Technology

59405 readers

2727 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

365

Windows 11 is nagging users to try OneDrive to "fully backup" your PC (www.windowslatest.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

74 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Windows 11 and Windows 10 were recently updated with “Windows Backup”, which has now become a system app. While the feature initially appeared as “optional” or something that could be easily dismissed, Microsoft is slowly getting aggressive with its new OneDrive backup campaign on Windows 11.

Windows 11’s “Windows Backup” uses OneDrive to back up many of the things that are important to you. This may include your credentials, settings, pictures, documents, videos, files, themes, or even audio settings. Microsoft wants the Windows Backup app to become the ultimate backup tool, but there’s a catch.

Windows Backup does not support offline backups and requires a OneDrive plan. By default, OneDrive offers 5GB of free storage, which is why some users do not want to backup their PC. But is that going to stop Microsoft from pestering users? Probably not. In a new server-side update, Windows 11 has started nagging users to try the Backup tool.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Separate root fs makes it easier for timeshift.

How? I use timeshift. I don't see what you mean.

Also makes it easy to install another distro and pick up where you left off with the old home.

Sure, but how often do you distrohop? Not worth the trouble to have to potentielly mess with partitions during everyday use.

When I do reinstall, I've just copied my home folder over to a secondary drive, then back again.

If you alocate 50-60 GB for system it should be ok.

That's the entire boot drive on some of my machines. Not to mention that I have gone well beyond that for root on some systems. You just can't know the numbers in advance, and when you want to just use a system for something, it's really annoying to have extra steps.

Making home a separate partition makes it really hard to use the full capacity of the drive, should you need to. Which people do need to do sometimes, even if only temporarily.

Doing this might make sense if you have terabytes of storage to throw around, enough to never fill any of your volumes. It has benefits, but not enough to make it good advice across the board, which is why I question it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

I don’t see real advantages for partitioning this way that outweigh the negatives - for desktop usage. For servers having separate home (and/or other dirs) partitions is great, as user fluff won’t kill the ability tor ‘more important processes’ to store stuff. If everything is kept on a single partition, the user is essentially able to DoS the system by filling up space.