@scottalanmiller said:
But there are really convenient options. It's not like those don't exist and aren't used all of the time. It's just that you need to license them. But you CAN do recovery very easily.
The real issue is using Windows systems without being able to or willing to afford the cost to do so. Windows has a cost, which we all accept, to a point. The issues arise when we (or companies) don't want to spend enough to do it "right." Then it feels like there is a limitation with the product, but really it is just a lack of willingness to pay for what it cost to run it. But Windows is always a choice, as are the features like this kind of recovery.
I fully understand this now.
I understand that I can do EXACTLY what I want, which IMO makes for a much safe/better/quicker backup and recovery. As long as I buy another license. Or, in the case of larger companies, am already properly licensed.
My take has always been that making it more difficult to backup and restore is not in the interest of anyone. Even though Microsoft could theoretically make more money,
a -- they probably aren't because most people just run the backups anyway without proper licensing (most probably unaware)
b -- they will push people to other systems when backups fail or they realize the "cost of Windows" as you say
Datto, StorageCraft, etc ... these companies have great products that take great backups, and easily let you know if they are working. We're not talking about running systems here. We are talking about EASILY checking to see if backups have worked. That's it. Yes, it's possible to do another way, but again, that adds complexity and downtime. Yes, there is a cost to those things, but considering how important backup and recovery is, I think it should be allowed.
