics. I don't believe them for one second.

Let's see, your method requires:
1. booting from a boot disk,
2. copying all data off to an external drive,
3. recovering the ENTIRE contents of the hard drive from the most recent backup
4. and then restoring the data from the external drive.

Mine requires:
1. Booting from a boot disk.
2. Recovering the OS from the most recent image.

To my clients time is money. Given the choice of the two methods, guess which one they choose. Especially, since they can do both steps from a set of written instructions I leave with them in less than 20 minutes.

I never said your points were not true, I only said they were and are inefficient. You ask a client to wait while you tried to separate their data from the executables after there has been a failure, so you can then recover the executables from a backup and then replace the data. I take a more proactive approach and do this separation up front. We are both doing EXACTLY the same thing. You by pulling the data to an external device, me by putting it on a separate partition or device from the very beginning.

This conversation is now over. I only replied here this time to clarify the fallacy of some of your arguments so other folks without the experience or knowledge will understand that your arguments are flawed. I will not attempt to defend a time tested and proven information strategy to someone with a holier than thou attitude who THINKS he knows better than everyone else.

Gary