Quote Originally Posted by bizarro
hmmm...i just ran a test between dd and partimage...

results...

partimage file size: 600mb
dd file size: 800mb

splitting isn't going to be easy on dd but in partimage i see its built in...

maybe i can use that...what do you think?
I think the smaller file size is because partimage knows to ignore data marked as delete. dd makes a bit for bit copy, regardless whether its marked as deleted or now (good for recovering lost data on another PC), its the first program I used to back up my drive, so now I like it better. (Don't know why.) I assume however if you blanked out the free space on the drive then both dd and partimage would be the same size.

If partimage seems to work better for you, go ahead. I have no rational reason for sticking with dd


*edited* I just checked out partimage, its alot better then dd, im going to start playing with it. The only problem I can see is comparing the data with md5.