Reposted for Anna (this was my last reply in case you missed it), and
updated.

OK. And the assumption here is that the compressed image is significantly
smaller than the actual data, and that is the main reason in this case.
(In the case of True Image, I've found the image to be compressed down to
about 75% (or so) of the size of the actual data. IOW, reduced BY about
25%, or possibly 30%, in some cases)

Although there may be another one come to think of it, mentioned below:

Right, so what's the real big difference here, except that 1) the image is
somewhat smaller than a clone would be, and 2) perhaps it is easier to
keep track of several image files, rather than keeping track of several
different
clones, because each image just "presents itself" as a single file to
manage,
and NOT just a multitude of thousands of directories and files, as it really
is, as likely seen in the cloning approach.

Although come to think of it, maybe you can also just see and manage the
clones labeled as just Clone1, Clone2, etc - so that's easy to manage too.
(in which case there is no real difference in this vein)

Actually, I took a few minutes out to give it a short test run, and at
first glance, it looked a bit more user-friendly than True Image, and it
seemed to be pretty straightforward and "friendly" to use.

I did this between some other tests I was running on another drive, but then
later went back to my original backup. So I'll have to try it out more
thoroughly next time, and give it a real test.