Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (
More info?)
Yes, I am the person who posted the comparison.
--
Regards,
Richard Urban
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
"John Coode" <faecius@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uFpTolpaFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> True Image 8 does not restore an image exactly as the original. Nor does
>> it copy a drive exactly as the original. File placement is altered. Don't
>> get me wrong, the drive will still be functional. It's just that the
>> pagefile.sys, hiberfil.sys and the MFT zone will be in different
>> locations and may not be optimal.
>>
>> Drive Image/Ghost, on the other hand, creates an "exact" image either as
>> a copy or a stored. It also restores an image file "exactly".
>>
>>
>>
> Yes, I read the interesting comparison in here recently. Was it you
> who posted it? If so, did you ever send a copy to Acronis tech support
> to see if they had any comment?
>
> I accept your points but I would still recommend True Image to anyone
> posting in a 'basics' forum. Only on an extreme gamer's machine or a
> critical production server would the few per cent performance hit that
> could be caused by suboptimal placement of pagefile.sys or the MFT cause
> problems.
>
> True Image is cheaper, faster and easier to use than Drive Image and does
> everything I need it to do. Those are more important considerations for a
> plain vanilla home user, as I am and I assumed the OP to be, than optimal
> performance.
>
> [I should say that I haven't used Drive Image since 2003 when they
> wanted more money to upgrade my registered copy than the price of a new
> licence for True Image.]