Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Create an identical disk

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
June 5, 2005 3:36:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Has anyone tried using Norton Ghost? I'm looking for a utility that will
duplicate exactly the hard disk including the OS (XP Pro) in case of a hard
disk crash. Thanks in advance.

More about : create identical disk

Anonymous
June 6, 2005 1:05:36 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Norton Ghost is now an incarnation of the old Powerquest Drive Image. While
i haven't used the latest version of Norton Ghost since they took over
Powerquest products i have and still do use powerquest drive image, and i've
never had any problem imaging the whole disk or a single partition. As
Norton Ghost is drive image with a new name and maybe a slight revamp i
would imagine it will do the same.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org


"Frank" <Frank@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1BCBE0C3-74CA-4140-B6A2-E3199AA8D86F@microsoft.com...
> Has anyone tried using Norton Ghost? I'm looking for a utility that will
> duplicate exactly the hard disk including the OS (XP Pro) in case of a
> hard
> disk crash. Thanks in advance.
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 4:11:34 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Frank wrote:
> Has anyone tried using Norton Ghost? I'm looking for a utility that will
> duplicate exactly the hard disk including the OS (XP Pro) in case of a hard
> disk crash. Thanks in advance.

Have a look at Acronis True Image:
www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/
I have used Ghost and Drive Image in the past and would
recommend True Image above either for ease of use and
reliability. My main hard drive failed without warning
a few months back and I was back up on a brand new drive
within 30 minutes.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 4:11:35 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

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".



--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

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:usMfePiaFHA.1152@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Frank wrote:
>> Has anyone tried using Norton Ghost? I'm looking for a utility that will
>> duplicate exactly the hard disk including the OS (XP Pro) in case of a
>> hard disk crash. Thanks in advance.
>
> Have a look at Acronis True Image:
> www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/
> I have used Ghost and Drive Image in the past and would
> recommend True Image above either for ease of use and
> reliability. My main hard drive failed without warning
> a few months back and I was back up on a brand new drive
> within 30 minutes.
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 10:35:38 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"John Barnett MVP" <freelanceit@mvps.org.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:eRIkxngaFHA.3384@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Norton Ghost is now an incarnation of the old Powerquest Drive Image.
While
> i haven't used the latest version of Norton Ghost since they took over
> Powerquest products i have and still do use powerquest drive image, and
i've
> never had any problem imaging the whole disk or a single partition. As
> Norton Ghost is drive image with a new name and maybe a slight revamp i
> would imagine it will do the same.

Yes I've also been using DI. Works very well. I particularly like being able
to schedule backups nightly and get email to tell me how they went. No more
checking log files - just check email. It sounds trivial but it means
backups get done.
June 6, 2005 2:27:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I agree. I always stick with DI.
If you have the time, browse back through the NGs and see how many vague
major problems include "I'm runnning Nortons ......"
I may be biased, but that name makes me shudder.


--
johnf

> 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".
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
>
> 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:usMfePiaFHA.1152@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Has anyone tried using Norton Ghost? I'm looking for a utility that
>>> will duplicate exactly the hard disk including the OS (XP Pro) in
>>> case of a hard disk crash. Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Have a look at Acronis True Image:
>> www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/
>> I have used Ghost and Drive Image in the past and would
>> recommend True Image above either for ease of use and
>> reliability. My main hard drive failed without warning
>> a few months back and I was back up on a brand new drive
>> within 30 minutes.
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 6:12:56 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

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.]
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 9:36:57 PM

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.]
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 12:46:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Hmmm,
For what it's worth, I use Casper XP.
'Casper XP ' (http://www.fssdev.com/)
I use a removable ide drive for back-up. I know it works because I
unplugged one of my sata/raid drives by accident, after the message
about the broken array, it found the ide drive and booted to that.
It does this all _within_ the XP OS, without the need for dos rescue
disks and such.
Best,
Treeman


--
Treeman


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treeman's Profile: http://www.msusenet.com/member.php?userid=1260
View this thread: http://www.msusenet.com/t-1870513170
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 12:07:09 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Actually Treeman Casper XP is a good alternative, especially since the
latest version allows imaging of partitions as well as the 'full' hard
drive. I've actually beta tested the latest version and found it extremely
good, except for the fact that when you image your drive/partition it also
images the 'freespace' So if like me you have a 20GB partition for XP
wherever you intend to store the 'image' you need at least a 20GB
allocation. It images 'like for like' with no compression. Drive image, on
the other hand, images the contents of the drive thus, although i have 20GB
the installed software is only 6GB. With normal compression (Drive Image)
this creates a file of 3.75GB in size. This takes approximately 5 minutes to
image and around the same time to reimage back to the partition if a problem
occurs. I should say that i have a quad boot system so the 5 minutes to
re-image is achieved by booting into windows xp home and reimaging windows
xp pro back to its original partition from there. Under DOS conditions we
are talking 30 to 40 minutes.
I've tried Acronis and that takes anything up to an hour to image the drive
which is far too long.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org


"Treeman" <Treeman.1q9i9o@no-mx.msusenet.com> wrote in message
news:Treeman.1q9i9o@no-mx.msusenet.com...
>
> Hmmm,
> For what it's worth, I use Casper XP.
> 'Casper XP ' (http://www.fssdev.com/)
> I use a removable ide drive for back-up. I know it works because I
> unplugged one of my sata/raid drives by accident, after the message
> about the broken array, it found the ide drive and booted to that.
> It does this all _within_ the XP OS, without the need for dos rescue
> disks and such.
> Best,
> Treeman
>
>
> --
> Treeman
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Treeman's Profile: http://www.msusenet.com/member.php?userid=1260
> View this thread: http://www.msusenet.com/t-1870513170
>
!